Columns

It has been a long tradition of parliamentary democracy stemming from the Westminster system that while ministers in the Cabinet can express their views freely and without fear within the Cabinet room and even take pot shots at those gathered round the cabinet table, they must hold their peace and speak in one unified voice once a Cabinet decision has been taken. The cardinal rule being that they shall not take the coarse linen of their disagreements and give it a public washing.

It’s an indispensable tradition vital to the proper functioning of Cabinet Government at optimum level. Within that political conclave of the Cabinet, they can speak their minds freely, dissent freely and vote freely but once the white smoke has emitted through the funnel of the Cabinet spokesman’s mouth to announce that a Cabinet decision has been taken then all ministers must keep their lips sealed, hold their peace and even defend it in public, if called upon to do so — whatever their personal views may be on the matter — even if they are vehemently opposed to it.

If the decision runs contrary to their principles, if their conscience pricks in defending the indefensible or — as it’s the growing trend in Lanka — if it’s against their business interest often camouflaged in the patriotic vestment, then they must resign forthwith from the Cabinet and retire to the backbenches from which vantage position they are to free to blast any Cabinet decision to their hearts’ content and stab their ministerial members as their blood lust demands.

For backbench MPs are not bound by collective responsibility and are free, within the ‘out of bounds’ limits declared by the party chief whip in the interest of the party, to speak their minds freely. That is their privilege. But not so for those holding Cabinet rank. For the privilege of being a Cabinet minister accompanied as it is with all the perks and privileges such high office endows them with, they are bound by the unwritten code of ministerial conduct: Collective responsibility. That is their bondage. The price they must pay if they wish to retain their Cabinet seats. And bask in the sunny uplands of power.

During the Rajapaksa regime, no minister flouted this hallowed principle. Perhaps they had no principles to entertain, no consciences to prick and no different business interest to pursue on their own. Perhaps collective responsibility was maintained because of collective interest. But no matter. Then Cabinet ministers spoke in one voice in the public domain. Whatever the means through which this was attained, the principle of collective responsibility was effectively maintained. They played as a team with the singular purpose of playing to win under the captain’s watchful eye. No one dared to indulge in one up-manship and risk being sent off the field.

But since the advent of Sirisena’s Yahapalana government, there has been instances of ministerial rumblings in the outer jungles where this time-honoured concept stood on the threshold of being transgressed. But strangely, the head of Cabinet Sirisena and the first among equal Wickremesinghe looked askance whenever it was on the brink of being breached.

As a result what started off as a trickle was in danger of turning into a flood. Funnily enough neither the President nor the Prime Minister had thought it prudent to crack the whip and to shepherd the pampered Boer goats into their pen and warn the elite herd that if they dared to bleat out in the open grazing lands, they would be mutton by morning.

With such tolerance seemingly displayed to the behaviour and speech of some much-talking Cabinet ministers playing truant, it became inevitable that the Maithri-Ranil Cabinet was sounding more and more, like an ill tuned cymbal to the great Lankan public ear. With the conductor’s baton waves ignored, the orchestra’s stringed instruments vibrated at a different pitch, the percussions played at a different tempo and the flutes and reeds went their own way; and the sound of music emitting from the Cabinet ensemble became increasingly discordant and cacophonous, more like a choir singing flat.

In recent months, we have seen the likes of Arjuna Ranatunga, Champika Ranawaka and Dayasiri Jayasekera, all Cabinet ministers, pontificate on the basis of patriotism, the imprudence of giving the Chinese ginseng rejuvenated Hambantota Port – which has now become a harbour of contention — to the Chinese to own and run with a free hand.

But it was before the Cabinet had taken a decision on the matter; and thus though they may be guilty of breaching Cabinet secrecy by nailing their different coloured flags to the mast and thus making a public spectacle of their opposition to what was being proposed in the Cabinet, they cannot not be charged for transgressing their duty to adhere to Cabinet responsibility since the Cabinet had still not come to a decision.
On July 25, the Cabinet finally came to a decision to give the Hambantota project to the Chinese on 99-year lease, Hong Kong style. Four days later it signed the official documents and formally handed over the ancient port of Magampura.

Ports Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe announced that under this agreement, 1,115 hectares land area in Hambantota Port would be leased out to China Merchant Port for 99 years for US$ 1.12 billion. He said that CM Port would hold 70 percent of the total share while the Sri Lanka Ports Authority would hold the balance, 30 percent. He further assured that the sole responsibility and authority in relation to national security would be with the Government of Sri Lanka.

On August 1, the Cabinet approved the agreement for the second time. Ports Minister Samarasinghe told a news briefing that President Maithripala Sirisena and Cabinet ministers submitted further amendments before the agreement was finally approved. He said: “The President wanted to include a clause allowing for amendments in the future. The Finance Minister proposed that both parties to the agreement must be under obligation to all the clauses of the agreement. The Attorney General introduced amendments to strengthen the hold by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority.”

Then along came Wijayadasa to queer the pitch by going public with his much-vaunted patriotic opposition to the Hambantota Port being officially given to the Chinese. It won him the untold praises of the Rajapaksa fraternity who raised him to patriotic status on par — though not on the same plane, of course, as the ultimate patriot Mahinda R who had first invited the Chinese into Lanka, for that would have been wee too much of patriotism for a blue now turned green chameleon party hopper to bear and hold but a rung or two lower –with a Weerawansa or a Gammanpila, perhaps.

It even invoked the untold blessings of the Asgiriya Mahanayake Thera to swoon over Wijayadasa’s love for country and his love for Buddhism. As the Most Venerable Mahanayake Thera, Dr. Dhammananda, said on Wednesday, the Maha Sangha throughout the history of Sri Lanka had always defended persons who protected country and Buddhism. Defenders of the faith and protectors of the nation from invading Chinese it seemed sufficed to grant immunity to all who donned patriotism’s shining armour.

But not everyone thought so. Especially not the rank and file of the UNP members. They were not amused, to say the least. With only two and a half years to go before UNP mettle would be tested in the furnace of a people’ choice in the 2020 elections, they fretted to see in Wijayadasa’s arrogance to flout collective cabinet responsibility and attempt to be a martyr in Rajapaksa eyes and a Keppetipola in Asgiriya’s priestly esteem, the opening of their early political graves.

The Maithri-Ranil coalition had rode to power solely on one simple slogan: “Give us the vote and we would bring to justice all those in the Rajapaksa regime who had plundered the national coffers.” But even after two and a half years have lapsed, the coalition government has not been successful in bringing one mega robbing crook to the courts of justice. Of course there have been the regular auditions conducted at the FCID offices where the potential big stars had been placed on the casting couch and given the usual run over. But despite the many appearances, none had still been chosen to play the lead roles. Coming soon to a court near you has still not come but remains only a next attraction.

In such a backdrop what do the UNP MPs have to say to the electorate come next elections? What do Maithri and even Ranil have to tell the nation? Are they to say, “vote for us for another term and we promise you we will bring the Rajapaksa rogues to justice, even though after five years we failed to bring even one, not even a sprat?”

No wonder the UNP rank and file have raised their sarongs in protest against one of their own members — though an SLFP pole vaulter — and sought last week to bring a no-confidence motion against him. Against who? No less a person than the Minister of Justice Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe. The two main charges levelled against him was his alleged delay in bringing the Rajapaksa regime’s rogues to justice and his violation of the principle of collective responsibility as a member of the present Cabinet.

Ironically, what would have been heaven sent to the joint opposition to see an SLFP turncoat now a UNP member and a minister of the Sirisena Cabinet to boot shown the exit door by his own UNP members, was spurned by the Mahinda Rajapaksa-led coterie who announced that they would not be supporting the no-confidence motion. “Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe holds the same opinion about the Hambantota port deal as we,” the former President Rajapaksa said last Sunday in Kandy.

But the UNP fold remained undeterred by the joint opposition’s lack of enthusiasm. Though the accusation that Wijeyadasa had tarried in his position of Justice Minister to bring the culprits to book, they were on a better ground to nail him with the charge of transgressing the principle of collective responsibility.

Two weeks ago, in an interview with the Irdia Lankadeepa, the Sinhala stablemate of the Sunday Times, he had allegedly attacked the Cabinet decision taken on July 25th to hand over Hambantota Port to a Chinese company on lease for 99 years. He had allegedly said that handing over a public asset to the Chinese was a wrong and, in kingly or presidential manner, assured the public that he would not rest until he regains its ownership on behalf of the people.

On Thursday, the UNP working committee and the parliamentary group met at Sirikotha, the UNP headquarters, to discuss the matter with Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe presiding. With the accused Rajapakshe baited in the UNP den, the meeting turned out to be a stormy affair. UNP ministers and other MPs gave him hell fire over comments he had allegedly made on the controversial Hambantota port deal, after the Cabinet had approved it.

Many demanded his resignation. Rajapakshe got a roasting, skewered on a spit, rotisserie style. It was clear that he had lost the confidence of his own party comrades. It was soon resolved that a committee be appointed to decide whether Justice and Buddha Sasana Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe should be allowed to remain in the Cabinet or not.

In his defense, Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe stated that

• as far as the alleged delay was concerned, there were procedures and regulations to be followed and he was not in a position to expedite legal action arbitrarily;
• as far as criticising the Hambantota Port deal after the Cabinet had taken a decision on it, his comments had been taken out of context. And it was not a criticism but a comment made to retrieve a national asset. According to Wijeyadasa, it seemed that there was no collective responsibility in the Cabinet anymore.

It was finally decided that they would all wait the special committee’s report on Monday and Rajapakshe announced he would make a special statement thereafter in Parliament.

Now the question turns on what would be the contents of his ‘special statement’ tomorrow in Parliament.
Would he draw his guns from his legal holster and come out firing and shoot a detailed explanation for his actions, reminiscent of the way he stood his ground when after defending Avant Garde boss Senadhipathi in Parliament without revealing his close friendship with him, and refused to resign — unlike Tilak Marapana did when it emerged that Senadhipathi had been his client — even after photographic evidence emerged of Wijeyadasa and his family spending a Los Angeles holiday with Senadhipathi and his family, replete with Disneyland and Mickey Mouse and stretched limo travel with bubbly on tap, but dug his heels and refused to budge from his front stall seat in Parliament? Or will he do a Ravi K, and serenade his exit with the wails of a dying bird on swan lake?

Perhaps it will be better for him this Sunday morn when his mind still ponders upon which avenue to take — to stay rooted in contempt or leave with some honour intact — to peruse again the 800-year old Magna Carta from which, three months ago in a television interview, he quoted to justify the laws delay, that one shall only be judged by one’s peers. And then wonder whether his peers’ collective judgment declares in one voice “from the very bowels, we beseech thee, go?”

Sirisena has no power to expedite corruption probe, says Wijeyadasa Though it may not hold water, Wijayadasa Rajapakshe, of course, has put forward a theory why President Sirisena or Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is powerless to order the snail pace crackdown on corruption to be executed expeditiously. He expounded his theory why justice cannot be hurried and why delay is inevitable in a television interview on May 8 this year. He said, “it’s the duty of the Government to provide security to Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa. But if they have done wrong, if they have robbed, if they have murdered people, then the law will operate.” But, according to Wijeyadasa, President Maithripala Sirisena has no right to put the operation in motion. Neither does Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe possess that power. Neither does he, Wijeyadasa, as Justice Minister, have that power. Only the police have that power. And the police, at the level in which they can amass the evidence, must do their task. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe: Finding refuge in an 800-year-old document He went on to amplify his position and said: “If anyone says that this process must be expedited and to hear the cases within two or three months and hang the lot, and that there is evidence — if somebody brings the evidence then the police and Attorney General will do it tomorrow. The condition in the Magna Carta of 1215 AD is today present in every constitution in the world, namely that no person should be punished by anyone other than by a competent court. The Magna Carta is 800 years old and every nation follows this principle.” The Magna Carta — the mother of all civil rights charters — came to being as a result of an agreement signed between King John and a group of English barons in response to years of the king’s misrule and excessive taxation. The Lankan public must be grateful to Mr. Rajapakshe that in seeking refuge in this 800-year document to justify why the due process cannot be hurried and the public perforce must suffer its delay even though tardiness can lead to a denial of justice. Out of the 65 articles in the Magna Carta he has referred to Article 39 which state “No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” But of course times have changed and the pronouncement under the Magna Carta that one must be judged by his peers is no longer strictly adhered to with trial by jury going out of fashion; and as for judgment by the law of the land, if the present law or any law to be introduced provides for the establishment of a special court of corruption, to cut down on the laws delay, will it not be in keeping with the Magna Carta dictum that one must be judged according to the law of the land? If the Magna Carta was to be taken as sacrosanct and held to be inviolate from any change, then would Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe in his role as Lanka’s Minister of Justice be urging us all and advocating the proposition that the 54th Article of the Magna Carta, namely, “No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband”, should also be followed sans question? What is, however, more curious is his belief that the President Maithri or the Prime Minister Ranil or he Rajapakshe, as the Justice Minister, has not in his power to ask that criminal cases be expedited and that the power to do so lies in the hands of the Inspector General of Police and that it is up to him and to his police force to gather the evidence as best as they can and then tender it to the Attorney General to file indictments. But is that so? Does he seriously expect the elected president and the elected government to remain impotent if the IGP tolerates his coppers dragging their feet? President Sirisena was elected by the people on his promise to bring the Rajapaksa regime rogues to justice. Is it realistic to expect the President not to act and spur the police who, incidentally, come under his portfolio of defence merely because his justice minister canvasses a different view and quotes from the 800-year-old archaic Magna Carta? Does not the people’s will impel the president to do his duty when he finds apathy institutionalised and justice crawling at snail pace? Is the president to remain idle twiddling his thumbs, hoping against hope the Lankan copper will do the needful? That raises the next curious question? Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe says the power to bring crooks to book lies in the hands of the police and the police alone; and that they, at their own level, must come up with the evidence to forward to the Attorney General to press charges. Has he taken leave of his legal senses to imagine that the crackdown on the Rajapaksa regime and the evidence necessary to gather to file charges in a criminal court, are not as simple and easy as nabbing the grease yaka in Ratnapura’s Kahawatte area who preyed on several women a few years ago? Doesn’t this president’s counsel turned politician fail to distinguish the difference? Miss the point? That it involves great expertise and requires great resources to probe an international web of mega corruption, the magnitude of which the nation has never witnessed before? That to merely adopt a high flown stance and say it’s up to the police to do their job is to take flight from the actual ground situation and venture into a La La Land of make believe? And to leave the President playing the fiddle while all of Lanka — except perhaps the fifty or so Joint Opposition members, their families and their closeted cronies — demand Sirisena to keep his presidential vows and get cracking on corruption pronto? Double quick?