Archives

Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapakse's statement in Parliament at the beginning of yesterday's proceedings:

"The purported Ruling made on 19.11.2003 by the Hon. Speaker to the effect that the prorogation of Parliament by H. E. the President in the exercise of the powers vested in her under Article 70 of the Constitution was allegedly aimed at paralysing the legislative arm of Government and or that the majority of Members of Parliament should have the right to ask that Parliament be convened during the period of prorogation including an amendment to the procedure to enable it to duly exercise this power, is without any foundation or basis either under the Constitution or Parliamentary practice.

I wish to state that I am confining myself to the issue of the power vested in H. E. the President under the Constitution to prorogue Parliament.

The Hon. Speaker has said, at the outset of his said Ruling that, no request was sought from him by the Hon. Prime Minister or any Member of Parliament as to the constitutionality of H.E. the President's act of proroguing Parliament. If so, his Ruling that Parliament can by a majority ask for a reconvening of Parliament during the period of prorogation was not called for.

Further as presently advised I deny, that the Hon. Speaker has any power or jurisdiction to make any Ruling or pronouncement that seeks to bind the plenitude of powers vested in the President of the Republic under the present Constitution unless expressly conferred thereunder.

The basis on which the Hon. Speaker has arrived at the aforesaid Ruling, which I respectfully submit are misconceived, are as follows:

a) That sovereignty under Article 4 of the Constitution is divided and exercised by the executive President, Parliament and the Judiciary;

b) The powers vested in H. E. the President under Article 70 of the Constitution is in the scheme of the Constitution not an attribute of executive power but rather an administrative function vis-a-vis Parliament and is hence not absolute;

c) The exercise of the power to prorogue Parliament by H. E. the President must always be exercised in consultation with Parliament and must be accepted at all times as being subordinate to the legislative power of the people conferred on Parliament;

The aforesaid grounds adduced by the Hon. Speaker are utterly misconceived in law for the following reasons:

1) It is incorrect to say that sovereignty is divided as stated by the Hon. Speaker. Sovereignty under the Constitution is vested in the people. It is only for the exercise of that sovereignty, that the three agencies have been created;

2) The powers vested in the President under Article 70 to prorogue Parliament are unfettered and constitute part of the Executive powers of vested exclusively in the President;

3)The Supreme Court in its recent determinations on the abortive 19th amendment to the Constitution (by a 7 judge Bench) and on the powers of the President in relation to Defence (by a 5 judge Bench) unanimously held that the Executive powers vested exclusively in the President by the sovereign people are inalienable;

4)The power of prorogation has historically been vested in the executive. Prior to the present constitution of 1978 that power was exercised by the Governor-General under the Independence constitution of 1948 and the non-executive President under the 1st Republican constitution of 1972 on the advice of the Prime Minister.

The significant feature of the present constitution of 1978 is that today the Executive President elected directly by the people does not exercise any of her powers on the advice of the Prime Minister or any other Minister for that matter.

5) In fact the entire range of executive powers vested in the President under the Constitution, including the power to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister and Cabinet Minister are unfettered and is not based on advice and no prior consultation with any third party is required.

6) Even the Presidential power to dissolve Parliament which the present UNF administration tried to curtail by the abortive 19th Amendment to the Constitution was held by the Supreme Court to be part of the checks and balances imposed by the Constitution and a component of the executive powers vested in the President which Parliament was devoid of power to curtail.

7) Accordingly, if the power vested in the President under the Constitution to dissolve Parliament cannot be curtailed by Parliament neither can the power of proroguing Parliament which is also vested in the President under the Constitution be questioned in and/or in any manner curtailed by Parliament.

Thus the precedents from other Constitutions contained in the said Ruling are irrelevant because they are not comparable to our present Constitution.

In this regard it is important for the Hon. Members of Parliament to realise and accept that in the wider scheme of the present Constitution that the powers vested in the executive President except where expressly provided for in the Constitution cannot be curtailed or diminished or indeed questioned in Parliament.

I regret to note that although the Hon. Speaker referred to the Ruling made on 20th June 2001 by the former Speaker Hon. Anura Bandaranaike in relation to interim orders granted by the Supreme Court, the Hon. Speaker did not refer to the subsequent Ruling made by the Hon. Anura Bandaranaike dated 16th July 2001 as contained in a letter to the Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe when he was the Leader of the Opposition.

The aforesaid Ruling dated 16th July 2001 which is directly in point as it related to the prorogation of Parliament expressly determined that inter alia;

"The power to prorogue Parliament vested in the President by the Constitution is not expressly qualified by any pre condition for its proper exercise, no is there indication of the requirements that need to be fulfilled or as to the nature of the reasons which may prompt the exercise of the power".

Moreover in the aforesaid Ruling dated 16th July 2001 the then Hon. Speaker concluded that he was devoid of any power as Speaker to override the proclamation of prorogation and re-summon Parliament and continue with the conduct of Parliamentary business that was intended to be transacted in the session that terminated with the impugned act of prorogation.

Thus the then Hon. Speaker by the aforesaid Ruling in July 2001 expressly declined to accede to the request made by the Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe to re-summon Parliament prior to the date fixed by H. E. the President for its re-summoning.

Thus as the Hon. Members are aware the subsequent Ruling dated 16th July 2001 which dealt specifically with the challenge to a Presidential prorogation of Parliament must of necessity be more relevant and binding on this House. The earlier Ruling dated 20th June 2001 referred to by the Hon. Speaker dealt with an unrelated matter, namely a potential dispute between the Judiciary and Parliament.

Furthermore, my own research into the Standing Orders of the Parliament did not reveal any purported power vested in the Hon. Prime Minister to summon Parliament during the prorogation. Standing Order 14 which is of restrictive scope enables the Hon. Prime Minister to request the reconvening of Parliament only during an adjournment. It has absolutely no application to a prorogation or dissolution of Parliament as made clear by Article 71 of the Constitution.

In conclusion I submit on behalf of the Opposition that we are not in agreement with the said Ruling made by the Hon. Speaker on 19th November 2003. If Parliament seeks to arrogate to itself powers which it does not possess as suggested in the said Ruling it will violate the Constitution which all of us have sworn to uphold.

We are of the view that the prorogation of Parliament by H. E. the President with effect from 3rd November 2003 was a valid exercise of powers vested in her under the Constitution, and does not constitute a violation of Articles 3 and 4, and that such a power vested in the President is not subordinate to the legislative power of the people vested in Parliament".

www.ppilk.com

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager