Paul Walter

In an historic decision, the Sri Lankan Supreme Court rules that the President’s dissolution of parliament was illegal

By | Thu 13th December 2018 - 12:30 pm

Embed from Getty Images

This follows on from my post on November 29th.

The Sri Lankan Supreme Court has just ruled unanimously that President Sirisena acted illegally when he dissolved Parliament and called early elections.

The Supreme Court confirmed the constitutional position, which is that the President can only call elections four and a half years after the last ones, or with the support of a two-thirds majority of Parliament.

In late October, President Sirisena also dismissed Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and replaced him with Mahinda Rajapaksa. However, Parliament twice passed motions of no confidence in Rajapaksa. For good measure, yesterday they passed a motion of confidence in Wickremesignhe as Prime Minister. Parliament has also voted to cut off funding to “Prime Minister” Rajapaksa and the cabinet he has chosen.

Without delay, President Sirisena needs to abide by the Supreme Court ruling and reinstate Prime Minister Wickremesinghe or another Prime Minister who enjoys the majority support of Parliament.

Any other course by the President will lead Sri Lanka down a very dark path. Tourism has started to grow in the country in the last few years. Many people see it as one of the most beautiful places in the world. I can’t see people continuing to flock to Sri Lanka if it has a President who is playing fast and loose with the constitution, with all the civil unrest that implies.

* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Hywel
    @Jana - hence the word 'blanket' As it stands a political party cannot discriminate against someone for a belief 'worthy of respect in a democratic society, ...
  • Jason Connor
    Well said Chris Nicholson. What an encouraging post and for recognising that party's blatant anti semitism....
  • Jana
    @Hywel “ It is inherently nonsensical for a blanket prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of belief to apply to political parties which are founded on...
  • Hywel
    " 65 seats on 8% is a possible outcome which would see us overrepresented significantly under fptp." That may be possible. The actual electoral arithmetic g...
  • Chris Nicholson
    Theakes, nowhere does that article say there was a coalition or a confidence and supply agreement so there is no agreement for us ‘to pull out of forthwith’...