Source: http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2019/05/26/opinion/20th-amendment-%E2%80%93-flawed-determination
Timestamp: 2019-11-21 10:29:27
Document Index: 20571828

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art.1', 'Art.2', 'Art.3', 'Art.6', 'Art.7', 'Art.8', 'Art.9', 'Art.10', 'Art.11', 'Art.62', 'Art.30']

The 20th Amendment – a flawed determination? | Sunday Observer
When President Maithripala Sirisena vacates office in January next year, the President of the Republic will revert to be the ceremonial Head of State, an office that was held with great dignity and distinction for 15 years by the late William Gopallawa. This is because under our Constitution, as amended in 2015, only a Member of Parliament may hold office as a Minister or Deputy Minister. In a transitional provision, the 19th Amendment allowed Maithripala Sirisena, for as long as he holds the office of President, to assign to himself the subjects and functions of Defence, Mahaweli Development and Environment. Of course, he also assigned to himself, without any constitutional authority whatsoever, and with such tragic consequences, the subject of Law and Order as well.
It is submitted that that Determination was not only flawed in law but was also made per incuriam. No reference whatsoever was made by the Court to the Determination of the three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Sripavan on the Bill for the 19th Amendment in which the identical issue had already been decided.
That Determination was not distinguished on any ground, nor held to be wrong. If Parliament, with the approval of the Supreme Court, was able by a two-third majority of its members to require the President to act on advice when appointing Ministers, Judges, high state officials and independent commissions, why is approval by the people at a referendum required if he has to act on advice when appointing the remaining two categories of public officials who were obviously inadvertently omitted in the Bill for the 19th Amendment? If the President could have been required, by a two-third majority in Parliament, to act on the advice of the Prime Minister when appointing a Minister, why is approval by the people at a referendum necessary to require him to act on the advice of the Cabinet of Ministers when appointing a Secretary to a Ministry? As a student of constitutional law, I find that inexplicable.
The executive power of the People, including the defence of Sri Lanka, shall be exercised by the President (elected by the People) and the Cabinet of Ministers as provided for in the Constitution.
The franchise shall be exercisable at the election of (the President of the Republic and) the Members of Parliament and at every Referendum by every citizen . . .
The Constitution states quite explicitly in Article 83 that certain provisions may be amended only if a Bill for that purpose is passed by a two-third majority in Parliament and then approved by the people at a referendum. These entrenched provisions relate to the name of the state (Art.1), the unitary character of the state (Art.2), the sovereignty of the people (Art.3), the national flag (Art.6), the national anthem (Art.7), the national day (Art.8), the foremost place of Buddhism (Art.9), the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art.10), and the right to freedom from torture (Art.11).
Also requiring approval at a referendum is a Bill that seeks to extend the life of Parliament (Art.62.2). In respect of the office of President, a referendum is required only if Parliament seeks to extend his term of office (Art.30.2). Article 4 is therefore not an entrenched provision of the Constitution. In fact, in the Draft Constitution that was presented in Parliament in 1978, Article 4 was included in Article 83, and had it remained there, any amendment of that Article would have required the approval of the people at a referendum. However, at the committee stage, Justice Minister Devanayagam moved to delete Article 4 from Article 83, and it was accordingly deleted.