17 වැනි සංශෝධනයට සුභ පැතුම්
Despite its limitations, the enactment of the 17th Amendment is an important step towards rebuilding institutions broken by political interference. The editorial calls the Constitutional Council the heart of the reform and urges the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader and all parties to appoint honest people with backbone rather than political henchmen, to fill the commissions likewise, and to clean the top of the pyramid first by removing corrupt heads of institutions.
17 වැනි ව්යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය හා ශ්රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය
Ivan argues that constitutional amendments should not be rushed or sent to court before the public sees the draft, citing N.M. Perera and faulting Batty Weerakoon and Jayampathy Wickramaratne. He contrasts the seven- and nine-judge benches that reviewed earlier amendments with Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva’s small benches that left out Mark Fernando, A.R.B. Amerasinghe and Ranjith Dheeraratne, and objects to his ruling that ITN, Lakhanda and Lake House, as companies, fall outside the Elections Commission’s powers.
තරමක් අංගවිකලයි ඒත් නරකම නෑ
Ivan welcomes the 17th Amendment but lists its flaws: no public debate, no published draft, brief review by a three-judge bench, and passage without a final draft before Parliament. He faults the UNP’s weak first draft and lack of vigilance, credits the JVP for securing the reform but says it accepted a presidential nominee on the Constitutional Council and backed Jayampathy Wickramaratne’s plan to drop Mark Fernando and A.R.B. Amerasinghe from the Judicial Service Commission. The government, he says, kept the council, the Chief Justice and state media within its reach.
Debilitated, but not too bad
For all the serious and inherent limits of the Seventeenth Amendment, the fact that a Constitutional Council and a system of independent commissions have been enacted is a very important step. It was the JVP’s intervention that got even this debilitated version through.
පෙරමුණේ අවංකභාවය උරගා බැලෙන පරික්ෂණයක්
Ivan calls the JVP–PA probation pact a test of the JVP’s maturity and honesty. Its claimed gains are hollow: the referendum was dropped because of public protest, and Parliament was brought forward only a day, perhaps because astrologers deemed the 7th inauspicious. Quoting the PA’s 1994 manifesto, he shows the pledge of 20 ministers covered all ministers, and warns that the pact’s ‘mutually agreed amendments’, a presidential nominee on the Constitutional Council and resistance to reviewing office-holders could deform the 17th Amendment.
රවට්ටන්න යන්නේ කාවද?
The politicisation of institutions that should be independent is a main cause of the country’s decline, and the 17th Amendment was meant to hand key appointments to a respected Constitutional Council. The editorial notes that the opposition draft provided for eight members, including five eminent persons chosen jointly by the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader, but the government, backed by the JVP, now proposes seven members including a presidential nominee, giving it a majority. This, it says, merely dresses up the old system.
17 වැනි ව්යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය
Ivan welcomes the JVP–PA agreement to enact the 17th Amendment’s Constitutional Council and four independent commissions by 24 September, and describes the council’s makeup and the fourteen offices it would fill. He lists further posts that should come under it, faults the draft for leaving current office-holders in place and for having no complaints procedure, and says the Bribery Commission, the Auditor General, the Attorney General and the Elections Commissioner must be held to redefined duties.
ඇති කරන්නට යන ව්යවස්ථා ක්රමයට ආවේණික සීමා
Ivan welcomes the proposed Constitutional Council and five commissions but says they lack any mechanism to monitor holders of high office once appointed. He cites cases where no one acted: a complaint to Court of Appeal President Palakidnar about Sarath N. Silva, an alleged assault attempt by a Supreme Court judge, a High Court judge accused of abusing a young domestic worker, and Lenin Ratnayake still in service, and faults the Attorney General, Elections Commissioner and Auditor General, proposing an ombudsman-type body under the Council.
ශ්රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය කොතරම් දුරකට ස්වාධීනද?
The editorial argues that Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva is serving the President’s political aims, as seen in government-related cases and the proposed 17th Amendment to change the electoral system. Unlike earlier amendments heard by the most senior judges, this bench excluded the four seniors and constitutional experts Mark Fernando, A.R.B. Amerasinghe and Ranjith Dheeraratne, and allowed a change that would give the alliance 201 of 298 seats and the JVP none without a referendum.