• Govt. not sincere about all-party govt.
• Don’t scuttle National Council
• General Elections needed soon
• Discredited majority blocking reforms
• PTA must be abolished, normal law needed 
• Muslims demonised post-Easter Sunday attacks 
• 13th Amendment must be fully implemented
• Credibility of the COPE process destroyed 

By Asiri Fernando  The Government must be sincere in its approach to collective governance, political stability, and reforms or risk public backlash, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) Leader Rauff Hakeem said, in an interview with The Sunday Morning. Hakeem, a veteran politician representing the minority community, called on the Government to hold General Elections at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure a new government could seek a public mandate to enact reforms and structural changes, which he said were vital for Sri Lanka’s economic recovery efforts.  Hakeem blamed members of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) who hold a majority in the House for constraining the President’s reforms agenda, calling Wickremesinghe a hostage of the party that controls the ‘discredited majority’ in Parliament. In the course of the interview, Hakeem stressed the need for Sri Lanka to honour its international commitments, do away with much-criticised terrorism legislation, and take concrete action to improve accountability by empowering Parliament. Following are excerpts of the interview:      What is your view of the current economic and political situation in Sri Lanka?   We have a very unstable political situation which should be resolved only through an election. As it stands, none of the parties reflect their mandate and the number in the Parliament represent a barometer of the mandate they currently enjoy.  In a situation like this, some trying to use the parliamentary majority to dictate the economic agenda is detested by the people. What we as the SLMC feel is that the sooner the elections are held, the better, so that we can be in a position to market whatever bitter prescription that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) may dole out. Otherwise, we will face another phase of civic disobedience in many ways. We only hope that it will not become violent.    The Government has entered into a Staff-Level Agreement (SLA) with the IMF but has not made its details public. How concerned are you about the lack of transparency with the proposed $ 2.9 billion assistance programme?   There is a concern. In fact, we have demanded that the Government disclose the details of the agreement that has been reached with the IMF, but it seems to have some inhibitions and that is an indication that any excess public protest which will impede the agreed programmes may have an impact on IMF Board-level approval. Hence, the Government seems to be reluctant to speak about details. The Government has to take the Opposition into confidence. Some of us in the Opposition have encouraged constructive engagement at this critical time. However, a so-called national government prompted by President Ranil Wickremesinghe has not come to fruition because of political reasons. The Government has now devised various structures through Parliament – like the so-called National Council – and has also proposed to engage with civil society and the youth to try and involve people who are outside of Parliament on policy issues in the run-up to the structural reforms which will have to be implemented sooner or later.     What is the SLMC’s stance on the National Council? Why do you think there is a lack of participation?   We have participated; I have attended meetings. I have clearly pointed out not to pack the council with Cabinet ministers. One purpose of the council is to also act as a form of checks and balances for the Legislature. If the council has a large representation of the Legislature as a part of this body – a body which may need to go through revamping of policy – it is not suitable.  The PM being there is sufficient as he is the link between the council and Cabinet. Apart from the PM, more Cabinet ministers are not required to be members of the council. If there are many Cabinet ministers in the council, it will not be able to perform its role. When necessary, depending on the subject matter discussed, maybe by invitation, we can ask the relevant minister to attend. Having them as permanent members will make it very difficult for us to work with the council. I have raised this issue with the council. They have various excuses; it appears that some of the senior members are holding some of the parties to ransom. We need to see how seriously the National Council will discharge its duties. The SLMC will watch and if we are not satisfied down the line, we may not be able to continue in it. We want to see how genuine it is and if it is going to carry out the purpose it was set up for.     What is the SLMC’s view of the 22nd Amendment put forward by the Government? Will the SLMC push for amendments in the committee stage?   On Thursday (6), the parties decided not to take it up. The so-called 22nd Amendment has failed to reach even the limited reforms which we brought in with the 19th Amendment. The whole purpose was to reduce excessive powers of the Executive and empower the Parliament.  The Supreme Court judgement on 22A is that some of the provisions which seek to empower Parliament need a referendum. Since holding a referendum is not possible, the Government is trying to amend the 22A and virtually allow the existing Executive powers to remain intact. The purpose of reducing the President’s powers will be defeated, unless the Government has the confidence to go for a referendum. I am sure the people will endorse it if there is a referendum. The Government didn’t want to do away with the President’s power to dissolve Parliament after two-and-a-half years. There were others – some in the SLPP group – who were trying to extend it to four-and-a-half years, as it was in the original document. Going by the principle of Parliament that may be correct, but in the current context, empowering a Parliament that has lost its mandate is not going to serve the purpose. Therefore, we felt that there must at least be a transitional provision, only for this time, to retain the two-and-a-half-year term. Thereafter, the President will be free to dissolve Parliament at his discretion.  That was in the draft, but one of the reasons that has been put off is due to there being a disagreement between the SLPP parliamentary group about retaining the existing provision. If it was retained, the hand of the President would be strengthened. There is a parliamentary majority that seems to be holding the President hostage. The President may not say it publicly, but this is what we feel.  Having ruined the economy, they are using parliamentary majority and controlling the President. Now the President can’t even appoint the governors or reshuffle the Cabinet. Why? Obviously because every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants to get into the Cabinet. The President must be worried about credibility; if he is forced to appoint people with bad track records or those who are under investigation to Cabinet, national credibility suffers again.  The debate on the 22nd Amendment has been put off. We were in discussion with other parties about what can be introduced at committee stages. The SLMC is looking at strengthening some of the powers of the Parliament. For instance, there was a provision that the five members of the Constitutional Council should be appointed in consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. There, the Government – the SLPP – tried to introduce an amendment which would see those picked approved by a majority vote in Parliament. There too they wanted control. This discredited majority is trying to control even the Constitutional Council appointments. We wanted such things amended. From the decision taken today (6) to put off the 22A debate, it seems the President and the Minister of Justice have failed to convince this ‘rebellious majority’; they are being hemmed in.      Are you of the view that those whose actions or inactions led to the current economic crisis and the bankruptcy of Sri Lanka should be held accountable?   Yes. If you see the UNHRC resolution, you will see that it states that economic crimes should be looked into. These have been added in the aftermath of the civil protest. I think the Government will have to bring in tangible mechanisms, looking at the recovery of stolen assets, probing economic crimes, and holding those responsible accountable. Several high-ranking officials have been deliberately misleading Parliament. We have raised this issue in the House. From November 2019, when the question arose about sovereign downgrade, and from then onwards, the Government has been taking swipes at the rating agencies. This was all empty propaganda, as it was not willing to concede that it was going down the wrong path. In February, with the $ 500 million ISB payment – it should have known what was coming and delayed the payment. Now, some have the gall to blame the current Governor as having been too hasty to declare bankruptcy as late as April, whereas all of this was brought upon due to imprudent decisions that were made knowing fully well the situation the country was in. Two Monetary Board officials testified that they were against some of the policies made by the Monetary Board, so the three other Board members who had a majority pushed them through, despite the fact that two opposed them. Such persons should definitely be held accountable. They have virtually gambled with the country’s future.    The Government led by Wickremesinghe has called for an all-party government. However, many have signalled their unwillingness to support it. What is your party’s stance on the invitation and why?    When you say all-party government, there has to be a sincere approach from the outset to engage with political parties. Poaching members from parties and then holding a party to ransom and asking them to join an all-party government lacks sincerity. The Government and the President have to make sure that everyone joins an all-party government, not only a few parties. It appears that the SLPP, which holds the largest bloc in Parliament, is demanding that it must have portfolios commensurate with its numbers. If you try to accommodate everyone, overlooking allegations made against some and giving them portfolios, it will affect credibility and reduce public confidence. There is a lot of criticism, not only about the numbers of ministers appointed. They need to be people who are not facing major allegations. But if you see the number of state ministers, their appointment itself is subterfuge. It is a ruse to give some facilities to a few and it is unnecessary, especially during an economic crisis.   The delay in appointing members for the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) and Committee on Public Accounts (COPA) heightened concerns about the Government’s commitment to investigating corruption. What is the SLMC’s stance on this issue?   The COPE chairmanship being denied to the Opposition is going to destroy the credibility of the process, because the expected probity will not be there. The Government doesn’t seem to be willing to be subjected to any thorough investigation of its past conduct. It seems to be blocking it by putting a member of Government into that position.  Now COPA, being led by Kabir Hashim, will only look at Government departments and agencies. But when it comes to public enterprises, which deal with the life of the nation, there has been so much mismanagement and corruption. COPE chairmanship being appropriated by the Government is totally unacceptable.     How concerned are you about new demarcations for Provincial Council (PC) Elections, particularly in the Eastern Province?   The PC Elections have been delayed by nearly four years. There is a consensus that was reached by the Select Committee on Electoral Reforms to introduce a simple amendment and go back to the earlier system. We expected the Government to do so and move ahead, but we can see it is in no mood to conduct an election until the next Parliamentary Election is due, because it obviously does not feel confident.  The longer they delay, the harder it will be for them. And the longer they delay, the harder it will be to push through economic reforms. You need to give a new government a new mandate to enact reforms. We have to communicate the strategy, be clear to the people, and be truthful. Any new government will have to bite the bullet and reform. It will need to be sincere.     How concerned are you about the impact of Islamophobia, hate speech, and disinformation on the social fabric of Sri Lanka?   The former regime was responsible for creating a terrible culture of impunity when it came to hate speech. They punished minorities, minority politicians, and civil society activists by dragging them before law enforcement and courts for writing poems and such innocent things under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) regulations. However, some prominent religious personalities, who were known habitual offenders of hate speech, were even given pardons after being convicted by the Court. So how can you expect this Government to prevent hate speech and the disturbing of social harmony in the country? This is why people got so fed up. Ultimately, we are now at least somewhat comfortable as we feel that the majority has come to a realisation about the Government’s duplicitous conduct and its creation of hysteria. In the aftermath of the Easter Sunday attacks, the Muslim community was demonised and the trauma and harassment the community was subjected to is something generations will never forget. Things like the cremations of Covid victims, against our religious wishes, was a deliberate act. Some individuals were unreasonably punished.     The Government has pledged, once again, to reform the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). How confident are you that the Government will take meaningful action to that effect?   In my opinion, the PTA must be abolished and the normal law must be allowed to prevail. There are enough provisions in the normal law to protect national security. These extraordinary laws allow the curtailing of individual freedom in the name of national security. It has been abused over and over again for the last 40 years and has also been used to take political revenge. It has also helped to promote a culture of corruption, with large sums being fleeced from victims and their families. People are terrified the moment they are arrested. It has affected the entire social fabric and harmony of this country. We have also done disservice to the criminal justice system of the country; investigative efficiency has been destroyed. It has also promoted endemic torture.  In my opinion, the PTA has to be completely removed. I can pick enough holes in the Easter Sunday attacks, where enough details have been leaked about how our law enforcement and intelligence communities had advance knowledge of these events. There is so much explaining they have to do about it. There are some allegations and suspicions that these events were deliberately allowed to happen in order to create a situation where some could take political advantage.     The Government of India has reiterated that the 13th Amendment should be fully implemented. During the recent UNHRC sessions, the report by the Commissioner also highlighted that meaningful action must be taken regarding the devolution of power. What is your view on the complete implementation of the 13th Amendment?   We have been consistent about the 13th Amendment; it should be fully implemented. Since its enactment in 1987, it has only been partially implemented. Successive governments have tried to dilute the devolution of power ever since the UNHRC resolution in 2009, which was a consensus resolution, to which the Sri Lankan Government by consensus agreed.