- Time to choose; hybrid system won't work: Ali Sabry
Minister of Justice Ali Sabry, PC[/caption]
Suspicions have been raised by governing party allies over some clauses in the 20A. Will there be amendments to the 20A at the committee stage as assured by the Government?
It is an instruction that we got from the Cabinet of Ministers, the Prime Minister, and the President which was given in writing to the Attorney General, which was later handed over to the court as well, so we will be moving those amendments at the committee stage.
Questions have been raised over the Prime Minister’s committee report on the 20A. Why have the contents not been made public?
There was no report as such that was prepared by the study committee that Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa had appointed. The committee read through the draft amendments to the Constitution and had a discussion. The point that was discussed was brought before the Cabinet, which was taken into consideration by the Cabinet and suggested at the committee stage meeting for amendments.
Will the recommendations of the committee be introduced to the 20A at the committee stage? What are the clauses in the 20A that will be subject to change?
We have already submitted the clauses to the Supreme Court following the committee stage amendments, from which some had been brought in after the consulted due process within the government parties and also after considering some of the concerns expressed by the civil society.
Will the 20A have an adverse impact on transparency and accountability in governance due to the concentration of power in one individual?
I don't think so. Basically, what the 20A entails is that we go back on the 19th Amendment (19A), and everything that was in place prior to the 19A will be in effect.
For example, we are abolishing the Audit Service Commission, but that does not mean we are abolishing auditing itself. All the power that is vested in the Auditor General will stand. The Auditor General’s Department will function, similar to the way it functioned before 2015.
Some entities are trying to paint a picture as if audits were introduced to this country by the 19A. Audits have taken place since time immemorial, going back to the colonial times during the Dutch colonisation.
The Auditor General will be empowered to continue to do what he is assigned to do. There are not going to be any changes in the method the Auditor General or the Auditor General’s Department operates.
It is only the functionality that needs to be reformed. There is no point in having some cabinet committees to show that there is some kind of transparency available.
Transparency, in fact, should be executed from the ground level. So the Auditor General’s Department will continue to operate.
The other institution is the National Police Commission. In that segment, the Inspector General of Police needs to be empowered and should have the responsibility to oversee the functions of the Sri Lanka Police. Because his powers were taken away and given to someone else, there was nobody to take responsibility.
The case of IP (Inspector of Police) Nishantha Silva is the best example; when he was involved in certain incidents and the IGP (Inspector General of Police) wanted him to be removed from active service, the CID (Criminal Investigation Department) had transferred him elsewhere. But the National Police Commission got involved and cancelled his transfer. What happened next was that he fled the country and now they cannot even go after him; by the way, he is not a dual citizen either.
This is about the functionality of the State.
There have been continuous calls for the clipping of powers vested with the executive presidency and successive presidents had also pledged to abolish it. What is your view of the executive presidency; is it a necessity or an evil?
My personal view on the executive presidency is immaterial at this time. You are correct when you say that it either has to be an executive presidency or a Westminster parliament; you cannot have a hybrid system and it has not worked well in many parts of the world. So, we will have to choose between the two. The 1978 Constitution was designed for an executive presidency-based constitution.
The executive power, in terms of the people and their Constitution, is itself vested with the President. So, you cannot tinker with it. As you say, the country has to take a decision; whether the executive presidency should be totally abolished and a total parliamentary system be established.
But if you try to clip the powers of the Executive President, neither he nor the others in Parliament, can perform, which turns it into a recipe for disaster and sends the country into anarchy. That was very visible during the previous Government. Over the past four or five years, we saw how one person introduces a bill, the other person withdraws; somebody says they are with it and another says that they are against it; and everything that has been unfolding for the past few months before the Easter Sunday Commission shows how bad it could be.
The Government has said it received a mandate to amend the Constitution. Wasn’t the mandate for a new constitution, rather than for an amendment, as claimed by some governing party allies?
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s vision statement in 2019 “Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour” specifically said we will bring a new constitution. We campaigned on the basis that we will abolish the 19th Amendment, so both these things are our priorities. Basically, that has been done in two stages.
Of course, the processes have started simultaneously, so we will go back to the 19th Amendment and then we will also draw a new and strong constitution.
The 1978 JR Constitution has been blamed for the all-powerful executive presidency and many other ills in governance. How will the 20A improve the present governance structure?
Rightly or wrongly, there is a constitution which has been followed. As long as that constitution is there, that is the executive presidency-based constitution. So, the President has to face the people five years down the line. The people entrusted the power to him as the President. If he cannot be entrusted to govern the country, then the people will have their mandate to say what needs to be done. That has happened throughout, as displayed during the presidential elections of 2010, 2015, and 2019.
Isn't there a danger in vesting so much power in an individual, given the risk of the same powers falling into the hands of someone who could abuse the office?
We have been continuously raising concerns of “what happens if this goes to the wrong person”. This argument has always been there. But if the power is vested in the wrong person and if he does something against the country, there is a mechanism in-built in the Constitution to tame such a scenario.
You can impeach someone and others can object the impeachment. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa knows this very well. He does not want this power to be consolidated for himself to achieve something personal. Rather, it is to deliver on the promises he has made and to get the government mechanism working; that is what he has communicated.
Why does a dual citizen need to enter the Sri Lankan Parliament?
I don’t think that these issues need to be given undue attention, because in Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Article 21 of our Constitution, it states that irrespective of the manner in which you achieve citizenship, once you achieve citizenship and become a Sri Lankan citizen, for all intents and purposes, he/she becomes a Sri Lankan citizen. You cannot be discriminating against anyone saying that they have become citizens of the country either by registration or as a dual citizen.
As a Sri Lankan citizen, you are entitled to the rights that are stipulated in the Constitution. There cannot be a problem. There are enough and more dual citizens of Sri Lanka that have rendered their yeoman service to the country, including our incumbent President.
He was a dual citizen when he was the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and acted as the de facto Minister of Defence at the time the Civil War ended. It was under his brilliant leadership that the 30-year war was ended; if not for his leadership skills, we would have probably not ended the Civil War in 2009.
So, it is about the person, as I previously said. IP Nishantha Silva was not a dual citizen and is not in the country even. Look at Arjuna Mahendran, who was not a citizen at all, and both had done massive damage to the country. Therefore, I would reiterate that it is about the person and personality.
Some of the Sri Lankans that are residing in foreign countries have done tremendously well as world citizens. If they can make use of them, why not allow them to enter Parliament. What is the big deal about it?
I personally have no problem with a dual citizen being allowed to contest in parliamentary elections. We have enough safeguards to look after our matters and prevent such disasters taking place.
This is an exaggerated argument just to attack the 19th Amendment. The dual citizenship clause that was entered in the 19th Amendment, in my personal opinion, is a very political and personal issue now.
I do not see a problem in a dual citizen being given the chance to enter Parliament. A dual citizen is someone who is considered to be conferred that he is capable of or is suitable to be conferred to hold the country's citizenship. If this is not so, the person shouldn’t have been given dual citizenship in the first place.
How long will it take for the 20A to come into effect, given that there are opposing petitions that are presented by the Opposition parties and some from Government-friendly parties as well? Is there a definitive time frame for the second reading to take place?
We do not have a definitive time to bring in the 20A to the Constitution or to draft the new Constitution. We are awaiting the determination of the Supreme Court to come to the Speaker of the Parliament. Then we will take note of the determination and do everything in terms of the law; depending on what the determination says, we will carry out the second reading.
In my personal opinion, it will take anything between four to five weeks for the second reading to commence.
‘Govt. yet to decide on PCs’
What is the Government’s view about the concerns that India has expressed about the continuity of the 13th Amendment? No. We have not discussed the 13th Amendment as of yet. The 20th Amendment has nothing to do with the 13th Amendment. Everything that is to do with the 19th Amendment is what has been disputed and there are no overlapping issues that need to be discussed that concern the 13th Amendment. There seems to be diverse views within the governing party. Whereas some members, including the State Minister for Provincial Councils (PCs), have said that the PC system is futile and is something that was imposed forcibly in Sri Lanka by an external force, another group in the Government has dismissed the claim and called for delayed PC elections to be held. How do you see this? Having diverse views is good. Having pluralistic views in a democratic system cannot be suppressed. Everybody has the freedom of opinion; I have no problem with people having different and diverse views on the existing PC system. Ultimately, those views have to be brought before proper forums and need to be discussed to come to a decision. We are bound by collective responsibility. Having diverse views, I don’t see it negatively; in fact, it is a positive thing and a sign of a thriving democracy. As long as the 13th Amendment is in place and the PC systems are part of the Constitution, I personally feel that those PC elections should be held, and there is nothing wrong in that. But whether the PC system should stand or whether it should be abolished and what the devolution mechanism on such a system is, are matters which have been debated for some time now. That debate will go on, which is something good for the country and it is acceptable. For all Sri Lankans to feel that they are part of this country and that they are all equal citizens of this country is a good way forward. Will the PC system be scrapped in the proposed new constitution? The Government needs to decide whether they would do away with the PC system. I on my own cannot decide on that and the Government has not given me the mandate to comment on such matters. But as you see, diverse views are there, so that is a matter that has to be deliberated to come to a consensus. The devolution of the power-sharing mechanism – I think everybody agrees – should be there. However, the size and model of such a system is debatable.