• 22nd Amendment will be 19th Amendment Plus and more
• Ministry of Defence cannot be alienated from President
• Elections possible only when environment is right
• SOE was declared unwillingly and will not be kept for long
• New COPE, COPA members can continue work they were doing
• Differentiating peaceful protesters from violent elements a struggle
• Disagree with allegations of double standards in application of law

By Asiri Fernando The Government is confident that it can muster adequate support to pass the proposed new 22nd Amendment (22A) to the Constitution which will be tabled in Parliament soon, Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe told The Sunday Morning. According to the Justice Minister, the amendment, now approved by Cabinet, will see governance return to a model that was more progressive than the 19th Amendment (19A). He said that under the proposed 22A, key appointments, especially on the country’s fiscal policy, will need to be approved by a Constitutional Council that will be made up of representatives from the Government, Opposition, and small parties in Parliament. He defended the use of the State of Emergency (SOE), stressing that the Government had no choice but to do so reluctantly due to the violent and disruptive actions of a few. In an interview with The Sunday Morning, Rajapakshe argued that despite a strong desire by political parties and the public to hold early elections, the conditions needed to be right for the country to go for polls. He also conceded that bridging the public trust in law enforcement and justice may take some time, stating that he had plans to enact new legislation and continue his predecessor’s reforms programme. Following are excerpts of the interview: The Cabinet has approved the draft 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. Will the approved iteration of the 22nd Amendment return Sri Lanka to the 19th Amendment if approved by Parliament? What are the new features it will include? The 22nd Amendment is a much-improved form of the 19th Amendment. There are some good features from the 20th Amendment (20A) that we have retained. I am planning to present it in Parliament around 10 August.  The 22nd Amendment will propose to appoint three members of Parliament to the Constitutional Council; instead of the President and the Prime Minister deciding who is elected, we plan to propose that the three groups – the Government, the Opposition, and the small parties – decide who their representatives should be in the council. That can be done under the supervision of the Speaker. Next, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) and new members of the Monetary Board will also need to have the prior approval from the Constitutional Council. The approval of new members (not ex officio) is already in the 2002 Monetary Act.  Under 19A, the interim arrangement was for the president to hold three ministries – Environment, Mahaweli, and Defence. Now after 19A, the president couldn’t hold any ministries. However, you cannot remove the Defence Ministry from the president according to the Constitution. That has been affirmed by a Supreme Court judgement. Also, under 22A, when a bill is passed by Parliament, if a citizen is seeking to challenge it, they may now do so within 14 days. Earlier, it had to be within seven days. We came to this decision following the experience of how the bill on the Hambantota Port was rushed through Parliament. Another change is an amendment to Article 52 of the Constitution – where a minister ceases to hold office due to whatever the reason, the office of the ministry secretary also ceases to function. Under 22A, we have incorporated the relevant provisions that irrespective of the minister holding office, the secretary shall continue until a new secretary is appointed. Of the good features of 20A we want to retain, one is where in the committee stages you cannot introduce new amendments which are against the basic principles and norms of the bill already presented.  Under 19A there was a provision that for someone to challenge a decision of a president, you can only do so through an application for a Fundamental Rights violation in the Supreme Court. Under 20A, that was expanded to include the subject of a ministry held by the president; you can challenge it in the Court of Appeal through a writ application. That is an expansion we retain in 22A.  We also plan to retain the number of judges in the Supreme Court (it was increased from 11 to 17) and the Court of Appeal (from 12 to 20) that 20A introduced.  Meanwhile, 19A recognised the laws that need to be passed in terms of anti-corruption in line with the UN Convention. Although the provisions were there by 2018, I plan to get them approved by Parliament as soon as possible following the vote on the 22nd Amendment. I feel that legislation such as that on anti-corruption will also help rebuild confidence in Sri Lanka among the international community. How confident are you about support for the 22nd Amendment in Parliament? I am quite confident that we will get the support necessary. That is because 22A is the need of the hour. I think it is what is being demanded by the people – percentage wise, I think about 90% of the people want this. I think we can get a broad consensus on this. In fact, the Opposition was also demanding that 19A be brought back. There were allegations that 22A was ‘19 Minus,’ but this is ‘19 Plus’. There was reasonable criticism due to provisos added by the previous President, now I have removed them. Therefore, I don’t think anyone can be opposed to this. In my experience, for 19A we had only 47 in the Government, but in terms of votes we took about 215. That is because, when it is in the people’s best interest, public representatives can’t be opposed to that.  Our experience with the Right to Information Act (RTI) and the Witness Protection Act shows that we can get enough support in Parliament for acts that are in the best interest of the public. Concerns have been raised about inquiries by parliamentary committees – the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) and Committee on Public Accounts (COPA) – which have been suspended due to the prorogation of Parliament. Will the Government work with the Opposition to appoint capable and credible MPs to the committees to continue the accountability process? That is our plan. In 2015, when we were in government, we appointed Opposition MP Sunil Handunnetti to head COPE. Similarly, we will move quickly to appoint MPs to that role. However, prorogation doesn’t stop the inquiries; it is not meant to stop the process. The work can be carried forward. There won’t be any disruption to the powers, the work, and the process that was ongoing. Critics have questioned the continued use of the State of Emergency. Why is Sri Lanka continuing to use these regulations? We didn’t bring in the SOE willingly. We had no option due to the way some people were conducting themselves. There was violence and it left the country in a vulnerable place. Under the cover of apolitical peaceful protesters, there were a few politically involved groups who were trying to disrupt the entire system with the expectation that they would get some advantage out of it by ruining the country. We have no plans to continue the SOE for long. Another reason was due to the shortage of fuel and other items, there were many people waiting in queues and many of them poor and vulnerable. There were groups trying to agitate those in the queues toward various acts of mischief. We wanted to avoid that too because the first thing if you are running a government is to ensure law and order. How confident are you that there will be support for the all-party platform the President has called for? I presented a resolution in Parliament in the first week of April calling for an all-party interim government as I saw the need for this. That was before the protesters took to the streets, but the political parties rejected the idea then. Now, all parties are demanding it.  The President will meet all party leaders and we have invited all the members (MPs). We are hopeful that they will all come forward, because this is not the time to stand by party policies or on the sidelines. This is the time to unite for the betterment of the country. There has been a call for early elections. Is the Government keen to move towards an early election and if so, when can it be held?  Anyone who follows democratic principles will not be opposed to an election. But we are concerned about holding an election, because as a government, we need to be fully responsible for it and there has to be a conducive environment to hold an election. There has to be an economic capacity to hold one. Also, unless the basic needs are provided, how can you go for an election? So when the situation improves, we will do it. Otherwise, the country will keep getting poorer.  If we call for an election now, even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) may say the Government does not look stable and that they cannot help until we reach some stability and then those who have been most affected by this crisis – the poor – will be affected once again. Not only the poor but all people will have to suffer. What we are planning is to gradually bring the economy back to normalcy over the next six months – at least to the level it was prior to the Presidential Election of 2019. The use of the State of Emergency – isn’t it rule by law instead of rule of law? Opposition politicians, rights activists, and the Aragalaya movement have alleged that the law is being employed selectively to oppress dissent. How do you respond to such allegations? There are some reasonable grounds for such allegations. We concede that there is confusion. At the moment the problem for law enforcement and at times even the courts is about differentiating between the people who were genuinely involved in the Aragalaya movement and persons who caused destruction. I have invited all the parties who are concerned about this to have a discussion. I have scheduled some meetings with them. We hope to identify the genuine protesters and safeguard their rights. I pursue this with genuine intentions. I have also asked the President about this and he has entrusted the task to me. Why does the Police seem more effective in investigating and arresting suspects involved in the Aragalaya movement, than those implicated in assaulting protesters and other serious crimes? In your opinion, is there a double standard? This allegation is made regarding the incidents of 9 May. We condemned what happened. There were some political figures who were suspected to have been involved in that incident. I think most of them were arrested and many were produced before a Magistrate’s Court. Some of them surrendered and some have taken steps to try to get a Court Order against their arrest.  I think people have an issue with key suspects being remanded or not. In our legal system, which we can’t interfere with, our law is that granting bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The litigation is ongoing. Under no circumstances do we (the Government) want to interfere or stop that process.  The Attorney General has directed the IGP on how to act on this investigation. The IGP was instructed not to allow politics into the process. Given the massive trust deficit between the public and the law enforcement agencies, what steps will you as the Minister of Justice take to bridge the gap? Yes, definitely I will take the necessary steps because that is one of the reasons there are so many obstacles in carrying out smooth administration. I plan to enact new legislation and introduce certain reforms in that regard. The lack of trust and the suspicion about the affairs of the State stem from these issues. You may recall that over the last two years, I too was a serious critic of the then Government. It will take some time to address this issue; there is no quick fix. We need to move towards that goal as a country. It is essential that we move towards bridging that trust deficit as a democratic nation. With regard to the recent findings of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) about the conduct of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and senior Police officers, I will be discussing the matter with the subject minister. I think several cases have also been filed in the Supreme Court about that matter already, so the Court may also give some directives. I have nearly 30 pieces of legislation, amendments that are related to law enforcement; we plan to bring some of them to Parliament in the next few months. My predecessor had already started on some of the legislation and projects regarding reforms for law enforcement and the implementation of the law. I plan to continue with such projects and the reforms programme that was started. Will senior public officials involved in ill-advised economic, fiscal, and agricultural policies be held accountable? What kind of mechanism can be used to do so?  In my private capacity, I filed a case in the Magistrate’s Court to prevent the former Central Bank Governor from leaving the country. It has been continuing. In terms of the economic disaster we are facing, I think the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has already filed a case. There are restrictions placed against former Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and former Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa to prevent them from leaving the country. I think that is a good move. We are bound to comply with the directions given by the Supreme Court on these matters.