President battles with his own

Ecstasy and agony over Sirisena's mes sage to the nation: UNP overjoyed, SLFP and UPFA furious

It was an epochal, rare and historic moment in Sri Lanka's three decade old executive presidency.A President heaped both agony and ecstasy to his fellow countrymen on the eve of a parliamentary election. Just one sentence in a 62 minute address to the nation said it all. President Maithripala Sirisena declared that he would urge "the people to select those who are suitable to march forward with the January 8 mandate." The message was clear - support the United National Party (UNP) and its allies. It is the UNP and its allies who had carried forward the mandate with a 100 Day Programme of Work. The President cemented his appeal by saying "after the election results are declared, for the next five years I will take forward the transformation that began on January 8 and continue on the same path for the next five years." The people, he said he was certain, would judge him by the end of that period.

That it came from Sirisena, who is the leader of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the predominant partner in the United People's Freedom Alliance (UPFA), was agony for their leaders and supporters. The shock was too much for them to bear. If only days earlier they had decided not to criticise Sirisena at election rallies, the mood changed. During their own discussions they accused him of treachery and betrayal. They are now headed for a confrontational course. Yet, they chose to refrain from public utterances, though one speaker -who is not a member of the SLFP at the inaugural rally in Anuradhapura on Friday went to the extent of likening Sirisena to a fox which pretended to be a lion and the king of the jungle.

It was ecstasy for the UNP and its allies who form the United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG). The weekly ministerial meeting now re-scheduled for Wednesday mornings due to polls events in the afternoons took the air of an election rally. As Sirisena walked into what was once the well of the House (Parliament) at the Presidential Secretariat, ministers of the caretaker Cabinet began clapping. They were showing their gratitude to Sirisena for supporting their cause the night before. That forced a smile out of a serious looking President. Other than that, there was no discussion on the subject during a meeting that lasted one hour. It only focused on the cabinet memoranda before them.

On Tuesday afternoon, the President's media unit had invited local television networks for the recording of Sirisena's address. Looking somewhat sombre he spoke impromptu. A two page text of his speech was released by the unit. The English version did not do any good to the presidency or to Her Majesty the Queen's language. The most significant highlight in Sirisena's address was his advice to the voter to return to power those who could carry forward his January 8 mandate, or the UNP. He then dealt essentially with three key issues - his predecessor's candidacy at the elections, why he chose to dissolve Parliament ahead of a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and a revelation to the nation that he had asked Premier Wickremesinghe to urge Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran to resign. He said he had done so because Premier Wickremesinhe had a clean image. In the case of the latter, the President was publicly conceding, to say the least, that there was something seriously wrong with the Central Bank bond issue.

That Sirisena has been under pressure in the past many days is no secret. He admitted in his address that "political analysts and the media are vehemently attacking me as a villain and betrayer." Noting that he took such criticism on the stride, he warned that no one should misuse media freedom but instead enjoy the blooming of democratic rights. Though some Government politicians, under criticism, have complained there should not be "freedom of the wild ass," President Sirisena should be commended for not abusing his executive authority. Those who are judgemental about so called media freedom abuses are largely those who are at the centre of an issue. If indeed there are abuses, there is legal recourse for them. On the other hand, most media extend a right of reply to those aggrieved. During President Rajapaksa's tenure, the state media were blatantly abused. Others then in authority usurped a President's executive powers. Among their acts were to harass, intimidate, abduct, assault and even kill journalists. This suppression prompted those wanting to air their grievances to turn to social media which came to be most sought after as the traditional media were forced into veiled intimidation and self-censorship. Hence, a suppression locally led to a growth of the web media operating from abroad. A ban on them by the previous Government only made them even more sought after. Thus, from the suppression of the mainstream media the focus shifted to the social media. The Government was shot by its own petard.

The ban on social media websites was lifted after Sirisena was voted to power.Now, Sirisena laments they were targeting him.

Besides his appeal to the voters, two other issues raised by Sirisena are debatable. One is his claim that "I decided to remain the party leader but allowed them to nominate him (Mahinda Rajapaksa) as the candidate." He added "I am still opposed to this." It is public knowledge that Sirisena had two different meetings at night with Rajapaksa. They were not social calls but ones that related to his predecessor's candidacy. He tried to hide this meeting from the public by issuing a silly statement the next day denying he met Rajapaksa - at the Speaker's residence; when he met him at his own residence but failed to say so in his denial. As revealed in these columns, that is where matters related to Rajapaksa's candidacy were discussed and later finalised. Of course, Sirisena does admit that he decided "to remain the party leader but allowedthem to nominate" Rajapaksa. There is a corollary to this argument. If Sirisena did not allow it, Rajapaksa would not have been a candidate. Therefore, it was with Sirisena's consent, though he was opposed, that the former President emerged as candidate.

Sirisena said that he had to dissolve Parliament to prevent Mahinda Rajapaksa from entering Parliament on the national list and becoming Prime Minister by defeating Ranil Wickremesinghe in a no-confidence motion. It is still too early to even suggest which party would come to power after the August 17 elections. However, for argument sake if Rajapaksa is elected with a sizeable majority and a claim is made, Sirisena's statements would mean he will not swear him in as Prime Minister. Here is a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, as leader of the SLFP albeit UPFA, Sirisena has refused to make Rajapaksa the Prime Ministerial candidate. However, a possible refusal to swear in Rajapaksa if he wins with a majority raises a different issue. The act of swearing in a Prime Minister would have to be performed by the President of Sri Lanka and not the leader of a party. Of course, under 19A he is empowered to pick who would be the Prime Minister if he is from the same party. Therefore, speaking academically, he could well have done so in a situation that could have followed a no-confidence motion. He need not have picked Rajapaksa if he (Sirisena) did not like it. Here is an unprecedented situation where the President has boldly expressed his support to another party than the one he leads.

President Sirisena confirmed disclosures in these columns last week. He declared that "I always wanted to prevent annihilation ofa political party after an electoral debacle, as it happened in 1970, 1977 and again in 2010." His official statement said his actions were "due to my belief that there should be a bicameral (sic) system for the survival of democracy." In his Sinhala speech he was referring to the need for a strong two-party system - not a 'bicameral' system which is having two legislatures like the Parliament (Lower House) and a Senate (Upper House).

The Governments formed after the three parliamentary elections he referred to were the result of mandates the winning party received from voters leaving their rivals with a small number of seats. The question is whether a situation to arrest such a possibility should be engineered by the executive or done through acceptable mechanisms via constitutional amendments or changes in the polls law.On the other hand, a two thirds majority does not portend healthy forebodings to an execu- tive presidency and constitutes a lingering threat. The prospects of a successful impeachment are higher.

That Sirisena's declarations had jolted the UPFA leaders was evident when they gathered at Rajapaksa's Mirihana residence on Wednesday morning. There was anger. When one of them said "Sirisena has finished us all," others nodded their heads. Among those present were UPFA General Secretary Susil Premajayantha, SLFP General Secretary Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, National Freedom Front leader Wimal Weerawansa, Mahajana Eksath Peramuna - MEP leader Dinesh Gunawardena, Nava Sama Samaja Party - NSSP leader Vasudeva Nanayakkaraand Former Minister Kumar Welgama.

The discussion led to a call to summon a meeting of the SLFP Central Committee (CC) on Wednesday evening. It was to discuss matters arising out of Sirisena's address to the nation. Dinesh Gunawardena, though not a member, suggested that it be held at the SLFP headquarters at Darley Road.

Yapa spoke to President Sirisena on his mobile phone. He told him that a request has been made to summon the CC for 6 p.m. that evening. Yapa later told Rajapaksa that Sirisena had suggested that it be summoned for 8 p.m. the same day. Hours later President Sirisena had telephoned Yapa and requested him to cancel the meeting. He had even spoken to Minister S.B. Dissanayake and told him to persuade Yapa to do so. This is while an exchange of letters took place between Yapa and Sirisena.

In a letterhead bearing the Sri Lanka Freedom Party name in blue background, Sirisena sent by hand delivery a letter dated July 15 in Sinhala to Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, General Secretary, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. Headlined "Proposed Central Committee meeting," the letter said "I was informed that there would be a Central Committee meeting tonight at the party headquarters. I would like to mention I have not given permission to hold such a meeting. I want to emphasise that Article 14 (IV) and Article 15 (Section 1A) say no CC meeting could be held without the approval of the leader of the party. Therefore, I would kindly request that if such a meeting is scheduled, please stop it immediately. If such a meeting is held without my prior approval, such an act would be challenged in Courts." Sgd: Maithripala Sirisena. A copy of this letter was also sent to UPFA General Secretary Susil Premajayantha.

Yapa replied on the same day, July 15. He had it hand delivered to Sirisena. He said "Your Excellency - I refer to the telephone conversation I had with you. During that conversation I informed you that party seniors wanted me to get your permission to summon a Central Committee meeting to discuss a couple of important matters relating to the upcoming elections. Your Excellency granted permission for me to convene such a meeting today at 8 p.m. Since you have approved the request I convened the meeting. However, since Your Excellency informed me in writing to call off the meeting, I have done so. This is to inform you that I have cancelled it." Sgd: Anura Priyadarshana Yapa.

As mentioned in his letter to Yapa, there was court action to prevent the conduct of the CC meeting. As a precautionary measure, Sirisena asked his legal adviser Faizher Mustapha to draft papers to go to court to get an enjoining order against the holding of the SLFP CC meeting. Upon application to court, Colombo District Judge HarshaSethunga on Wednesday issued an enjoining order preventing the conduct of the SLFP Central Committee meeting without the knowledge of the Chairman of the SLFP President Maithripala Sirisena. The enjoining order is effective till July 29.

The petitioner was Prasanna Solangaarachchi, the Chairman of the Kotikawatta - Mulleriyawa Pradeshiya Sabha, and a UPFA candidate at the election. He said in his petition that a Central Committee meeting had been summoned for July 15.

Conflicting reports, it appears, led to President Sirisena seeking an immediate cancellation of the CC meeting. Reports reaching him had spoken of moves by pro Rajapaksa groups to move a resolution to remove Sirisena from his post as leader of the SLFP. That would have entailed a time consuming process since the party's constitution has to be amended. At present the party constitution provides for the President of the country to be the leader of the party - a change that was brought about by Rajapaksa when he was President.

"We had no plans to change the party leadership. In the light of the address to the nation by President Sirisena, we did want to make Rajapaksa the Prime Ministerial candidate and campaign leader," Wimal Weerawansa, NFF leader and a key player in the UPFA told the Sunday Times. He said Rajapaksa and the UPFA leaders would go to all 22 districts to address election rallies. Since President Sirisena is not taking part in the campaign, it is only logical that Rajapaksa should lead the campaign, Weerawansa added. Opposition Leader Nimal