Sri Lanka prez dissolves parliament, fresh polls to be held on January 5

Agencies
November 10, 2018

Colombo, Nov 10: Sri Lanka's political crisis deepened November 9 after its president Maithripala Sirisena dissolved parliament, paving the way for a general election to be held on January 5, nearly two years ahead of its time.

Sirisena signed a gazette notification to dissolve the nation's parliament with effect from November 9 midnight, in another surprise move that comes after two weeks of political and constitutional turmoil.

According to the gazette notice, nominations to contest the snap election would be taken between November 19 and 26.

The election will be held January 5 and the new parliament would be convened on January 17.

Sirisena issued a gazette noticing that parliament stands dissolved some 21 months ahead of its schedule in August 2020, amid a worsening constitutional crisis triggered by the surprise sacking of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

The dissolution comes hours after a close aide of the President said Sirisena had decided that there will be no snap elections or a national referendum to end the current political and constitutional crises in Sri Lanka.

Analysts said tonight's dissolution was again unconstitutional in terms of the four and a half year term rule in the 19th amendment.

"We vehemently reject the dissolution of parliament. He has robbed the people of their rights", Wickremesinghe led United National Party (UNP) said in a statement.

Sirisena signed an official notification dismissing the 225-member assembly well ahead of its August 2020 term expiry, state television reported.

Sri Lanka was plunged into a political crisis after Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on October 26 and replaced him with his former rival Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Wickremesinghe, who dubbed the move as a "constitutional coup", has refused to vacate his official residence, saying he is the lawful prime minister and that the president has no constitutional right to replace him.

His request for a floor test to prove his majority in the House has been turned down.

He cited the 19th amendment to the Constitution in which the president has been barred from sacking a prime minister or dissolving parliament before the expiry of its four and a half years term.

After Wickremesinghe's sacking, Sirisena suspended parliament until November 16. It was to allow Rajapaksa to muster the 113 seats required to prove his majority.

Sri Lankan strongman and former president Rajapaksa, however, remains short of the 'magic number' 113 required to prove his majority in Parliament, his spokesman acknowledged Friday.

Parliament Speaker Karu Jayasuriya on Monday slammed Sirisena's "unconstitutional and undemocratic" actions to sack Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and suspend Parliament, saying he will not recognise Rajapaksa as the new premier unless he wins a floor test.

The assembly speaker wants the floor test to take place on November 14.

The sudden constitutional crisis came amid growing tensions between Sirisena and Wickremesinghe on several policy matters and the President has been critical of the Prime Minister and his policies, especially on economy and security.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.