By Sarah Hannan A majority of the members of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) voted in favour of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, while Party Leader Rauff Hakeem voted against it. The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), of which the SLMC is a coalition partner, had reached an official decision not to support the 20th Amendment. The Sunday Morning this week spoke with SLMC General Secretary Nizam Kariapper on the party’s way forward, following the 20th Amendment being finalised. Several SLMC MPs voted in favour of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution while your Party Leader voted against it. Did the SLMC officially decide to support the 20th Amendment? Before the voting took place, the high command of the party met. According to the party Constitution, it is the high command that has the right to take a decision on the other parties. At that time, the high command meeting just discussed the pros and cons of the 20th Amendment, and most of the views that were expressed highlighted certain clauses in the 20th Amendment which may not be acceptable by the party position, especially regarding three matters – mainly the independent judiciary's right to make the judiciary appointments, the independence of the election commission, and the rights of the Executive to dissolve Parliament at his discretion in two-and-a-half years. We had a little bit of advice and we thought if that could be spared, we should be able to consider supporting the 20th Amendment. But the underlying factor is that we took a final decision – we gave the right to the Parliament rules adapted by the Leader to take whatever decision that is appropriate on the floor. We were consulted to give the Parliamentary Group, headed by the Leader, a decision collectively under the guidelines of the leadership, which was the final decision we took. There was also an expression of members regarding certain fundamental issues of the Muslims, especially in the matter of cremating a person of Islamic faith who dies of Covid-19. What we found was an international norm approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO) which accepts the burial of Covid-19 patients. Any other issue, relating to the Muslims of Sri Lanka, needed to be discussed before extending support to the Government, with an act in collective of our bottom-line. From the party’s point of view, as the General Secretary and a person who took part in the high command, I must say that our position remains to reflect that we made a collective decision. Was the SLMC in agreement with SJB’s stance of opposing the 20th Amendment? That is a complete misconception. The right of a party to take a decision within the SJB has always remained independent. We have never compromised our political stand. As a party, we take a political decision independent of SJB’s decision. So, I would say not only on the 20th Amendment, but in any amendment, we retain our independence. We try to make decisions within the SJB. There is an allegation that the SLMC adopted a strategic move with some standing by the Opposition by voting against the 20th Amendment while some others supported the Government by voting in favour. How do you respond?  That is a dilemma we faced. Finally, when the voting came into play, we found that the leadership was totally against it, while some of the members voted in favour of the 20th Amendment. That created a huge suspicion in the minds of the people, as to whether we had adapted a duplicity or strategy, or tried to conceal ourselves. But I would say that immediately after the vote took place, I did make my position clear as the party’s General Secretary, as the Leader was very concerned. We called for a meeting with the party’s members in Parliament at the Leader’s residence. We, in fact, looked into this incident in question during which time we realised that there are certain concerns for the parliamentarians, especially those from the Eastern Province, and some of the aspirations of the communities of the Eastern Province lie over their relationship with the Government, which we did appreciate at that point. But our Leader felt that, in line with the allegation levelled against the party leadership, it is important that a Member of Parliament does make their explanation available to the party high command. Did the party members who supported the 20th Amendment communicate to the party or its leadership of their decision to support the legislation?  This is a very sensitive matter; it boils down to whether there was an understanding between the party leadership by the Parliamentary Group before they took a different decision. I realised that there was a conflict in things that were expressed; he took a decision for this matter to be placed before the high command to take a decision. I would, for the moment, remain non-committal because in my presence, MPs expressed some of their points of view and we were also able to tell them the difficulty and the embarrassment we faced following the part of this division. However, I will not comment on it until the meetings with the high command are over. Will the party take any form of disciplinary action against the MPs for violating the collective decision of SJB MPs since the SLMC is a coalition partner of the SJB?  What we agreed was to take a decision within the party collectively with the Leader. We did not force them to vote in favour or against it. What happened was not what the party expected – there was a division with the Leader on one side and the MPs on the other. MPs have their own reasons, and the Leader had his own reasons as to why he was unable to support the 20th Amendment. Those explanations should come to the high command, and whether it would be translated into disciplinary action, is a decision the party’s high command will take up during the next meeting. SJB MPs have urged the Opposition Leader to take stern action against the errant MPs. How will the SLMC explain the situation to the SJB?  My understanding of their communication is that they are disappointed with the party leadership taking a decision to oppose it (20 Amendment) and the MPs and the SLMC opposing that. They (the SJB) translated this into “the party acting against the party’s (SJB) leadership”. They also clearly said that it is the party that has to take a decision and tell them what to do. So, that is the correct position; we have clearly brought forth a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the SJB, noting our separate identity within the SJB and our right to take collective decisions actively as a party, independent of SJB when it comes to anything with their policy decisions. Perhaps from their point of view, they may be expecting our official stand, which will be communicated to them once we decide at the high command meeting. SJB members have also called for the sacking of the SLMC Leader if he fails to expel the errant MPs from Parliament. How do you respond to this? I don’t think the SJB as a party has any political or legal right to take action against the SLMC. The SLMC MPs remain independent and as far as their disciplinary action is concerned, perhaps they might decide that the SLMC cannot be part and parcel of the SJB as one Opposition group. That is something the party leaders need to meet and decide. We have been always clamouring, and the biggest setback of the SJB coalition is the absence of a leadership council where all party leaders and its necessary secretaries to the parties can iron out these issues and take a decision. It is important that the SJB consults the leadership (of each coalition party) before they come to a decision because this is the pragmatic way of handling a coalition. What is the SLMC’s view on the 20th Amendment as an individual political party? I have to go by what I said – my personal view. After taking into consideration the concerns expressed by the Eastern Province MP, we can put it in this way: We can dilute some of the provisions by which they are trying to negate the democratic values which were introduced through the 19th Amendment. We do appreciate that the President of this country needs to be given certain powers to govern the country effectively. One aim of the Government may be that the President should be able to make the Parliament, Judiciary, and independent committees subservient. What we felt was the bare minimum; they must spare the Judiciary from the clutches of the Executive. Also, the Election Commission should be made absolutely independent so that the entire election procedure is entrusted to it. That is the foremost concern in a democratic nation. Similarly, the Executive should not be able to control the Legislature and it should be active during the period it gets elected and not be threatened by the Executive to be dissolved. Those are the three matters that need to be given some consideration in finally reaching the consensus in agreeing to support the 20th Amendment, and having said that, I would say the Government also should take the basic concerns that affect the Muslim community. Especially the Tamil-speaking Muslims are threatened by the illegal and unlawful claims that are made by some of the nationalist groups, saying the lands they live belong to the State or is part of an archeologically important site, which sometimes deprive the Muslim people from land they lived on. The Government should have had consultations with such communities, which would have helped draft the 20th Amendment in a different light. How will the SLMC get its relations with the SJB back on track? The SJB needs to appreciate our right to function independently as an Opposition party and not feel that we are bound to agree with them on anything. It must immediately bring into effect a leadership council, which we proposed, where all party leaders and necessary secretaries of the political parties can take part before any decision is made on any vital issue. That will facilitate all the political parties within the SJB, such as the TPA (Tamil Progressive Alliance), the SLMC, and the ACMC (All Ceylon Makkal Congress) while being in the Opposition and give the opportunity to play their role – even to take a stand against the SJB if necessary. A pragmatic approach is not accepted by the SJB; they must also realise that doing politics is not going to create permanent enemies or permanent friends. If they are thinking of a long-lasting relationship, they also have to do their homework properly. Will the SLMC join the Government? I don’t think so, because joining the Government necessarily means that certain assurances have to be given by the Government for some of the concerns we have. That has to be decided in consultation with the high command, and the high command feels that, as a party that started our community, there is some positive signal from the Government based on which we can join and work with them. We have always remained independent. What role will the SLMC play in the Opposition? This all depends on the decisions the high command is going to make, with the final decision to come from the Leader, who has a great influence over its members. Invariably, we will listen to the high command members and address the concerns of the MPs. I sincerely believe we shall be able to take an appropriate decision at the end of the high command meetings.