- Cabinet to discuss 21A tomorrow while Basil’s anti-21A op splits ruling party
- Party leaders reach consensus on 21A; President can hold only Defence portfolio
- Prez cannot remove PM and should consult PM for allocations from next Parliament
- Proviso to be added stating incumbent Prez can remove PM if Parliament loses faith
- Abolition of Executive Presidency delayed until after 21A is passed and implemented
- RW delays appointments of state ministers until after 21A due to clashes in SLPP
- Several Cabinet ministers say not ready to give away subjects to state ministers
- FR at SC holds MR, BR, PB, Cabraal and Attygalle accountable for reserves depletion
- MS meets pro-Govt. SLFP MPs to discuss solution to issues and political solution
- Nimal and Mahinda to initiate legal action this week against removal from party posts
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe seems to be faced with continuous obstacles in his attempts to bring about political stability in the country, which is a prerequisite for the much-anticipated bridge financing to enter Sri Lanka.
The Prime Minister and President Gotabaya Rajapaksa have been engaged in a tug-of-war situation since Wickremesinghe assumed office last month. Among the clashes between President Rajapaksa and the Prime Minister are the appointment of Cabinet ministers, Wickremesinghe’s appointment as Finance Minister with all financial institutions including the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) under his purview, and the finalising of the list of state ministers, with the latest now being the post of governor of the CBSL.
It is reliably learnt that Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is pushing for the appointment of a new governor to the CBSL once incumbent Governor Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe’s appointment comes up for renewal at the end of the month. While the Prime Minister had emphasised the need for a CBSL governor who can see through the required reforms to secure International Monetary Fund (IMF) assistance, the President had noted that Dr. Weerasinghe should be allowed to continue in the post since he has performed well since assuming the role. However, Wickremesinghe had in turn explained that the actions taken so far are not sufficient to address the unprecedented crisis faced by the country. “Hard decisions need to be made and they need to be seen through. They will not be popular decisions and won’t be easy,” the Premier had noted.
These exchanges have taken place between Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and President Rajapaksa through several intermediaries, with no final decision being reached on the matter yet. The CBSL however remains a subject under Wickremesinghe’s Finance portfolio.
The Premier’s challenges have been further compounded by the pro-Basil Rajapaksa faction in the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP). The first clash between Wickremesinghe and the pro-Basil group took place last month during the election of the deputy speaker to Parliament. This clash has now extended to the Government’s proposed 21st Amendment to the Constitution, with the Basil loyalists engaged in an operation to block the piece of legislation.
The Government’s proposed 21st Amendment is to be taken up for discussion by the Cabinet of Ministers tomorrow (6), but will not be presented to Parliament this week as planned earlier. The reason for the delay in presenting it to Parliament is Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s decision to await the ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) on the case filed against the draft 21st Amendment Bill presented by the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB). Several issues being pushed by the Opposition, like preventing the President from holding a portfolio and several others, are being challenged in the Supreme Court case and the Court verdict therefore could help the Government decide on its inclusion or non-inclusion in the Government’s draft bill.
While the potholed path to political stability continues to pose a challenge to the Wickremesinghe Government, the looming food crisis has now outdone the shortages of LP Gas, fuel and other commodities in the market.
It is unfortunate that a majority of the country’s politicians, both in Government and Opposition, have failed to comprehend the level of the crisis and its impact on the nation and its people.
The World Bank in 2019 upgraded Sri Lanka to an upper middle income earning country. But in 2020, Sri Lanka was downgraded to a lower middle income earning country. In a sad turn of events, two years after being listed as an upper middle income country, Sri Lanka is now turning to foreign countries with a begging bowl, seeking assistance.
FR for accountability
Last Friday (3) saw a step being taken towards accountability for the unprecedented crisis faced by the country when a group of three university professors, including the Acting Vice Chancellor of the Open University, filed a Fundamental Rights (FR) petition before the Supreme Court over the depletion of Sri Lanka’s dollar reserves.
The petition was filed by Prof. Neavis Morais, Dr. Athulasiri Kumara Samarakoon, and Dr. Mahim Mendis on behalf of the SJB’s think tank. The petitioners have named former Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, former Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa, former Presidential Secretary Dr. P.B. Jayasundera, former CBSL Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal, former Treasury Secretary S.R. Attygalle, former CBSL Governor Prof. W.D. Lakshman, the Attorney General, and several other ministers and members of Parliament as respondents. A total of 39 persons have been named as respondents.
The petitioners have stated that they are aggrieved by the significant economic hardship faced thereby, and by the citizens of the Republic, including (1) high levels of inflation, (2) the non-availability of vital resources, goods, commodities and other essential items, including fuel, Liquefied Petroleum Gas, medicine and food, and (3) the dearth of foreign currency, all of which arose consequent to the mismanagement of the economy of the Republic by several of the respondents to this application.
Further, the petitioners have noted that several respondents mentioned in the petition, in their official capacities, have neglected and willfully caused damage to the CBSL, which in turn has cost the citizens of Sri Lanka at large.
The petitioners have sought the Court to direct the respondents to conduct audits, and grant interim orders to prevent them from alienating assets, along with any other further relief.
Ministerial chaos
Amidst the worsening economic crisis, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is faced with yet another Herculean task – that of completing the appointment of his Government.
The appointment of state ministers has now been postponed indefinitely, with many members of the ruling party as well as other coalition parties that had expressed support to the Wickremesinghe Government being left in the lurch.
Several reasons have contributed to this delay. The issues range from the continuing clashes within the SLPP MPs for portfolios and the unwillingness of some Cabinet ministers to share institutions under them with state ministers. Several Cabinet ministers have informed the President and Prime Minister that they need to have all institutions related to their subjects under their purview without some being allocated to another state minister in order to ensure that the work is carried out without any delays.
President Rajapaksa has therefore decided to appoint some SLPP MPs as deputy ministers instead of state ministers. However, this move has also been met with resistance on the SLPP side.
Given the growing clashes within the SLPP ranks over ministerial portfolios and the President’s inability to resolve the issues and finalise the list of appointees, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe decided to delay the appointment of state ministers until the proposed 21st Amendment to the Constitution is put to the vote in Parliament. It is evident that Wickremesinghe is looking at dangling the ministerial portfolios before the SLPP MPs to ensure their support for the proposed piece of legislation.
The Prime Minister has meanwhile informed MPs from other parties who were also to be appointed to ministerial portfolios to be patient and that everything would be fine once the 21st Amendment was implemented.
However, a majority of the MPs seated in Opposition who were considering joining the Government have now changed their minds due to what they see as the Prime Minister’s inability to even get his Government in order.
Abolition agenda
It seems like the Premier is trying to please everyone on the political stage by presenting proposals that he believes will address the issues being raised by the Opposition and the public.
This was evident in Wickremesinghe’s address to the nation last week. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, making a special statement last Sunday (29 May), noted that while working to introduce the 21st Amendment as a move to re-enact the 19th Amendment, work would also move ahead on the abolition of the Executive Presidency. He claimed that the timing and methodology would have to be decided by the party leaders.
“The functioning of Parliament has been paralysed due to the weakening of Parliamentary powers by the 20th Amendment. The Executive has been given more powers. The main allegation today is that Parliament has not acted to prevent the economic crisis. There is an allegation that even though the ruling party had a majority in Parliament, it neglected the work of the Parliament. Everything was systematically controlled by the Cabinet,” he said.
He emphasised on the need to change the structure of Parliament and create a new system by combining the existing system of Parliament or the Westminster system and the system of state councils, which would enable Parliament to engage in governing the country.
Existing laws need to be strengthened in order to create the path for Parliament to get involved in governing. Wickremesinghe said that apart from the three existing parliamentary committees on State finance, the Government was looking at introducing two new committees on monetary affairs. “A legal and methodological committee will be appointed to look into the matter. Under Standing Order 111, we can appoint oversight committees. We propose to appoint 10 oversight committees that will report to Parliament on policies that Parliament will have to act on,” the Prime Minister explained.
He went on to say that the chairpersons of the five finance committees and 10 oversight (supervisory) committees would be appointed by backbenchers and not ministers. “I propose to appoint four youth representatives to each of these 15 committees. One of them will be appointed by the Youth Parliament. The other three will be from the protesting groups and other activist groups. The methodology used to choose these individuals can be decided by the youth organisations themselves,” the Premier added.
Another key point focused by the Prime Minister was the appointment of a National Council consisting of the Speaker of Parliament, the Prime Minister, the Opposition Leader, and leaders of the major parties. This National Council will be vested with the powers to summon the Cabinet and chairpersons of committees. “The new proposed system will hold the President and Cabinet accountable to Parliament,” Wickremesinghe added.
However, the abolition of the Executive Presidency has wide support in the parliamentary Opposition, with more and more members of the governing party also beginning to express their support for the move.
A leader of the group of 10 (G-10) governing alliance parties, Vasudeva Nanayakkara has said that there would be no issue in President Rajapaksa stepping down from the post after the proposed 21st Amendment was implemented. He has explained that former Minister Basil Rajapaksa will not be able to carry out his intended political plans once the dual citizenship clause is repealed by the 21st Amendment.
Delaying tactics
The governing SLPP parliamentary group last Thursday (2) participated in a workshop that was organised by the Prime Minister on the proposed 21st Amendment in Parliament. Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe was the main speaker at the event.
The meeting however got off to a rocky start, with Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) General Secretary Dayasiri Jayasekara and SLFP MP Lasantha Alagiyawanna walking out. This incident had taken place when SLFP defector, MP Suren Raghavan had posed a question asking whether the meeting was a Government group meeting or whether it was open for all parliamentarians. Raghavan’s statement had been aimed at the members of the SLFP who had attended the meeting since the group had declared independence from the Government in Parliament.
Jayasekara and Alagiyawanna had immediately stood up to leave, saying they did not need to attend such a meeting. SLPP MPs Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Dolawatte and the Justice Minister had intervened to convince Jayasekara and Alagiyawanna not to leave the meeting. Minister Rajapakshe had said that the meeting was on the 21st Amendment and any MP was welcome to attend.
Jayasekara, after returning to the meeting, had reprimanded Raghavan for his behaviour and a short while later several other SLFP MPs had also attended the meeting.
Several SLPP MPs like Aluthgamage and Dolawatte had posed several questions on the content of the 21st Amendment and emphasised on the need for the inclusion of the clauses that enable the president to remove the prime minister and for the president to hold ministerial portfolios.
When the issue of the removal of the dual citizenship clause that was included in the 20th Amendment had been taken up, the Justice Minister had noted that it was a proposal by the SLPP defectors who were functioning independently in Parliament. Rajapakshe had added that the issue of repealing the dual citizenship clause could be done with a simple majority in Parliament.
The Justice Minister had also noted that the abolition of the Executive Presidency could not be carried out at present and that the proposed piece of legislation could also not include a clause preventing the president from holding a portfolio.
Leader of the House, Minister Dinesh Gunawardena had posed a question on how the opposition leader would be appointed in the House. His question had been whether the opposition leader would be the leader of the party that held the most number of seats in the Opposition or whether it would be the MP who had the support of a majority of the MPs. Gunawardena had noted that there needed to be a clause included in the 21st Amendment to cover this area.
Leaders reach consensus
The party leaders’ meeting to finalise the proposed 21st Amendment got underway at the Prime Minister’s Office on Friday (3).
Before the meeting got underway, there had been some chaos over the seating arrangements, where Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP M.A. Sumanthiran had to take a seat behind the party leaders. SLFP’s Dayasiri Jayasekara, seeing Sumanthiran seated behind, had noted that he was a party leader and he needed to be given a seat at the front. Jayasekara had also offered his seat to Sumanthiran. However Sumanthiran, when asked why he was seated in the back and upon being offered a seat at the front, had said that only party leaders were seated at the table.
Finally when the discussion commenced on the 21st Amendment, Justice Minister Rajapakshe had noted that there were three issues to be discussed and decided following the previous party leaders’ meeting. The three areas of concern were the president holding a portfolio, the president’s power to remove the prime minister, and the mechanism on the appointment of the cabinet of ministers and their subject allocations.
Sumanthiran had then asked why the meeting was taking place since the SJB already has a proposed 21st Amendment that has been presented to Parliament and gazetted. He had noted that it was easier to proceed with the SJB’s 21st Amendment and pushed for it to be proceeded with. MPs Ranjith Madduma Bandara and Eran Wickramaratne who represented the SJB had also agreed with Sumanthiran. However, the Justice Minister had said the amendment was being challenged before the SC and nothing could be done until the SC determination was known.
MP Dilan Perera had noted that he was confused since an agreement had been reached at the previous meeting to re-enact the 19th Amendment first and push the abolition of the Executive Presidency afterwards. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe had also noted that there was an agreement reached by party leaders that the country could not face a referendum under the current circumstances.
Ministers Dinesh Gunawardena and G.L. Peiris, representing the ruling SLPP, had at this juncture handed over the SLPP’s amendments and left the meeting. Sumanthiran had then asked Wickremesinghe to give his stance on the 21st Amendment to the gathering.
Jayasekara had noted that the Prime Minister could not speak for the ruling party since he was seen as an apolitical leader at the present time holding one seat in the House. MP Rishad Bathiudeen had also spoken, saying that the party leaders were at the respective meeting discussing a constitutional amendment because of the ‘Aragalaya’ and that the proposed amendment should provide responses to that. The TNA and SJB representatives had also noted that abolishing the Executive Presidency could be done in a month or so and not immediately.
However, a majority of the participants at the meeting had noted that the abolition agenda could be secondary as priority needed to be given to repealing the 20th Amendment and re-enacting the 19th Amendment.
On the appointment of ministers and subjects, the Prime Minister had noted that it could be stated that the allocations would be done on the advice of the prime minister from the next Parliament since the ruling party would object to its immediate implementation. Wickremesinghe had noted that a proviso could be added that ministers would immediately be appointed in consultation with the Prime Minister.
The discussion on the appointment of ministers had also been taken up by Ceylon Workers’ Congress (CWC) Leader Senthil Thondaman.
As for the president’s power to remove the prime minister, it had been agreed that in the current scenario, the President could remove the Premier only if Parliament did not have confidence in the Prime Minister. Once again, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe had noted that the SLPP MPs were concerned about the current scenario and that they could not object if Parliament was given the power along with the President to remove the Premier. However, the president will not have the power to remove the prime minister from the next Parliament.
The next to be taken up had been the issue of the President’s ability to hold portfolios. Thondaman had asked whether the Court would question the President’s role if he was not allowed to hold a portfolio. He had noted that the President would only be a ceremonial figure. After discussion on the matter, it had also been agreed that the President would retain the Defence portfolio as stipulated in Article 4 of the Constitution.
However, the Prime Minister had said that it would be better to see the SC determination on the SJB’s proposed 21st Amendment Bill as the issue was being challenged before Court.
On the issue of repealing the dual citizenship clause, the recommendations received so far have not included anything on the dual citizenship issue.
Finally a general consensus had been reached on an amended draft 21st Amendment, except the clause on the president holding a portfolio, which will be decided after the SC determination is known.
Split in SLPP
Meanwhile, cracks within the ruling party that started to appear since the onset of the current political crisis are beginning to further intensify with the introduction of the 21st Amendment to revert to the 19th Amendment status quo.
A majority of SLPP MPs have started to express their sentiments against the Rajapaksa family and the 20th Amendment to the Constitution that was aimed at empowering the family.
Several electoral organisers who were called for meetings with Basil and his loyalists have expressed difficulty in building a campaign against the 21st Amendment, especially the removal of the clause on dual citizens holding public office, as a majority of the country now believed that the Rajapaksa family was responsible for the unprecedented economic crisis.
Basil’s failure to address the economic crisis during its early onset and allowing it to snowball into a catastrophe under his watch as Finance Minister has become a main issue faced by the ruling SLPP members when engaging with the people in their constituencies.
The split in the SLPP over the 21st Amendment was further exacerbated last week when senior SLPP MP, former Minister Dullas Alahapperuma took to social media to post a statement publicly expressing his support for the proposed new piece of legislation.
“Sri Lanka’s progress was held back by constitutional amendments passed with individual and political interests in mind. The proposed amendment is a good start to overcome the shortcomings of that sordid past. All parties must support the 21st Amendment to restore public faith and to boost economic recovery,” Alahapperuma posted on Twitter.
Alahapperuma’s stance sent a clear message to many SLPP MPs who have been contemplating functioning independently in Parliament and he (Alahapperuma) is now giving leadership to a group in the ruling party to take a stand against the Rajapaksa family.
This has further complicated matters for Basil Rajapaksa and his loyalists who are engaged in an anti-21A campaign.
Majority backs 21A
Amidst the split in the ruling party over the 21st Amendment, President Rajapaksa convened a meeting of the governing parliamentary group at the President’s House last Monday (30 May) evening soon after the Cabinet meeting.
The meeting had been chaired by the President and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and Ministers Harin Fernando and Manusha Nanayakkara, who recently defected to the Government from the Opposition, and the two SLFP Ministers, Nimal Siripala de Silva and Mahinda Amaraweera, had also attended the meeting. Former Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and former Ministers Basil Rajapaksa and Namal Rajapaksa had also participated in the meeting.
During the meeting several SLPP MPs had expressed their objections to the 21st Amendment over the slashing of powers vested with the Executive President. The most critical comments about the piece of legislation had been made by former Minister Sarath Weerasekera. According to Weerasekera, the proposed legislation has betrayed the mandate received by the President at the last Presidential Election. He had further noted that he (Weerasekera) had voted against the 19th Amendment at the time and would also vote against the proposed 21st Amendment aimed at slashing the President’s powers and reverting to the 19th Amendment.
Objections to the 21st Amendment had also been raised by MPs Dilum Amunugama, Diana Gamage, Prasanna Ranaweera, and Chinthaka Mayadunne. Some of them had noted that the Prime Minister and the Government should first look at addressing the economic crisis and providing relief to the people before focusing on constitutional amendments.
Nevertheless, President Rajapaksa had noted that he did not have any objections to the proposed piece of legislation and that he believed that returning to the 19th Amendment status quo was needed at the moment in order to overcome the burgeoning crisis. He had also noted that the Executive Presidency could not be abolished in a hurry as it required a referendum.
Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, Justice Minister Rajapakshe, and governing party MP Prof. Charitha Herath had spoken in favour of the 21st Amendment and the need for the legislation at the current time.
Herath had explained that it was important to understand whether the country’s economic crisis and political crisis were interconnected or whether they were two different issues, and it was only then that a decision could be made on whether to address both issues at once or separately. “I believe that the economic crisis is interconnected to the political crisis. Therefore, the constitutional amendments should take place while simultaneously addressing the economic crisis,” he told the media.
The Premier had also explained the current economic situation and the continuing disaster situation to the governing party parliamentary group. He had noted that the country would face a food crisis for about nine months and that it could even increase to one year due to the food shortage caused by the war in Ukraine. Wickremesinghe had noted that the Ukraine war would create a situation where one would not be able to purchase food commodities even if they had the required monies.
He had added that the rupee was expected to further depreciate in the coming weeks and there was a possibility that it would touch Rs. 450 to the dollar. The reason explained by the Prime Minister was the shortage of rupees required for State expenditure, including salaries, pensions, and other welfare payments, which would require the printing of money as a result.
Harin Fernando addressing the meeting had said that he had left his party in order to join the Government and did not have a political party at the moment. He had noted that everyone needed to heed the calls of the general public and proposed that the SLPP MPs unite to engage in a balanced approach to resolve the ongoing crisis.
However, it had been noticed that a majority of the MPs who attended the meeting had opted to remain silent when discussing the 21st Amendment.
Basil intensifies op
Basil loyalists meanwhile decided to intensify their operation to garner support among the SLPP members, especially the parliamentarians, to oppose the proposed 21st Amendment.
Since several meetings held by Basil and his group the previous week to lobby against the 21st Amendment had not received the anticipated response, the group had decided to make personal visits to SLPP MPs as well as MPs representing coalition partners. While two teams had been formed to make personal visits to MPs, the main team consisted of SLPP General Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam, Sanjeewa Edirimanna, and Jayantha Ketagoda.
These groups had visited several SLPP MPs whom they believed could influence several others and requested them to reconsider their support for the 21st Amendment while making a special appeal to stand against the removal of the clause enabling dual citizens from holding public office.
The pro-Basil group has now prepared a common presentation to place before the SLPP MPs following several discussions among the group. The main line of the presentation finalised by Basil and his group is that, despite the assurance of empowering Parliament, the proposed piece of legislation was only aimed at empowering Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. “The 21st Amendment goes beyond the 19th Amendment on this aspect,” the Basil loyalists had discussed.
The group had also noted that the 19th Amendment to Constitution had given powers to the president to remove the prime minister, which was used by former President Maithripala Sirisena to remove then Prime Minister Wickremesinghe during the Yahapalana Government. This clause has been removed in the new piece of legislation, including the powers vested with the president to remove ministers, which was also included in the 19th Amendment. “The current move is not to empower Parliament but to empower the Prime Minister,” the group discussed.
“We believe that the current mandate is to further strengthen the Executive and not to make it weak and definitely not to give powers to a person who was defeated at elections,” was the line of the strategy planned by the group.
Plan to piggyback
Given the difficulties faced in convincing the ruling SLPP members to build an anti-21st Amendment campaign, the pro-Basil group had then turned to the option of piggybacking on the main Opposition SJB’s sentiments against the proposed legislation.
They were of the opinion that the continuous objections raised by SJB leaders, including Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, could also help in eventually convincing the SLPP members as well. It was their belief that the SJB statements would give more weight to the issues raised by them. Although it would not support the dual citizenship issue, the group believed that the overall blocking of the 21st Amendment would anyway allow the 20th Amendment to continue and Basil would be able to engage in active politics.
It is unfortunate that the legitimate concerns raised by the main Opposition regarding the 21st Amendment will eventually be used by the Rajapaksa clan to block the legislation – for their own personal political motives. The SJB will therefore need to look at a smarter way of engaging with its campaign without falling prey to Basil and his group.
However, the SJB also claimed last week that the party would support the 21st Amendment on the condition that the Government included the party’s proposed amendments in it. Former MP Ajith P. Perera had noted that the Government needed to give an undertaking that the Executive Presidency would be abolished within a certain stipulated time frame. He had also noted that the SJB believed that Parliament should be given the right to dissolve itself through a resolution without the power of dissolution being vested with the president. He further noted that the president should not be allowed to hold any portfolios.
The SJB proposals have already been sent to the Justice Minister.
The JVP-led National People’s Power (NPP) has also expressed sentiments against the 21st Amendment, with its leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake saying that a person who had become Prime Minister purely by chance could not be vested with Executive powers.
The common sentiment expressed by the SJB and NPP is that the Executive President will be replaced by an Executive Prime Minister. “The President has been elected to office by a majority of the country while the Prime Minister has been rejected by the people as well as his own party. How will empowering such an individual help build political stability and democracy?”
The anti-21A campaign has also taken a swipe at the President. The question posed is whether the President had asked Parliament if Wickremesinghe had the majority in Parliament instead of appointing him according to his whim. President Rajapaksa is accused of unilaterally appointing Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister and it has been decided to refer to the President as a ‘failed’ leader. “Is the ‘Aragalaya’ aimed at giving Executive powers to a failed Prime Minister appointed by a failed President?” the final question asked.
SLFP to support 21A
Meanwhile, SLFP Leader Sirisena last week in a letter to Justice Minister Rajapakshe informed that the SLFP would fully support the 21st Amendment and attached several proposals from the SLFP to be considered when finalising the proposed piece of legislation.
The proposals were first presented to the Government during the 27 May parliamentary party leaders’ meeting that discussed the 21st Amendment, including new proposals to be included in them. They were presented by SLFP member, President’s Counsel Faiszer Musthapha.
The SLFP’s support to the Government is indicative that the party leadership does not harbour any ill will towards Prime Minister Wickremesinghe or his Government after several party members were appointed to ministerial portfolios. However, the SLFP continues to maintain that the current Government is not an all-party one but consists of members representing parties in Parliament.
SLFP General Secretary Dayasiri Jayasekara had noted that this was in line with the usual Rajapaksa governance style. He had noted that it was sufficient to have around 15 ministers in a government of this nature without looking at expanding the number of portfolios to include around 50 members.
It is in such a backdrop that the party leadership had decided to hold a discussion with a cross section of party members to further discuss the issue of joining the Government.
SLFP discusses Govt.
The politburo of the SLFP met last Tuesday (31 May) at the Party Headquarters under the patronage of Party Leader Sirisena. Several members who are not members of the politburo had also been asked to attend Tuesday’s meeting. The special invitees to the meeting had included several members of the Central Committee (CC) and electoral organisers. However, Ministers de Silva and Amaraweera had not been informed of the meeting.
The meeting, which had lasted for nearly three hours, had concluded without any decision being reached on whether the party should join the Government or act against the two members who had accepted portfolios.
At the outset of the meeting, Sirisena had noted that it was an informal discussion to ascertain the sentiments of the ongoing political crisis and was not a meeting of either the CC or the politburo.
While discussing the country’s political situation, the two Ministers had also been taken up for discussion. While one group had opined that action needed to be taken against de Silva and Amaraweera, several others had expressed opinions on not initiating any action against the two party seniors, given that the party has already extended its support to the Government.
Several members including MP Shan Wijayalal de Silva had explained that the SLFP needed to ensure that there was discipline in the party and noted examples of disciplinary action taken by former Party Leaders, including that of late Sirimavo Bandaranaike even suspending her family members from the party when they had violated party decisions. Shan Wijayalal had noted that since the party had acted against MPs Shantha Bandara and Suren Raghavan when they had accepted ministerial portfolios, the same should be applied to de Silva and Amaraweera as well.
Another participant, who was not an MP, had noted that he had been offered a ministerial portfolio if he got the support of eight SLFP MPs for the Government. This statement had been viewed with humour by many, who had asked how the respective individual was to be appointed as a minister since he was not an MP.
Former MP Weerakumara Dissanayake had noted that the SLFP needed to understand the situation at the grassroots since it was not properly reflected at the meetings of the party’s decision-making bodies. He had noted that the party needed to focus on reaching a middle ground.
However, Prof. Rohana Lakshman Piyadasa and several others had noted that while the party should reach a middle ground on the issue of joining the Government, it should not be done at the cost of compromising on the party’s discipline. Piyadasa had explained that the party had reached a decision that it would extend support to the Government and not join it and that both de Silva and Amaraweera had violated it.
Duminda Dissanayake had then noted that the letter sent by the SLFP in response to Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s letter requesting the party’s support to the Government and to join it had clearly expressed the party’s intention of joining the Government. He had explained that the last paragraph of the letter had requested the Prime Minister for an appointment to discuss the accepting of portfolios in the Government. “This line is a clear indication of the party’s intention to join the Government,” he had added.
Several senior SLFP members at the meeting had responded to Dissanayake’s point, saying that it was true and that they had been unaware of such a commitment made by the party.
Jayasekara had then said that the letter sent to Wickremesinghe was not drafted by him and that it was handled by the party leadership, pointing directly at Sirisena, who had remained silent at the time. Jayasekara had also noted that had he drafted the letter, he would not have included the last part and would have limited the letter to congratulating Wickremesinghe and his Government and expressing the SLFP’s support for positive decisions in Parliament.
Realising that the heat was fast moving towards Sirisena, several party seniors had said there was no point in arguing about a letter now and that the party should focus instead on its stance on whether it should join the Government or act against the two party seniors who had accepted ministerial portfolios.
Nevertheless, hours after discussing the issues, the meeting had concluded without a decision being reached.
Turning to litigation
The day after the meeting with party seniors, Sirisena on Wednesday (1) issued a statement saying party members who had accepted portfolios in the Government in violation of the SLFP CC decision would be removed from all posts held by them in the party.
Sirisena noted in the statement that the party’s CC had decided to support the Government while seated in Opposition without joining the Government.
However, the SLFP leadership has not made it clear whether the members who join the Government will also lose their party membership. It is learnt that Sirisena had decided to only remove the errant members from their party positions and not to suspend their party membership.
As soon as Sirisena issued the statement, the group of SLFP MPs looking at joining the Government had discussed the next course of action with de Silva and Amaraweera and it had been decided to challenge the decision of the party leadership before Court.
Sirisena last Friday (3) also met with pro-Government SLFP MPs to discuss a solution to the split in the party’s parliamentary group as well as the political stance required to be taken by the party at the current moment.
While several ideas had been discussed at the meeting, a final decision will only be made this week.