• Counters TNA’s grouse about Tamil representation being blocked
• Says CC’s independence compromised if nomination on ethnicity or race

Responding to the allegations by the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) that a Tamil representative was not permitted to be nominated to the Constitutional Council (CC) by some MPs who had crossed over to the Opposition from the Government, Uththara Lanka Council Member, Pivithuru Hela Urumaya Leader, and Opposition MP Udaya Gammanpila said that if a nomination is being made to the CC along racial lines, or on an ethnic basis, then the very objective of the CC being independent is destroyed.

When queried on the TNA’s allegations that Tamil representation is being blocked with regard to the CC, Gammanpila, speaking to The Morning said: “We have responded to their racial remarks. There is no Tamil representation. The CC’s prime objective is to appoint independent commissions. Commissions will not be independent if members are appointed to represent a particular group of the society be it a religion, race, or political party.”

He said that there cannot be independent commission members to represent a particular part of the society. 

“Every single member should represent the entire nation. Otherwise, these commissions would never be independent. There is no constitutional requirement that the representatives of the minor parties must be Tamil persons. It could be a Tamil, Sinhalese, or Muslim person. It doesn’t matter, as long as that person commands the confidence of the majority of the minor parties’ MPs. Our concern is that we have no issue in accepting MP Dharmalingam Siddarthan as our nominee, as long as he represents our aspirations. Unfortunately, he has no capacity to do so, because the TNA in the recent past has acted in a biased manner towards the Government.” 

He further said that the TNA had decided to abstain from voting on Budget 2023 because the Government has decided to discuss the devolution package with them. 

“The vote on the Budget should be based on its merits; not anything else. It shows that they are ready to use any bargaining power to influence the Government for a devolution package. We are not nominating a person to represent the minor parties’ view to support the Government. Our nominee at the CC should not be there to support the Government just because the Government is pro-devolution. They should support the Government nominees for the CC based on the merits of those nominations, and not because the Government is willing to accede to devolution of power.” 

Gammanpila said that the biased, irrational conduct of the TNA MPs in Parliament does not warrant the extension of support towards them. 

“We have a very rational basis to not compromise with the TNA, but we are ready to consider a mutually acceptable member or to share the term. There is no point in convening the meeting again, because the Constitution says that we should nominate the candidate by agreement. Due to these reasons, we can never reach an agreement to nominate a TNA nominee because of their conduct and attitude,” he added. 

When queried as to whether he would opt out to support a minority representative on the basis of reconciliation, he said: “If this is about reconciliation, we should forget the concept of independent commissions. We can engage in reconciliation anywhere else, but not with independent commissions, because if we operate along racial and ethnic lines, those are not going to be independent.”

According to Gammanpila, 35 MPs supported his nomination to the CC, while 13 MPs supported the nomination of Siddarthan. 

“Both parties were not willing to withdraw their nominations. According to the Constitution, we should choose the nominee by agreement or by consensus, but we failed to reach a consensus. We were looking for some sort of a compromise but so far we failed to reach one. There are two alternative ways of resolving this issue. One is dividing the term between two nominees. The term is three years, so it would be divided by one and a half years each, while the other is choosing a person agreeable to both the parties,” he said.

Of the 35 MPs that supported Gammanpila, 13 MPs were from the Uththara Lanka Council, 13 from the Nidahas Janatha Council, five from the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, and four from the group led by Opposition MP Anura Priyadarshana Yapa. 

Meanwhile, TNA Spokesman, MP and President’s Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran expressed dissatisfaction claiming that a Tamil representative was not permitted to be nominated to the CC by some MPs who had crossed over to the Opposition from the Government. 

“I nominated Siddarthan’s name at the last meeting, but some MPs who have crossed over from the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) to the Opposition were present at the meeting when they shouldn’t have been, as they don’t belong to the Opposition since they were elected on the SLPP ticket. They nominated Gammanpila. I objected to their participation at the meeting. This is supposed to be the group that is not the Government’s or from the party to which the Opposition Leader belongs,” he added.