o President’s response to Sajith sends strong message o Mangala and President at loggerheads over financial laws o PM opens meet; invites to retired MPs o SJB, JVP to boycott; UNP considers boycotting PM's meeting o EC adopts wait-and-see policy after looking at ground situation As the coronavirus caseload in Sri Lanka continues to skyrocket and the people are forced to endure a paralysing economic crisis over the risks of a potentially deadly virus, a constitutional crisis seems to be looming on the horizon with the Government and Opposition locked in a bickering match over the status of Parliament and the date for holding parliamentary elections. When President Gotabaya Rajapaksa dissolved Parliament on 2 March, there was no question that he had the absolute discretion and constitutional power to do so, and none of the Opposition parties at the time raised any objection to his decision. As of that day, there was only one known coronavirus case in the country. As the days wore on and the number of detected cases continued to grow, the Government insisted that there was no risk to Sri Lanka and that life could continue as normal, as the military raced to construct quarantine centres and set up a contact tracing mechanism to ensure that any cases that were detected could be rapidly contained without needing to endanger or hinder the population at large. But come the date for filing nominations, on 19 March, there were 60 known cases of coronavirus in Sri Lanka. Even at this stage, however, none of the Opposition parties raised any objection to holding a general election five weeks later on 25 April. Today, with 10 times more coronavirus cases than on nominations day, and more cases being discovered every day, the political landscape has shifted entirely. Every single Opposition party, from the United National Party (UNP), its rebel group the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), Tamil National Alliance (TNA), Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), and the All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) are calling on the President to recall Parliament and for the general election to be postponed until the coronavirus crisis subsides. No sooner were nominations filed on 19 March, the Election Commission (EC) made history by using its power under Section 24 (1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act to indefinitely postpone the polls nationwide. Designed to contend with a localised disaster or civil unrest, that section reads as follows: “Where due to any emergency or unforeseen circumstances the poll for the election in any electoral district cannot be taken on the day specified in the notice relating to the election published under Subsection (1), the Commissioner may, by order published in the gazette, appoint another day for the taking of such poll, and such other day shall not be earlier than the 14th day after the publication of the order in the gazette.” Using this power, the Commission said that elections cannot be held in any part of the country on 25 April and deferred the decision on a new date to see how the coronavirus situation developed. It was only on 20 April, after meeting with the Army Commander, Acting IGP, and Director General of Health Services that the Commission decided on the tentative election date of 20 June. At the time they made this decision 13 days ago, there were 304 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the country. Just days after this decision, the national case count exploded with the revelation that the virus had infected a number of sailors at the Welisara Navy Camp. As of now, over 200 sailors have been confirmed as having contracted the virus, and forces personnel and health officials are racing to trace their contacts and prevent a wider outbreak. Shortly after the outbreak made headlines, a senior navy officer who had been hospitalised with a rodent bite fever unrelated to the coronavirus (and who had tested negative for Covid- 19) passed away at the Navy Hospital, leading to many unfounded conspiracy theories as to whether this officer had actually succumbed to the coronavirus. Then came a leak on social media of a letter dated 24 April from an official of the Health Ministry to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC) seeking “1,000 body bags to dispose dead bodies”. The letter read: “Due to the prevailing Covid-19 situation of the country, it is expected to have some deaths as per the mortality pattern of the pandemic,” but did not state that it required 1,000 body bags for this specific purpose. The Government quickly issued a statement clarifying that the 1,000 body bags were sought for the purpose of maintaining inventory and that health officials did not expect so many fatalities from Covid-19 in Sri Lanka. The country has not recorded any deaths attributed to the coronavirus now for over two weeks. Last week’s meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers also saw several new members participating in the discussion. Officials from the State Intelligence Service (SIS) as well as health authorities were invited to participate in the meeting to brief the Cabinet on the ground situation of the virus and measures being taken. The intelligence officials explained to the Cabinet that action has been taken to identify and isolate the first and second contacts of the navy personnel who had contracted the virus. The health authorities explained that the spreading of the virus within clusters have been contained to a great extent. Meanwhile, the EC continues with its “wait and see” policy, while saying it would continue to engage with the health authorities to keep a tab on the ground situation in the country with regard to the virus. The issues of holding election campaigns amidst Covid-19 were discussed at length at yesterday’s meeting between the Commission and secretaries of the political parties. Opposition request On Tuesday (28 May), the leaders of the UNP, SJB, TNA, JHU, TPA, SLMC, and ACMC issued a statement together pledging support to the Government’s relief efforts, expressing alarm at the sudden spike in caseload, and urging the President to feel secure enough to summon Parliament to pass financial appropriations and combat the coronavirus together. However, the release of the joint statement had been delayed by eight hours due to the delay in former Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa placing his signature on the letter to the President. It is learnt that Premadasa was incommunicado for several hours until finally several members of his party had managed to get his signature to the statement. The JVP by then had informed the rest of the Opposition parties that it would not sign the joint statement but would send a separate message on the party’s stance to the President. However, several senior UNPers pointed out to the party leadership that there were objections amongst many over reconvening Parliament, given the current situation in the country, and they feel that the President should be allowed to carry out the ongoing work in addressing the situation in the country. The UNP leadership in response said that the call to reconvene Parliament was purely to set up the required laws to address the situation faced by the country and people in the face of Covid-19. “Frontline health workers are putting their best efforts to protect us all risking their own safety,” the statement read. “Their efforts should not go in vain because of our political decisions.” The Opposition parties drew particular attention to what they called a “state of uncertainty” following the dissolution of Parliament and the subsequent inability to hold parliamentary elections. “There is also no assurance that the elections could now be held on 20 June. The new date was determined by the Election Commission only a few days ago. The Commission has already indicated that this will have to be reviewed against the evolving public health situation in the country.” Speaking for themselves, they admitted that they “do not think the people of our country should be exposed to the unnecessary danger of a public health hazard by holding an election anytime soon,” especially given Sri Lanka’s history of active campaigning and high turnout and the “exponential rise in infections last week”. They pointed to the judiciary, executive, and legislature as being “vital” for the rule of law to prevail. “Their functioning is more important now than at any other time – when we face an unprecedented challenge. But this crisis is taking place at a time when Parliament has been made inactive. Meanwhile, the President has also refrained from exercising the discretion to summon Parliament under Article 70 (7) of the Constitution. In view of the necessity to repeatedly postpone the election, there is now a risk that Parliament would remain inactive for much longer.” The Opposition parties pledged to neither “attempt to defeat the Government nor thwart any of the legitimate actions of the Government during this period”. The Opposition leaders pointed out that they have “co-operated fully” with maintaining the curfew, even though they allege that it “has not been imposed legally”. Their request was for the President to reconvene the old Parliament either by revoking his 2 March decision to hold elections, or by invoking Article 70 (7) of the Constitution, which allows the President to summon a dissolved Parliament in case the need arises for a power to be exercised that can only be done so by the legislature. Prez. hits back The response by President’s Secretary Dr. P.B. Jayasundera was blistering. The President chose not to write to all of the Opposition party leaders who had signed the letter, but to SJB Leader and UNP Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa alone, as former Leader of the Opposition. The President decisively rejected the Opposition’s request, stressing that he would not reconvene the former Parliament under any circumstances. The President also attacked the motives of the Opposition statement. “It was observed that the signatories of the statement do not see the need for elections, and at a time when the entire state machinery is dedicated to the mitigation of Covid-19, are instead attempting to gain petty political advantages, and further narrow political objectives from reconvening Parliament. The signatories do not appreciate the immense effort made by the public sector and tri-forces, as well as other stakeholders in the efforts to counter the virus.” The President’s response also said Parliament had been dissolved under the constitutional powers given to the President, and the statement from the Opposition political parties calling for the reconvening of Parliament acknowledged this right. “Therefore, the dissolved Parliament cannot be reconvened. I have been instructed to inform you that the Election Commission had initially scheduled the parliamentary election for 25 April, and it was subsequently decided the election will be held on 20 June.” However, whether indeed elections will be held on 20 June, over three months after Parliament was dissolved, remains the billion-rupee question. On Friday (1), a daily English newspaper published an interview with EC Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya, in which the EC Chairman was not optimistic, stating that Sri Lanka is still not back to normal to hold an election. “There must be a minimum of 35 days prior to (the) date of the poll for campaigning, preparation for polls, etc. It is not only the freedom for voters to go to the polling booth and vote that has to be looked into but also for officials and candidates to engage in related activities freely. Without that, there will be no free and fair election,” the EC Chairman said. “At present, there is a curfew between 8 p.m. and 5 a.m. Not even a pocket meeting can be held due to physical distancing regulations to deal with the coronavirus. There is no normalcy in the country at the moment,” he added, while conceding that the EC is nonetheless busily preparing for the election. Deshapriya also dismissed any comparison of Sri Lanka’s electoral process to South Korea, which recently concluded a parliamentary election in the middle of a Covid-19 epidemic. “In that country, counting is done by machines. They have a system which is a mix between First-Past-The-Post and Proportional Representation, but they do not count preference votes like here. We do a hand count and then feed the information into the computers. How do we ensure that the two-metre distance is maintained at counting centres? Then we have to first prepare a manual on how to hold elections during the coronavirus outbreak and then have the election. It is a time-consuming matter.” PM calls meeting With the fate of the election remaining uncertain, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa adopted a slightly different position on Thursday (30 April) to the President’s dismissal of Parliament. The Premier invited all 225 MPs of the former Parliament for a meeting at Temple Trees tomorrow (4) to discuss the prevailing situation in the country. Officials at Temple Trees told The Black Box that the Prime Minister took the unusual decision to summon all MPs instead of just party leaders as he had on previous occasions, due to objections that had been raised to him by Opposition MPs that they were being left out of critical discussions. However, the olive branch extended by the Prime Minister has generated a complicated reaction, as many Opposition party figures see the brothers, President and Prime Minister, not as separate political entities but as two sides of the same coin. Particularly insulted by the President’s dismissive letter, SJB Leader Premadasa has told confidants that the SJB cannot attend the meeting without losing face and yesterday (2) decided not to attend it. In a statement, the SJB stated that even though it had attended the two party leaders’ meetings called by the Prime Minister, it was not prepared to participate in the meeting tomorrow, accusing the Government of playing a double game while refusing to recall Parliament. Two of Premadasa’s fiercest critics within the UNP hierarchy, Assistant Leader Ravi Karunanayake and National Organiser Navin Dissanayake have lobbied hard with UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe for their party to attend the meeting, in the hope of winning favour with the Rajapaksas and striking a deal to form a national government that could further sideline the Premadasa camp from the political stage. Finally, on Friday evening, UNP General Secretary Akila Viraj Kariyawasam was permitted by the party leadership to inform the media that the UNP would attend the meeting. However, further developments over the weekend have once again thrown the UNP's participation into doubt. UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe also had to decide how to continue to exert pressure on the Government to reconvene Parliament while not seen to be scuttling the ongoing battle against Covid-19 in the country. The UNP has continuously maintained that the party would extend unconditional support to the Government’s efforts to combat the spread of the virus and its impact on the public. The Black Box reliably learnt that the UNP MPs, or several senior members, if the party decides to attend, would not actively attend the discussion. Instead, the party leadership is likely to make a statement on the party’s support to the Government’s ongoing programmes in the face of Covid-19 and reiterate the importance of reconvening Parliament in order to address the brewing constitutional crisis and to provide much-needed legitimacy to the Government’s actions. While the UNP factions remain embroiled in a battle of egos, the TNA is expected to attend the meeting and use it as an opportunity to raise pointed questions to the Prime Minister about the Government’s position on a number of constitutional and health-related issues. The JVP however has said the party will boycott the meeting. In a letter to the Prime Minister, JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake stated that the Government could not find a solution to the impending constitutional crisis by assembling all 225 MPs at Temple Trees. He called on the Government to avoid another imbroglio by either formally summoning Parliament or seeking the advice on the Supreme Court on the status of the legislature under the circumstances. “We also stress that in a situation where no action has been taken to form a common mechanism to face this epidemic as proposed by us and several other parties, it is pointless to convene a meeting of former MPs,” he said. “On the other hand, we see that it is best to arrange a meeting with all political party leaders headed by the President and the Prime Minister if it is to discuss how best to face the corona epidemic and provide relief to the affected people,” Dissanayake added. The JVP Leader finally said the former JVP MPs would not attend the meeting as they deemed it would be of no use to educate the MPs about a constitutional crisis created by the Government itself without acting according to the Constitution. Following the boycott of Monday's meeting by the JVP, SJB, and the UNP's unclear stance, the Prime Minister's office decided to open the meeting to all former parliamentarians. Accordingly, a mobile phone message was sent to all former MPs including those who have retired, inviting them to participate in the meeting at Temple Trees. The message sent was as follows: "Dear Sir/ Madam, A special meeting on the prevailing situation in the country will be chaired by Hon Prime Minister on Monday 4 May 10 a.m. at Temple Trees. Your Participation at this meeting is much appreciated. Secretary to the Prime Minister." Hearing of this development, the UNP leadership last evening stated once again that the party needed to evaluate and decide its stance on the meeting. Meanwhile, there was an interesting situation related to the invitation extended by the Prime Minister to former Opposition Leader Premadasa to attend the Monday meeting. When the Prime Minister’s Office commenced the process of inviting 225 former MPs for the meeting, Premadasa was taken by surprise as members of his party started to telephone him and inquire about his response to the meeting called by Prime Minister Rajapaksa. Premadasa said that he had not received any notice about a meeting being called by the Prime Minister with all legislators of the former Parliament although he served as the last Opposition Leader when Parliament was dissolved. Immediately after hearing about Premadasa’s predicament, Rajapaksa had inquired from his officials as to what had prevented the former Opposition Leader from being informed of the meeting first. Finally, a co-ordinating secretary to the Prime Minister had immediately telephoned Premadasa and invited him for the meeting after apologising. The secretary had also sent an SMS invitation for the meeting to Premadasa’s mobile. The SMS had been sent to Premadasa at 5.59 p.m. last Wednesday (29 April). Petition to SC Even without the Government calling for the opinion of the Supreme Court, at least one fundamental rights (FR) petition has so far been filed, challenging the decision to hold elections on 20 June. The case, filed by Attorney-at-Law Charitha Gunaratne (son of former UNPer Maithri Gunaratne), seeks Supreme Court orders quashing the decision to hold elections on 20 June, an injunction against the EC, preventing a parliamentary election until the case is concluded, and also an order that parliamentary elections are impossible. Political circles are abuzz with many other impending cases along the same lines, seeking to reconvene the old Parliament and cancel the general elections entirely, a prospect that the Government is likely to contest vigorously, making a showdown in Hulftsdorp almost inevitable. However, lawyers affiliated to the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) have been continuously anticipating legal action seeking the cancellation of general elections and the reconvening of the former Parliament. Hence, the group of lawyers has been prepping for over a month on how to respond to any form of legal action. Another area of debate between the Government and the Opposition is the state of public finance in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka hit the borrowing limit prescribed by Parliament on Tuesday (28 April), as the parliamentary authorisation for spending expired on 30 April. Mangala locks horns with Prez. Former Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera wrote to the President the following day, warning him that the Government had no remaining authority to spend government funds. “In the years when a presidential election is forthcoming, successive governments have refrained from passing a budget leaving an opportunity for the winning president to submit his own budget. As the presidential election was scheduled to be held on 16 November 2019, the then Government was of the view that presenting an appropriation bill would not be appropriate. Accordingly, the then Government presented a Vote on Account to Parliament for a period of four months from 1 January 2020 to 30 April 2020 and adopted it on 23 October 2019, leaving an opportunity for the would-be elected President to present his own budget. “However, on the contrary, the Finance Minister appointed by you did not present a budget for 2020 until you issued a Gazette dissolving Parliament on 2 March in spite of the fact that you assumed office in November 2019, over three months prior to the dissolution of Parliament. “As you would recall, the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa who also held the portfolio of Finance did not present a budget for 2015 since the presidential election was scheduled in November 2014 for 8 January 2015. “Therefore, I would like to remind you that the Good Governance Government that won the presidential election on 8 January 2015 presented a Budget for the financial year 2015 within 21 days of its election. “Instead of presenting an appropriation bill for the year 2020, prior to the dissolution of Parliament on 2 March 2020, a proposal was brought by your Government to amend the Vote on Account which had already been passed by the Yahapalana Government. Thereafter, your Government withdrew it after the Opposition in Parliament pointed out that there was no provision in the standing orders for such an amendment. Now, as a result of the failure to present the budget due to reasons known only to your Government, and the sudden emergence of the coronavirus (Covid-19), the country is afflicted with a pandemic in addition to legislative and economic crises," he charged. In response, President’s Secretary Dr. Jayasundera said that since Parliament had not passed a budget for the year 2020, “under Article 150 (3) of the Constitution, the President is empowered to meet the expenses via a Vote on Account bill for up to three months of convening the new Parliament”, adding that the same procedure had been followed in all previous instances. “His Excellency the President has directed me to bring to your attention the regrettable fact that the proposal to settle arrears of Rs.182 billion and Rs. 211 billion foreign-loaned project funds incurred when you were the Finance Minister, was rejected when presented in Parliament. This was rejected despite being presented by the Prime Minister with the approval of the new Cabinet of Ministers of the Government appointed after the presidential election and that of the Attorney General. Through this action, the President was prevented from fulfilling the mandate given to him by the majority of the people. This is in complete contrast to the support extended by the then Opposition to the minority Government of 2015,” the letter further stated. Samaraweera shot back on Twitter. “Article 150 (3) does not give a blank cheque to the President. He can only allocate money for three months from the date on which the new Parliament is summoned to meet. What is the date for the new Parliament to be summoned?” The former Finance Minister was referring to the fact that when President Rajapaksa dissolved Parliament on 2 March and set elections on 25 April, he simultaneously summoned the new Parliament to meet yesterday, on 2 May. With that date past, Samaraweera implies that we are in constitutionally unchartered territory, raising the spectre of additional challenges to the Government in the courts.