News

The implementation of all cabinet decisions taken during the past month by the new cabinet of ministers appointed by president Maithripala Sirisena have been suspended following the court order today (3).

The Court of Appeal issued an interim injunction order restraining 'purported' Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and his Cabinet from functioning until the hearing of the Writ of Quo Warranto filed against them holding office is concluded.

The recent populist tax revisions and ad hoc concessions offered to the public on the directions of former Finance Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa has led to a loosening of fiscal policy, a decline in economic growth and resulted in the suspension of foreign investment, economic experts said.

15 tax revisions which will come into effect from January 1 next year on the directions of the Ministry of Finance have also been restrained.     

An attempt to raise billions of rupees for government coffers by way of directing public corporations and state owned companies to invest surplus funds in eight state-owned banks with the aim of bringing such funds under the finance ministry purview has also been thwarted.

The implementation of all Cabinet decisions taken since the unconstitutional coup will also have to be suspended, Justice Ministry sources said.

The Court of Appeal resumed hearing the writ of quo warranto filed against 'purported' Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa's unlawful continuation of the PM's office today. 

122 MPs from the United National Party, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, Muslim Congress and the Tamil National alliance in a petition challenged the validity of the appointments of 'purported' Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and his Cabinet and have sought a writ of Quo Warranto asking Rajapaksa to give reasons why he should remain in office, despite losing two no confidence motions in Parliament.

The Court of Appeal has adjourned for deliberations till 3.00 pm.

The implementation of all cabinet decisions taken by new cabinet of ministers appointed by the president  during the past one month period of political impasse  have been stalled following court order today( Monday 3)

Court of Appeal issued an interim injunction order restraining Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and his Cabinet from functioning until the hearing of the Writ of Quo Warranto filed against them holding office is concluded.

Under the present circumstances, recent tax revisions and ad hoc concessions offered to the public on the directions of new finance minister appointed by the president which has led to a loosening of fiscal policy declining the economic growth and investment have been suspended   economic experts said.

15 tax revisions which will come into effect from January 1 next year on the directions of the finance ministry have also been restrained.                     
An attempt to raise billions of rupees for government coffers by way of directing public corporations and state owned companies to invest surplus funds only in eight state owned banks with the aim of bringing such funds under the finance ministry purview has also been thwarted.

The implementation of all cabinet decisions taken during the past one month period will have to be suspended, Justice Ministry sources said.

Professor Suri Ratnapala, Attorney-at-Law and Emeritus Professor of Law of University of Queensland refers to Mahinda Rajapaksa's statement on the dissolution of Parliament and points out that citing the 1975 dissolution of the Australian Parliament as a precedent involves serious misunderstandings of  the facts and the relevant provisions of the Australian Constitution. 

Full statement is as follows:
                    Comments on the Comparison of the Present Constitutional Question with the Dismissal of the Whitlam Government in Australia 

There seems to be a serious misunderstanding about Sri Lanka’s Constitution with respect to the President’s power to dissolve the Parliament. It is claimed that under the parliamentary system, the President may dissolve the Parliament at his or her discretion at any time during its term. This is the central question before the Supreme Court in the proceeding challenging the President’s proclamation purporting to dissolve the current Parliament. I have expressed my opinion on this question elsewhere. 

The purpose of this note is to clear up another confusion. Hon. Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa, among others, have cited as a precedent the dismissal of the Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament by the Governor-General in 1975. This involves serious misunderstandings of the facts concerning the dismissal and the relevant provisions of the Australian Constitution. 

The political events surrounding the dismissal of Whitlam were both acrimonious and controversial. They are too complex to document here. The immediate cause of the dismissal and dissolution was the Senate’s denial of supply to the government by deferring decisions on two Appropriation Bills which had already received Lower House approval. The protracted deadlock breaking process set out in s 57 (that can involve a double-dissolution and a General Election) could not be used as supply would have run out by then. G-G John Kerr tried but failed to persuade Mr. Whitlam to advise dissolution on the principle that a government that cannot secure supply through Parliament should either resign or advise a new election. 

The G-G then sought the following guarantees from the Leader of the Opposition Mr. Malcolm Fraser, namely, that if appointed Caretaker PM, he would:

1. Ensure that the Appropriation Bills will be passed by the Senate to secure supply, 

2. Advise the G-G to dissolve both House and hold a general election, and 3. Maintain the status quo on policy, appointments etc during the caretaker period.

The G-G, armed with these assurances, dismissed Whitlam, appointed Fraser as Caretaker PM and dissolved both Houses. The two Houses can only be simultaneously dissolved under s 57 to break deadlocks. There were several other bills of the Whitlam government that were deadlocked and served as triggers for a double dissolution.  

It is important to note a few salient constitutional rules and principles and points of difference between the Whitlam saga and the present impasse in Sri Lanka. 

1. The claim that in the classic Westminster parliamentary democracy, the monarch has untrammelled power to dissolve the Parliament is fallacious. Since the early 19th Century at least, the monarch was constrained by convention to follow the PM’s advice and the PM was likewise restrained by convention. Whatever discretion the monarch had in the UK was removed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (c. 14). The Act, which fixes the term of the House of Commons as 5 years, allows earlier dissolution only if: (a) A vote of no confidence in the government is carried in the House of Commons, or (b) The House of Commons requests a dissolution by a vote of two thirds of the House.

The Nineteenth Amendment incorporated these two conditions in limiting the President’s power to dissolve Parliament. 

2. According to s 64 of the Australian Constitution, the Ministers, including the Prime Minister, serve at the pleasure of the Governor-General.

The President of Sri Lanka has no such power. He or she must choose as PM a member likely to command the confidence of the House who can then be dismissed only by Parliament.  

3. Unlike the Whitlam Government, PM Wickremasinghe and the Cabinet have obtained supply and have shown the ability to secure future funding for the government’s recurring expenditure.  

4. Sri Lanka is not a classic parliamentary system in the Westminster model. The President’s has no prerogative powers. His powers are limited by the express words of the Constitution which he has undertaken by affirmation to observe.  

Suri Ratnapala,
Emeritus Professor of Law,
The University of Queensland,
Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law,
Attorney-at-Law,
Sri Lanka.

Suraksha Insurance scheme introduced by the Ministry of Education of the previous government for the school children has ceased, says the Secretary of the Ceylon Teachers' Union, Joseph Stalin.
 
Stalin said the Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation continued the insurance scheme until October but the Ministry of Education has not made any explanation as to what will happen to the insurance scheme after the period is given to the Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation expires.
 
Although the government has spent Rs. 2,700 million for the insurance scheme, the students received only Rs. 237 million students in benefits from this insurance scheme, Stalin said.
 
Secretary of the Ceylon Teachers' Union said instead of providing insurance to school children, building more children's hospitals, conducting health and dental clinics at schools and taking measures to prevent health problems are more practical.
 
The Suraksha Insurance scheme was introduced last year by the previous government with coverage up to a maximum of Rs. 200,000 for 4.5 million school children studying in 11,242 schools. (Colombo Page)

Known Rajapaksa stooge, Ajith Prasanna who was a former Major in the Army has once again launched a racial attack on IP Nishantha Silva of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) by publicly posting the latter’s Birth Certificate on Social Media. Nishantha Silva is the lead investigator in the Navy abduction case.

In his recent social media post Ajith Prasanna tries to insinuate that Nishantha, whose full name is Adrian Nishantha Silva Candappa is a Tamil and therefore is on a hunt of war heroes. However, he conveniently ignores that despite the name Candappa the race of both parents have been noted as Sinhala while Silva’s father’s employment details note he was an Army Officer. While many social media users took offence to this post, some questioned as to why Ajith Prasanna does not use a surname himself while others wondered out loud as to why there cannot be Tamil officers in the Police. 

Ajith Prasanna is also known for attempting to appear on behalf of Navy Sampath, the main accused in the Navy abduction for ransom case without being solicited. He was severely reprimanded by the former Fort Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne for appearing in courts on behalf of a client who had retained a different lawyer without the knowledge of either. 

It also must be noted that Ajith Prasanna has a checkered and less than an honourable military career. Ajith Prasanna who joined the Army on January 2, 1992, on several occasions was found guilty of conduct prejudicial to military discipline under the Army Act. In 1994, he had taken absence without leave while taking part in military operations which is an offence under military law, the Army had later on appeal approved leave for the said dates.
 
He was also found guilty of disobeying a senior officer’s orders in September 1994. Sources say, though he was ordered to join operations in Palali with a platoon of 200 soldiers, Ajith Prasanna had disobeyed orders and remained at the Sinha Regiment Headquarters. Following this incident, he was once again ordered to report to Elephant Pass which he again disregarded, sources say. Ajith Prasanna had later been found guilty on both counts before a Military Court.

MP Wimal Weerawansa, the De Facto Minister of Housing Development has sacked around 2500 staffers from the National Housing Development Authority (NHDA). The employees had been hired as trainee development officers from across the country and were promised they would be absorbed into the permanent cadre. However, de facto Minister Wimal Weerawansa has ordered them to be let go off under the excuse their training period has ended. 

Sources also say the illegal government is attempting to hand out a large number of political appointments before their term expires. However, these are illegal appointments as the parliament has already halted Ministry funds.

Mahinda Rajapaksa has slashed the tax that was imposed on sugary drinks in a controversial reversal of an anti-diabetes policy that has attracted immediate criticism.

The Ministry of Finance ordered an immediate 40 percent reduction in the levy as part of a package of tax cuts launched by the disputed government and ‘purported’ Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Mahinda Rajapaksa to win over public opinion as the bitter power struggle continues to intensify.

Sirisena’s nominee for prime minister, Mahinda Rajapakse has been making populists moves to win support for his government with the lower sugar tax coming on top of reductions in fuel prices and income taxes on agriculture this week.

There was no comment from president Sirisena, who last year warned international beverage makers that he would increase taxes unless they reduced sugar in their products.  Sirisena attacked the sweetened beverages manufacture Nestlé last year for increasing the sugar content in popular beverage Milo and asked the then Finance Minister to extend the tax on soft drinks to all forms of sweetened beverages. 

President Sirisena who attacked  Nestl's Milo brand last year for its high sugar content, is yet to comment on the reduction of the sugar tax.

Meanwhile, health campaigners and former health minister Rajitha Senaratne condemned the move as damaging the fight against obesity and diabetes among young people.

Wickremesinghe’s administration had introduced the sweet tax — 50 cents on every gram of sugar in fizzy and fruit drinks — but the rate was slashed to 30 cents from Saturday.

The Ministry of Health said that 10 percent of the country’s 21 million population is affected by diabetes and another 20 percent were at risk of developing the condition.

Health lobbyist Dhanya Wijesuriya took to twitter to slam the authorities for making sugary drinks cheaper.

“This is insane,” Wijesuriya said of the decision. “How self serving. No vision,” he added.

"Yukthiye Yaathrawa", the vehicle parade organized by the United National Party (UNP), to restore democracy, was luanched today under the patronage of Ranil Wickremesinghe  at the Townhall premises.

The vehicle parade passed through Moratuwa, Panadura, Kalutara, Beruwala, Ambalangoda, Hikkaduwa, Galle, Weligama, Matara and reached Dondra, today (01). On the following day, a special pooja at the Kataragama temple will also be held.

In an alleged statement, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) has claimed that they had 'no link' in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in May 1991.

The alleged letter from LTTE has been signed by their Political Wing representative Kurburan Guruswami and Legal Wing representative Lathan Chandralingam.

Claiming itself to be an organization 'by the people, for the people and of the people of Tamil Eelam,' LTTE, in its alleged statement, said that time and again they have clearly demonstrated with evidence in support that the LTTE has not been involved in any kind with the murder of Rajiv Gandhi, this unverified allegation is still being imposed.

"Due to this defamation campaign, our people are being pushed into instability. Some others even go too far as to assert that 'the lives of the 1,50 000 people killed in Mullivaikaal do not worth altogether to the single life of Rajiv Gandhi'. This declaration is hurting," the alleged statement read.

The LTTE never intended to demolish the leadership of India nor attack India. We never turned our guns toward any person or leader who was not part of Sri Lanka. We never planned any attack against any non-Sri Lankan leader. We never developed any action against any national leader of India," it added.

It further claimed that 'the pre-planned murder of Rajiv Gandhi is the result of a conspiracy motivated by the purpose of dismantling the strong relationship between the Indian government and the LTTE.'

"We ask for an immediate cessation of this allegation of defamation upon the LTTE concerning the murder of Rajiv Gandhi. As a result, we hope to put an end to the infamy on the LTTE on an international platform and that the International Community would at last end the ban on the LTTE that prevents our People to breathe the air of freedom," LTTE added.

Kilinochchi Police has arrested a suspect today in connection with the murders of the two police constables in Vavunathivu, Police Media Spokesperson said.

The arrested suspect is a 48 year old named Rasanayagam Sarvanandam.

Two police constables attached to Vavunativu Police Station were shot dead while they were on duty at the Vavunativu checkpoint Thursday (29).

One of the two deceased policemen was identified as a 35-year-old police constable named Niroshan Indika Prasanna, who had been residing in Galle. The other constable has been identified as a 28-year-old named Ganesh Dinesh, a resident of Kalmunai area.

Preliminary police investigations conducted by the CID had uncovered that officer Dinesh suffered a gunshot to the head, while officer Indika suffered cut wounds across his neck.

The Criminal Investigation Department deployed a special team Batticoloa yesterday for further investigations.