20A: Govt.’s Catch-22

Wednesday 30th September, 2020

The government may not have anticipated so much of resistance to its 20th Amendment (20A) to the Constitution, much less seen serious flaws therein. Otherwise, it would not have jumped in with both feet. Perhaps, the mammoth mandate it received at the last general election may have blinded it to reality, and its euphoria may have lulled it into thinking that its opponents were too weak to put up a fight.

Someone should have cautioned President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. In his inaugural address to the nation, in Anuradhapura, on 18 Nov. 2019, the President said he was the Defence Minister although according to the 19th Amendment (19A) to the Constitution, only the MPs can hold ministerial posts. It took some time for the President to come to terms with that fact.

The government is impervious to rational argument. Some constitutional experts have pointed out serious flaws in 20A, and their arguments are tenable. Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama is of the view that the government is in a dilemma over its attempt to get rid of the Constitutional Council (CC). He says that Section 41 of 20A seeks to amend Article 154R (in Chapter XVIIA of the Constitution), which provides for a Finance Commission (FC). The FC recommends the allocation of funds from the annual budget for the provinces and consists of five members including three appointed by the President on the recommendations of the CC; 20A seeks to delete the reference to the CC in Article 154R. Article 154G of the Constitution states that no Bill for the amendment or the repeal of any provision in Chapter XVIIA [or the Ninth Schedule] shall become law unless the President refers it to every Provincial Council for its views thereon before it is placed on the Order Paper of Parliament. The Provincial Councils have not been elected, and Dr. Jayawickrama contends that the government has violated the constitutionally stipulated procedure by placing 20A on the Order Paper. The government can withdraw the 20A Bill and place it on the Order Paper anew after deleting Section 41, but it will not be able to scrap the CC as long as Article 154R remains, Dr. Jayawickrama maintains. Thus, the government finds itself in a Catch-22 situation.

The government now says a new Constitution will be introduced in six months. We bet our bottom dollar that this pledge will not be fulfilled. As for this undertaking, the biggest hurdle in the path of the SLPP leaders will be the devolution of power. The government is under pressure from the forces that made its victory possible, at the presidential and parliamentary elections, to abolish the 13 Amendment, and, at the same time, India is bringing pressure to bear on it to retain the provincial council system. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reiterated India’s position at a recent virtual meeting with Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa.

One may recall that President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s draft Constitution had to be abandoned, in 2000, mainly due to the controversial devolution model it proposed—the Regional Councils. The yahapalana leaders also tried their hands at writing a new Constitution, but did not proceed beyond the preliminary stages thereof owing to issues concerning the unitary status of the country and the devolution of power.

The government has also said it is ready to go for a referendum. Its position is apparently premised on the assumption that since it polled more than 50% of the valid votes at the presidential and general elections, it will be able to have 20A approved by the people at a referendum. This will be a huge gamble for the government.

The results of a general/presidential election cannot be extrapolated to a referendum. On the other hand, the government cannot rest assured that all those who voted for it at the last two elections will endorse 20A at a referendum. Many of them are apparently disillusioned thanks to the government’s preoccupation with 20A, which contains draconian provisions, and its failure to honour its key promises. The Opposition will have nothing to lose at a referendum, but the government will have its political future at stake.

What the government should have done was to change 19A to enable the President to hold the defence portfolio, and then set about tackling the burning problems the people are faced with; it would have been able to enlist the backing of the SJB for that task. But it, in its wisdom, chose to bite off more than it could chew.