රනිල්ට වැරදුණේ කොතැන ද?
After the Supreme Court blocked the 19th Amendment strategy, Ivan assesses Ranil Wickremesinghe’s leadership. He compares the goals and power bases of J.R. Jayewardene, Ranasinghe Premadasa, Chandrika Kumaratunga and Wickremesinghe, and argues that the Prime Minister missed the chance, just after his election victory, to use his mandate to force the President into constitutional reform. He praises his resolve on peace but faults his reliance on personal friends rather than the cabinet and his failure to explain his goals.
අඳුර ආලෝකයක් කරගත නො හැකි ද?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the 19th Amendment needs both a two-thirds majority and a referendum, which only the President can call, opening a new political crisis. Ivan notes the irony of the 1978 constitution now hampering its UNP authors while the SLFP and JVP defend the executive presidency. He calls for an interim all-party government to agree on constitutional, electoral and party reforms, the ethnic question and national policies, followed by a clean election.
ඔලුවෙන් සිටුවා ඇති ස්වාධීන කොමිෂන්
Ivan argues that the government’s proposed 18th Amendment, shielding the Constitutional Council from fundamental-rights suits, ignores the real flaw in the 17th: Jayampathy Wickramaratne’s redraft for the President left her the power to nominate holders of key posts. He recounts the civil-society origins of the reform and the JVP and UNP roles in its passage, notes Priyani Wijesekera as its first victim, and proposes public vetting of Council members, barring them from legal practice and letting the Council investigate complaints against senior judges.
19 වැනි සංශෝධනය
The government seeks a 19th Amendment to remove the President’s power to dissolve Parliament after one year, while the President resists. The editorial supports the change, citing France, but warns against repeating the hasty 17th Amendment and lists further defects to fix: the President’s right to hold cabinet portfolios, presidential immunity and the distorted Constitutional Council. It urges a transitional programme that does not make the opposition fear a two-thirds majority.
ජේ.ආර්. ගේ “ගෝල්ඩ් රොලෙක්ස්” චන්ද්රිකාගේ පතේ පිලිප්ස්”
Ivan recalls an acquaintance who contrasted J.R. Jayewardene’s showy gold Rolex with the far costlier Patek Philippe worn by Chandrika Kumaratunga, and traces the Bandaranaike family’s modest finances from the Maha Mudaliyar to the 1956 election loans. He describes a phone call in which the President spoke of the watch, a gift she planned to auction, and his article leading her to hand gifts to the Treasury. He then recounts his failed efforts to obtain ministers’ and the President’s asset declarations.
ඒකාධිපතියන් රටට අවශ්ය නැත
The editorial accuses the President of abusing her powers under the distorted 17th Amendment. She has kept Priyani Wijesekera, the most senior and qualified candidate, as only acting Secretary-General of Parliament despite the 14-day limit on acting appointments, and passed over Justice Mark Fernando, whose ruling that presidential immunity ends with the term of office she resented, when naming an acting Chief Justice. It calls on all parties to correct the amendment.
ව්යවස්ථාව සමග වළ කජු ගැසීම
Ivan traces how politicians have toyed with the constitution: the authoritarian features of J.R. Jayewardene’s 1978 charter, rushed through as urgent; Chandrika Kumaratunga’s broken promise to abolish the executive presidency and her transitional clauses keeping her in power; the 2000 attempt to pass a new constitution by buying UNP votes; and the distortion of the 17th Amendment by Jayampathy Wickramaratne. He notes the Speaker signed the wrong draft, leaving commissions in legal limbo, and argues the proposed 19th Amendment is too narrow.
දූෂණයට වඩා වගකිව යුත්තේ දේශපාලකයා ද රාජ්ය නිලධාරියා ද
Using the purchase of armoured vehicles for the President, where Rs 2,400 million was spent against a parliamentary allocation of Rs 63 million on used BMWs bought through an intermediary, Ivan argues that senior officials bear greater blame than politicians because their posts are permanent and they are bound to uphold the law. He criticises the Treasury Secretary and the Auditor General, including over the President’s Fund, privatisation and Mangala Samaraweera’s credit-card spending, and calls for top officials and politicians to be prosecuted and jailed.
17 වැනි සංශෝධනය ඔළුවෙන් සිටුවීම
The idea of a Constitutional Council, advanced by professional bodies and backed by pro-democracy and media groups, was meant to take appointments to key posts out of the head of state’s arbitrary hands. The editorial argues that the version of the 17th Amendment drafted with JVP mediation reverses this, leaving the President to nominate and the Council merely to approve, a distortion it attributes to the President, the Chief Justice and Jayampathy Wickramaratne, with the UNP assisting through carelessness.
නීතිය ඔලුවෙන් සිටුවීම
Ivan rejects the Bribery Commission’s ruling that the Chief Justice is not a public servant and that his complaint against Sarath N. Silva and Lenin Ratnayake falls outside its remit, citing the Penal Code and the assets law. Further sections argue that the 17th Amendment was certified without its transitional provisions, leaving the existing commissions without legal standing; criticise the Constitutional Council’s demand for immunity through an 18th Amendment; and ask whether the securities found in Anuruddha Ratwatte’s safes will be pursued.