Columns

There is much that Sri Lanka’s newest party in government, the National Peoples’ Power (NPP) party needs to learn in terms of political realities, not the least of which is to be self-deprecating in victory.

Blinking first over ‘doctoral’ claims

That is crucial if it is to avoid treading the path of predecessors who were ingloriously thrown out by the Sri Lankan people when the glittering gold that they promised turned to drab dross after being catapulted into power on ‘extraordinary mandates’ (ie; G Rajapaksa, 2019-2022). This warning arises in the wake of a fiery fracas concerning the NPP’s Speaker who resigned a few days ago over public questioning of his doctorate as well as if he had a basic degree, both of which had been touted by his party.

Even if I am to be a tad unkind, it must be remarked that the NPP’s nomination of the Speaker was a misadventure from the outset. Cruel ridicule followed over wrongly donning the wig and a deplorable lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedure as he attempted to govern the House. Crowning this unedifying spectacle, he blinked first in the face of a hullabaloo over his academic credentials, still insisting that he needed time to obtain the necessary documentation to prove his claim.

The episode constitutes an early reality check on the NPP’s ill-advised pomposity on its election win and the crowing over an ‘irrelevant’ opposition. It puts to shame self-important boasting that its members constitute ‘the best, the most educated, etc and et al in the political firmament.  NPP front-rankers including the Cabinet spokesman and Media Minister scoffed at media questioning over the controversy regarding the Speaker, pointing to a ‘bankrupt opposition.

Boding ill for competent governance

But that is to miss the point. This is about the NPP’s choice of Speaker not being able to establish his purported academic credentials. It is not about the Opposition being ‘bankrupt’ or the fact that it continues to commit acts of political hara-kiri, further reducing its public support and legitimacy. Widely disparaged appointments to four remaining National List seats were made after weeks of petrifying indecision by the Premadasa-led ‘Samagi Jana Balawegaya’ (SJB).

Meanwhile two nondescript National List appointments by the New Democratic Front (NDF) led by the United National Party’s Ranil Wickremesinghe were manifestly worse. Even so, ill-considered leadership decisions of the Opposition, which is not worth taking space on, should not be conflated with the way that the NPP understands its political mandate to govern. To be brutally plain, this fiasco over the Speaker speaks to a fundamental naïveté on the part of the Government.

What possessed the NPP to make this nomination in the first place from unreasonably large numbers of party members crowding the House? The post of Speaker is the pivot around which the legislature turns in the constitutional scheme. He/she chairs the Constitutional Council (CC) which approves/nominates vital appointments to the public service, the superior courts and several oversight bodies. By itself and setting aside any other considerations, that task has a singular importance.

The Speaker as Chair of the CC

This Thursday, the Supreme Court dismissed an ill-conceived fundamental rights challenge by a lawyer seeking to compel the CC to approve former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s nomination of the President of the Court of Appeal to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court. This was despite the CC deciding (by a majority) not to do so at the time. Under Article 41C of the Constitution, the CC grants approval for the appointment of judges of the superior courts.

The CC is enabled to obtain the views of the Chief Justice thereto (vide Article 41C (4)). The Court’s meticulous detailing of the facts (Pathiratne v Speaker of Parliament and Others, decision of 12.12.2024) yields an interesting glimpse into the nominations and approvals of appointments to the superior courts which is generally shrouded in secrecy. The Chief Justice had tendered his views agreeing with the nomination by the then President.

However, the CC had decided to call for further information from the Chief Justice regarding the performance of the nominee judge, including the number of judgements delivered and the number of judgments overruled on appeal. Also requested was further information regarding the ‘conduct’ of the nominee judge and any notable jurisprudential ‘contribution.’ This was after allegations were levelled against the nominee judge in Parliament, including by the Sports Minister.

From the sublime to the ridiculous

With the Chief Justice indicating that there was a ‘practical difficulty’ in furnishing the relevant information, the CC was then unable to arrive at a decision. Later, a majority of the CC had decided against recommending the particular nominee judge giving as reasons, allegations of ‘bench-fixing’ made by parties in cases, including by the Attorney General. That decision, that they could not be satisfied as to the ‘suitability’ of the nominee, was challenged as a ‘flagrant’ violation of rights.

Dismissing the challenge as ‘totally against the public interest,’ the Court opined that the majority of the CC was not only entitled but also had a ‘solemn duty’ to act as they did. When acting in their constitutional role, they were duty bound to take into account material regarding nominees before them. That material, in the view of the Court, pointed to behaviour that went beyond the ‘norms of the established practice.’ It was observed that a judicial officer must not breach the trust reposed in him by the general public.’

This reasoning adds considerable value to clarifying the constitutional importance of the CC and the Speaker as the Chair who had taken a neutral view in that dispute. Its impact thereto merits more detailed analysis later. But descending from the sublime to the patently ridiculous, it is undisputed that the Speaker plays a vital function in the constitutional scheme. And to reiterate, why was this Government so flippant in its nomination thereto?

Fault lies in the NPP’s own boasts

Did the NPP not understand that, apart from chairing the CC, the role of the Speaker is determinative in many other respects, including the rolling out an impeachment process against the President? If the Prime Minister is unable to act or the post is vacant, the Speaker is constitutionally validated to act as the President upon the apex court determining that the election of the President was interalia void. This is not to say that predecessors in this Office have been distinguished beacons of light.

But the NPP came into power promising ‘system change.’ Did it underestimate the possibility that this unseemly controversy would spiral out of control? The President’s assurance in the wake of the Speaker’s resignation that action would be taken against a party member behaving wrongly, however exalted the position, hardly proves the point. This is an absurdity that should not have arisen in the first instance. The dispute would have been entirely redundant if the claims had not been made at all.

But this stems from the NPP’s boast of putting forward the ‘best, brightest…’ new faces, some of whom may also be caught up in the scandal regarding their own qualifications.

This is a shameful reflection on Sri Lanka itself. Once, highly competitive entry to this country’s universities, whether in law, medicine, engineering or arts had no peer. ‘Studying abroad’ was scornfully reserved for those who failed to make the grade. Citation of ‘shady’ doctorates was the exception. Now this is an epidemic with the use of academic prefixes at the drop of the proverbial hat.

To what disgraceful depths has this country fallen?