Can the Political System be changed by way of Court Orders?
The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva now rules against the executive, and the public is pleased. Ivan sets this against the court’s record — the stay order on the impeachment motion, the JSC petition, and five years of turning away petitions to implement the 17th Amendment before Sumanasiri Liyanage’s succeeded — and argues that only changing the political system will last.
නීතීඥ සංගමයට ප්රශ්න 6ක්
After lawyers Neil Dias, Chandrapala Kumarage and Sena Liyanasuriya urged the Bar Association to act against Ravaya, Ivan recounts how inquiries upheld Ravaya’s charges against Lenin Ratnayake and Upali Abeyratne and poses six questions: on Sarath N. Silva’s domestic life and judicial ethics, his appointment while disbarment petitions were pending, Abeyratne’s promotion, the trust land obtained while on the Vijaya Kumaratunga commission, his continuing trusteeship, and his ties to Rohana Kumara, a suspect in the Wijekoon murder.
සාම කතා ඇරඹීම
Peace talks with the LTTE are due in early May, driven by international pressure after foreign help stopped the Tigers taking Jaffna. Ivan argues that the LTTE now knows Eelam will not be accepted and has softened its claim to be the sole representative of Tamils, but doubts the government’s maturity: it lacks an opposition consensus, a secure majority and internal unity. He urges state reform, accountability of the presidency and the independent commissions as the basis for consensus.
රාජ්ය ප්රජාතන්ත්රීය කිරීම
Ivan surveys reform proposals from parties and civil society: the UNP’s four independent commissions, the JVP’s call to abolish the executive presidency and for a state media commission, and the Alliance for Democracy’s conditions for reforming the presidency, on dissolution, appointing the Prime Minister and Cabinet, expulsion of MPs and emergency powers. He adds the Editors’ Guild proposals on criminal defamation, freedom of information and an independent Press Council, citing Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe’s dual roles.
තොරතුරු ලබාගැනීමේ අයිතිය රාජ්ය පාලනය විවෘත කිරීමට හේතු වේ
Welcoming the UNP’s acceptance of the professionals’ draft for four independent commissions, the editorial backs the Editors’ Guild draft on freedom of information, Article 19’s campaign and the Democratic Alliance’s twelve demands. It traces unfulfilled pledges from the Premadasa era and the R.K.W. Goonesekere committee, and argues that a right to information would curb secret privatisation deals such as Air Lanka’s, empower villagers, and force the Auditor General, Elections Commissioner and tax authorities to do their duty.
ජනමාධ්ය නිදහසට එරෙහිව සාපරාධී අපහාස නීතිය
Although its first media minister Dharmasiri Senanayake called the People’s Alliance a government brought to power by journalists, it has reformed only parliamentary privilege law and, instead of repealing criminal defamation, filed twelve cases against editors, six of them against Ravaya. Sinha Ratnatunga and Lasantha Wickrematunge were convicted of defaming the President, who never testified. The editorial contrasts English practice and the Salman Rushdie episode, cites New York Times v. Sullivan, and notes that the 1996 recommendations of the R.K.W. Goonesekere committee were ignored.
ජනමාධ්යවේදින්ට ඇණ ගැසීම
The editorial condemns the People’s Alliance’s use of criminal defamation against critical editors, first Sinha Ratnatunga of the Sunday Times and now Lasantha Wickrematunge of the Sunday Leader, both given suspended sentences that leave them one conviction from prison. The government promised to repeal the law; the R.K.W. Goonesekera committee recommended repeal or amendment, a select committee stalled and a multi-party repeal motion was never debated.
වයඹ ඡන්ද පෙත්සම්වලට සිදුවූයේ කුමක්ද
Ivan examines the dismissal of all petitions on the 1999 North Western provincial election at the preliminary objection stage for failing to show specific effects on the petitioners. He notes that K.N. Choksy and H.L. de Silva argued the reverse positions from the 1988 presidential petition, argues that the court should have treated the case as one of popular sovereignty, and faults the Elections Commissioner, who annulled nine polling stations and knew of 236 stuffed boxes, for not seeking a fresh poll.