News

On October 26, Sri Lanka's President Maithripala Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, and replaced him with former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. This sudden challenge to Sri Lanka's regime blindsided some political observers and members of the international community. To those for whom the political upheaval matters the most, however, it came as no surprise. 

Mahinda Rajapaksa was feared by political opponents, his critics and the Tamil-speaking people on the island during his ten-year reign between 2005-2015. Under his rule, activists, journalists and politicians with opposing views were harassed, intimidated, abducted and even murdered. Now that he is back, activists fear they will once again become open targets for their country's government.

Rajapaksa's brother, Gotabaya, is also expected to return to the political frontline as result of Friday's shakeup. Gotabaya Rajapaksa served as Defence Secretary during his brother's tenure as president and oversaw the massacre of tens of thousands of Tamils in 2009, at the final phases of the armed conflict between the Sri Lankan state and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the armed movement fighting for Tamil self-determination. Tamil activists are fearful that if he returns to a position of authority, he can once again encourage violent repression of dissident voices.

The Rajapaksa brothers have been plotting for a political comeback since their downfall in 2015. Tamil activists, who say they always knew Rajapaksas would one day return, are now revisiting their safety protocols, switching to secure messaging apps and sharing emergency contact details.

They speak in hushed voices as if someone is listening. They sound uneasy but also resigned to another period of repression, painfully aware of the inevitability of a crackdown that has been so regular since the establishment of the Sri Lankan state 70 years ago.

"Mahinda's [Rajapaksa] return was expected. Despite that, nothing prepared me for the shock and paralysing fear that came when it happened," one woman, who had been participating in protests to locate thousands of Tamils that had disapeared during the decades long Sri Lankan civil war, told me. "We are in fear of our lives," she added.

However, not all Sri Lankans are fearful about the return of the Rajapaksa brothers. Most Sinhala people - who are the majority in Sri Lanka - are not equally bothered by the President's decision to sack the prime minister. Some are even celebrating the change of government the way they celebrated the defeat of the LTTE in 2009. That year Tamils across the country had barricaded themselves inside their homes fearing for their lives, mourning their losses in private, as the rest of the country celebrated a victory that cost tens of thousands of civilian lives.

"In 2009 they lit firecrackers while we hid inside. Today, again they are celebrating while we once again familiarise ourselves with a fear close enough in the past to remember, but, until now, possibly far enough for us to shut away,” the partner of a person disappeared in the civil war told me, as the news broke.

Three years of partial calmThe ousting of Rajapaksa, and the three years of relative stability that followed, allowed for the Tamil people to become more visible in civil spaces in Sri Lanka. The protests by family members of the tens of thousands of Tamils that had disappeared throughout the country's devastating civil war have become a particularly remarkable show of defiance and resistance by the Tamil people. These women-led protests gripped the attention of the Tamil population around the world, sparking solidarity protests and gaining international media coverage. 

Other once-forbidden events, such as commemorations of state-sponsored massacres, have also resurfaced in the last three years, yielding vastly increased numbers of attendance. Last year, over ten thousand Tamils braved the watchful eyes of the ever-present military to attend "Maaveerar Naal" - the Tamil national remembrance day, when the fallen LTTE cadres are remembered. 

However, Tamils in Sri Lanka still faced some discrimination and repression during this period.The coalition government's initial pledges for reform and to provide accountability for the crimes committed by the state during the civil war slowly gave way to rhetoric reminiscent of the Rajapaksa-regime they had displaced, causing Tamils to become increasingly disillusioned. Surveillance, harassment and intimidation of Tamil activists and journalists in Sri Lanka also increased substantially over time. Only last week, the harassment of a prominent Tamil journalist by state forces was highlighted by Reporters Without Borders.

Scared of being targeted for past activismNow that the Rajapaksa brothers are back in power, the threat facing Tamil activists and journalists is more imminent than it has ever been since 2015. Journalists have already begun to self-censor. Some are deleting content from their social media accounts, while others are deleting public accounts altogether. At least one journalist has left the country.

Last year a journalist told me how a prior period of relative peace in 2001 led to many activists being more open in their political resistance, and caused them to eventually become targets of state retribution. "Once the ceasefire broke down, they targeted us," he said. "Many colleagues and friends were killed." After taking advantage of the relative liberalisation experienced so far under Sirisena's presidency and participating in overt political resistance , Tamil activists are now scared history may repeat itself. They fear that their increased visibility in the last three years may cause them to be targeted by the new government or its affiliated groups. 

Today as the supporters of Wickremesinghe and Colombo's liberal elite continue to argue about the legality of Sirisena's actions, and as Rajapaksa loyalists work tirelessly to strengthen their new found grip on power, those most affected by the lengthy conflict, and most vocal in their political dissent, are considering what to do next. But whatever they decide to do, they can't protect themselves from possible state hostility and repression, without some help from the international community.

International responsibilityThroughout Rajapaksa's tenure as president Western powers occasionally asked the Sri Lankan government to demonstrate a clear commitment to human rights and accountability, but they never attached any decisive timelines or punitive actions to these demands. When Rajapaksa was ousted from power and replaced by Sirisena in 2015, most global actors chose to believe the new government's pledges for reform and allowed it to lead any reconciliation and accountability efforts.

Within the same year, a US-backed UN resolution that called for a "hybrid" court involving international judges to investigate the alleged crimes against humanity committed during the war was adopted with Sri Lanka's support. However within months, Sri Lanka began backtracking from its commitments in the resolution - pledging that no foreigners would be allowed to take part in any such mechanism. In turn, the US and other western countries, toned down their demands for a "hybrid court" and supported Sri Lanka's desire to deal with the crimes domestically - a fatal mistake, one that betrayed thousands of Tamils' longing for justice.In the following years, despite concerns raised by Tamils, international actors encouraged Tamil activists and journalists, as well as other dissidents, to participate in state initiatives for reconciliation and to exercise their civil liberties, even though there was no reliable,  structure offering them long-term protection from possible state retribution. This, as we can clearly see now, put even more people at risk.

The justice sought by Tamils is for horrendous violations of international humanitarian law, that preclude any possibility of domestic accountability. The perpetrators of these crimes remain free. And even more worryingly, the politicians that oversaw these crimes are now back in power.

However, it is still not too late for the international community to rectify past mistakes. Sri Lankan authorities have been given an easy ride after committing horrendous crimes so far and the relative stability of the last three years allowed the world to turn a blind eye to ongoing injustices. Now the world can, and should, take action to protect the most vulnerable members of the Sri Lankan society. A message needs to be sent to whoever is in charge of the Sri Lankan government: The state can not get away with the crimes it already committed, and it will not be allowed to commit new ones. 

Any Sri Lankan government should be made to understand that repurcussions will be severe if it refuses to commit to significant reforms and a genuine process of accountability for war crimes. If the international community fails to guarantee this, Tamils of Sri Lanka will inevitably face yet another era of repression, persecution and pain.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

The government has appointed new heads for State media with immediate effect.

Accordingly, Sarath Kongahage has been appointed as the Chairman of Rupavahini. Kongahage also serves as an advisor to the president and as the Chairman of the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute.

Somarathna Dissanayake has been appointed as the Chairman of ITN while Wasantha Priya Ramanayake has been appointed as the Chairman of Lakehouse.

All appointments made by the so-called new government are deemed illegal and we will take stern action against the individuals accepting them, Minister of Finance and Media Mangala Samaraweera said today. 

Samaraweera in twitter message reiterated that Rajapaksa formed this government through a coup and not through a constitutionally accepted process. Therefore, the so-called government has no legitimacy to operate in office.

The Minister also went on to say that as the democratically elected government with a clear majority in Parliament, they will defeat the coup and establish a stable government through a democratic and constitutionally accepted process through Parliament. 

He also said that many foreign countries including international bodies such as the United Nations have stressed the need to respect the constitutional process and to uphold the rule of law.

Speaking to the Press at Temple Trees, Parliamentarian Harshana Rajakaruna said that not a single Head of State has congratulated or acknowledged the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister as yet.

A majority of MPs have written to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya urging him to convene Parliament as soon as possible to solve the constitutional crisis that has engulfed the island nation, sources from the Speakers Office said today.

Accordingly, the United National Front (UNF) and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) have already submitted separate letters to the Speaker.

It is also reported that the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) is also preparing to submit a letter tomorrow morning to the Speaker requesting to convene Parliament immediately.

As such, 128 MPs would have requested the Speaker in writing by tomorrow to reconvene Parliament as soon as possible.

Therefore, under the current composition of the Parliament, the Maithri-Mahinda faction representing the UPFA has only 96 MPs.

Parliamentarian Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne today said that the removal of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was unconstitutional as President Maithripala Sirisena appointed Mr. Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister of the UNF government on August 21, 2015 and not as the Prime Minister of the national government.

He said that three Ministers namely Tilak Marapana, Wijedasa Rajapakshe and Mangala Samaraweera were also appointed to the Cabinet after 2015 general election. The national government was formed on September 2nd on an agreement reached between the UNP and the UPFA and accordingly the Cabinet was expanded to 42 members.

“This means if and when the UPFA leaves the government status quo remains and the government under Ranil goes back to the UNF Cabinet remained before September 2. Therefore, removal of Ranil from the premiership is unlawful and unconstitutional,” Dr. Wickramaratne who is also a constitutional expert stressed.

Dr. Wickramaratne told a press briefing that had been called by the ‘Lawyers for Democracy’ (LfD) that the Constitution does provides for the removal of the PM only under certain provisions though appointed by the President.

“President can’t sack him only because he does not like his face, his action or his policies. Prime Minister loses his post only after he looses the confidence of the majority of members in Parliament, loses his Parliament membership or the government loses a finance Bill or the budget in Parliament. Under the Constitution, there is no other way to sack him,” Mr Wickramaratne, added.

This move is clearly unconstitutional and undemocratic for the reasons wearers the 19th Amendment has restricted the President's powers in relation to Parliament as well as Cabinet, including removal and appointment of a Prime Minister. Power to remove the Prime Minister, previously vested in the President, was entirely removed by the 19th Amendment, which was introduced to ensure that arbitrary powers exercised by prior executive Presidents could not undermine basic democratic governance. This change was intentional, he emphasized.

Appointment of a Prime Minister under Article 42(4) of the Constitution can arise only when there is a vacancy by virtue of a fresh election, resignation and on the removal consequent to a no-confidence motion. The appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as PM is void, given the absence of any of the three above conditions to date, Dr. Wickramaratne said

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe easily defeated a no confidence motion against him with a majority vote of 46 votes on April, 4 in Parliament. The government on last Thursday and Friday passed two finance Bills also, he said. (Daily Mirror)

Amnesty International said that they are concerned by reports that journalists working at government-controlled media outlets were subject to threats, intimidation and harassment after the controversial appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister by President Sirisena on Friday.

“All journalists must be allowed to carry out their work freely and without fear. The authorities have a responsibility to ensure their safety and well-being,” said Amnesty International’s Senior Director for Global Operations, Minar Pimple. 

The editorials of State-owned Lake House newspapers, Daily News, Dinamina and Silumina were taken over by trade unions affiliated to the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), a party which Mahinda Rajapaksa is the de facto leader of. Editor of the Sunday Observer Dharisha Bastians also claimed in a tweet that she was ousted as she refused to be coerced in to taking an editorial like forced upon by SLPP supporters within the organization. The Daily news had also been forced to change it's front page on Saturday (27) by the SLPP union goon Sanjaya Bandara at Lake House along with several senior journalists within the organization. 

Local media also reported that certain media personnel were threatened with physical assault by Rajapaksa loyalists at state owned TV stations SLRC and ITN. Subhash Jayawardene, Deputy General Manger of News and Current Affairs of ITN, was attacked by a mob when trying to leave the premises by Rajapaksa goons. Furthermore, Sanjaya Liyanage, the Assistant Director of News and Current Affiars at SLRC was also subjected to death threats soon after the appointment of Rajapaksa.

Responding to the current political crisis in Sri Lanka, Minar Pimple, said that “Human rights must not become a casualty of Sri Lanka’s political crisis. The authorities must ensure that key freedoms are respected and protected at this time. People should be allowed to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association.”

Joining the UNP parliamentary group today at the Temple Trees MP Vasantha Senanayake assured his support for the UNP Prime Minister despite earlier claims of supporting the new appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as the country’s unconstitutional Prime Minister. 

Speaking to reporters at Temple Trees today Senanayake said that he has some concerns over the direction the UNP is heading. However he said that in Parliament he will support the Prime Minister nominated by the UNP, whoever that may be.

The unexpected and sudden political crisis caused the constitutional coup triggered by President Maithripala Sirisena along with the prorogation of parliament till November 16 has placed officials of the Treasury in a dilemma as they are considering the option of preparing a vote on account instead of the calendar year Budget 2019.

Chairman of SLPP, Prof. G.L. Pieris told reporters that they were planning a vote-on-account after parliament was suspended until November 16.

The Ministry of Finance is awaiting for directives from the president to go ahead with the preparation of Vote on Account on Monday.

Economic experts point out that it would be appropriate to present a mini budget rather than the annual one as the country is facing a political crisis with elections around the corner.

They added that presenting a Vote on Account in view of an election is not new to Sri Lanka and previous governments have also followed this procedure before.

The Vote on Account, if presented in November, will be to cover state expenditure for a few months.

The time period (number of months) of the vote of account will be decided after the announcement of the date of elections, a government official said.

The Finance Ministry has launched the 2019 budget process presenting an Appropriation Bill making allocations for individual ministries ahead of the 2019 budget to be presented to parliament on November 5.

Sources say Former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaranatunge has succeeded to gain the support of a group of Sri Lanka Freedom Party parliamentarians against the unethical Maithree + Mahinda union. According to reports the group has agreed to act as independent MP’s within the parliament after a meeting held with CBK yesterday afternoon. The group of MP’s had claimed they are unable to even face their family members following the latest Maithree + Mahinda union. 

We gambled our lives in 2015 not to join hands with these killers and thieves, the group had claimed adding that despite the obstacles they had attempted to bring the country to the correct path.

The unconstitutional government is said to have commenced a hunt for a chosen list of journalists in state media according to sources. The hunt started on the day of the swearing in of Mahinda Rajapaksa itself when ITN Chairman Subhash Jayawardene was attacked by a mob when trying to leave the premises. He was also issued death threats by the group. 

Sources also say employees of ITN such as Current Affairs producer Dhammika Yatinkinda, journalists Daya Neththasinghe, Shalika Wimalasena and Jayasiri Alawatta have been asked to not return. Similar warnings were also issued to news readers Supun Bhagya and Dinushi Weerasinghe. They have been told to meet Sudharman Radaliyagoda if they want to keep their jobs. Sources also say Sudharman who is warranted for corruption related offences and was protected by the President is now armed and remaining within the ITN premises. 

Likewise Sanjaya Liyanage of Rupavahini news has also been asked not to return and issued death threats. 

Meanwhile tweeting Editor of the Sunday Observer Dharisha Bastians also claimed she was ousted as she refused to be coerced in to taking an editorial like forced upon by SLPP supporters within the organization. The Daily news had also been forced to change it's front page on Saturday by the SLPP union goon Sanjaya Bandara at Lake House along with several senior journalists within the organization. 

Sources within Lake House say it's publications are being monitored and being published according to the whims of certain government agents close to the President who had visited the editorials on Saturday to ensure no negative articles against the Rajapaksa's are published.

He was seen accompanied by SLPP union representatives and journalists such as Mahinda Aluthgedara of Dinamina and Sandasen Marasinghe of the Daily News. 

However responding to Bastian's tweet Namal Rajapaksa denied any knowledge of any such occurrence within the organization.

The arbitrary removal of a sitting Prime Minister in an unconstitutional manner will plunge the nation into a state of instability, fear and chaos, the Diocese of Colombo of the Church of Ceylon said.

Issuing a statement today (28) over the current constitutional crisis, the church said it was of the view that there are no provisions in the present Constitution to remove a sitting Prime Minister, as the 19th amendment has reduced the President’s executive powers and transferred such powers to the Prime Minister in Parliament. 

“The Democratic frame work enshrined in our Constitution should not be abused for political expediency. We urge the instruments of the State, Religious Institutions and all peace-loving people of our country to join hands to uphold Democratic values and peace with justice for all, as well as the rule of law for the greater common good of the people of our country, and the preservation of Democratic institutions so that all communities that call Sri Lanka home may live without fear and intimidation. We further call upon the Police and Tri Forces to act impartially and with restraint in the enforcing of law and order,” the statement said.

(Daily Mirror)

Since the passage of the 19th Amendment, the President no longer has the power to remove the Prime Minister at his discretion, the legal fraternity has opined in the wake of the controversial removal of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. 

According to them,  Article 42(4) of the Constitution provides for the appointment of the Prime Minister as follows:

The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament.

Upon the Prime Minister being appointed,Article 46(2) of the Constitution provides that:

The Prime Minister shall continue to hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function under the provisions of the Constitution unless he -

(a) resigns his office by a writing under his hand addressed to the President; or
(b) ceases to be a Member of Parliament.

The Cabinet of Ministers will continue to function unless it is dissolved in terms of Article 48(2) of the Constitution:

If Parliament rejects the Statement of Government Policy or the Appropriation Bill or passes a vote of no-confidence in the Government, the Cabinet of Ministers shall stand dissolved, and the President shall, unless he has in the exercise of his powers under Article 70, dissolved Parliament, appoint a Prime Minister, Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers, Ministers who are not members of the Cabinet of Ministers and Deputy Ministers in terms of Articles 42, 43, 44 and 45.

Therefore, once a Prime Minister is appointed, his office is vacated only if he dies, resigns, ceases to be a Member of Parliament, or if Cabinet stands dissolved in the event Parliament rejects the Statement of Government Policy or the Appropriation Bill or passes a vote of no-confidence in the Government.

In the absence of these specified circumstances the Office of Prime Minister does not become vacant, and as such no other Member of Parliament can be sworn in as Prime Minister.

With regard to National Governments,Article 46(4) of the Constitution provides that:

Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (1) of this Article, where the recognized political party or the independent group which obtains highest number of seats in Parliament forms a National Government, the number of Ministers in the Cabinet of Ministers, the number of Ministers who are not Cabinet of Ministers and the number of Deputy Ministers shall be determined by Parliament.

Thus, the only difference in a National Government is that the number of Ministries can be increased by Parliament. If a coalition ceases to exist the only consequence will be that the number of Ministries must revert to the Constitutionally mandated norm {Article 46(1)}.

Even if a National Government (coalition) ceases to exist, such does not have any impact on the continuity of the Cabinet of Minister. Article 46(4) makes no provision for the dissolution of Cabinet (unlike Article 48(2)).

It is clear that the Constitution seeks to vest Parliament, and no other, with the power to determine the fate of the Government / continuity of Cabinet.

Hence, Article 43(3) of the Constitution dealing with subjects and functions provides that:

The President may at any time change the assignment of subjects and functions and the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers. Such changes shall not affect the continuity of the Cabinet of Ministers and the continuity of its responsibility to Parliament.