Early Parliament sessio to table Bond report

President did not show the report to the PM and did not meet him, but telephoned to brief him on the address to the nation Paradoxically, the SLFP and the UNP agree not to criticise each other during the ongoing campaign for the February 10 local polls Qu

President Maithripala Sirisena chose to reveal highlights of the story behind the Central Bank bond scam on Wednesday – part of the findings of the Commission of Inquiry.

That it came unusually in a pre-recorded 21-minute address to the nation gave it the status of a “national” issue. Yet, it was one that had drawn greater public attention countrywide. Even in villages where there was less literacy and the word ‘bond’ was only associated with James Bond movies, there was sufficient awareness of the alleged plunder of public funds. They were only oblivious to the nitty-gritties of bond auctions but most long believed there was something rotten in the entire episode.

The address did considerably boost Sirisena’s popularity. It had taken a strongly downward slide after his efforts to reunite the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) failed miserably. How much this will impact at the local polls remains to be seen. The SLFP is now having small pocket meetings in some areas. This is ahead of major rallies which Sirisena will address in every district. The main campaign is to be launched next week.

This is one of the rare occasions when a Government in power has appointed a Commission to probe its own activities. Most others have been directed at their predecessors. Sirisena is still livid that former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa had not kept to the ‘assurances’ he held out about uniting the party. He was in fact in favour of the move but remarks by Prasanna Ranatunga (UPFA – Gampaha District) at a meeting that they (the Joint Opposition) had taken Sirisena ‘for a ride’ had angered him more. Earlier, Sirisena did blame Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) principal strategist Basil Rajapaksa who stoutly opposed any reunification.

And now, what is equally shocking, if not more, is the fact that he has placed his Sri Lanka Freedom Party’s (SLFP) relationship with its coalition partner, the United National Party (UNP), on a razor’s edge. The carefully crafted delivery, the contents of which were perhaps expertly done, seemingly had an eye on the local polls on February 10. It was pregnant with many serious political nuances. That helped him regain some prestige. It was only a week earlier that he pledged to wield the sword to deal with those whom he perceived as bribe takers or the corrupt and took a few swipes. Those who were scarred, those who are yet to be when the Commission’s report becomes public and the related disclosures all point in the direction of the UNP, the main coalition partner.

Firstly, Sirisena has vented his anger on the UNP, using a credible account that emanated from two Supreme Court Judges and a retired Deputy Auditor General. This naturally places the UNP in an extremely unenviable position as a coalition partner. Secondly, the political missiles Sirisena fired are sure to hurt the UNP’s local polls campaign with the exception of the party’s strongholds. It will also affect the UNP’s slow preparations, with the help of even foreign communication experts, for the next presidential and parliamentary elections. Why does this aspect become so significant?

The story begins with the Commission of Inquiry making a request for a meeting on Sunday (December 31, 2017) to present its report. That was the last date of its twice extended mandate. However, Sirisena was going to be away from Colombo and the members were offered a meeting at 12.30 p.m. on Saturday, the 30th. A source close to the Presidency said Sirisena who received the report had a conversation with the members for some 45 minutes. On learning that the report alone ran into 1257 pages, together with some annexures, he sought to know the significant highlights, the source added.

During last week, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was on a yearend working vacation at his official residence, the Prime Minister’s ‘Lodge’ in Nuwara Eliya. When contacted by Parliament officials to arrange for a meeting of the Constitutional Council, he had replied that he would return to Colombo only on January 2. The news about the report reached him breaking his holiday of relaxing listening to music and talking with friends and their families. He rushed back to Colombo however on New Year’s Day and sought a meeting with President Sirisena. A senior UNPer said it was partly to discuss the Commission report and obtain a copy. That was to ascertain the Commission’s findings and the recommendations made by it.

That copy of the report has not reached him yet. Nor was he able to have a meeting. The President’s office had informed the Premier that he would be in Polonnaruwa on New Year’s eve and then in Kandy and Kataragama on New Year’s Day. Thereafter, Wickremesinghe sat down for a session that New Year’s Day evening to discuss the UNP campaign for the local polls with party Chairman Malik Samarawickrema and General Secretary Kabir Hashim. However, just hours ahead of his address to the nation on Wednesday, Sirisena telephoned Wickremesinghe and briefed him on what he was going to say. That was his first intimation of what the report contained, but still, no copy of the report was sent.

Notwithstanding what the Commission reported to him during their discussion on December 30, and the disclosures he made to Sri Lankans, President Sirisena is on the horns of a serious dilemma over this situation. A UNP Cabinet minister who spoke on grounds of anonymity since he is governed by ‘collective responsibility’ was livid. “The assumption, quite correctly, is that there is only one Government in Sri Lanka formed together by the SLFP and the UNP. Here is a situation where there is a publicly demonstrated assumption that there are two different Governments, one by the SLFP and another by the UNP. This may be the first time a President has not taken into confidence his own Prime Minister in sharing a document that is going to be placed before the public, through Parliament on January 23.” It will thereafter be printed as a Sessional Paper of Parliament. That raises the all-important question – whether President Sirisena has lost the trust and confidence of Premier Wickremesinghe? More so, when he chose not to share a copy of the Commission report with him and brief him only on the contents of his address just hours before he delivered it.

As the December 31 deadline for the Commission neared the final days, there was public anxiety over what its findings and recommendations would be. It was ‘the talk of the town’, so to say. Yet, when the Cabinet of Ministers met for the first time in the New Year last Tuesday, there was no reference to the Commission. The previous week’s meeting was cancelled and some ministers expected copies of the report to be given to them at this meeting.

The ruling SLFP is anxious that a session of Parliament be summoned ahead of January 23. They, together with the ‘Joint Opposition’ and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) have sent in separate requests to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya. A decision whether to allow such an early session rests in the hands of Premier Wickremesinghe. Speaker Jayasuriya has summoned a meeting of party leaders for 2 p.m. on Tuesday (January 9) to discuss the matter. The UNP is one of the parties that called for the tabling of the report in Parliament and it is now unlikely it would raise objections. Yet, an early debate on the Commission report is unlikely since its contents are yet to be known. An early date, however, would facilitate the tabling of the report.

A UNP Working Committee member, who also wished to remain anonymous, alluded to a letter which Sirisena wrote to his predecessor Mahinda Rajapaksa ahead of the parliamentary elections in August 2015. The UNP member argued there were “shades of that episode” in Sirisena’s conduct. On July 13 of that year, Sirisena told Rajapaksa in a three-page letter that in the event of (the SLFP) gaining the support of other parties to form a Government….”it is not you who should become Prime Minister but another senior member of our party….” He claimed this letter one of the reasons why the Rajapaksas lost the parliamentary elections.

Mahinda Amaraweera, General Secretary of the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA), however, countered the arguments. He told the Sunday Times, “We thought it is more democratic for the President to act impartially and address the nation instead of discussing the statement with other parties. If it was discussed, it could have resulted in some alterations being made to it (the statement).” Those remarks from a minister regarded as a confidant of President Sirisena make it abundantly clear that withholding the report, from the Prime Minister, was a conscious move. However, Amaraweera’s reason for it – that there would possibly be pressure to make amendments – is arguable for many reasons. Earlier, the appeal by three UNP ministers -- Malik Samarawickrema, Kabir Hashim and Mangala Samaraweera -- to Sirisena not to have Wickremesinghe summoned before the Commission of Inquiry had failed. He declared he had no role in the Commission’s proceedings. Similarly, Sirisena could well have refused to make any changes if indeed they were suggested.

President Sirisena also made a reference contained in the Commission report to Premier Wickremesinghe. He said, “…..The Commission report said that the Honourable Prime Minister’s responsibility in the appointment of Mr. Arjuna Mahendren as the Governor to the Central Bank was proper. The Commission is of the opinion that the Prime Minister made his statement in Parliament