Cabinet jilmaat

Wednesday 29th December, 2021

Pressure is said to be mounting on the government to sack Cabinet Ministers Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Udaya Gammanpila and Wimal Weerawansa for publicly opposing the questionable Yugadanavi deal. Some SLPP seniors are pushing for their ouster, we are told. But this is something the government cannot afford to do at this juncture. The SLFP has also turned against the government to all intents and purposes, and is trying to form a new political alliance. The SLPP obviously does not want any more trouble on the political front.

Curiously, instead of countering arguments against the government’s agreement with the US-based energy company, New Fortress, the proponents of the controversial deal are demanding to know if the dissident ministers have any moral right to protest against it because they are bound by collective responsibility. Whether the three ministers have a right to condemn a Cabinet decision is beside the point; what is of serious concern is that the deal at issue is detrimental to the country’s interests.

How will the government deal with the three ministers who refuse to fall in line? When this question was posed to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa at his meeting with a group of newspaper editors on Monday, he said he thought it would have been better if the ministers had resigned from the Cabinet before opposing its decision. He said those who were party to a collective decision had to stand by it. He cited a judgment by the late Justice Mark Fernando to bolster his argument.

To drive his point home, the President referred to a military debacle that took place during the previous Rajapaksa government. He said more than 100 military personnel had perished in a battle at Muhamale during the early stages of Eelam War IV. (He was the Defence Secretary at the time.) But no attempt had been made to blame the incident on any particular person because the decision to launch the operation had been made collectively, he said. The disastrous Muhamale offensive was the Sri Lankan version of the Charge of the Light Brigade.

It is wrong for the members of any team to make decisions jointly and thereafter take exception thereto severally. According to the British parliamentary tradition, the constitutional convention of collective responsibility means that decisions made by the Cabinet are ‘binding on all members of the government’, and even ‘if a minister disagrees with a government policy, he or she must still support it; he or she should express his or her views and disagree privately’. The British Cabinet Manual specifically states that a minister who cannot abide by collective responsibility is expected to resign. Thus, a Cabinet decision becomes a fait accompli of sorts on not only ministers but also all government members.

But the question is whether the convention of collective responsibility is applicable in the case of the Yugadanavi deal, for the rebel ministers insist that the proper procedure was not followed in obtaining Cabinet approval for it. If the government’s claim that the ministers concerned endorsed the deal at a Cabinet meeting is true, let the relevant Cabinet memorandum and minutes be furnished in support of its contention.

Crafty politicians all out to cut corrupt deals must be prevented from committing the country and future generations to disastrous agreements by playing tricks (jilmaat) on the Cabinet in the name of collective responsibility, which should not be a licence for crooks to do as they please.