ජනාධිපතිනිය ඉන්නේ දෝෂාභියෝගයක මුව විට ය
Ivan reads Chandrika Kumaratunga’s handover of domestic power to the UNF as a tactical retreat by a cobra biding its time, since she keeps executive power, command of the forces, a large security force and the power to dissolve Parliament. Because she installed a loyal Chief Justice who could nullify an impeachment, he argues that the new government must first remove Sarath N. Silva before moving against her, which would then require a presidential election.
ජනාධිපතිනිය චෙක් මේට් වේද?
After the People’s Alliance defeat, Ivan weighs the options facing Chandrika Kumaratunga, who still holds executive power. Contrasting American practice and French cohabitation under Mitterrand and Chirac with Sri Lanka’s short 1994 experience, he sees three paths: resignation, a Wijetunga-style nominal presidency, or removal by the new majority through budget control or impeachment. He calls for constitutional reforms making the president accountable to Parliament and the courts and giving the Prime Minister full domestic authority.
ජනාධිපති ක්රමය හා ඇටිකෙහෙල්
Comparing the executive presidency to seeded bananas, tasty but hard to digest, Ivan recalls N.M. Perera’s warning that the 1978 system would produce crises once president and legislature diverged. He traces the Premadasa impeachment attempt and Wijetunga’s restraint, then argues that Chandrika Kumaratunga’s arrogance towards her ministers and the opposition, capped by Rauff Hakeem’s dismissal and the prorogation, has trapped her and may pit a hostile new government against her.
Darkest period of judiciary
The UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges asked, through the Foreign Minister, that the Chief Justice be prevented from sitting while the impeachment was under way. The Justice Minister has protested that no power may interfere with the judiciary, which under our constitution is independent.
අගවිනිසුරුගේ දේශපාලන භූමිකාව
The editorial recalls Ravaya’s protest when Sarath N. Silva was appointed Chief Justice while facing complaints before the Supreme Court, and says the aim was to bring the court under the President’s control. It faults the opposition for its slow move to impeach him after the 17th Amendment episode, notes Rauff Hakeem’s refusal to back the impeachment even as his party became the first target, and reports Speaker Anura Bandaranaike’s remark that any impeachment of his sister would end with Silva deciding it.
දෝෂාභියෝගයක් කැඳවා ගැනීම
Ivan compares how Presidents Jayewardene, Premadasa and Wijetunga handled Parliament, noting that Wijetunga let the narrowly elected People’s Alliance govern after 1994. President Kumaratunga, with the weakest parliamentary base of all, ruled more harshly than Jayewardene, and her treatment of Rauff Hakeem turned the government into a minority. By proroguing Parliament without telling the Cabinet as a no-confidence motion loomed, and floating a referendum, he argues she is inviting an impeachment backed by two-thirds of MPs.
විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්රමය අහෝසි නොකරන්නේ නම්, වහා ප්රතිසංස්කරණය කළ යුතුය
Ivan argues that the five proposed independent commissions cannot restore democracy unless the executive presidency is abolished or drastically reformed. Recalling N.M. Perera’s warning that a hostile parliament would paralyse the system and Colvin R. de Silva’s description of it as a constitutional dictatorship, he sets out eight reforms, including ending the President’s power to dissolve or prorogue Parliament at will, giving the Prime Minister the power to name the Cabinet, simplifying removal of a President, and handing key appointments to a Constitutional Council.
පාර්ලිමේන්තුව හා විධායකය අතර ගැටුමක් නොවැළැක්විය හැකි යි
The crisis over the Chief Justice has cost the government its majority, and after Parliament prevailed over the courts on impeachment, the piece expects the President to try to control Parliament. It argues that Parliament represents popular sovereignty more fully than the President, that proroguing it would risk anarchy, and that neither courts nor executive should interfere in its internal affairs, since Parliament created the presidency and can abolish it.
සරත් එන්. සිල්වා මහතා අධිකරණය කෙරෙහි ඇති කර තිබෙන විනාශය සුළුපටු නැත
As impeachment proceedings open, Ivan traces the crisis to Sarath N. Silva’s appointment while two disbarment complaints, one by Ivan himself, were pending, despite warnings from Chief Justice G.P.S. de Silva and senior lawyers. He recounts how Silva halted those inquiries, packed the bench hearing challenges to his appointment, narrowed fundamental rights jurisdiction, and was linked by phone records to Rohana Kumara, alleged mastermind of the Wijekoon murder, and to a fraudulent petition for the gunman Nupul Kumara.
Plotters of legal conspiracy stuck in mud
How a state metes out justice is said to show how civilised it is. The contents of the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice, and the way power is being used to abort that impeachment, show how uncivilised the affairs of this country have become.