Columns

The past week was hectic for Parliament by all accounts. In addition to the presentation of the annual Budget by President Mahinda Rajapaksa on Thursday, the Government took the first step towards removing Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake from office by placing on the Order Paper of Parliament the charges levelled against her.

As the legislative process to remove the Chief Justice began, three Supreme Court determinations sent to Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa on Tuesday — in reference to the Divineguma Bill, the Appropriation Bill and the Code of criminal Procedure (Special Provisions) Bill – were not in favour of the Government.

The mood in Parliament was somewhat dull on Budget Day with advance warning from the Government that it was being presented in lean times and not to expect much by way of relief. Government members appeared hard pressed to find enough good news in the Budget to applaud the President as he read through his two-and-half-hour-long speech. Even opposition MPs remained largely subdued. It was quite a contrast to their vociferous behaviour during last year’s presentation of the Budget by the President.

Although the crisis engulfing the judiciary and the Government has become a major political issue, the President refrained from making any direct reference to it. But he expressed discontentment at the long process in passing the Divineguma Bill. “There will be more political, economic and natural tsunamis. They will remain unpredictable,” he cautioned. However he vowed to remain undeterred by such hurdles in the Government’s resolve to alleviate poverty and uplift the living conditions of the poor.

The main opposition United National Party (UNP) was quick to denounce the Budget as one meant for the rich and not the poor. “The Government is giving tax concessions for racing cars but there is little relief for the poor people,” UNP MP Ravi Karunanayake who opened the Budget debate on Friday said.

While the debate got underway, the Supreme Court ruling on a provision in the Appropriation Bill loomed large.

The court in its determination on the constitutionality of the Bill said that one of its clauses violated the Constitution and would need to be amended before it is passed by Parliament. A three-member bench which heard the petition challenging several clauses in the Bill said, “the court would not be bound by earlier decisions on several Appropriation Bills that have come from 1987 , on similar provisions in the law…..”
The court held that the permission granted to the Minister of Finance to withdraw money allocated for specific purposes and/or from the Consolidated Fund presents “a direct challenge to the onus of Parliament to have full control over public finances as protected by Article 148 of the constitution”.

The court, however said the provision could be made to comply with the Constitution if it was amended to read that such withdrawal of money could be done with Parliamentary approval.

Similarly in its determination on the Divineguma Bill, the Supreme Court ruled that while one of its clauses would need a referendum if it is to become law, several other clauses should be passed by a two thirds majority in Parliament.

The Government has since said it will make the necessary amendments to enable the Bill to be passed without a referendum and with its two thirds majority in Parliament, it will be able to override the other obstacles placed in its path by the Court.

While Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaska began the debate on the second reading of the Divineguma Bill, it was adjourned for another day as the Budget debate took precedence.

In a third determination, the Supreme Court also suggested an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Special Provisions) Bill that sought to legalise the detention of suspects in custody for up to 48 hours in specific cases.

Meanwhile the motion signed by 117 Government MPs calling for the appointment of a Select Committee of Parliament to probe several charges against Chief Justice Bandaranayke was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on Tuesday.

The motion lists 14 charges against the Chief Justice. The Government and the UNP have announced their nominees to the 11-member select committee which will hear the charges against the Chief Justice. The JVP and the TNA are yet to name their members.

Follow @timesonlinelk

comments powered by Disqus

Sarath Silva suggests CJ steps down

CJ decides to stay on and fight

Former financial fiddler playing budgetary blues

Shameful stifling of freedom of expression

Export strategies, constraints and successes

If judges may not use their judgment, why have them at all?