Constitutional Council (CC) strongly refutes President Sirisena's allegations

The Constitutional Council (CC) has strongly refuted recent allegations levelled against it by President Maithripala Sirisena over its conduct.

Issuing a special statement, the CC clarified that it shares similar sentiments of the President that a majority of seats must be allocated for civil society representatives in the body.

“When the CC was introduced in the proposed 19^th amendment at that time, parliamentarians opposed moves to allocate a majority of seats for civil society representatives. Therefore, clauses pertaining to the CC in the 19^th amendment were revised to allow more MPs to constitute the body,” the statement read.

Mr. Sirisena during an address in Parliament condemned the Council for acting in a manner which he claimed had superseded the powers of the Executive, legislature and the judiciary.

“The CC was established in the 19^th constitutional amendment with the objective of balancing the powers of the Executive. This was done by limiting the President’s powers in making appointments to certain high ranking positions in the state sector,” the CC said in response to these claims.

In the response, the CC also pointed out that Section 08 of the constitution clearly outlines the manner in which it should conduct itself while Section 41 states that nominations to vacant positions in independent commissions could be sent to the President for consideration.

Further, the same Article in the constitution had vested powers with the CC to decide whether it would approve or disapprove the nominees sent by the President to fill vacancies, the CC in its statement said.

“However, the power to make these appointments have been entrusted to the President. The CC cannot make such appointments as per its own whims and fancies. Therefore, what has taken place here is the balancing of the President’s power alone.”

The statement proceeded to refute President Sirisena’s allegations on the rejection of 14 nominees without any justification to fill voids in the higher courts.

“The CC had rejected only four nominees sent by the President. The reasons for these rejections have been explained in writing to the President” the Council claimed adding that it was unfair to be criticised for rejecting the other names because only one vacancy was available.

In addition, the CC also explained the manner in which the Attorney General and the IGP were appointed.

“The President had initially nominated three names to the post of Attorney General. At that time, the CC decided to seek the President’s order of preference following which only one name was sent for our approval” the statement noted adding that the nominee was later approved.

Commenting on the appointment of the IGP, the CC said that it had studied and taken up three proposed names for a vote. The candidate who had received the highest number of votes in the CC was appointed to the said position, the special statement stressed.

The CC signed off by saying that individuals opposed to the conduct of the body could go before the President and call for an inquiry.

“We are ready to discuss these matters with the President,” the statement said.