“Dissolution was not made in good faith”

“Though the President has absolute discretion to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament he should do so with good faith. In the present case, he has prorogued and dissolved parliament at his discretion and in the meantime he has switched Prime Ministers and appointed cabinet ministers from Mahinda Rajapaksa’s party and deemed that Ranil Wickremesinghe’s cabinet members have ceased to function. He has also named a date for general elections. Has he acted in terms of the constitution. The dissolution was not made in good faith for several reasons. Firstly, the present President has a historical background in selecting Prime Ministers because he did not adhere to the proper methodology when appointing Ranil in the first time when D.M. Jayaratne was in office as Prime Minister. Secondly, he appointed MR as the Prime Minister when Ranil has not ceased office, has not resigned or died and continues to assert that he is the Prime Minister. Thirdly, the President prorogued Parliament without consulting the Parliamentarians as to whether they desired a change in the premiership. He selected MR without consulting Parliament. Then he dissolved Parliament which he had the right to do so, provided he acted in good faith. The above matters raises questions as to his good faith. Above acts show that he has acted contrary to the Constitution.

This whole wrongful exercise began with the 19A to the Constitution. Though it was brought by the “good governance” folk it took away the right of people to have a general election for four and a half years. (i.e it would take more than four and a half years because of the nomination and election period set out in the Constitution).

The President should have received a two thirds majority support in the Parliament to avoid the four and a half year absolute prohibition. This is unlikely because of the 5-year pension rule for Parliamentarians. He should have consulted the Supreme Court by obtaining guidance via a question posed to them. The public must have the right to have general elections to choose who should govern them. But the public is prohibited from having elections in terms of the 19A for four and a half years unless he obtains a two thirds majority in Parliament to have an election which is the people’s aspiration. The only way available to the President was the referendum process where he would have received an overwhelming ‘yes’ vote. More so under the present constitution the President is required to ensure that the Constitution is respected and upheld. In terms of the 19A, the President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution. Therefore if the Parliament was in session, it could have taken action against the President, instead of the UNP going to court, which is a slower process. There is an obvious lack of urgency on the part of the UNP and belatedness, and an unguided MR has lost the opportunity of the majority in Parliament because the people will now hold him responsible for the debacle in Parliament in being greedy for power. The nett result is we might have to face economic problems, lose face, be called a banana republic and become an economic liability to the people.

The President has a duty to find out as to whom the Parliamentarians consider most eminent to become the Prime Minister. He closed doors when he asked for a prorogation. In the 19A case of Gomin Dayasri v State Counsel Dayasri raised the question as to if it was not possible to have general elections for four and a half years whether it diminishes the fundamental rights of the people. CJ Sripavan said neither a ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ and gave no reasons for either possibility and it let to a downgrading of democracy.”