Sri Lanka’s Golden Jubilee Inde pendence celebrations had in spite of its interruptions been planned on an ambitious scale at Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte but some embarrassing lapses, though not seen on TV, were evident.
Some of the decorations were not properly done and some of the guests complaining they had to sit on chairs that were dirty.
Even Prince Charles, the mildly controversial chief guest, looked uncomfortable, especially during the twenty minutes when he waited for the delayed arrival of President Chandrika Kumaratunga.
Eventually, the prince was not given a prominent place though the government during the past few weeks had virtually moved heaven and earth to get him down despite various problems, including the Dalada Maligawa bomb.
As millions of TV viewers saw, Prince Charles was obviously feeling lonely and uncomfortable.
He sat next to Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike and the conversation between them was obviously stilted perhaps due to the condition of her health. Another point of dispute was the President’s speech - not so much the content but the language.
Many people were questioning why she spoke only in English especially when she belongs to the Sinhala-oriented Sri Lanka Freedom Party.
The reason may be that the BBC was televising her speech live to the world.
Presidential media adviser Sanath Gunatilleke told journalists the speech was made in English to make full use of an unprecedented opportunity where a Sri Lankan leader’s speech was being broadcast live to the world.
Others say the President wanted to shed all her communal attachments and emerge as a leader of all communities by using the link language.
Yet others say her objective was to make clear to an international audience that she was unable to move forward in solving the ethnic conflict unless the opposition co-operated with her government.
However, this has sparked off protests from monks and lay organisations who feel that the Sinhalese have been humiliated.
They saw the daughter (President Kumaratunga) had reversed what her father (S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike) did as the Prime Minister.
Most independent observers feel that if the President’s objective was to present a proper perspective of the Sri Lankan crisis to the world community, then she was justified in using an international language. But questions still persist as to why she did not speak in Sinhala also. Whatever the disputes, the President’s Golden Jubilee address was excellent and it would have drawn wide applause if the translation had not been so badly arranged and if she had herself spoken in both English and Sinhala.
Opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe was obviously quite aware of the lapse by the President.
Minister M. H. M. Ashraff seated close to him quipped that similar problems might not arise under UNP proposals whereby the two vice presidents could speak in Tamil and English while the President does the honours in Sinhala.
Meanwhile attempts by some other interested parties to get the Mahanayakes of Malwatte and Asgiriya to criticize the President’s failure to speak in Sinhala did not work. The prelates said they would not attack the President at this juncture.
Later in the day, Deputy Foreign Minister Lakshman Kiriella asked a Presidential secretariat officer as to why the President did not speak in Sinhala. He retorted by asking, "What have we achieved during the last forty odd years after having spoken in Sinhala?"
It is quite clear that the President had been advised to speak in English because of live worldwide coverage by the BBC but the BBC had to cut it short because the President was behind schedule. The Prime Minister apparently worried about the President’s delay, at one stage wanted Mr. Balapatabendi to see that the President was on time.
The British media were critical about the President’s delay.
Later in the day Mr. Wickremesinghe told an SLMC MP that it was not the tradition under normal circumstances to address the nation during the Independence Day celebrations.
He said it was first introduced by President Premadasa and queried as to why the PA was continuing with this tradition.
It’s a little too long, Mr. Wickremesinghe said at the end of the ceremony and Mr. Ashraff appeared to agree.
Mr. Wickremesinghe said, "it is normally a show of strength by the armed forces and the government should have done just that and saved time without baking us in the hot sun."
Many agreed when it was pointed out that it was difficult to be there from 7.45 a.m. till about 1.00 p.m. without any refreshments.
However, the Golden Jubilee celebrations took place without major incidents.
The aluminium structures which were set up at short notice looked attractive enough, except for lapses at some places.
Seating arrangements were also not satisfactory. Those seated at the back in the outer wings could not have a proper view of the main proceedings or even the arrival of Prince Charles or the President.
Except for a mild stir of excitement when Police Chief Rajaguru took ill and keeled over, the events of the morning moved to their close, with the forces putting on a brave show. This however was marred by patches of ragged marching possibly due to a plethora of bands, which would have made it difficult to keep step. This would have been immediately evident to Prince Charles’ discerning eye. However, some of the infantry regiments and the Commandos retrieved the day and the Women’s Corps were very good, drawing spontaneous applause, as did the contingent of disabled servicemen.
The specially introduced mounted escort provided a classic touch but whoever designed their hats?
The Cultural procession saw some desultory dancing, what with the heat and red hot tarmac.
The floats were uninspiring. This part of the proceedings looked an unrehearsed and makeshift operation.
Excusable, some would say under the circumstances, but there was no excuse for litter at the entrance to the esplanade and dirty chairs, or for the invitations which did not do the basic courtesy of a few words on the change of venue and the amended programme.
And what about poor Arun Dias Bandaranaike who must have had a torrid time translating a woefully mixed up briefing into some form of comprehensible commentary?
In one of the most poignant moments of the ceremony, the President and many others were close to tears when disabled soldiers, some on wheel chairs and others on crutches, paraded past the main stage.
The President and others gave a big ovation to the men and women who had sacrificed so much for the country.
At the end of the military parade it was time for Prince Charles to leave the premises but to the surprise of the President, her motorcade also arrived.
The President was not prepared to leave, more so, the motorcade had a serious problem in getting back. It had to go round Parliament Lake (Diyawanna Oya) to make way for Prince Charles’ motorcade to come near the special dais.
Once the Prince left the scene, the cultural pageant began. There were floats depicting various cultural features and the achievements of the country during the past 50 years. When the float depicting the achievements of the Sports Ministry reached the main dais, there was laughter as Minister Mangala Samaraweera leaned towards the Sports Minister S. B. Dissanayake and asked why a woman sprinter was painted in white.
He was obviously joking about the recent Susanthika Jayasinghe controversy and the dispute over his remark about a black American or African youth.
At the end of the cultural display, the President left in a chopper. Her dummy motorcade went along the normal route and happened to be only a few yard in front of the Opposition Leader’s limousine.
People on the road looked at the motorcade to get a glimpse of the President. Instead they saw Mr. Wickremesinghe waving at them. He came up to the Town Hall roundabout with the motorcade from where he took a turn to his 5th Lane residence.
Early on Tuesday the special Royal Air Force flight carrying Prince Charles and his entourage had arrived at the BIA which was ringed by hundreds of airmen, some armed with heavy machine guns.
Foreign Minister Laksman Kadirgamar and several other Ministers were there to greet Prince Charles.
The prince was awarded a guard of honour by the Air Force with a twenty one gun salute.
As the artillery guns boomed, the guests saw a stray dog running across the red carpet. Simultaneously the grass where the artillery guns were located caught fire, but an airport fire engine doused it fast.
Prince Charles left the Airport in a motorcade. He boarded a chopper later for a short trip to Minuwangoda where he opened a garment factory with British investment.
Another problem was the cancellation of the civic reception organizsed for Prince Charles by the Colombo Municipal Council.
The city council had in the past accorded civic receptions to several visiting heads of state including Queen Elizabeth II in 1954 and in 1981.
But on this occasion it is reported the British High Commission had pressed for a cancellation on security grounds after the CMC had invited some 2,000 guests.
Officials of the British High Commission and subsequently officers from Buckingham Palace came here to review security plans personally.
The civic reception was directly organised through the British High Commission in Sri Lanka. The government and the foreign office were informed later of this function.
Mayor Karu Jayasuriya and Deputy Mayor Omar Kamil had a discussion with the President over the matter when she raised queries about security plans for the civic reception.
However it was admitted that the Council had not extended the invitation to the Prince through proper channels and this also may have been a reason for the cancellation.
On Thursday evening President Kumaratunga hosted the Prince to an official banquet at the President’s House with her Cabinet of Ministers and other special guests.
TULF leader M. Sivasithamparam kept away from the function while EPDP leader Douglas Devananda and PLOTE leader D. Siddharthan attended.
There were at least 250 guests with Ministers and the President’s personal friends. They included Padma Maharaja, Harry Jayawardena, Udaya Nanayakkara, Ronnie Peiris, Dr. J B Peiris and his wife. Hilton Hotel supplied the food and beverages with a 300 strong staff from the hotel being present to attend to the requirements of the guests. In addition a Sri Lankan chef had come from Hawaii to make specialised dishes for the guests. At one stage they found that there was a shortage of cups and saucers. After this was conveyed to the hotel three men rushed to the President’s House with the necessary items. But security personnel did not allow them to take the items in.
Otherwise, the dinner went on well with several cultural items being held in the lawn. The President had a word with almost everybody and Prince Charles also spoke to many people including the Opposition Leader and his wife. It was Presidential Secretary Balapatabendi who escorted Mr. Wickremesinghe to the prince. They exchanged pleasantries. Ms. Wickremesinghe (Maithri) had a longer chat with Prince Charles while Mr. Wickremesinghe was chatting with Mayor Karu Jayasuriya and others.
It was around 1.00 a.m. when they sat for dinner and both Prince Charles and the President looked weary.
The other major issue in local politics was the resignation of General Anuruddha Ratwatte as Deputy Minister of Defence.
The issue now is whether his resignation took effect as soon as the letter was tendered.
Justice Minister G.L Peiris, a Professor of Law, has issued a statement clarifying this position.
He states that the letter of resignation has to be accepted by the appointing authority to become effective. He adds:
"Firstly, Article 47 of the 1978 Constitution states, very clearly, that:
"The Prime Minister, a Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers, any other Minister or Deputy Minister shall continue to hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function under the provisions of the Constitution unless he:- (a).....
(b) Resigns his office by a writing under his hand addressed to the President:
"It is noted that this provision does not, either expressly or by implication, introduce any concepts of ‘tendering’ or submission of a resignation.
"Secondly, the contention that the President - the appointing authority under Article 46 - does not need to accept the resignation is totally incorrect.
"The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka laid down the requirements for the valid resignation of a public officer, a more directly applicable analogy than that of a company director, in the leading case of Abeywickrema V. Pathirana (1986) 1 Sri L.R 120 (S.C). A five-judge Bench held, by majority of 4 to 1, that:
The rule in respect of a public officer’s resignation is that it can take effect only when it is accepted by his appointing authority..... The rule that wrongful repudiation or wrongful purported termination of a contract terminates the contract does not apply to an employee whose employment is in some sense public employment or involves a tenure of an office...."
Chief Justice Sharvananda, delivering the majority opinion also cited Halsbury:
"It would appear that in the absence of contrary intention, resignation from an office under the Crown" in this case ‘Republic" "is ineffective till accepted" - (4th Ed) Vol 1 para 10. at page 136 of the judgement
"The principle of law stated and acted upon by the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court is explicit. Applied to a Cabinet Minister or a Deputy Minister,,
the legal principle is that the Minister or Deputy Minister acquires a status as opposed to mere rights under a contract, on being appointed by the President. This status can be impaired or dissolved, in a situation involving resignation, only by the act of the appointing authority, namely the President, accepting a resignation offered to him or her by the Minister or Deputy Minister.
Until this happens, the status conferred at the time of appointment remains intact and unchanged in any way. In light of the above, it is evident that an attempt is being made, in some quarters, to confuse the issue and place the very security of the nation at risk.
It is hoped that the issues involved in the current situation will be considered dispassionately and with a sense of responsibility, with the principal focus on the national interest. In any event, the principles of law involved are crystal clear and admit of no doubt whatever".
In the case of Abeywickrama vs. Pathirana by-election against present Education Minister Richard Pathirana, Abeywickrama took up the position that Richard Pathirana who was a school principal had not duly resigned his post.
Mr. Pathirana’s position was that he tendered his resignation before he contested the elections.
Senior Counsel K.N Choksy appeared for the petitioner, UNP candidate Abeywickrema, while Senior Counsel H.L de Silva appeared for the respondent Richard Pathirana.
Mr. Choksy submitted that in the case of a Minister or a Deputy Minister if he submits his resignation in writing to the President, the resignation becomes effective.
Mr. Choksy pointed out that in the case of Ministers and Deputy Ministers acceptance by the appointing authority is not necessary.
Mr. Choksy quoted Article 47 of the Constitution which deals with the resignation of Ministers to substantiate his argument.
But in the case of Public Officials Mr. Choksy submitted that they were governed by Article 55 of the Constitution and by the Establishment Code, which is formulated under Article 55.
The Establishment Code expressly provided that acceptance of the resignation of a public officer was necessary by the appointing authority and such acceptance of the resignation had to be communicated to the public officer.
Senior Counsel H.L de Silva submitted that just like in the case of Ministers, a public officer was entitled to unilaterally resign his office and that no person can be forced to hold against his will.
The court upheld Mr. Choksy’s position that in the case of a public officer, acceptance was necessary unlike in the case of Ministers and Deputy Ministers.
Chief Justice S. Sharvananda who presided over a five Judge Bench delivering a majority division stated the law as follows:
"A resignation to become effective does not need acceptance by the employer at all in the absence of any stipulation to that effect in the contract of employment or in the service rules."
Hence the argument put forward by many lawyers is that Article 47 (b) doesn’t require acceptance by the President.
Referring to the letters of resignation tenders by all UNP parliamentarians to President Jayewardene during his regime the UNP argues back that those letters were undated and therefore had no effect.
Though some lawyers have rejected this, the UNP still maintains this position.
Several UNP lawyers stated that there would not be a withdrawal of the resignation if there is no resignation.
But the debatable point is that in his letter of resignation General Ratwatte had offered to resign rather than resigning.
He stated:
"I wish to tender my resignation". According to Minister Ratwatte himself Attorney General Sarath Silva has ruled that there is no need to take oaths since there was no resignation in effect.
The AG has apparently cited the case of Indian Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral who handed over his resignation and which was not accepted by the Indian President.
Meanwhile government legal experts say that the underlying principle of Article 47 is continuity. They state that unless the Cabinet is dissolved by the President, the Minister continues to hold office.
At the same time they point out that there could be a legal hiatus if the continuity is not there.
On the other hand if the appointing authority is satisfied that the Minister had not resigned there is no resignation that has come into effect and the question of resignation doesn’t arise.
The simple answer to all this is that General Ratwatte is only the Deputy Minister of Defence and that no statutory power is conferred on a Deputy Minister unless they are delegated by the President.
The question of invalidity of his acts is only an academic question, and nobody could stop the orders given by him on the field since most of these orders are conveyed through the service commanders.
But the UNP is keen to keep the controversy going and on Thursday night it gave final touches to a statement.
The statement calls upon the President to refer the resignation controversy to the Supreme Court under Article 129 of the Constitution.
Article 129 empowers the President to refer any legal matter or a question of law to the Supreme Court for its opinion.
Return to the Editorial/Opinion contents page