Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara clashed in Parliament this week over the standing of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, after Premadasa cited the association’s criticism of Supreme Court proceedings on the 22nd Amendment.
Premadasa challenged President Anura Kumara Dissanayake over public statements that the amendment can be enacted on a two-thirds majority alone, before the Supreme Court has ruled, Hiru News reported. He argued the President had previously maintained that the 20th Amendment required a referendum and is now asserting that the 22nd does not — anticipating the court’s verdict on the bill’s constitutional validity.
”A club for fee-paying members”
Nanayakkara said the CLA does not enjoy official status of the kind the Commonwealth Secretariat holds, describing it as a private, membership-based organisation. “It is a club for fee-paying members,” he said, according to the Daily FT, while adding that he was not calling it a bad organisation and that it does constructive work.
Premadasa countered that the CLA is a body acknowledged by Commonwealth member nations. The Daily FT notes that the association’s own website describes it as an affiliate professional body with fee-paying members drawn from Commonwealth legal fraternities — closer to the Minister’s characterisation than the Opposition Leader’s.
The dispute over the CLA’s status matters because of what its president said. Steven Thiru raised procedural fairness concerns after observing the Supreme Court hearing, in a nine-page report the archive has previously covered. Premadasa said Thiru had also sought a meeting with the Ministry Secretary and was not granted one, and demanded the Justice Minister apologise. Nanayakkara said the CLA’s Sri Lankan representative Upul Jayasuriya had sought a meeting with him, that he had agreed, and that it could not take place because he was outside Colombo on the proposed date.
Premadasa challenged the Government to bring a resolution declaring that it does not recognise the CLA, if that is its position.
Petitions not heard in open court
Premadasa said some petitions filed against the 22nd Amendment had not been heard in open court, and that he had tried to raise the matter under parliamentary Standing Orders and Article 121 of the Constitution without being given the opportunity to present his concerns fully. He argued that every petitioner should be heard before the process is treated as complete.
Hiru adds that he pointed to a resolution by the Galle Bar Association opposing the amendment, and argued that the draft breaches the Latimer House Principles on the separation of powers between executive, legislature and judiciary — the same objection the CLA raised.
Democracy, the economy and the press
Turning to the economy, Premadasa said the Government needs stronger growth and higher foreign direct investment to fund its infrastructure and transport programme, and that investors will not enter a country lacking confidence in its democracy and rule of law. “While building expressways, the country is also moving at express speed to destroy democracy,” he said.
He also said the Opposition would resist any use of a two-thirds majority to restrict the press, calling the proposed chartered body for media professionals a direct attempt to curb press freedom, and demanded the withdrawal of all such proposals. He criticised the Government’s family doctor referral proposals for public healthcare, and its record on welfare benefits, paddy prices and the cost of living.
A note on dating
The Daily FT places the exchange at Tuesday’s sitting, filing its account at 12:08 a.m. on Wednesday. Hiru published its report on Wednesday without naming the day. The two accounts describe the same exchange over the same association with the same minister; where they differ is in emphasis, not substance.
Not reported
Neither outlet reports whether the Justice Minister responded to the demand for an apology, whether the Government intends to table a resolution on the CLA, or what the Galle Bar Association resolution says. Neither gives the President’s response to the referendum challenge.
