Dual citizenship clause runs risk of becoming permanent feature in Constitution

It was most disappointing that the dual citizenship clause in 19A was changed in the 20th Amendment (20A) due to personal reasons. 20A was passed in Parliament by a twothirds majority on October 22. We expected the President to act beyond personal reasons and prevent dual citizens from entering Parliament as he knows better than us how many LTTE sympathizers were trying their best to get dual citizenship in our country.

The letter published in the Sunday Times Plus on 20/09/2020 by A. B. Sosa, an Air Vice Marshal (Rtd) psc, VSV was a good eyeopener and a timely warning for our lawmakers and the public to realize the gravity of allowing dual citizens to become members of Parliament. However, due to the President’s appeal to the MPs and the clergy, they gave in because of the respect they have for him as a person who saved our country. But he would have been admired more if he heeded the public’s concerns about dual citizenship.

It is common knowledge that it was included in 19A to prevent him from becoming president. The sacrifice he made for the country was not forgotten and people voted him into the post of President with a huge majority. That was further enhanced at the general election as he proved that he was beyond any personal agenda and acted independently.

We fail to understand why the dual citizenship clause was changed, while giving the assurance that it will be reintroduced in the new Constitution in another year or so. If that is to be believed then it shows that there is an ulterior motive behind the issue - a cartoon in one of the newspapers shows that the intention is to bring in another family member to Parliament. We have a lot of respect for the tremendous service he has done in the formation of Viyath Maga and his continuous support given to the party and for the wellbeing of this country. Therefore, we trust such appointment will not be made as it will be proved beyond doubt to everyone the true reason for including this in the 20th Amendment.

We do welcome the intentions of the present government in changing the Constitution as that is what the majority of the people have been anxiously awaiting for many years. But it is common knowledge that one year is ample time for anything to happen between the cup and the lip. Passing of a new Constitution is not a simple issue as the 20A has proved beyond doubt that it will be a horrendous task. Past experience has proved that though many attempts were made to change the Constitution, they failed miserably. Once, we even watched on TV how a draft Constitution was burnt in Parliament.

Presently the Government enjoys 2/3rd majority needed for a new Constitution to be passed in Parliament. But what is the guarantee that it will remain so for the next one year or more? It is already evident that some of the members in the Cabinet did not agree with all the clauses in 20A but gave in as they believe in collective responsibility or else their only alternative was to resign.

Therefore, it is worrying that this dual citizenship clause runs the risk of it becoming a permanent feature in our Constitution and that we may have to face dire consequences in the future due to our own negligence. R. W. W. Via email