• 19A is a thrice-diluted hodgepodge
• Proposed 21A is far less than 19A
• Executive Presidency must be abolished
• Tamil national question needs addressing
• People’s cry is ‘Gota go home’
• President and Parliament have lost mandate
• Immediate election and referendum needed

By Marianne David Constitutional amendments can ensure political stability, which is urgently needed for economic stability, says Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Member of Parliament M.A. Sumanthiran, PC. Commenting on the 21st Amendment Bill presented to the Cabinet by Minister of Justice, Prisons and Constitutional Reforms Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe on 23 May, which was being studied by parliamentary party leaders over the last week prior to being taken up for discussion on Friday (27), MP Sumanthiran told The Sunday Morning on Thursday that the “thrice-diluted” 19th Amendment was bad enough as it was, but the proposed 21st Amendment was worse. “From my perspective, this 19th Amendment business means that the abolition [of the Executive Presidency] will never take place. In the first instance, to bring back the 19th Amendment itself is a problem. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe’s draft is worse, because it is far less than the 19th Amendment,” he asserted. Amidst the ongoing political upheaval, the 21st Amendment Bill has come in for wide criticism from other quarters as well – both political and business – over the last few days, with the Government being charged of insincerity or going nowhere near enough in delivering on its pledges. “Even with the thrice-diluted 19th Amendment, the president could not hold ministries. An exception was made only for President Maithripala Sirisena and only for that particular term. Therefore, even if Maithripala Sirisena had been re-elected, as the president he could not have held any ministry, not even Defence. With this, the president can hold any ministry,” Sumanthiran pointed out. The TNA MP also urged an immediate referendum on the matter, asserting that at this point in time, the people would certainly vote for the abolition of the Executive Presidency. “What’s the biggest cry of the people? ‘Gota go home’. When people say ‘Gota go home,’ voting against the Executive Presidency is a given, you will have 70% voting for abolition,” he noted, adding that the President and Parliament had lost their mandate and therefore an election and a referendum were essential, instead of cosmetic changes in an attempt to mislead the people. Following are excerpts of the interview: What are the legal reforms that are urgently required to address the political and economic crises in the country? The legal reforms needed are the abolition of the Executive Presidency – that’s an urgent matter – and of course the Tamil national question also needs to be addressed at this time.  Do you believe that constitutional amendments can ensure political and economic stability at this point? It will ensure political stability, which is urgently needed for economic stability. As you see it, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the 21st Amendment as proposed by Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe and how does it differ from the 19th Amendment? The 21st Amendment was said to bring back the 19th. In my opinion, that is not sufficient reform, because the 19th itself is a hodgepodge. It was diluted thrice. Originally, then President Maithripala Sirisena during his election campaign said he would abolish the Executive Presidency, but then with the ‘100 days programme,’ he said he would do only what is possible without a referendum. In the first instance itself it was drafted so as to not have anything that would require a referendum. That was the first point of dilution. Then, secondly, once it was gazetted and it went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court also disallowed some important provisions. In terms of taking away Executive powers of the president, the Supreme Court said that it could not be done and required a referendum. So that was the second point of dilution.  The third point was, when it came to the Parliament to pass it, the Government only had 43 members and over 150 were in the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA), so a lot of compromises had to be made. They required many things being dropped, which had to be done. In fact on the last day voting was extended by a further hour to negotiate all that and it was further diluted. The original intention was the abolition of the Executive Presidency, but it was diluted thrice. The excuse given was that ‘this is only a temporary measure and in the new constitution we are going to make, the Executive Presidency will be abolished’. But that new constitution later never came and we were stuck with the 19th Amendment and when the President and Prime Minister didn’t see eye to eye, there was a stalemate. Now that is the 19th Amendment everybody wants to be brought back, again as a stopgap, a temporary measure.  If you look at the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) proposal, it says bring back the 19th Amendment and then do the abolition. Again, it says abolition will happen but it will take about 15 months – the BASL has said 15 months but it won’t take 15 months, it will take about three months – and because of the time taken, it says to first do the 19th Amendment.  From my perspective, this 19th Amendment business means that the abolition will never take place. That first step is a hodgepodge, as I said. In the first instance, to bring back the 19th Amendment itself is a problem. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe’s draft is worse, because it is not even the 19th Amendment. It’s far less than the 19th Amendment. It has a provision where the president can hold ministries – that’s a crucial issue regarding the Executive powers of the president. Even with the thrice-diluted 19th Amendment, the president could not hold ministries. An exception was made only for President Maithripala Sirisena and only for that particular term. Therefore, even if Maithripala Sirisena had been re-elected, as the president he could not have held any ministry, not even Defence. With this, the president can hold any ministry. Do you see the abolition of the Executive Presidency ever happening without a referendum? In my opinion, you cannot totally abolish the Executive Presidency without a referendum, but I feel this is an ideal opportunity to hold a referendum. If you have a referendum and have the people decide at this point in time about the Executive Presidency, the people will choose to abolish it. Amidst these crises, do you see a referendum being held? With everything else that’s going on, are we able to hold a referendum? Well, you have to hold an election at some point. For political stability, you need an election. What’s the biggest cry of the people? ‘Gota go home’. In this, there are two things: They are saying ‘we don’t want this Executive President’ – the incumbent must go or his powers must be taken away, it’s one of the two. Also, when people say ‘Gota go home,’ voting against the Executive Presidency is a given, you will have 70% voting for abolition. The President has lost his mandate. That is why the people are saying this. Now, in my opinion, the Parliament has also obviously lost its mandate, so you must have an election. To stabilise the country, an immediate and urgent election is necessary. Therefore, you must hold the election and the referendum on the Executive Presidency on the same day. The voter can go into the booth only once; you cut costs that way.  We can even ask for a grant to hold the elections in order to stabilise the country, which is so necessary for economic stability. That is a necessity, without which nothing will happen. That is my view in respect of elections as well as the abolition of the Executive Presidency. Do you see any middle ground being reached, where some key powers of the Executive Presidency are curtailed, along with returning to the position of the 19th Amendment and continuing with that approach until the economy is stable? The 19th Amendment is a failure, because of all that I’ve said before. So what happens now? In the current situation, if no one budges, what’s going to give? How are these changes taking place? Because of public pressure. So the public must be told that this 21st Amendment story, which is not even the 19th Amendment, is actually trying to show the people that there are some major change while there is really no real change – the President remains with Executive powers, with powers to hold ministries also, which even with the 19th Amendment he couldn’t do – but some false pretence that change has been made.  So what is the TNA – and the Opposition – going to do about it? The Opposition has to bring this out to the people. We got Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe’s draft only yesterday (25 May). We will have to tell the people that this is a fraud on the people, that there is really no change. There is some change, in that independent institutions are being resurrected and all that, but vis-à-vis Executive powers of the President, there is no change. That is a crucial part here.  People have been wanting the President to go. That is the general slogan. Behind the slogan, one is that the person who is holding the office must go, but I think far more than that, it is that the unlimited Executive powers must go.  That is why those who have looked into it, say the Bar Association for instance, says that ‘okay you can do it in two stages – first bring in the 19th Amendment and then abolish the Executive Presidency,’ but there is no talk about abolishing the Executive Presidency.  The President in his address to the nation said he would start discussions with party leaders with regard to the Executive Presidency, but now there is absolutely no talk about the abolition of the Executive Presidency.  The same Parliament remains, the same people who were on the Government side have become ministers. Those who crossed over have gone back and become ministers. They say they are going back to the 19th Amendment, but they are not doing that fully either.  What’s all this agitation about? For 50 days, people have been agitating saying ‘President, go home,’ but they are just making some cosmetic changes and trying to show the people that their demands have been met. So there’s no sincerity on the part of the Government? Absolutely not.