Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne is expected to communicate the Supreme Court (SC) determination on the 22nd Constitutional Amendment (22A) Bill to Parliament shortly. All signs are that it will come as no surprise to legal experts and the discerning public. The process of hearing scores of petitions against 22A came under intense global scrutiny, with the impending SC determination arousing much interest among international jurists. It will be interesting to see their reaction when the determination is made public.
The Opposition is planning a protest against 22A near Parliament. It is now shifting the battle against 22A from the legal front to the political front. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has already embarked on a campaign to drum up support for his government as well as 22A. Propaganda war between the government and the Opposition is getting down and dirty, with reputations being dragged through the mud.
President Dissanayake recently created quite a stir when he revealed how he was going to turn 22A into law. Addressing an NPP rally in Kalutara, he said his government had a two-thirds majority in Parliament and could secure the passage of 22A. The Opposition lashed out at him, demanding to know how he could so confidently say that 22A would be passed with the government’s parliamentary majority alone, even before the SC determination was conveyed to the Speaker. One may recall that on a previous occasion, too, President Dissanayake drew heavy flak for making a prediction about the judgement in a case against a prominent Opposition figure.
In his Kalutara speech, the President went on to dismiss as baseless a claim in some quarters that he was planning to hold a referendum to do away with elections. Stressing that he would not do so and elections would be held, he said a referendum would divide voters into the Yes and No camps, but an election would help cause numerous splits in the Opposition, much to the advantage of the government. The subtext of his statement was that he was wary of holding a referendum.
After gazetting 22A, President Dissanayake declared that he would pull out all the stops to ensure its enactment and refused to hold stakeholder consultations, much less take dissenting views on board. The government’s position has been that there is no need for a referendum on 22A, which it says can be passed with only a two-thirds parliamentary majority. It has come under criticism from international organisations of judges and lawyers, including the International Association of Judges, LAWASIA, and the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association, with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) leading the campaign against 22A from the front.
There have been several controversial constitutional amendments that did not survive the governments that introduced them although they passed muster with the apex court and received special majorities for enactment. This is something that all governments ought to bear in mind.
In 2010, the 18th Amendment (18A) was enacted to enhance the President’s executive powers and do away with the presidential term limit for the benefit of the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Legal experts argued that 18A had to be approved by the people at a referendum, but it was passed with only a two-thirds parliamentary majority. 18A lasted only a few years. Following the 2015 regime change, 19th Amendment eviscerated 18A.
The same fate befell the 20th Amendment (20A), which was enacted by the SLPP government during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency to restore the executive powers taken away by the 19th Amendment and enable dual citizens to enter Parliament, the main beneficiary being Basil Rajapaksa. The 21st Amendment rendered 20A hollow during the SLPP government itself.
Worse, the 13th Amendment, enacted in haste, plunged the country into a bloodbath, with the JVP unleashing terror in a bid to scuttle it in the late 1980s. The JVP-NPP government has learnt little from history.
