Leaders of six Tamil and Muslim political parties – which recently formed a ‘common platform’ to advocate for the shared issues faced by Tamil-speaking people in Sri Lanka – met jointly for the first time with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake last Monday (3) for approximately two hours of discussions.
Representing the Tamils of the north and east, hill-country Tamils, and Muslims, these parties – the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK), Democratic Tamil National Alliance (DTNA), Ceylon Workers’ Congress (CWC), Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), and All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) – had previously detailed their primary demands at a press conference held in Colombo in mid-July.
Meeting with the President
The key demands of these parties include formulating a new constitution that ensures maximum devolution of power, expeditiously holding Provincial Council (PC) Elections, and finding a fair and lasting solution to land issues affecting all three communities.
During the meeting, President Dissanayake outlined the position of his National People’s Power (NPP) Government regarding these three demands.
The President stated that the process to bring about a new constitution would begin soon and that steps would be taken to hold PC Elections once the decision of the Parliamentary Select Committee investigating the electoral method was received.
He further noted that there was no change in the Government’s policy position regarding the release of privately owned lands belonging to Tamil people in the north and east. He added that there were certain security-related considerations regarding lands currently held by the military and that a final decision would be made after receiving a report from the armed forces.
Regarding the land issues faced by hill-country Tamils, Dissanayake mentioned existing complications, noting that plantation management companies maintained a rigid stance on the matter.
Following their meeting with the President, the leaders of the Tamil-speaking parties spoke to journalists outside the Presidential Secretariat.
Undoubtedly, the President’s responses to their concerns fell short of offering full satisfaction. It appears that attending the meeting was hardly necessary to obtain those specific answers from the President, as the Government’s stance on these matters was already widely known.
The meeting between the six parties and the President clearly demonstrates one thing: whether regarding common issues or specific concerns facing Tamil-speaking communities, the NPP Government is not prepared to adopt an approach significantly different from previous administrations.
Meeting with the Indian HC
On Tuesday (4) evening, the day after meeting the President, the leaders of these Tamil-speaking parties met with Indian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka Santosh Jha. It is reliably understood that the leaders had explained President Dissanayake’s responses regarding their three core demands to the High Commissioner.
Having listened to their views, Jha had noted that India had consistently urged the Sri Lankan Government on various occasions regarding all these matters, including the swift conduct of Provincial Council Elections. He had added that Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri would reiterate these points during high-level discussions with the Government.
Regarding the creation of a new constitution, the Indian High Commissioner had reportedly asked the Tamil-speaking political leaders whether they intended to completely abandon the current Constitution and start again from scratch.
In response, the leaders had clarified that when they spoke of a new constitution, they were advocating for greater devolution of power than what currently existed under the present framework.
The High Commissioner had advised them to proceed with great caution on this matter, noting that after covering half the distance towards a goal, discarding that progress to return to the starting point would not be a prudent strategy.
“Having covered half the distance,” as stated by Jha, could mean nothing other than the Provincial Councils, which are currently the sole power-sharing mechanism existing in Sri Lanka’s Constitution.
The High Commissioner seems to have conveyed to the Tamil-speaking parties – which expect greater power sharing under a new constitution than what currently exists – the necessity of protecting the PC system, signalling that abandoning it in pursuit of greater power-sharing arrangements is not prudent.
Government leaders have been stating that the PC system will remain until a new constitution is introduced. However, there is no guarantee that even the powers currently under the 13th Amendment will be incorporated into a new constitution, or that Provincial Councils will continue to serve as the unit of power sharing. Therefore, Tamil-speaking politicians must understand that discussing further power sharing without safeguarding the Provincial Councils is meaningless. This remains India’s expectation.
Meanwhile, these Tamil-speaking parties did not meet collectively with Indian Foreign Secretary Misri during his visit to Colombo last Wednesday (5). Notably, the northeastern Tamil parties, hill-country Tamil parties, and Muslim parties met him separately.
It was the High Commission of India that organised these meetings with Misri. It appears that the leaders of the six parties did not request a joint meeting with the Foreign Secretary.
Doubt regarding constitutional amendment
It appears that the NPP Government remains steadfast in advancing its plan to increase the retirement age of superior court judges, completely disregarding the strong opposition from the legal community and Opposition parties.
Reports published over the weekend, citing a high-ranking Government source, indicated that the proposed constitutional amendment bill was likely to be tabled in Parliament early next month, once approval was secured from the Attorney General. Proposals detailing the provisions to be included in the proposed amendment have already been forwarded to the Legal Draftsman’s Department.
Once the amendment bill is placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, it can be challenged in the Supreme Court. The high-ranking source expressed confidence that after obtaining the Supreme Court’s determination, the bill could be passed in Parliament and these processes could be completed before the budget is presented in November.
Under the proposed amendment, the retirement age of Supreme Court judges will be increased from 65 to 67 and that of Court of Appeal judges will be increased from 63 to 65. Additionally, the service period for other judges will also be extended by two years.
Furthermore, it has been revealed that the proposed amendment contains a provision limiting the maximum tenure of the chief justice to six years. This means that even if a serving chief justice has not reached the retirement age, they must retire once they complete six years in office.
Looking at all this information collectively, it becomes evident that the Government’s objective is not merely to increase the retirement age of superior court judges by two years, but also to introduce several other structural changes within the Judiciary.
At a time when Government leaders, including President Dissanayake and Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya, have been stating that efforts to introduce a new constitution will begin soon – which would provide an opportunity to implement judicial reforms comprehensively – the Government’s haste in pushing through certain reforms via a piecemeal amendment naturally raises suspicion.
Sajith’s demand to abolish executive presidency
Amidst strong criticism from legal bodies, Opposition parties, and civil society organisations condemning the NPP Government’s plan to introduce a constitutional amendment raising the retirement age of Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judges as a blatant attempt to interfere with judicial independence, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has demanded that the Government step forward to completely abolish the executive presidency.
Speaking to the media, he stated that rather than interfering with the independence of the courts – which serve as pillars of democracy – the executive presidency should be abolished to strengthen democracy, highlighting the creation of a new constitution as the current need.
Demands to abolish the executive presidency have been raised ever since the system was first introduced. Much like President Dissanayake, Premadasa also pledged to abolish the system in his 2024 Presidential Election manifesto. Although the Opposition Leader frequently criticises the NPP Government on various issues, he rarely directs heavy criticism towards the subject of abolishing the executive presidential system. His current demand comes in the wake of allegations that the Government is attempting to interfere with the Judiciary.
Dissanayake, Leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the NPP – which have never supported the executive presidency – has been in office as Sri Lanka’s ninth Executive President for around two years. None of those who have held the office so far demonstrated genuine interest in abolishing it. It is well known that some even introduced constitutional amendments to further expand the powers vested in the presidency.
While it may be premature to claim that the incumbent President will follow suit and fail to fulfil this promise – given that three years still remain in his term – the changing political landscape amidst escalating issues naturally raises the question of whether he will be able to accomplish it.
Past governments that possessed a two-thirds majority in Parliament lacked the desire to abolish the executive presidency, whereas governments that wished to abolish it lacked the required two-thirds majority. However, the NPP Government holds well over a two-thirds majority in Parliament. If this Government fails to abolish the presidential system, no future government may ever be able to do so.
The executive presidency is set to complete half a century in two years. Will the Government initiate the drafting process for a new constitution in time to facilitate the abolition of this system before that milestone arrives?
(The writer is a senior journalist based in Colombo)
(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication)