|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Wednesday, 4 February 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
The President's term The end of the President's present term of office has already raised a controversy though it is due very much later. Contrary opinions have surfaced stipulating the period when the present President's term expires, the UNF categorically states that her term ends in 2005. This is understandable because she is a thorn in their flesh and the sooner they see the back of her the more they will rest in peace. In addition they have a glimmer of hope that their presidential nominee who is at present kicking his heels on the sidelines will be elected is in a hurry. The legal personnel on either side of the political divide must be burning the mid night oil trying to study the constitution on this aspect. There is no doubt ambiguity in the interpretation of the constitution as regards the presidential terms of office . 1. Two terms of six years each, if re-elected meaning a total of twelve years. 2. Two periods of five and seven years, a total of twelve years is allowed. 3. The President can be sworn in only on two occasions. This is not specified in the constitution. 4. Presidents swearing in must be a public display and not a closed door procedure. This is again not specified in the constitution. Legal opinion is also at variance depending on probably which side the person belongs to. In one such phone in conversation on television it was said that it was immoral for the President to continue beyond 2005. In the absence of no mention being made as to the unconstitutionality if the President continues till December 2006, she may well be constitutionally empowered to continue. Talking about morality one must recall the not so moral high ground tread by some of our past Presidents. The interference with the functioning of the judiciary, the stoning of the homes of judges who gave judgements against the UNP. Introducing clauses in the Judicial Service minute giving effect to retroactive legislation to disqualify the other contender from contesting the presidential poll are anything but moral. Anyhow as time goes by Sri Lanka is sure to face interesting times. Some thoughts on this matter may well be relevant. When the time comes The Commissioner of Elections will proclaim the date of the presidential poll. If he has any doubt he would do well to seek the advice of the Attorney General. On the other hand if he is of opinion that the President's term expires in December 2005, the President could seek the advice of the Attorney General and not satisfied proceed to the Supreme Court. Proceeding to court rulings on matters of presidency and its elections are nothing new. In the last presidential election in the US there were as much as fifteen court hearings at differing levels of courts to give legality to G. W. Bush's election which still remains in doubt. In Sri Lanka let us wait and see the outcome. What the President should or should not do is irrelevant at present unless the court is petitioned earlier on this matter. - Aravinda Gautamadasa |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
