Political turmoil deepens; main battle between Sirisena and Karu
In exclusive interview, Sirisena reveals details of why he removed Ranil and insists he won’t be reappointed Politically oriented monk and diplomats trying to work out compromise but success is unlikely President also says proper procedure not followed in
Sri Lanka’s political turmoil entered its second month with no tangible sign of a settlement in sight. Amidst the continuing chaos and confusion for the fifth week in succession, there was a new entry this week -- a politically oriented Buddhist monk who has assumed the role of a peace broker. In back-channel moves he has talked to the two politically warring sides but it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that he will succeed. Not even when sections of the Colombo-based diplomatic community are encouraging the endeavours. Of course, they are mindful not to create the impression that they are directly involved, thus obviating criticism against them for interfering in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs.
It came as a delegation of Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and partner groups led by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa had a meeting on Friday evening with President Maithripala Sirisena. According to one high ranking source, Rajapaksa raised issues relating to the future of the month-old government, particularly in the wake of an absence of a majority in Parliament. The source said Rajapaksa wanted to ascertain what was ahead. The idea, the source said, was to make up his mind for himself and his partner groups. However, Sirisena insisted that he should continue in office and re-iterated that come what may he would not re-appoint Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister, the source added. Sirisena and Rajapaksa also had a one on one meeting yesterday.
The Buddhist monk’s thrust is to have – the largely SLFP-SLPP coalition to get together with the UNF in a caretaker government and agree to go for parliamentary elections. What of the office of Prime Minister? His formula is if one side takes over the Premiership, the other would have to be given the office of Speaker and the cabinet portfolios to be shared. However, the two sides remain deeply dug in their positions, concretised by rising acrimony and bitterness.
A way out of the political turmoil formed the subject of discussion when a four-member SLFP-SLPP delegation met diplomats from a number of countries. The meeting held at the Torrington Avenue residence of the Canadian High Commissioner David Mckinnon was attended by diplomats including those from the United States, Britain, the European Union, Switzerland, Japan, Norway and Germany, according to Minister Dinesh Gunawardena. The government team led by him comprised Mahinda Samarasinghe, Susil Premjayantha and Tharindu Balasuriya, who is a member of the then Joint Opposition’s foreign affairs Committee. Most diplomats were worried about protracted delays and the consequent instability it was causing Sri Lanka. The SLFP-SLPP delegation accused Speaker Karu Jayasuriya of “acting illegally” and causing a “chaotic” situation in Parliament – a position which the Speaker and the United National Front (UNF) have repeatedly denied.
With their patience running thin, some countries, particularly from the west, had been contemplating punitive action. It was earlier expected to be a halt to aid and other forms of financial assistance. Now, diplomatic sources say it could even shift to sanctions on politicians and their immediate families who were, in their view, directly responsible for alleged violations of the Constitution. That is, if indeed they are found to have done just that. There have also been diplomats, acting on President Maithripala Sirisena’s insistence, who have made known that the crisis could be resolved instantly if Ranil Wickremesinghe quits as UNP leader. The remarks met with an angry response from UNP Chairman Kabir Hashim. “That is an internal matter for our party. Our Prime Minister has been unconstitutionally and unlawfully removed. We are fighting against that,” he told the Sunday Times.
The aftermath of Premier Wickremesinghe’s removal formed the subject of discussion when President Sirisena invited leaders of political parties represented in Parliament last Sunday. Even Wickremesinghe was present. If this meeting was dubbed as “inconclusive” by many sections, to the contrary, it appears to have served a purpose. President Sirisena, who chaired the meeting, was able to deliver a message and it did have its positive effect. That is to make clear, once more, that the Speaker should follow Standing Orders and “correct procedures” in Parliament. Speaker Jayasuriya did so on Friday.
In parliamentary parlance, the ongoing tussle in the House would have been equivalent to filibustering on the part of the government side. Filibuster is when MPs debate over legislation in order to delay or prevent a decision. It is to buy more time. For the UNF side, the countermove is to prompt resolutions in Parliament. One to block funds allocated to the Prime Minister is now listed for discussion. Funny enough, such a move would also cut off funds that are now being spent for activity at Temple Trees where the ousted Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is staying. Another resolution to block funds for ministers is now in the making.
Last Sunday, President Sirisena told party leaders that “proper procedure” had not been followed by Speaker Jayasuriya in the adoption of the Vote of No Confidence on Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa on a second occasion too. This was when he took a voice vote and declared amidst mayhem in the House that the motion had been passed. A note formulated for the Presidential Secretariat contains the procedure. It includes:
The no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister should be handed over to the Speaker. A minimum of 20 Members of Parliament (MPs) should subscribe to it. The Speaker should verify the legality of such a motion through the Secretary General of the Parliament. The Secretary General should inform the Speaker that the motion is consistent with the Standing Orders. Then the motion should be recorded in the Order Book.
The relevant Order Book should be printed and distributed among all the Members of Parliament on a Friday. The motion should be taken up for debate in Parliament after five working days.
Matters stated in the Order Book should be taken in to consideration by the Committee on Parliamentary Business. This Committee is headed by the Speaker and MPs from the governing party, MPs including Leader of the House and Chief Government Whip. It should also comprise MPs representing the opposition including the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Speaker and Chairperson of Committees. Accordingly, priority of government matters in the Order Book is decided by the Leader of the House.
Once such a no-confidence motion is entered in the Order Book, the most recent date for it to be debated in Parliament should be agreed upon, with the auspices of the Leader of the House and the governing party. President Sirisena did make a point at last Sunday’s meeting by insisting that “Proper Procedures” be followed when adopting a vote of no confidence. Although the movers of the two previous motions concurred, the establishment of a Parliamentary Business Committee – a precursor to a no confidence motion – was mired in controversy.
The UNF argued that it had been done “in the proper manner’ by following a five day rule for such motions. They argue that in matters of urgency, like for example the passage of 18 A, Standing Orders could be suspended. The speaker had made sure the motion was in the Order Book for five days and chosen to take an electronic vote.
Ahead of the resumption of Parliamentary sittings on Friday, a party leaders meeting ended inconclusively. House Leader Dinesh Gunawardena declared that weightage should be given to government representatives in the Committee on Parliamentary Business. He had in fact recommended seven names but only five have been included. He argued this was disproportionate compared to previous such Committees. Speaker Jayasuriya reminded that even the UNF had been given only five slots.
Gunawardena alleged that Speaker Jayasuriya had re-iterated that he neither recognised the Prime Minister nor the Cabinet. “I told him that he had changed that position after taking up a so-called No Confidence Vote on the Premier for a second time at President Sirisena’s request,” Gunawardena told the Sunday Times. A spokesman for Speaker Jayasuriya, however, claimed that he (the Speaker) had not changed his position.
Thus, when Parliament met on Friday morning, Speaker Jayasuriya sought to obtain an electronic vote on those in favour of setting up the Committee on Parliamentary Business. Such a Committee, like all others, had ceased to function after prorogation. The government party members walked out protesting against their request not being heeded. Speaker Jayasuriya declared then that the motion had been carried with 121 voting and none against. Here in lay, the new dramatic twist to the ongoing political drama.
Gunawardena, who is also the Leader of the
House said, “We do not recognise this Committee which has been picked arbitrarily by the Speaker. He has not followed procedures or traditions,” he declared. The remarks clearly meant the filibuster in Parliament is set to continue. Some well-informed sections in the government believe it would drag on until the Supreme Court gives it final determination on December 7 on the constitutionality of the dissolution of Parliament. Some even say it could go beyond since the UNF has now filed a Quo Warranto in the court fo Appeal, (a writ requiring a person to show by what warrant an office or franchise is held, claimed or exercised).
Against the backdrop of these new developments, I asked President Maithripala Sirisena, who triggered the ongoing crisis, after ousting Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and replacing him with Mahinda Rajapaksa, for his response. At the second floor office in the Presidential Secretariat, the former Parliament building overlooking the Indian Ocean, he answered questions in an exclusive interview he gave the Sunday Times, the first since the change of Prime Ministers on October 26. It came after a brief chat as President Sirisena signed documents from a small pile of files before him. He appeared in a combative mood as he spoke exuding humour on occasions. Here are his answers to questions put to him;
You have caused a serious political crisis in the country by your actions. Why did you do it? The person responsible is Ranil Wickremesinghe. Not I. After the January 8, 2015 Presidential elections, both of us were sworn in. One minute after I was sworn in as President, he took his oaths as the Prime Minister. We began work as a new government. In the first week itself, he went against our manifesto. What did he do? He was very stubborn and was not accommodative. He even exercised my powers. That continued.
Can you give an example? It began with the formation of a Cabinet of Ministers in January 2015. We had asked a three-member Committee of University academics to allocate ministerial subjects on a scientific basis. I don’t think he even read their report. The allocations were made in a haphazard way. It generated laughter among people. One was the setting up of a Ministry of Higher Education and Highways. Another was how state owned banks which have traditionally been with the Finance Ministry were placed in a different Ministry. He took under his purview the Central Bank which had also earlier been under the Finance Ministry. These financial institutions have never changed hands since 1947.
But you continued thereafter with those arrangements. Why now? He not only exercised Prime Ministerial powers. He also began using the powers of the President. That began to increase.
Why did you allow him to usurp your powers?
Some may argue about that. As a gesture of gratitude in electing me to power and not to hurt him, I allowed him to carry on with the work. That was also a gesture of humanity from my side. However, he took advantage of it.
Can you cite an instance? Yes, take the case of the appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL). I am the appointing authority. He insisted that Arjuna Mahendran be appointed. This man is one of those most wanted in Sri Lanka now over the bond scam investigation. There is a warrant out for him and he is evading the law in Sri Lanka. I was against this appointment. I told then Prime Minister Wickremesinghe that Mahendran is not a citizen of Sri Lanka and there were others more eligible for the post. He was not in favour of those names and insisted that I appoint Arjuna Mahendran. I did so purely to avoid a confrontation with my then Prime Minister. Some may say I am at fault. I did so only because I wanted to work with him.
In just three months, the CBSL bond scam took place. The first one was in March 2015 and thereafter there was another. What were the pledges we gave the people? We ousted the Mahinda Rajapaksa government mainly over issues related to corruption and to ensure we restored democracy. What happened thereafter? What do you think happened thereafter?
Corruption was high in the Cabinet of Ranil Wickremesinghe and it continued. I do not want to speak at length about it. I have revealed some of the instances in public. The UNP leadership should take responsibility. Just a month before Mr. Wickremesinghe was removed as Premier, there was a massive transaction involving the E.A.P. Edirisinghe Group. It had been awarded to a foreigner who had quoted much less. A Sri Lankan had made a higher bid. That was a corrupt deal. What do you propose to do about it? I hope to conduct a full inquiry when the political situation settles down. It will be a Committee of Inquiry and will go into all aspects. It will also identify those involved. I can name many more such deals that were corrupt. The former Prime Minister also failed to recognise the culture of our people or discern their needs. Local industries were neglected. Mr Wickremesinghe’s ideology on foreign investment was wrong and tainted with corruption. The term “foreign investment” was synonymous with corruption. This led to several confrontational situations.
Did you raise issue with the then Premier Wickremesinghe over these matters? What was his response? After the outcome of the local government elections on February 10, I told him that the people had rejected his economic policies and political vision. Some 1.5 million state sector employees had voted against the government. The majority of the armed forces personnel and Police too had voted against. So had a vast section of the Buddhist clergy. I asked him to step down as Prime Minister and hand over the office to someone else. This was the first time I told him such a thing. I invited Speaker Karu Jayasuriya to be Prime Minister. He rejected it. I also asked Sajith Premadasa. He was not agreeable. I experienced a conflict of policies, which were opposed to our own manifesto. They revolved around misuse of state property, lopsided economic policies, lack of political vision, growing corrup--
tion and arbitrary decisions.
The second occasion was after he survived a Vote of No-Confidence in Parliament in April this year. I told him people are not happy with the government and were disillusioned. I told him that the best way to move forward was for him to step down as Prime Minister and hand over to a person of his choice in his party. On no occasion did he respond to what I told him. He simply listened.
What forced you to take a hurried decision to remove the previous Prime Minister? Would it be right to call that the proverbial last straw on a
loaded camel? It was the conspiracy to assassinate me and former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa. I can say quite categorically that people in the government tried through various means to disrupt the investigations. A Cabinet Minister’s name has transpired. A Deputy Inspector General of Police has been taken into custody.
The mystery behind this plot has thickened. The Inspector General of Police (Pujith Jayasundera) has so far avoided making a statement which the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) is seeking from him. It is this same IGP, who declared even before the investigations began, that the claims of the informant on the assassination plot was “suspicious.” How could he say that even before an investigation has begun? Is it fair for an IGP to make such comments as the head of the Police force? Why is he saying it? Can you disclose to the people details related to the plot? I do not want to say anything more since the matter is pending before courts. By next week, I will direct that the investigations are carried out in “in a new path.” There are several obstacles for the investigations today. This is a very serious matter. As a result of all this, I had to ask Mahinda Rajapaksa to take the post of Prime Minister. It is not something that happened suddenly. It is the outcome of a three and half year old conflict with the former Premier. That was the last resort. Did you warn Ranil Wickremesinghe about this?
Yes, I have told him many times. I reminded him that I was left with only one and half years more to serve as President. I implored on him to allow me to function for this period without let or hindrance. I also told him to refrain from the habit of taking arbitrary decisions. He did not pay any attention. I have also periodically advised him about the corruption taking place among his ministers. As a result, public opinion was building against the government. I was concerned about this.
Did you have talks before appointing Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister? When did you take a decision to change premiers? It is between October 20 and 25 that I had been thinking of this. Not that I was having discussions with Mr Rajapaksa. Since I learnt of the plot to assassinate me and the reluctance of those in the government to probe the matter, these things happened.
Meeting Mahinda Rajapaksa and Basil Rajapaksa at the residence of S.B. Dissanayake in Battaramulla: I did not attend that meeting.
Dissolution of Parliament, the appointment of a new Prime Minister and proroguing Parliament – have you acted correctly? I reject claims that I have acted in violation of the Constitution. The removal of Mr Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister, the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as his successor and a new Cabinet of Ministers have been done legally. So has the prorogation of Parliament. No one has gone to courts and challenged them. What has been challenged in the Supreme Court is the dissolution of Parliament. What happens when a ruling is given by the Supreme Court? I will accept any decision given by the Supreme Court. I am a person who protects democracy. I act according to the Constitution. I have acted in accordance with the law. We will continue to respect democracy. We will implement the law. We will maintain peace. The Parliament should follow Standing Orders and if a majority is shown by the UNF, the issue can be resolved.
If Mahinda Rajapaksa has the majority in Parliament, he can continue the government without any obstacle. If it is proved that Mr Rajapaksa does not have a majority, I believe that he will take a decision. When the majority is shown in Parliament, the responsibility lies in the party leaders to continue with the work. Whoever has the majority of 225 member House will be the Prime minister.
You have said on two occasions that you will not appoint Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister. Will that change if a majority is shown? During my tenure, I have removed two Prime Ministers. The first was D.M. Jayaratne who was removed on January 9, 2015. He had the support of 162 MPs. In contrast, Mr Wickremesinghe who only had 41 MPs was sworn in as Premier.
It is the President who has the responsibility to appoint the Prime Minister. Therefore, an acceptable solution should emerge from Parliament itself by showing of the majority. I removed Mr Wickremesinghe from the Prime Minister’s position legally. It was in accordance with the powers vested in me as President.
I have no possibility of appointing Mr Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister again. I will stick to that principle. The reasons are the happenings in the three and half years. How do you explain the imbroglio in Parliament?
Many questions have come up. One is on who has the majority in Parliament. In terms of Standing Orders, there are three ways. I have been in Parliament for 27 years as an MP and as a Minister. I have been a Leader of the House. I have an idea. Standing Orders can be suspended and a vote can be taken by a voice count by the Speaker. Another is a roll call of the names. The third is through electronic voting.
Though there is provision in the Standing Orders, a majority voice vote on a matter of changing a government, nationally important, is not suitable. The Standing Orders set out the procedure on how No Confidence Motions should be handled. Since it did not take place in this manner, both sides had an issue.
I condemn vehemently the clashes that took place in the well of the House. It is disgusting when MPs resort to violence, whichever party they may belong to. Knives were brought to Parliament. Technical equipment was broken. The Speaker’s chair was broken. Police officers were assaulted, chillie powder and books were thrown.
What do you think of the Speaker’s role? Your members have accused him of acting “illegally”. If the Speaker had taken a vote by name than a voice vote, that would have been better. I hope he will act in the correct manner. Karu Jayasuriya is a good person. The question was on his failure to follow procedure. What is the status of investigations into the Central Bank bond scam? There was hindrance placed in the way of the investigators. Some CBSL officers asked my permission to leave the country for fear of reprisals by interested parties. There is a need for amendments to the Bribery Commission Act. The Commission to Investigate Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), which also probed the matter, recommended a series of changes to the law. Three parties – the CIABOC, the Attorney General’s Department and lawyers in the President’s Office – formulated draft laws. This would have facilitated dealing with the culprits within just one year instead of four or five years.
It was sent to Parliament but was not taken up. At my insistence, the draft laws were taken up in October but only two MPs took part in the debate. On the instructions of then Prime Minister, Wickremesinghe voting was postponed indefinitely. The reason was to avoid persons from his own party being prosecuted over the bond scam.
What do you hope to do about it now? As soon as things return to normal in Parliament, my first task will be to ensure these amendments are introduced and passed. Otherwise, we will not be able to deal with the culprits involved in the bond scam and recovering the looted funds would be jeopardised.
Have you explained your position to the Colombo-based diplomatic community? There are fears of punitive action by some countries. I have explained everything to them. I met the envoys collectively and even individually thereafter. I also told them why it became difficult to continue with the then Prime Minister. I think they have understood my position. Reports of such action are being spread by our opponents to frighten us through a campaign of disinformation and fake news. We know who is behind them. Are you worried about the state of the economy?
Remember, the economy did not deteriorate during the last three or four weeks. It is the result of economic policies pursued by former Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. He could not improve the economy. He heaped hardships on the people. The business community was complaining of mounting taxes. He has gone to the extreme of new liberalised policies. People were burdened with rising living costs and a mounting fuel price increases. Who has to answer for all this? How long more do you think people will have to endure this situation? The issue can be resolved by proving who has the majority in Parliament. The other issue – the dissolution of Parliament – will be resolved when the Supreme Court gives its ruling on December 7.
Have you been preparing with Premier Rajapaksa to contest parliamentary elections
under an alliance? We have not thought about an election. Only if the Supreme Court accepts the dissolution we will think about it.
Armed with a vote of 121 in favour of appointing the Committee on Parliamentary Business on Friday, the UNF hopes it will bolster its claim for holding a majority in the House. Apart from the fact that the UNF would wield more clout in the Committee itself in the light of the new composition. The flip side is the fact that the Tamil National Alliance (TNL) cast 14 votes, the
Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) six votes, the UPFA three (A.H.M.Fowzie, Piyasena Gamage Manusha Nanayakkara) totalling 23. UNP MP Chatura Senaratne was absent during the vote. With his vote the UNP would have had 100 if counted with the Speaker.
This is in marked contracts with the Sirisena - Rajapaksa side which has 102. of this number, only 96 are from the Sirisena-Rajapaksa alliance.
Other than their allies, together with that of the Speaker, the number thus demonstrated by the UNF totals only 99. This is in marked contrast with SirisenaRajapaksa side which has 103. Of this number, 97 are from the Sirisena-Rajapaksa alliance. Three others are Athureliye Rathana Thera, Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe and Vasantha Senanayake from the UNF. There are two TNA MPs and Douglas Devananda from the EPDP. That reveals that neither side has the required number of 113. For the UNF, it would have to either seek the support of the TNA or the JVP to demonstrate it has a majority to form a government. Like voting for the appointment of the Committee, whether one of them will lend support remains a critical question. More so, in the case of the appointment of a Prime Minister.
On the other hand, the Sirisena-Rajapaksa government is firm in its view that it does not recognise Speaker Jayasuriya’s Committee or the electronic vote. Hence, even the adoption of a No Confidence Motion for a third time will not prompt recognition from President Sirisena. He could still say proper procedures have not been followed.
Thus, with Ranil Wickremesinghe ousted as Prime Minister, the battle is now more between President Sirisena and Speaker Karu Jayasuriya. The sniping and political warfare will continue until the Supreme Court makes its ruling known on December 7. Here again, it is on whether Sirisena’s action in dissolving Parliament is constitutional or otherwise. One way or the other, it does not portend a change of government unless what is called for as “the correct procedure is adopted” in Parliament in naming a Committee or Ranil Wickremesinghe quits as the leader of the United National Front (UNF). Neither is a likely prospect. The political turmoil, in this climate, is bound to continue with a New Year round the corner. One may have to drop the word “happy” when wishing another.