-
Port City Bill passes with amendments, shy of two-thirds
-
Two-thirds majority received, Speaker miscalculated: SLPP
-
AG plays blame game for failing to indict Easter attackers
-
Some government members face legal challenges over Covid-19 failures
-
PM reminds Parliament of significance of 18 May V-Day
The Government, led by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, last week managed to resolve a key area of concern – the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill – while the larger and deadly issue of Covid-19 rages with threats of legal action by citizens against several authoritative individuals.
The controversial Port City Economic Commission Bill, albeit with amendments, is now on its way towards implementation following its passage in Parliament last Thursday (20), with the Government falling short of securing a two-thirds majority, as expected by some governing party members, for the piece of legislation.
The third reading of the Bill was passed by 149 voting in favour and 58 votes against it. There were several abstentions, including governing Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) MP Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, who challenged the Bill in Supreme Court (SC); Ceylon Workers’ Congress (CWC) MP Maruthapandi Rameshwaran, who tested positive for Covid-19; and five MPs of the Opposition Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC). While All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) Leader Rishad Bathiudeen and MP Musharaff voted against the Bill, two of ACMC MPs – Ishak Rahuman and Ali Sabri – voted in favour of the legislation.
The passage of the Bill took place amidst calls from the Opposition as well as religious leaders to defer the piece of legislation until a properly formed bill was granted approval.
The Bill was challenged before the SC by over 18 petitions, with the petitioners claiming the piece of legislation hampered the country’s sovereignty.
However, after agreeing to the amendments proposed by the SC, the Government on Thursday moved over 20 amendments to the Bill to enable its passage with a simple majority while targeting a two-thirds majority.
Co-Cabinet Spokesperson Minister Udaya Gammanpila had reportedly stated earlier in the day last Thursday that although the Bill could be passed with a simple majority following the amendments, the Government was hopeful of obtaining a two-thirds majority.
However, The governing SLPP on Friday (21) stated that the Bill had in fact received a two-thirds majority during the vote on Thursday, but had not been communicated accordingly due to a miscalculation.
SLPP Chairman Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris stated that the votes of several governing party members had not been counted when announcing the final results.
He explained that MP Jayaratne Herath's vote had not been counted.
"We don't say the miscalculation was done purposely. But it has happened," Peiris noted.
Meanwhile, SLPP General Secretary MP Sagara Kariyawasam claimed that the party would request the Speaker to recount the votes.
Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena had said he was prepared to recount the votes if such a request was made.
The Bill was opposed by legislators of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), Tamil National Alliance (TNA), and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP).
SJB MP Dr. Harsha de Silva moved several amendments to the Bill, which were rejected by the Government, while three of the proposed amendments were put to the vote. However, the proposed amendments were defeated.
The amendments proposed by Dr. de Silva included the appointment of several ex-officio members to the Port City Economic Commission, including the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) or the Governor’s nominee, as well as having police and naval presence in the Port City area.
Clergy object
The day prior to the passage of the Bill in Parliament, on Wednesday (19), Ven. Elle Gunawansa Thera and Archbishop of Colombo His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith called on the Government to defer the vote on the Port City Economic Commission Bill without rushing it through Parliament.
Addressing a joint press conference on Wednesday, the two religious leaders had expressed concerns over moves to get parliamentary approval for the Bill.
“The Government says it will move 25 amendments to the Bill, but how can this be done in such a hurry? There should be provisions in the law to prevent dual citizens being named as members of the commission,” Ven. Gunawansa Thera had said.
According to the Thera, the Bill must be discussed more widely by the public before it gets parliamentary approval.
“The Government is only a temporary custodian of power for five years, but the people of this country are the real custodians of this country and they have a right to know how laws impact them,” he had added.
The Archbishop of Colombo, meanwhile, had questioned the Government’s hurry to pass the Bill at a time when the entire country was in the grip of the Covid-19 pandemic.
“People are suspicious about the haste in which this Bill is being pushed through Parliament. I request the Government, on behalf of the people, to postpone the vote on this Bill,” he had said.
Discussing amendments
The governing party parliamentary group that met last week also saw the Port City Economic Commission Bill taking centre stage.
When the Prime Minister had taken up for discussion the Bill, Minister Gammanpila had first raised the issue of composition of the proposed commission. He had noted that a majority of the commission should be Sri Lankan nationals, to which the Prime Minister had agreed.
Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara had then added on to Gammanpila’s proposal, saying that not only should the majority of the commission be Sri Lankan, but that they should also not be dual citizens.
At this juncture, a governing party MP had shouted against Nanayakkara’s proposal, saying such a move was uncalled for. The governing party members have all turned to who had made the statement. It was MP Jayantha Ketagoda, who is a National List MP, tipped to be the one to resign in order to make way for SLPP National Organiser Basil Rajapaksa to enter Parliament if and when he decides to do so.
Meanwhile, apart from the weekly meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers scheduled every Monday, a special cabinet meeting was convened at 6 p.m. on Tuesday (18).
The cabinet meeting was aimed at granting approval to the amendments proposed by the SC to the Port City Bill to be introduced to the piece of legislation in order to enable its passage in the House with a simple majority.
The Government by then was aware that it would fall short of securing a two-thirds majority, although several members of the Opposition benches could be enticed to vote along with the Government.
Minister Bandula Gunwardana had pointed out that measures should be taken to ensure that majority power of the proposed commission be held by Sri Lankan nationals and that the chairmanship of the respective commission should also be vested with a Sri Lankan national.
Ministers Gammanpila, Nanayakkara, and Wimal Weerawansa have also supported the proposal and called for it to be included among the amendments.
President Rajapaksa, who was chairing the meeting, had agreed to the proposal and had requested the Cabinet Secretary to record the necessary amendment.
Meanwhile, governing alliance Party Leader MP Prof. Tissa Vitharana revealed on Friday (21) that he was to present an amendment to the Port City Bill, but was asked by a high office holder of the Government to withdraw at the eleventh hour last Thursday before the vote on the Bill.
He explained that the amendment he was to propose was aimed at preventing the clause that permits businesses in the Port City from opening branches on the mainland.
The senior MP observed that he was informed not to move his amendment, as it will be covered by another amendment the Government was moving at the committee stage of the Bill.
SC determination
Despite calls to defer the vote on the Bill, the importance of securing the passage of the Bill in Parliament was evident when the House decided to meet last week while two officials at Parliament, engaged in duties in the Office of the Deputy Secretary and in the reception, had reportedly tested positive for Covid-19.
Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena on Tuesday (18) announced the observation of the five-judge SC bench on the proposed Port City Economic Commission Bill.
The SC bench comprising Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya PC and Justices Buwaneka Aluwihare PC, Priyantha Jayawardena PC, Murdu Fernando PC, and Janak De Silva, submitting observations on 18 petitions challenging the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill, had determined that 25 clauses in the piece of legislation were inconsistent with the Constitution.
The SC determination had noted that while 19 clauses required passage by a two-thirds majority, six clauses required a referendum if they were not amended.
SLPP Chairman Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, who was one of the intervenient petitioners in favour of the Bill, informed Parliament that a referendum would not be needed since the Government agrees with all recommendations by the SC to amend the Bill.
Among the recommended amendments, the SC had determined that a majority of the members of the commission must be Sri Lankans. The original reading of the Bill, as per Section 7(1), stated: “The commission shall consist of not less than five members and not more than seven members, who shall be appointed by the President.”
The SC had also stated that Sections 68(1)(f) and 68(3)(a) of the Bill were inconsistent with Article 76 (that the Parliament’s legislative power cannot be delegated) read with Articles 3 and 4 (on sovereignty and its exercise) of the Constitution, since the commission is given the power to make rules, codes, directions, or guidelines without parliamentary control, which absolves them of any criminal sanction. The SC had further determined that the commission cannot make “development control regulations” without parliamentary control.
Also, in the determination, the SC had noted that Sections 3(6), 30(3), 55(2), and 58(1) of the Bill, which allow the commission to compel regulatory authorities to grant requisite approvals, violate the Constitution and should therefore be amended.
Therefore, the SC had determined that the power of regulatory authorities within the area of authority of the Colombo Port City will “continue unimpeded”.
According to the SC observation, Section 6 read with either Sections 60(c) or 60(f) of the Bill, which implies that the commission has the power to impose taxes, was inconsistent with Article 148 (Parliament having full control over public finance) of the Constitution.
The SC observation had further recommended amendments to each section in the Bill that is inconsistent with the Constitution.
Meanwhile, the Ministerial Consultative Committee on Urban Development and Housing, which met under its Chairman Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa last Tuesday, had granted its approval to present the Bill to Parliament with amendments.
A statement by Parliament quoted Rajapaksa as saying it is “appropriate to act in accordance with the determination of the Supreme Court”.
Cosmetic amendments?
JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake had noted that of 74 sections in the Bill, the SC had determined that 25 clauses – or one-third of it – were unconstitutional.
Citing the SC had also called for a referendum on nine of these 25 clauses, he had stated this is the first such Bill in recent times to receive a determination of this sort.
“If we had been unable to go before the SC, we would have been unable to show that this Bill is unconstitutional. That is why the Government originally planned in a way that would ensure we only had one day to submit our petitions to the court,” Dissanayake had said.
Dissanayake had added that the public had not given the Government a power of attorney in relation to the country’s future.
The main Opposition party, SJB, on Wednesday (19) announced that the party will grant conditional support to the Bill in the event the Government agrees to accommodate amendments proposed by the party during the committee stage of the Bill.
Dr. de Silva told Parliament that the SJB will move an amendment to convert the Port City Economic Commission to a government corporation with ex-officio members and the Central Bank having regulatory authority over it.
The other amendments include a ban on companies that invest in Port City from carrying out any other venture in any part of the country, Dr. de Silva had said during the debate on the Port City Economic Commission Bill.
He had further stated that former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had appointed a committee headed by him to prepare a legal framework for the Port City.
“We were to come up with a report in 2018, but we could not do so because of the constitutional coup that year, and this was further delayed by the Easter Sunday attacks in 2019. However, we were able to come up with the report by October 2019. We proposed ex-officio members among those appointed to the authority to be tasked with running the CPC, and proposed that Parliament have regulatory powers over it,” he had added.
Speaking during the two-day debate, Tamil National People (TNP) Front Leader Gajen Ponnambalam had said last Thursday that Sri Lanka, in the past, had got too close to the US in the Cold War era, prompting India to back and train Tamil militant groups.
The “China-centric” Rajapaksa administration was again challenging the geopolitical order in the region, Ponnambalam had said.
He had further noted that the “Tamil nation” had paid a heavy price the last time Sri Lanka made such choices, adding that he would oppose the Bill for that reason.
Meanwhile, TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran took a swipe at the proposed amendments to the Bill by saying in Parliament that the SC had made merely “cosmetic changes” to the Bill, while its fundamental character remained unchanged.
“If you purchase any goods, the original draft said, leaving the place you must pay a levy. Now, the Supreme Court wants you to change it to ‘taking goods out’. It meant the same thing; no difference at all. Cosmetic changes. That is what the Supreme Court has prescribed. But what is more important? There is still going to be border control, something that you don’t have,” Sumanthiran had claimed.
He had further accused the Government of giving away a part of its land to China. “You wouldn’t even consider a federal arrangement, something that exists in almost 100 countries in the world. But here you have given away part of Sri Lanka to be given to another country. You say so much about Eelam, but this is ‘Cheelam’. This is Cheena, this is ‘Cheelam’, that you are enacting in your own laws, when you don’t even have jurisdiction over that territory, but declaring it and gifting it in your territorial waters, a land mass to China. And you will reap the consequences of this. Hon. Ponnambalam was to refer to various factors about this region. I don’t want to repeat that. You will reap the consequences of this injudicious act of yours very soon.”
The United National Party (UNP), which is not represented in Parliament due to its failure to appoint a member to the single seat secured through the National List, last Wednesday (19) had called on the Government to withdraw the Port City Bill and re-draft a new bill with broader consultation.
“We welcome the determination by the SC in regard to the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill, but a mismanaged Port City will not contribute to the national economy as anticipated,” former UNP MP Sandith Samarasinghe had said at a press conference last week.
“The Port City has the potential for encouraging economic growth in the country. However, if it is mismanaged, then it will fail. We urge the Government to withdraw this Bill and re-draft a new bill with the assistance of relevant sectors and the Opposition,” Samarasinghe had observed.
UNP Chairman Vajira Abeywardena had added on to Samarasinghe’s statement by saying that the UNP was the only political party to challenge the legislation in the SC.
“The UNP believes that this Bill had weakened the sovereignty of Parliament; the commission would have not been answerable to either Parliament or the Cabinet of Ministers. The amendments proposed by the SC have addressed these concerns, and the commission is once again answerable to Parliament.
“According to the Bill, Sri Lankans would have been treated as second-class citizens when visiting the Port City. We would have required permission when entering the region. We would have been subject to laws that were enacted by a commission, which comprises unelected officials. We have ensured that this will not happen. Any laws that will be in effect in the Port City will have to be approved by Parliament,” he had said.
Samarasinghe had also explained that the local business community in Sri Lanka was now protected from unfair practices following the SC decision on the bill. “Under the original bill, the commission was empowered to provide tax exemptions to foreign companies. The benefits enjoyed by these companies operating within the Port City could have been extended to any investments made by these firms elsewhere in the country. This would have left local businesses at a disadvantage. However, now these exemptions must be approved by Parliament, and are applicable only within the Port City.”
Dappula’s bombshell
However, the whole drama surrounding the Port City Economic Commission Bill managed to somewhat drown the attention on a bombshell dropped by outgoing Attorney General (AG) Dappula de Livera last week.
De Livera claimed that there was a grand conspiracy behind the 21 April 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, and that evidence and intelligence material along with relevant pieces of information must be carefully evaluated in order to reach a conclusion on the leadership of the attacks.
“There is a grand conspiracy with regard to the 2019 April attacks,” de Livera had been quoted as exclusively telling a private electronic media station in Colombo. He had noted that the information by the State Intelligence Service with times, targets, places, method of attacks, and other information is clear evidence of a conspiracy that was in place.
De Livera had said the identities of those involved in the grand conspiracy must come by the way of evidence.
He had said the AG's Department is now focused on a conspiracy surrounding the terror attacks and that there are multiple suspects connected to it, including Naufer Moulavi, the person the Government has ruled as the mastermind of the attacks.
On 6 April 2021, Minister of Public Security Rear Admiral (Retd.) Sarath Weerasekara had told the media that Moulavi was identified as the mastermind of the Easter attacks.
However, de Livera had told the electronic media station that Moulavi is a key figure in the conspiracy to carry out the attacks, but it was not possible to confirm if he was the mastermind, although he was the leader of the group.
“This needs to be looked at holistically and time would tell,” the AG had said, adding that the present investigation is on a group of people who had participated in planning the attacks.
According to him, the suicide bombers are the people who executed this conspiracy, and they are not among the living, while a considerable number of people who assisted the suicide bombers have been identified by detectives.
“The conspirators of these attacks are at a different level. People like Zahran Hashim (the leader of the group that carried out the attacks) would have been involved in the conspiracy though he decided to explode himself,” de Livera had further stated.
“We cannot say the investigations on the grand conspiracy have been concluded,” he had added.
According to the AG, some planned the attacks and there are those who acted in between to direct the suicide bombers to execute the attacks as part of the grand conspiracy and the evidence therefore must be looked at very carefully.
Can of worms
However, de Livera first opened the can of worms by stating that his Department is not in a position to present charges/indictments against the conspirators and abettors of the 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist attacks during his tenure of office, as Criminal Investigation Department (CID) investigations in this regard are incomplete.
De Livera, who will retire tomorrow (24), said the CID is yet to conclude investigations in connection with all suspects linked to the April 2019 attacks, despite several communications from the AG to expedite the probe.
Co-ordinating Officer to the AG State Counsel Nishara Jayaratne last week announced that the AG had communicated to the Inspector General of Police (IGP) on 12 May, listing 130 pieces of evidence against 42 suspects, and sought clarification on where the investigation stands.
The AG had also informed the IGP that police investigations against five suspects, namely Mohamed Asim, Mohamed Rizwan, Mohamed Waqar Yunus, Mohamed Fazan, and Shaul Hameed Hameez Mohamed, are incomplete.
In previous communications, the AG had instructed the IGP to obtain a copy of the report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) probing the Easter attacks from the President’s Office and obtain further evidence from witnesses.
Following this statement, Minister Weerasekara called for a report on the status of the Easter Sunday attacks probe from the CID.
“We (Police) had handed over eight files regarding 32 suspects several months ago to the AG to file indictments. The AG had told us he was awaiting the report from the Presidential Commission of Inquiry to file indictments. That report too has been available for two months. We do not know which suspects he is referring to. I have asked the CID for a report on it. I will know tomorrow,” Weerasekara had said in response to media queries on the AG’s claim, adding that those responsible will be brought to book.
Meanwhile, Police Media Spokesman Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Ajith Rohana had told the media that the CID submitted a report to Weerasekera on Monday (17), following de Livera’s claim regarding the matter.
The Minister, meanwhile, had said that even though he had received the report from the CID, he was surprised about the statements of the AG.
“This is an ongoing process and 75% is already complete. The CID handed over a report on 24 April. So why is the AG questioning this at this last moment?
“The CID has always co-ordinated with the AG’s Department’s officials about the investigation into the Easter Sunday attacks. The CID has forwarded eight files pertaining to the suicide attacks to the AG and charges have been filed against 32 suspects. Earlier, the AG had informed that he was awaiting the report of the PCoI which he would analyse before taking further action,” Weerasekera had added.
Meanwhile, a fundamental rights (FR) petition, requesting the release of MP Rishad Bathiudeen from the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) detention order of the CID, was filed before the SC on Tuesday (18).
Rushdhie Habeeb, the Attorney-at-Law representing Bathiudeen, has told the media that the FR petition reiterates the concerns that have been raised in the past surrounding the nature of Bathidueen’s arrest and detention.
Bathidueen was arrested and detained over his alleged involvement in the Easter Sunday terror attacks of 2019.
Meanwhile, Bathiudeen participated in the parliamentary session last week following several directives by the Speaker to the CID to permit the MP’s participation in Parliament.
“Using the power vested in the President of the country, the Police forcibly entered my house at around 1.30 a.m. without any legal advice from any court or the AG’s office, and arrested me without any warrant,” Bathiudeen had said in Parliament.
He had further claimed that if he had committed any wrongdoing, he would have submitted it to the court or informed the AG’s Department, but that he had been remanded for 22 days and so far, no such report had been submitted to the court or the AG’s Department.
“If I have done anything wrong, take me to court and give me the death penalty,” he had said.
He had further stated that investigations into 10 allegations made against him in the No-Confidence Motion by a group of Opposition MPs at the time had found there was no truth in them and that it was informed to Parliament in writing.
Bathiudeen had added that no order had been issued against him by the PCoI that probed the Easter attacks.
FBI probe
While discussion on the Easter Sunday attacks was raised in Parliament last Tuesday, Minister Weerasekara told Parliament that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had identified Naufer Moulavi as the mastermind behind the Easter Sunday terror attacks and that the institution he was working for had also been confirmed.
Weerasekera had made the statement with regard to the controversial statement made by AG de Livera on the statement that the accused in the Easter attacks could not be prosecuted during his tenure.
However, nine cases have been filed against 32 suspects so far and necessary steps will be taken to file cases against the other suspects as well, the Minister had said.
He had further stated that information had come to light that several foreigners were involved in the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks and that an Australian national of Sri Lankan origin, Luqman Talib, had already been arrested in Qatar.
Weerasekara had also revealed that there is information that four Maldivian nationals were also involved in this terrorist attack.
Basil under fire
The battle against Covid-19 has now taken a new twist with a FR petition being filed before the SC against the Head of the Task Force to Combat Covid-19, Basil Rajapaksa.
The FR petition was last week filed by two social activists, Ven. Ulapane Sumangala Thera and former Secretary of the PCoI on Large-scale Fraud and Corruption Lacille de Silva.
De Silva had stated that there were doubts whether the present Covid-19 situation in the country was in fact created by some.
The petition was filed citing Basil and Sri Lanka’s former Ambassador to Russia Udayanga Weeratunga as respondents for their actions to bring down Ukranian tour groups to Sri Lanka at a time when Covid-19 cases were on the rise in the Ukraine and thereby opening the country to foreign variants of Covid-19.
It is learnt that the petition was filed based on a statement made by Basil as the Head of the Covid-19 Task Force during a political discussion on a private television channel, where he had indicated that the Government had permitted the Ukraine tourism programme knowing very well the spread of Covid-19 in the country and the possible threat it posed to Sri Lanka.
During the discussion, Basil had stated that it was required to get down tourists from a country where Covid-19 was prevalent in order to determine the success of the programme put in place by the Sri Lankan authorities.
“We cannot test the success of our programme by bringing down people from a country where there’s no Covid since what we need to know is if Covid will spread if we carry out a structured programme,” Basil had said.
It is also learnt there are discussions between certain sections of society to file further complaints against the failure of certain individuals in authority to prevent the massive surge in Covid-19 cases despite being in the know of the threats.
V-Day commemorations
Meanwhile, the Mullaitivu Magistrate’s Court last Monday (17) banned the commemoration of those who were killed during the final stages of the war in 2009 in Mullivaikkal on Remembrance Day, which fell last Tuesday (18).
The Mullaitivu Police told the media that the court had banned all events at the Mullivaikkal War Memorial and that stay orders had been issued on 42 persons.
North-East Mullivaikkal Memorial Forum Co-Chair Fr. Leo Armstrong told The Morning last Monday that a motion had been filed by a few lawyers to obtain permission for a small Remembrance Day event to be held in Mullivaikkal, in accordance with the Covid-19 health guidelines.
According to Fr. Armstrong, the security around the Mullivaikkal War Memorial was tightened from Monday.
“It was guarded by the Police, but now we hear that the military is there as well,” Fr. Armstrong said.
A memorial stone that was brought to Mullivaikkal by the Forum, in preparation for the remembrance of the victims of the final stages of the conflict in 2009 on 18 May, reportedly disappeared on 13 May morning and the Mullivaikkal War Memorial was allegedly destroyed on the same day. Although allegations were levelled against the Army for both the disappearance and the destruction, Military Spokesman Brig. Nilantha Premaratne had denied these claims.
However, the court granted permission for the holding of the commemoration on two conditions – first is that it would be held adhering to guidelines issued by the health authorities and the next is to ensure that action is not taken to raise or support sentiments of terrorism.
Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday (18), former President and incumbent Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa stated that the “victory” of the war was a victory achieved for several parties.
“This victory belongs to the people of the North and the East, as they have built a country without dragging their children into the past conflict. This victory belongs to all religions, as bombs do not explode near the Sri Maha Bodhi, the Temple of the Tooth, the Kattankudy Church, and the Madhu Church. This victory belongs to all people, as the era of guarding school gates for their children is over,” he had said.
The Prime Minister had also stated that this was a great victory for the Parliament.
“The LTTE terrorists were the first to kill the people’s representatives. The terrorists took the lives of a large number of the people’s representatives. The people’s representatives who came to this House had the worst fear of death,” he had observed.
Rajapaksa had said that the victory should not be underestimated by anyone in the House.
“Today, war heroes have become health heroes and are fighting to save a country from an epidemic. The forces that betrayed the country and the nation opposed us in the war then, as well as today, against the deployment of the three forces against the current pandemic,” Rajapaksa had said, adding: “As such, we withdrew from the treasonous resolution to be a co-sponsor of the resolution against war heroes presented at the Geneva Human Rights Council.”