The government intends to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on what he described as a confusion in the constitution over the terms of the Executive President and Parliament, opposition MP Dayasiri Jayasekera said in a statement released to the media on Monday.
Jayasekera said Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe has issued a gazette notification to address a mismatch between the Sinhala and English texts of the constitution.
According to his account, the English text provides that a referendum is required to extend the term of the President and Parliament beyond six years, while the Sinhala text requires a referendum either to increase or to decrease that term.
The claim about the 19th Amendment
Jayasekera said he had heard a lawyer argue that the 19th Amendment, passed in 2015, is invalid because no referendum was held at the time to reduce the terms of both the President and Parliament. The 19th Amendment cut both terms from six years to five.
“Also I heard a lawyer coming up and arguing that the 19th amendment which was made in 2015 is not valid as no referendum was held to reduce the term of both Parliament and the President,” he said. “This lawyer proposed that Supreme Court’s opinion should be sought in this matter. He said both President and Parliament should go on for one more year depending on the Supreme Court opinion.”
That argument should be resolved before the increase in the retirement age of judges is implemented, the lawyer contended, according to Jayasekera.
The MP said the Chairman of the Election Commission has notified the President of the matter, and added: “People of this country should be vigilant in this matter.”
Context
The remarks attach a constitutional question to an already contested piece of legislation. The Attorney General cleared a draft bill on Sunday to raise the retirement age of judges, a measure the Bar Association of Sri Lanka has opposed and which prompted it to convene a special general meeting in July.
Jayasekera has been among the amendment’s more persistent critics, having earlier objected on procedural grounds and warned that it would require judges to rule on a measure benefiting them personally.
The characterisation of the government’s intentions in this article is the MP’s. No confirmation has come from the Attorney General’s Department, the Election Commission or the government, and the text of the gazette notification he referred to has not been published in the reporting.
