President should have got legal advice from the Attorney General
In his address to those assembled at the Presidential Secretariat after swearing in Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe last Sunday December 16th, the President stated, among many other things, that he had dissolved Parliament not on his own accord (“everyone knows I’m not a lawyer”) but after receiving the advice of eminent legal persons including Presidents Counsel.
But it’s well known that he did not obtain the advice of the one legal luminary that he should have consulted, i.e. the Attorney General of this country who is the Chief Law Officer of the State (let’s just call him “CLOS”).
I would therefore like to add to Dr. Nihal Jayawickrema’s list of questions and ask “Why didn’t someone tell him that CLOS is the State official whose bounden duty it is to give legal advice to the President and that before the President exercises his Constitutional powers he should ask CLOS for advice?
Why should he do that? Because -
The President is not a lawyer and obviously, and as admitted by him, doesn’t have a clue about how to interpret the Constitution. But that’s quite ok. He needs sound legal advice;
CLOS is not a political creature and will give sound legal advice since in any event it is CLOS that has to defend the actions of the President in a court of law;
CLOS will consult with his team in the department and therefore his advice will have the added advantage of scrutiny by those with varying views and perspectives of the law (not politics);
CLOS has to be cited, according to the Constitution, as the first Respondent in an FR application against the President and it is therefore CLOS who is called upon to argue the case for the President. If the President has not acted on his advice, how can CLOS defend him?
It is unsafe to act on the advice of others who surround the President pledging political affiliations,(and who are probably the ones he consulted with, this time), for the following reasons
their advice will be compromised by
their political affiliation;
they will be prejudiced because of what they personally want out of the situation;
they are a dangerous breed totally incapable of giving advice that will serve the best interests of the President and of the country;
getting advice from Presidents Counsel does not necessarily carry an assurance of quality, because PC’ships are now handed down like JP appointments, or even more generously perhaps, without any quality control;
they are also probably stupid to boot.
And, now those very same advisers are probably the ones telling the President to tell the country what we actually heard the President and a few others say the other day - that the Supreme Court decision deprived the people of an election. They cannot admit to the President that they had got it all wrong, can they? After all, perverse minds don’t admit when they screw up. They’re probably still badgering the President saying they were right and the people were deprived of their franchise!
Will someone please explain the judgment of the Supreme Court to our Sunday, December 23, 2018 President and tell him that he shouldn’t say things like that because the case in the Supreme Court was not about an election but about the legality of dissolving the Parliament before 4 ½ years. The essence of the Supreme Court decision is that, for the people to be granted franchise, there must first be a lawful dissolution of Parliament. The franchise of the people cannot be given effect to, by permitting a general election which is held consequent to the unconstitutional dissolution of Parliament. Not a very complicated issue, is it?
DW