Columns

A day-long adjournment debate on the Constitutional Council (CC), with President Maithripala Sirisena again making an appearance, was the highlight of the final week of Parliamentary proceedings before the Finance Minister’s Budget Speech on March 5.

The debate, which had been requested by the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) lasted for almost nine hours on Thursday (21), without even the usual hour-long interruption for lunch.

The UPFA, and Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa, have been strongly critical of the conduct of the CC, particularly over the way it has rejected the names of judges sent by the President to be promoted to the Superior Courts. However, neither Mr Rajapaksa nor Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, who are both members of the CC, took part in the debate.

In a near 45 minute speech during the debate, President Sirisena doubled down on his earlier public criticism of the 10-member CC and independent commissions established under the 19th Amendment. The President however, clarified that he has no objection towards any of the current judges serving in the Court of Appeal (CA) or the Supreme Court (SC).

“I have nothing against the judges who were appointed to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, nor do I have any objection to any judge currently serving in these courts,” Mr Sirisena insisted.

The President however, was strongly critical of the 19th Amendment in its current form, likening it to a legitimate child that had been born disabled, and who had then been abused.

He claimed that the CC had rejected the names of 14 judges he had forwarded for promotion, without offering any explanation, either to him or the judges in question. He went onto allege that the CC currently wields control over all three branches of Government; the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

Earlier, moving the motion for the debate, UPFA MP Udaya Gammanpila stated a debate on the CC was warranted as President Sirisena and other MPs had criticised the CC for allegedly ignoring seniority and acting partially when making appointments to the CA and the SC. He also stated that there was severe public criticism over the appointment of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and the Attorney General.

Mr Gammanpila and many other UPFA MPs who spoke during the debate charged that the CC had not made public the criteria used when approving or rejecting names for the Superior Courts, independent commissions and senior posts in the State sector.

Mr Gammanpila also claimed there was a belief among Buddhist judges that they were being passed over when appointments were made to the CA and SC due to their religion. MP Wimal Weerawansa went even further, alleging that preference was being given to those belonging to a “Fundamentalist Religious Order.” However, as with many of his more controversial claims, Mr Weerawansa failed to offer any evidence.

“The CC says that one of its considerations is the competence of the judge. How do you measure that?” he queried.

The United National Party (UNP) MP Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne, one of the architects of the 19th Amendment, agreed with the UPFA that the people needed to be made aware of the criteria the CC adopts when approving names to high offices. He, however, said the President could have avoided many of the problems that have arisen had he formulated a mechanism to consult persons such as the Chief Justice, Attorney General and the Justice Minister prior to forwarding names to the CC.

The name of Appeals Court Judge Deepali Wijesundara figured prominently during the debate, with UPFA MPs alleging that the CC had repeatedly rejected her name, which had been put forward by the President to be the new President of the CA.

House Leader Lakshman Kiriella though, revealed that the CC rejected Ms Wijesundara’s name for CA President because the Chief Justice had opposed it. “There is a clause in the 19th Amendment which both sides voted for, which states that the Chief Justice’s opinion must be obtained when appointing judges to the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court. The CJ opposed her appointment. That is the reason why her name was rejected,” he claimed.

Regarding the appointment of the Attorney General, Mr Kiriella said the President had sent three names. The CC had requested the President to send his preferences in order. Thereafter, the President had only sent the name of Jayantha Jayasuriya, which the CC approved.

Regarding the appointment of the IGP, the President again sent three names and asked the CC to approve one. The CC took a vote and the majority voted for Pujith Jayasundara, he added.

Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Leader R. Sampanthan, who was earlier a member of the CC as then Leader of the Opposition, warned MPs not to attack civil society representatives who are members of the CC. “We can say what we want in Parliament as we are not subject to the laws of defamation, but we should not discourage eminent, capable persons from taking up positions in the CC. That would be a grave damage inflicted on that institution,” he remarked.

Speaking on behalf of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), MP Vijitha Herath said they were in agreement that the composition of the CC should change, noting that the 19th Amendment had originally intended for the majority of the CC’s members to be non-politicians. “We are all for changing the composition of the CC to have a majority of independent professionals or to even be composed entirely of them,” he said

UPFA MP Vasudewa Nanayakkara, though, strongly disagreed, insisting that politicians must continue to comprise the majority of CC members. He claimed the UNP wanted the majority of the CC to be civil society representatives as it could manipulate such persons to its advantage.

Winding up the debate, Justice Minister Thalatha Atukorale stressed that the President’s claim that the CC had rejected the names of 14 judges was false. In reality, only four names had been rejected, she added.

“We would like to state again and again, that this crisis over the CC arose only after October 26 (last year) over the appointment of the President of the Court of Appeal. Since then, they have repeatedly tried to influence the CC to approve their favourite for this position,” the Minister stated, referring to President Sirisena and the UPFA.