Supreme Court’s Ruling on Ousted PM Saves Democracy in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court has extricated the island nation from the throes of a constitutional crisis.

Ousted Sri Lankan PM Ranil Wickremesinghe’s image used for representational purposes.

(Photo: Harsh Sahani / The Quint)

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka – with a view to extricate the island nation from its constitutional crisis – in a landmark judgment declared that President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to dissolve the parliament was unconstitutional.

It implies that ousted Prime Minister Ranil Wickramesinghe should be reinstated in office, and the Supreme Court has upheld the rule of law and lived up to its reputation as a free and fair constitutional body.

PM Wickremesinghe’s Earlier Setbacks

This is the second time that Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has been deposed from office. Earlier he suffered a similar setback when the then President Chandrika Bandaranaike exercised her executive powers and dissolved parliament in February 2004. Differences between the president and prime minister on earlier occasions led to the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka in 2015.

It prevents the president from dissolving the parliament before it completes four and a half years of its term. Only a two-thirds majority vote in parliament would permit the president to dissolve parliament before its designated term of office.

The 19th Amendment, which created a dual executive, made the prime minister’s position secure from the arbitrary actions of the president. Therefore, the office of the prime minister falls vacant only under limited circumstances which entails death, voluntary resignation, loss of support in parliament, rejection by the parliament of the budget, and ceasing to be an MP, are these circumstances.

No Need to Dissolve Parliament Arbitrarily

Constitutional provisions do permit the president to dissolve the parliament in the face of extraordinary circumstances. However, there is an absence of any such extraordinary circumstance, namely an economic crisis, external threat to national security, or internal instability (like ethnic conflict), or break down of law and order. In view of these realities, there is no need whatsoever for the president to dissolve the parliament arbitrarily.

Though the court verdict supports Wickramesinghe and a trust vote of 117 MPs of 225 member house in Parliament favours him as prime minister, the seven week political impasse may persist in the island nation.

President Sirisena has declared that he would not appoint Wickramesinghe “even if all 225 legislators” back him. The personality clash between the president and prime minister is the crux of the political crisis in Colombo. While political norms dictate that Sirisena should respect the verdict, the court has little ability to compel him to do so. Prior to the court ruling, Sirisena had pledged to respect the Supreme Court’s decision.

Sirisena Resisted Calls to Reappoint Wickremesinghe

Considering Sirisena’s logic to promote his personal interests over national interests suggests that he could adopt an equally illogical approach in the future also. Evidently he appears to have a dictatorial mindset that clings to power, and abhors reason. This is evident from the constitutional provision that President Sirisena has cited in the official letter to Wickremesinghe that does not grant the president authority to remove a prime minister from office.

Clearly, Section 42(4) of the Constitution merely enables the president to appoint a prime minister. The president has taken the position that, since he is the appointing authority, he also has the implicit power to sack the prime minister.

The prime minister is not a public servant who can be sacked by the appointing authority at his will. It is a constitutional office with protection from the executive. Also Sirisena has resisted calls to reappoint Wickremesinghe, ignoring warnings that such a refusal could amount to a breach of the Constitution.

Prolonging a Political Deadlock

The political instability has adversely impacted the tourism industry in an island state which contributes to the economy in a big way. The political crisis unfolded just when tourists were making holiday plans. Tourism constitutes about five percent of the island’s USD 87 billion economy, and the president sacking the prime minister late in October, triggered a crisis that credit rating agencies state has already hit economic prospects.

Today, going by the law, Sri Lanka lacks a legitimate functioning prime minister and a Cabinet.

Over the last seven weeks, the political drama unfolded with the appointment of a new prime minister and Cabinet, the parliament was prorogued and dissolved, the courts suspended the dissolution of the parliament, a no-confidence motion was passed against the newly appointed prime minister.

And finally, the Court of Appeal has restrained the newly appointed prime minister and cabinet from functioning.

To compound matters, the Supreme Court will be on vacation from 14 December to 9 January 2019, that would only prolong the political impasse on the island state.

(The writer is a Professor of International Relations and Strategic Studies at the Christ Deemed to be University, Bengaluru. This is an opinion piece. Views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)