An appeal to “Truly Patriotic and Just Sri Lankans”, to return us to Paradise
(Lanka-e-News, Nov.03, 2010, 11.15AM) Hitler’s unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the Weimar Republic in 1923 made him realise that insurrection cannot succeed against State Power. He acknowledged that he could gain power, not by force, but only by exploiting the instruments of democracy, viz. elections and party politics. He used seemingly legal means to destroy the Republic and impose a dictatorship. Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist, openly declared that “We have used democratic methods only to gain power and once we had it, we should ruthlessly deny our opponents all those chances we had been granted when we were in the opposition.”
Nothing is more dangerous in political life than the abandonment of reason. The anti-democratic intellectuals of the Nazi regime despised reason and found more truth in myth or in the blood surging in their veins. If they had a little more reason and enlightenment, those intellectuals may have foreseen where their zeal was leading them and their country. In 1959, German Pastor Martin Niemoller regretfully recalled that: “In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me – and by that time, there was no one left to speak up”.
In concluding a recent article on “The role of reasoning in human behaviour”, Prof. Carlo Fonseka has, stated as follows: “Because the culture of this country is essentially Buddhist, I believe that “reason” should play a much bigger role in guiding our destiny than it appears to be doing at present”.
When Ceylon gained Independence in 1948, several racial, linguistic, religious, and cultural groups co-existed in amity, as truly equal “Ceylonese”. We did not know, nor did it matter, what the race, religion caste or social standing of our friends, were. Proceedings in Parliament were orderly, dignified, educative and productive. In-built checks and balances facilitated “Good Governance” of 12 million people by a Cabinet of 12 Ministers together with outstanding public servants who did not hesitate to even disagree with the political authorities when the occasion demanded it. The Judiciary upheld the Rule of Law and held the scales even, without fear or favour. It was Lee Kuan Yew’s declared aim “to make Singapore another Ceylon”. However, on August 24th 2007, the same Lee Kuan Yew reflected thus: “In 1965, (that’s when Singapore got it’s independence) we had 20 years of examples of failed states. So we knew what to avoid - racial conflict, linguistic strife, and religious conflict. We saw Ceylon. Thereafter we knew that if we embarked on any of these romantic ideas, to revive a mythical past of greatness and culture, we’d be damned”. Sadly however, after almost sixty three years of Independence, dissension between linguistic, racial, religious, caste, and even family groups, engineered and fostered by the politicians for selfish reasons, plagues this once resplendent Isle. The plunder or abuse of the natural and other resources, under the guise of accelerated development, goes on unabated. All checks and balances have been dismantled or rendered ineffective. Corruption is rampant. Good Governance and the Rule of Law are not even talked about. A staggering proportion of Sri Lanka’s budget goes down the black hole, because of waste and corruption. Sadly, Sri Lanka is on the brink of a catastrophe.
Addressing the Organisation of Professional Associations on 14th September 2007, the late Justice Mark Fernando P.C. stated, inter alia, that “To save Sri Lanka only a tiny minority of “Just Persons” are required. Not Just Constitutions, Just Laws or Just Institutions. Right Persons and not Institutions because, he said, “Paradise, even on earth is not a physical place of material development but a set of values: fairness, tolerance, non-discrimination and so on. A ‘Nirvana’ in which people are liberated from craving and evil.” Quoting Judge Hand he said “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no Constitution, no Law, no Court can even do much to help it”.
Speaking of “moral integrity in Public life,” to the OPA on 27th October 2007, the late Mr. H.L. de Silva, P.C., stated that “Politicians whom we periodically elect, to represent us at the highest levels, both here and abroad, need to be reminded of the trust and responsibility we have placed on them and the exemplary standards expected of them.” He drew attention to Lord Acton’s famous epigram “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
Sadly the most lucrative investment in Sri Lanka to-day is, without doubt, getting elected to Parliament (where proceedings are a farcical disgrace) through elections which are not free and fair by any standards, and thereafter crossing over to the Government. The only qualifications required to get elected to Parliament are Rs. 10 million, 50 thugs and unlicensed firearms. ‘Education’, which was defined by Robert Frost as “the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper”, is apparently a serious handicap in getting elected to Parliament. On the other hand, the seven deadly sins enunciated by Mahatma Gandhi are very much in evidence in those elected. They are: “Wealth without Work; Pleasure without Conscience; Science without Humanity; Knowledge without Character; POLITICS WITHOUT PRINCIPLE; Commerce without Morality; Worship without Sacrifice.” Once elected, most of our politicians, shamelessly continue to engage in “Politics without Principle”. As stated by Charles de Gaulle “Politics is too serious a matter to be left to the Politicians”.
Effecting changes at the top is not easy. It needs pressure from the bottom upwards. Whatever happens, professionals and the other privileged classes, somehow manage to get along and prosper even at the worst of times. Sadly, not too many of them are willing to seek any change due to fear of losing whatever they have got. It is the “ordinary” or “less-privileged” people who have to bear the brunt of the problems. Franklin Roosevelt stated that “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, but whether we provide enough for those who have too little”,
“The price good men pay for being indifferent to Public Affairs is to be ruled by evil men”, said Plato. Albert Einstein stated that, “The World is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” Going further, Martin Luther King Jr. stated that “Cowardice asks the question: Is it safe? Expediency asks the question: Is it politic? Vanity asks the question: Is it Popular? But conscience asks the question: Is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it, simply because it is right”.
Are we in such a time right now? Devout disciples of Goebbels seem to be calling the shots in Sri Lanka today! Virtually all law-enforcement authorities, the public servants, the media, Political opponents of those in power and their supporters, and even University students have already been subjected to fair or foul pressures with a frightening degree of success. Can we abandon “reason” and remain silent until the white van comes for us?
As stated by the American Novelist and Poet Josiah Gilbert Holland:
“A time like this demands Men with strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands,
Men whom the lust of office does not kill; Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;
Men who possess opinions and a will; Men who have honour; men who will not lie;
Men who can stand before a demagogue and damn his treacherous flatteries without winking!
Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog, in public duty and in private thinking;
For, while the rabble with their thumb-worn creeds, their large professions and their little deeds,
mingle in selfish strife; Lo! Freedom weeps, wrong rules the land and Justice sleeps!”
If your “conscience” tells you to commit yourself to work towards achieving PRINCIPLED POLITICS with JUSTICE and RIGHTEOUSNESS, to realise the dream of a society where all PUBLIC OFFICE is held IN TRUST for the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE, please subscribe to the enclosed declaration, and send it to me. Please also share this with any others who are concerned. -Elmore Perera- (Past President O.P.A. and Founder CIMOGG )
|
The AG-An Officer of the Public who represents and acts for the People: Open Letter to the Hon. Attorney General by Veteran Lawyer Elmore Perera
(Lanka-e-News -20.Oct.2010 5.45PM)
Dear Mohan,
Our present Constitution has been in operation from September, 1978.
By a government fiat of 23rd July, 1980 the Attorney General and the Legal officers of his Department had been granted permission to engage in private practice. An Administrative Order that the AG should not appear for State Corporations had been made by the Cabinet.
On 6.2.1981 the Additional District Judge, Colombo refused an application by the Land Reform Commission for the discharge and dissolution of the enjoining order made restraining the LRC from interfering with the right of Grand Central Ltd. to manage their estates. On 23.2.1981, the LRC appealed to the Court of Appeal against this refusal. The Court of Appeal was informed from the Bar that Mr. Siva Pasupathi the AG was appearing for the LRC against Grand Central Ltd., not in his official capacity as AG of the country, but in his private capacity as an Attorney-at-Law, in compliance with a direction of the Head of State and Executive, H.E., the President, J.R. Jayawardene.
Mr. H.W. Jayawardene Queen’s Counsel (the brother of H.E. the President) raised the preliminary objection that as Mr. Pasupathi holds office as AG under the 1978 Constitution he could not appear in his private capacity as an Attorney-at-Law, and made comprehensive submissions. Relying on Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution, Mr. Pasupathi in reply reiterated his position that he was an Attorney-at-Law entitled to represent any party to a proceeding and had the right of audience in any court, tribunal or other institution and that he was appearing in his private capacity.
Invoking the inherent power of the Courts to regulate the proceedings before them, on 10th April, 1981, Ranasinghe J and Victor Perera J, ruled that the holder of the post of AG could not be heard in his private capacity as an Attorney-at-Law. Ranasinghe J held that “the AG is one of the very few, if not the only one, of officers appointed under the Constitution who, in the exercise of the functions and duties of his office, comes into contact with all 3 organs of government – the Parliament, the President and the Courts – through whom the sovereignty of the people which is enshrined in, and recognised and guaranteed by, the Constitution, is exercised. Whatever such an officer says and does should always be said and done in his official capacity and for and on behalf of the people of the Republic – not for and on behalf of any one person or a group of persons only.” Victor Perera J held that “the AG holds a unique position endowed with wide powers, onerous duties and special rights in regard to matters involving the exercise of the Sovereignty of the People under the 3 limbs: (1) Executive Power of the People (2) Legislative Power of the People, and (3) Judicial Power of the People. In the Republic of Sri Lanka, Sovereignty is in the People in terms of Article 3 of the Constitution and the AG represents and acts for the People of the Republic. The extensive powers vested in, and the duties and responsibilities of the AG were comprehensively set out in their judgement. vide (1981) 2 SLR 147.
The AG's client, the LRC, appealed to the Supreme Court, ostensibly on the plea that it had been denied the services of Counsel of its choice. On 16th September, 1981, Neville Samarakoon CJ, with Ismail J, Weeraratne J, Sharvananda J, and Wanasundera J, agreeing, held that: “The AG is the Chief Legal Officer and adviser to the State and thereby to the Sovereign, and is in that sense an officer of the public. The AG of the country is the Leader of the Bar and the highest Legal Officer of the State. As AG he has a duty to the Court, to the State and to the subject to be wholly detached, wholly independent, and to act impartially with the sole object of establishing the truth.” The CJ dismissed the appeal with costs, stating that “it is regrettable that the State has sought to act counter to tradition (prudence and propriety) in granting the AG and his law officers the right of private practice. Justice is the loser thereby.” [vide (1981) 1 SLR 250].
On Monday, 12th September, 1983, Neville Samarakoon CJ was informed that the Courts of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal and the Chambers of all Judges had been locked and barred and armed police guards had been placed on the premises to prevent access to them. The Judges had been effectively locked out. The CJ was informed on the next day that the guards had been withdrawn. On 15th September, 1983, H.E. the President made fresh appointments of the Judges. This matter was referred to in the course of the argument in Visuvalingam vs. Liyange and one of your eminent predecessors, who was then Deputy Solicitor General, informed the Court that it was the act of a “blundering enthusiastic bureaucrat.” He apologised on behalf of the official and unofficial Bar. However, on the last day of hearing the DSG withdrew the apology and substituted instead an expression of regret. The identity of the blundering bureaucrat whose clear object was to prevent the judges from asserting their right (to exercise the judicial power of the Sovereign people vested in them) was never disclosed.
This matter was thereafter heard by a Full Bench of nine judges and the said DSG raised the preliminary objections that the President’s act of making a fresh appointment of the Judges was an executive act not questionable in a Court of Law and that the Court was precluded from investigating matters that happened prior to the fresh appointments made on the 15th September. After 13 days of hearing, the Full Bench headed by Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon held, inter alia, that “Actions of the Executive are not above the law and certainly can be questioned in a Court of Law. Article 35 of the Constitution provides only for the personal immunity of the President during his tenure of office from proceedings in any Court. The President cannot be summoned to Court to justify his actions. But that is a far cry from saying that the President’s acts cannot be examined by a Court of Law. Though the President is immune from proceedings in Court, a party who invokes the acts of the President in his support will have to bear the burden of demonstrating that such acts of the President are warranted by Law. The seal of the President by itself will not be sufficient to discharge that burden”, and that therefore “the Judges did not cease to hold office”. The impugned act of the President was thereby effectively invalidated.
Though greatly disillusioned by the “rewards” for this exemplary conduct that were heaped on the Chief Justice handpicked by H.E. the President himself, I took my oaths as an Attorney-at-Law of the Supreme Court in November, 1992, because of the faith I had that Justice and Righteousness would ultimately prevail. I well remember how, during President Wijetunga’s short tenure, in a fundamental rights case instituted by me on behalf of the Irrigation Engineering Diplomates, you, as DSG, summoned the respondent Director Engineering Services Board to your Chambers and, in my presence, told that “blundering enthusiastic bureaucrat” that his actions could not be supported by the AG. It was therefore with disappointment that I learned of your resignation from the AG's department, to join the private bar. No doubt, the then Attorney General would have complied strictly with the relevant provisions of the Establishments Code, at that time.
My faith in the Judicial System was rudely shaken when I was informed that another of your predecessors, who had been elevated to head the said system, had, from the bench, literally thrown the docket at you. I was surprised that you had thereafter gone into his Chambers to apologise and I even reprimanded you for having done so. However, I soon realised that you were, perhaps, obeying Jesus Christ’s command to offer your coat also to one who takes away your cloak.
On 20th November 2006, you represented the Bar Association at the inquiry into the ‘Rule’ issued against me for alleged intemperate language used and gesticulations made when supporting my petition against the appointment made by H.E. the President of Hon. Nihal Jayasinghe as Acting Chief Justice instead of Hon. Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. You made no submissions whatsoever and silently acquiesced with the interim order made to suspend me, with immediate effect, without any inquiry and without even informing me of what the alleged offences were.
Your acceptance of the invitation to advise the Defence Ministry on legal matters was lawful and perhaps, well deserved. However your acceptance of appointment as AG in violation of specific provisions in the EC and the Constitution was clearly disturbing. You certainly knew that this act of H.E. the President was, prima facie, not warranted by law and the seal of the President was not sufficient to discharge the burden of demonstrating that it was warranted by law.
Whilst enjoying the relative peace resulting from my enforced sabbatical leave, I cannot refrain from taking cognisance of goings-on that affect the sovereign people, and forming opinions on the basis of what I see, hear and perceive. The purported impediments in the 17th Amendment have all been swept away by the sweeping powers now vested in the President by the 18th Amendment which, not only removed the legal barriers to your appointment as AG, but also in your considered opinion, did not amount to an erosion of the executive power of the sovereign people, which required the consent of the Sovereign People at a Referendum.
We, the people, have been made aware by the print and electronic media, that a flagrant misappropriation of public funds to the tune of Rs. 619 million by way of a Customs fraud had been detected and that an appeal by the AG, lodged in the Supreme Court in June 2009 in respect of the fraud, has been withdrawn by you, as AG on 30th August 2010, a move not only clearly inimical to the interest of the sovereign people but also placing at grave risk the lives of the informant and the Customs Official who faithfully carried out the duties entrusted to them as Public Officers. Can we, the sovereign people, be faulted for feeling let down by an AG who clearly seems to have failed to represent and act for and on behalf of the People of the Republic?
The Evidence Ordinance has stood the test for 115 years. However certain definitions therein such as: (i) a “fact” is any thing, state of things, or relation of things capable of being perceived by the senses; (ii) A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists; (iii) oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct i.e. if it refers to a fact which could be seen, or heard, or perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw, or heard or perceived that fact.; (iv) the court may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.
Prof. Carlo Fonseka has recently opined that “Reason should play a much bigger role in guiding our destiny than it appears to be doing at present”. This confuses the hypothetical prudent man who hasrecently been witness, inter alia, to: (1) the act of a Samurdhi Officer being tied to a tree, (2) a Deputy Minister attempting to discipline unruly state employees, (3) the Commissioner of Elections lamenting his inability to even safeguard ballot boxes in what he himself described as the worst election he had ever conducted and asserting that, he would not even step in to the Elections Secretariat, after 1st February 2010.
The hypothetical “prudent man” is presently faced with a dilemma. Everything that he saw, heard or perceived led him to the irresistible conclusion that what he witnessed was a clearly unlawful act. But, he was told, with ostensibly lawful or even patently unlawful authority, that what he had seen and heard was nothing but the enactment of a drama.
It is the sanity of the ‘prudent man’ that is at stake. Perhaps the resolution is to craft an amendment to the Evidence Ordinance, to define “a prudent man” as being “one who accepts, without question, anything he is told by those in authority, whether lawful or unlawful.” Who better than you, Hon. AG, could craft this amendment with a veneer of legality? A simple majority in Parliament without any debate, is assured. Whatever we, the Sovereign People, may say, you could rest assured that the fraternity of ‘Actors’ both within and outside Parliament, will undoubtedly deify you for this meritorious act of yours.
Elmore M. Perera
B.Sc., LL.B, F.C.M.A., Dipl. PMD (U. Conn), TREND (U. Conn), CSSI,
Chartered Management Accountant, Chartered Surveyor,
Management and Training Consultant,
Attorney-at-Law, Commissioner for Oaths, E-mail: elm144@sltnet.lk
Notary Public and Company Secretary,
Former Addl. Director SLIDA and Surveyor General,
Past President, Organisation of Professional Organisations,
Vice President, Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance.
|
An open letter to Election Commissioner: 'I challenge you, where and with whom, you were in night of Presidential election day?' -Veteran Lawyer Elmore
(Lanka-e-News 20.March.2010, 1.45AM)
Dear Dayananda,
A Free and Fair Election – An impossible dream ?
-------------------------------------------------
We, the People have a Sovereign right to exercise our franchise at free and fair elections. The very last time we could do so was in 1977. Giving vent to our disgust with the governance then prevailing, we gave J.R. Jayawardena, who claimed to be the long-awaited saviour of the Sri Lankan nation, a 5/6th majority. Free and fair elections were soon relegated to history. The election process rapidly degenerated to the level of the notorious Wayamba Provincial Council election in 1999.
In an attempt to stem this ominous trend, the OPA beginning in 1994, attempted to monitor elections. At the end of a discussion some of us had with you re monitoring the 1999 Presidential election, you claimed to have been at the receiving end of my lectures in SLIDA. I immediately assumed (rightly or wrongly?) that you had endorsed the need for exemplary conduct I consistently tried to instil into those who chose to listen to what I said.
In an attempt to reduce rigging at the Presidential election of 1999, you had affixed the now infamous “stickers” to Polling Cards. The potential abuse of such stickers was prevented by the accidental detection of this secret move of yours, by a VV.I.P. Consequent attempts made by a triumvirate of the most powerful personalities at that time, with the obvious connivance of a state agency, to sideline you and replicate the Wayamba election, were thwarted by justification of your bona fide and lawful, though admittedly futile and costly, act. However, you had not been vested with any power to control or even contain the violence and blatant violation of election laws that took place.
Disgusted with the mockery that passed off as “free and fair elections”, we the people, through our elected representatives in Parliament, adopted the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, drastically curtailing the extent of the Executive power of the Sovereign People which had been delegated to the President, and creating an Elections Commission of five members, endowed with extensive powers, for the sole purpose of restoring the conduct of free and fair elections.
The 17th Amendment, passed with only one abstention and no one against, became operative on 3rd October 2001, and provided the Elections Commission (EC) with sufficiently extensive powers, inter alia, to appoint other officers to the EC and delegate to them any power, duty or function of the EC, to notify the Inspector- General of Police of the facilities and the number of police officers required and then deploy them to secure the enforcement of all laws relating to the conduct of free and fair elections, to prohibit the misuse of any state property, and to enable the Competent Authority to take over the management of SLBC and SLRC in respect of all broadcasts which impinge on the election.
Regrettably, no Elections Commission was constituted and consequently, in terms of Section 27(2) of the said Act, you were vested with all the extensive powers, duties and functions of the Election Commission. Your failure to exercise most of these powers culminated in your validating the 2005 Presidential election where about 500,000 electors in the South and almost all the electors in the North were unlawfully disenfranchised.
Rather than invoking the extensive powers vested in you, so as to promote the conduct of a free and fair 2010 Presidential election, you only requested the IGP to continue to deploy the police officers himself, in the manner indicated by you. Belatedly, you issued directions for the immediate removal of cut-outs (and even provided the funds needed for same) and the cancellation of certain transfers. However, such directions were disregarded with impunity. You had chosen not to take cognisance of the fact that this IGP had been appointed by the President in violation of the Constitution, and had even been vested with the powers of the National Police Commission, also in violation of the Constitution, and certainly had to display greater allegiance to the President who appointed him, and to the Defence Secretary to whom he reports, rather than obey your commendable directives, confident that you would, deliberately or otherwise, not exercise the extensive powers vested in you to ensure compliance with your directives.
The “directives” reportedly issued by you to Ministry Secretaries and others re the abuse of state resources were largely disregarded, in violation of the Constitutional requirement that “every person under whose control such property is, for the time being, is required to comply with and give effect to such directions”. You did nothing further. You appointed a Competent Authority to control the broadcasts of SLBC and SLRC. The issuance of comprehensive Guidelines and even Directives failed to have any significant effect on the SLBC and SLRC. Without invoking any of the powers vested in you to “secure the enforcement of your directives”, you frequently appeared on TV, and attempted to exculpate yourself from your betrayal of the trust placed in you, by repeatedly complaining that your many directives, inter alia, to the IGP, to all Secretaries and the Media and those of your Competent Authority were not being heeded, and that you were helpless. You merely revoked the appointment of the Competent Authority without enabling him to take over the management of SLBC and SLRC, in respect of all political broadcasts or any other broadcast, which impinges on the election, under Arts 104 B(5)(c) and Act No. 3 of 2002.
To cap it all you announced that a “Sticker” would be placed on each ballot box to signify that it had been duly “checked”, “closed” and “sealed”. The necessary implication was that any ballot box which carried this “sticker” must necessarily be presumed to have been duly checked, closed and sealed by the Senior Presiding Officer in the presence of the Candidates and/or their duly nominated agents. You cannot plead that you did not realise that this procedure lent itself to mass-scale non-verifiable corruption. A news report of ballot boxes having been transported in a Navy Vehicle was immediately suppressed.
We the People, looked up to you to honour the trust placed in you by us, through our elected Representatives, and to hold a free and fair election. You signally failed to invoke the extensive powers set out in Articles 104C and 104E, to notify the IGP of the facilities and Police Officers required, appoint competent, non-partisan retired officers (of whom there are many) to direct the deployment of the facilities and Police Officers made available by the IGP, so as to ensure a “free and fair election”.
At about 2.30 p.m. on January 26th 2010, a public announcement was made on several TV Channels that casting a vote for General Sarath Fonseka was of no value because his name was not included in the list of Electors and that, even if elected, he could not lawfully hold the post of President. On this being brought to your notice, you issued a written statement that General Sarath Fonseka was indeed, lawfully entitled to be elected and function as President. Soon after this was broadcast on the TV, two or more VV.I.PP of the UPFA visited you at the Elections Secretariat and after some time you left the Secretariat in their Company. Thereafter you were seen in the Secretariat only minutes before you announced on 27th January, 2010, inter alia, that this was the worst election you have ever conducted, it was only when Indra de Silva was IGP that you were able to conduct a peaceful election, you had been told by powerful persons that your only function was to count the votes in the ballot boxes and announce the result, your election staff could not even ensure the safety of the ballot boxes, you will attend to the incidental functions relating to that election in the next few days in January and not thereafter even set foot in the Secretariat premises, and you wished to particularly thank the IGP Mahinda Balasuriya because he complied with all the requests made to him by you.
To the astonishment of the Public, you returned to the Elections Secretariat on 2nd February 2010, and retracted all the statements you made. You also declared that you were willing and able to conduct the General Election which will determine the future course of this country. Many, including me, have lost all faith in your commitment to conducting any free and fair election. You are, once again making attractive statements which, from your own recent experience, you no doubt know very well, will go unheeded. You have not even bothered to appoint a Competent Authority but have directed Party Secretaries to seek fairplay from the very Chairman who blatantly refused it. You have left it to the IGP to deal with any Police officers who failed to actively support the President. You have turned a blind eye to the flagrant abuse of State Resources. You are just going through the motions.
I challenge you to appear live on TV and truthfully divulge to the country where, and with whom, you and your wife were between 3.30 p.m. on 26th January 2010 and 4.45 p.m. on January 27th 2010, and also invoke all the Constitutional powers vested in you, not for the purpose of boosting your tarnished image, but for the purpose of conducting a free and fair election. If you do so, public confidence in your ability and willingness to conduct a free and fair election may well be restored, and it will not be necessary for me to tender an unqualified apology to you and your wife for having brought you to this state, and also to the Sri Lankan Nation for having prevented your removal from the election process in 1999 and thereby facilitating, what I believe, were fraudulent elections in Sri Lanka.
Please be aware of the maxim “Facts cannot lie, but men can”
With best wishes to you and your wife.
Yours sincerely,
Elmore M. Perera
B.Sc., LL.B, F.C.M.A., Dipl. PMD (U. Conn), TREND (U. Conn), CSSI,
Chartered Management Accountant, Chartered Surveyor,
Management and Training Consultant,
Attorney-at-Law, Commissioner for Oaths, E-mail: elm144@sltnet.lk
Notary Public and Company Secretary,
Former Addl. Director SLIDA and Surveyor General,
Past President, Organisation of Professional Organisations,
Vice President, Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance.
Une lettre ouverte au commissaire électoral: «Je vous mets au défi, où et avec qui vous étiez dans la nuit de jour de l'élection présidentielle? Avocat-Vétéran Elmore
(Lanka-e-News 20.March.2010, 1h45)
Chers Dayananda,
A Free and Fair Election - Un rêve impossible?
-------------------------------------------------
Nous, les gens ont le droit souverain d'exercer notre franchise au cours d'élections libres et équitables. La dernière fois nous pourrions le faire, c'était en 1977. Donner libre cours à notre dégoût de la gouvernance qui prévalaient alors, nous avons donné JR Jayawardena, qui prétendait être le tant attendu sauveur de la nation sri-lankaise, une majorité 5/6th. Des élections libres et équitables se sont vite reléguée à l'histoire. Le processus électoral a rapidement dégénéré au niveau de la fameuse Wayamba Conseil élection provinciale en 1999.
Pour tenter d'endiguer cette tendance inquiétante, le début OPA en 1994, ont essayé de surveiller les élections. À la fin d'une discussion, certains d'entre nous d'avoir avec vous de nouveau suivi l'élection présidentielle de 1999, vous affirmez avoir été à l'extrémité de réception de mes conférences dans SLIDA. J'ai immédiatement pris en charge (à tort ou à raison?) Que vous aviez approuvé la nécessité d'une conduite exemplaire, je constamment essayé d'insuffler à ceux qui ont choisi d'écouter ce que j'ai dit.
Dans une tentative visant à réduire le gréement à l'élection présidentielle de 1999, vous aviez apposé le désormais tristement célèbres "étiquettes" à Polling Cards. L'abus potentiel de telles étiquettes autocollantes en fut empêché par la détection accidentelle de ce mouvement secret de la vôtre, par un VV.IP Ayant tentatives faites par un triumvirat de personnalités les plus puissants de l'époque, avec la complicité évidente d'un organisme d'Etat, vous mettre à l'écart et de répliquer l'élection Wayamba, ont été contrecarrés par la justification de votre bonne foi et légitime, certes futile et coûteuse, agir. Toutefois, vous n'aviez pas été investi d'aucun pouvoir de contrôler ou même de contenir la violence et la violation flagrante des lois électorales qui ont eu lieu.
Dégoûté de la dérision qui fait passer pour des «élections libres et équitables», nous le peuple, par nos représentants élus au Parlement, a adopté le 17e amendement à la Constitution, une réduction drastique de l'étendue du pouvoir exécutif du peuple souverain qui avait été déléguée au Président, et de créer une Commission électorale de cinq membres, doté de pouvoirs étendus, dans le seul but de rétablir la tenue d'élections libres et équitables.
L'amendement 17, adopté avec une seule abstention et nul contre, est entré en vigueur le 3 Octobre 2001, et à condition que la Commission électorale (CE) avec suffisamment de pouvoirs étendus, entre autres, à désigner d'autres dirigeants à la CE et de leur déléguer tout pouvoir ou fonctions de la CE, de notifier à l'Inspecteur général de la police des installations et le nombre de policiers nécessaires, puis les déployer pour assurer l'exécution de toutes les lois relatives à la conduite d'élections libres et équitables, à interdire la détournement de biens d'Etat, et de permettre à l'Autorité compétente pour prendre en charge la gestion de la SLBC et SLRC à l'égard de toutes les émissions qui touchent à l'élection.
Malheureusement, aucun Commission électorale a été constituée et, par conséquent, en termes de l'alinéa 27 (2) de ladite loi, vous avez été investi de tous les larges pouvoirs, devoirs et fonctions de la Commission électorale. Votre incapacité à exercer la plupart de ces pouvoirs ont abouti à votre validation de l'élection présidentielle de 2005, où environ 500.000 électeurs dans le Sud et presque tous les électeurs dans le Nord ont été illégalement privés de leurs droits.
Plutôt que d'invoquer les pouvoirs étendus dont vous êtes investi, de façon à favoriser la conduite d'un référendum libre et équitable des élections présidentielles 2010, on a seulement demandé que l'IGP de continuer à déployer les agents de police lui-même, de la manière indiquée par vous. Tardivement, vous a donné des directives pour l'élimination immédiate des coupes (et même fourni les fonds nécessaires pour les mêmes) et l'annulation de certains transferts. Toutefois, ces instructions ont été ignorées en toute impunité. Vous aviez choisi de ne pas prendre connaissance du fait que cette IGP avait été nommé par le président, en violation de la Constitution, et a même été investi des pouvoirs de la Commission nationale de police, en violation de la Constitution, et certainement dû preuve de davantage d'allégeance au Président qui l'a nommé, et au Secrétaire de la Défense à qui il rend compte, plutôt que d'obéir à vos directives louables, convaincu que vous auriez, délibérément ou non, n'exercent pas les pouvoirs étendus dont vous êtes investi pour assurer le respect de vos directives .
Les «directives» aurait émis par vous au Ministère de secrétaires et d'autres re l'abus de ressources d'État ont été largement ignorées, en violation de l'obligation constitutionnelle que «toute personne sous le contrôle duquel ces biens sont, pour le moment, est tenu de se conformer à la et donner effet à ces instructions ". Vous n'avez rien de plus. Vous désigné d'autorité compétente pour contrôler les émissions de SLBC et SLRC. L'émission de directives et directives, même pas avoir d'effet significatif sur la SLBC et SLRC. Sans invoquer un quelconque des pouvoirs dévolus à vous d ' «assurer l'application de vos directives", vous fréquemment apparu à la télévision, et a tenté de se disculper de votre trahison de la confiance placée en vous, en se plaignant à plusieurs reprises que beaucoup de vos directives, notamment , à l'IGP, à tous les secrétaires et des médias et ceux de vos autorités n'étaient pas écoutés, et que vous étiez impuissant. Vous simplement révoqué la nomination de l'autorité compétente, sans lui permettre de prendre en charge la gestion de la SLBC et SLRC, à l'égard de toutes les émissions politiques ou toute autre émission, qui empiète sur l'élection, en vertu des articles 104 B (5) (c) et Loi n ° 3 de 2002.
Pour couronner le tout, vous avez annoncé une «vignette» serait placé sur chaque boîte de scrutin pour signifier qu'il avait été dûment "vérifié", "fermé" et "fermé". L'implication nécessaire était que toute boîte de scrutin qui a effectué cet autocollant "doit nécessairement être présumés avoir été dûment contrôlés, fermés et scellés par le président senior, en présence des candidats et / ou leurs mandataires dûment désigné. Vous ne pouvez pas invoquer le fait que vous ne se rendent pas compte que cette procédure se prêtait à la messe échelle non corruption vérifiables. Un rapport de nouvelles de boîtes de scrutin ayant été transportés dans un véhicule de la Marine a été immédiatement supprimés.
Nous le peuple, leva les yeux à vous pour honorer la confiance placée en vous par nous, par nos représentants élus, et de tenir une élection libre et équitable. Vous avez manifestement pas réussi à invoquer les pouvoirs étendus prévus aux articles 104 C et 104E, pour notifier l'IGP des installations et des agents de police requis, nommer compétente, non partisane officiers à la retraite (dont ils sont nombreux) pour diriger le déploiement des installations et des officiers de police mis à disposition par l'IGP, de manière à assurer une élection «libre et équitable".
A environ 2,30 pm le 26 Janvier 2010, une annonce publique a été effectuée sur plusieurs chaînes de télévision que les voix exprimées pour le général Sarath Fonseka a été d'aucune valeur parce que son nom ne figurait pas dans la liste des électeurs et que, même s'il est élu, il pourrait pas détenir légalement le poste de président. Sur cet être portées à votre connaissance, vous avez émis une déclaration écrite que le général Sarath Fonseka a été en effet, légalement autorisée à être élus et la fonction de président. Peu après cela, était diffusée sur la télévision, deux ou plusieurs VV.I.PP de l'UPFA-vous visité lors des élections du Secrétariat et après un certain temps vous avez quitté le Secrétariat en leur compagnie. Par la suite, on vous a vu au procès-verbal que vous avez annoncé Secrétariat avant le 27 Janvier 2010, entre autres, que c'était la pire élection, vous avez déjà effectuées, ce n'est que lorsque Indra de Silva a été IGP que vous étiez en mesure de procéder à une élection pacifique , vous aviez été informé par des personnes puissantes que votre seule fonction était de compter les votes dans les urnes et annoncer le résultat, votre personnel électoral ne pourrait pas assurer même la sécurité des urnes, vous pourrez assister aux fonctions des incidents relatifs à cette élection dans les prochains jours en Janvier et non pas par la suite bien mis les pieds dans les locaux du Secrétariat, et vous tient à remercier tout particulièrement les IGP Mahinda Balasuriya parce qu'il satisfait à toutes les demandes qui lui est faite par vous.
A l'étonnement du public, vous êtes revenu à l'élection du Secrétariat, le 2 Février 2010, et écarté toutes les déclarations que vous faites. Vous avez également déclaré que vous étiez disposé et apte à la conduite de l'élection générale qui déterminera l'évolution future de ce pays. Beaucoup, dont moi, ont perdu toute foi dans votre engagement à mener une élection libre et équitable. Vous êtes, une fois de plus attrayant de faire des déclarations qui, à partir de votre propre expérience récente, vous le savez sans doute très bien, resteront lettre morte. Vous n'avez même pas pris la peine de nommer une autorité compétente, mais ont réalisé Parti secrétaires de chercher fairplay du Président-là même qui a refusé de manière flagrante. Vous l'avez laissée à l'IGP pour faire face à tous les policiers qui n'ont pas réussi à soutenir activement le président. Vous avez fermé les yeux sur les abus flagrant de ressources d'État. Vous allez juste par les mouvements.
Je vous mets au défi d'apparaître en direct à la télévision et honnêtement les divulguer à des pays où, et avec qui, vous et votre épouse étaient entre 3,30 pm le 26 Janvier 2010 et 4,45 pm le 27 Janvier 2010, et également se prévaloir de tous les pouvoirs constitutionnels dont vous êtes investi , et non dans le but de dynamiser votre image ternie, mais dans le but de mener une élection libre et équitable. Si vous le faites, la confiance du public dans votre capacité et la volonté de mener une élection libre et équitable mai ainsi être rétablie, et il ne sera pas nécessaire pour moi d'offres toutes ses excuses à vous et à votre femme de vous avoir conduit à cet état, et aussi pour la nation sri-lankais pour avoir empêché de votre éloignement du processus électoral en 1999 et en facilitant ainsi, ce que je crois, avait des élections frauduleuses au Sri Lanka.
S'il vous plaît être conscient de la maxime «Les faits ne peuvent pas mentir, mais les hommes peuvent"
Avec mes meilleurs vœux à vous et votre épouse.
Yours sincerely,
Elmore M. Perera
B.Sc., LL.B., F.C.M.A., Dipl. PMD (U. Conn), tendance (U. Conn), CSSI,
Chartered Management Accountant, Chartered Surveyor,
Management and Training Consultant,
Attorney-at-Law, le commissaire à l'assermentation, E-mail: elm144@sltnet.lk
Notary Public and Company Secretary,
Ancien Addl. Directeur SLIDA et l'arpenteur général,
Président sortant, l'Organisation des organisations professionnelles,
Vice President, Mouvement des citoyens pour une bonne gouvernance. |
|
Acts of the President can be challenged in Court -Elmore
(Lanka-e-News 02.April.2010 9.00AM) “Actions of the Executive are not above the law and certainly can be questioned in a Court of Law. Article 35 of the Constitution provides only for the personal immunity of the President during his tenure of office from proceedings in any Court. The President cannot be summoned to Court to justify his actions. But that is a far cry from saying that the President's acts cannot be examined by a Court of Law. Though the President is immune from proceedings in Court, a party who invokes the acts of the President in his support will have to bear the burden of demonstrating that such acts of the President are warranted by law; the seal of the President by itself will not be sufficient to bear that burden”.
So held a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon Q.C. on 20th October 1983 in the “Visuvalingam v. Liyanage" case, reported in (1983) 1 SLR 203 to 304. Keeping in mind that the objectivity of their approach itself was in issue, in a spirit of detached objective inquiry which is a distinguishing feature of Judicial Process, the Supreme Court in 1983 in the full consciousness that it was their solemn duty and obligation to uphold the 1978 Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka proceeded objectively and impersonally to discharge their duty “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”.
One of the issues raised for decision was “Is the President’s act of making a fresh appointment of the Judges an executive act not questionable in a Court of Law?” It was contended on behalf of the Attorney General that “the personal allegiance which the Judges owed to the Sovereign in the days of the Monarchy is continued to the present day where the allegiance is owed to the President as representing the State. The Chief Justice responded stating “This is a startling proposition. Sovereignty of the People under the 1978 Constitution is one and indivisible. It remains with the People. It is only the exercise of certain powers of the Sovereign that are delegated under Article 4. Fundamental Rights and Franchise remain with the People and the Supreme Court has been constituted the guardian of such rights. I do not agree with the Deputy Solicitor General that the President has inherited the mantle of a Monarch and that allegiance is owed to him”.
As clearly stated by the Court of Appeal and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1981 “the Attorney General holds an unique position endowed with wide powers, onerous duties and special rights in regard to matters involving the exercise of the Sovereignty of the People which, unlike in England where the Queen is the Sovereign, in the Republic of Sri Lanka Sovereignty is in the people and the Attorney General represents and acts for the People of the Republic".
However it is now being widely reported in both the print and electronic media that the present holder of the post of Attorney General (who has been appointed to that post by the President in violation of specific provisions in the Establishments Code as well as the Constitution) has submitted to the Court of Appeal that an “Act of the President cannot be challenged in Court”
Since this decision in 1983 a bench of 9 or more judges of the Supreme Court has been convened only once (in 1985) and that was a case not involving any act of the President.
Clearly the law is still that “the seal of the President by itself will not be sufficient to bear the burden of demonstrating that any act of the President is warranted by law.”
Elmore Perera,
Past President OPA,
Founder and Vice-President of CIMOGG
|
Whither Inalienable Sovereignty? By Elmore M. Perera (Past President OPA - Founder and Vice-President, CIMOGG)
(Lanka-e-News 27.March.2010 5.45A.M.) Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise. But, can we as a nation flourish, if we all choose to remain in a fools’ paradise? I, for one, do not think so. But what about other Sri Lankans?
Responding to an article re “Machiavellian techniques employed to increase the UPFA’s parliamentary majority” a Sri Lankan responded by asserting that “Any Sri Lankan, even with an iota of feeling for the country and its people, would ever be grateful to President Mahinda Rajapaksa for the so-called ‘Machiavellian techniques’ that helped save the country from that megalomaniac mass murderer Prabhakaran and his blood thirsty gang of murderers.”
A senior Minister, answering a question fielded by a correspondent said “It is just a myth that the government will be dictatorial if it gets a two third majority in the General Election. He reminded that the government under President J.R. Jayewardene got five sixths majority and still it was not a dictatorial government.”
A senior cross-over Minister, when asked if “it was not unethical for candidates to enter parliament through one party and then cross sides subsequently to enjoy the perks and privileges of office”, said “There are many who think so. The present Constitution contains various short-comings. The cross-over clause, can be addressed as part of the overall changes that need to be effected.”
But all is not lost. At least one explicit view has been expressed that “The most curious aspect of this government’s general election campaign is that President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his government are asking for a two-thirds majority to change the Constitution, neglecting to state what the future constitution would look like. This is akin to asking a lady to agree to a contract of marriage without having seen or spoken to the prospective groom. There is still time for the President and his administration to spell out the nature of Constitutional changes contemplated before the April 8th poll. A separate document extraneous to the manifesto is called for in terms of what is contemplated as constitutional reform. In the absence of such, a two-thirds majority for a blank cheque is certainly a bit much to ask for.”
In any state sovereignty (i.e. Supreme authority in a State) is vested in the Institution, person, or body having the ultimate authority to impose law on everyone else in the state and the power to alter any pre-existing law.
Sovereignty that had, from time immemorial, been vested in our “Rulers”, was for the very first time vested in the People by the Autochthonous Constitution of 1972. It provided that “Sovereignty is in the People and is inalienable”, and that this Sovereignty shall be exercised through a National State Assembly of Representatives freely and fairly elected by the people, established as the supreme instrument of state power to exercise:
(a) the “Legislative power of the People” directly,
(b) the “Executive power of the People” through the President and the Cabinet of Ministers , and
(c) the “Judicial power of the People” through Courts and other institutions created by law enacted by their duly elected representatives.
The transition from a “free Sovereign and Independent Republic” to the status of a “Free, Sovereign, Independent and Democratic Socialist Republic” under the 1978 Constitution, was effected by the 2nd Amendment to the 1972 Constitution. Whereas the Legislative and Judicial power of the People were vested in the Parliament consisting of duly elected representatives of the People, the Executive power of the People including the defence of Sri Lanka was vested in the President of the Republic elected by the People. To execute all such acts and things, which the President was required or authorised to do, not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or written law, the President was granted limited immunity from suit, by Article 35 of the Constitution.
The 1st Executive President, H.E. J.R. Jayawardena, who claimed to be the 196th Head of the Sri Lankan State, used (and often abused) the extensive powers vested in the President. He even authorised and directed the Attorney General to appear, in the Court of Appeal on 5.3.1981 in the “Land Reform Commission vs. Grand Central Ltd.” case, in his private capacity as an ordinary Attorney-at-Law. Fortunately for Sri Lanka, the President’s own sibling, H.W. Jayawardena Q.C. raised objections to this and the Court of Appeal upheld this objection, for the reason that “the Attorney General holds an unique position endowed with wide powers, onerous duties and special rights in regard to matters involving the exercise of the Sovereignty of the People which, unlike in England where the Queen is the Sovereign, in the Republic of Sri Lanka, Sovereignty is in the people and the Attorney General represents and acts for the People of the Republic”.
Notwithstanding this clear message that Sovereignty vested not in the President but in the People, the flagrant abuse of Presidential authority continued unabated, under cover of the immunity purportedly granted by Article 35 of the Constitution. However, on October 20, 1983 the limit of this immunity was conclusively determined by the Full Bench of 9 Judges headed by the President’s own appointee as Chief Justice, Neville Samarakoon, Queen’s Counsel, in the “Visuvalingam Vs. Liyanage” Case. One of the issues raised for decision was “Is the President’s act of making a fresh appointment of the Judges an executive act not questionable in a Court of Law?”
It was contended on behalf of the Attorney General that “the personal allegiance which the Judges owed to the Sovereign in the days of the Monarchy is continued to the present day where the allegiance is owed to the President as representing the State. The Chief Justice responded stating, “This is a startling proposition. Sovereignty of the People under the 1978 Constitution is one and indivisible. It remains with the People. It is only the exercise of certain powers of the Sovereign that are delegated under Article 4. Fundamental Rights and Franchise remain with the People and the Supreme Court has been constituted the guardian of such rights. I do not agree with the Deputy Solicitor General that the President has inherited the mantle of a Monarch and that allegiance is owed to him”.
It was held by this 9 Judge Bench, inter alia, that: “Actions of the Executive are not above the law and certainly can be questioned in a Court of Law. Article 35 of the Constitution provides only for the personal immunity of the President during his tenure of office from proceedings in any Court. The President cannot be summoned to Court to justify his actions. But that is a far cry from saying that the President’s acts cannot be examined by a Court of Law. Though the President is immune from proceedings in Court, a party who invokes the acts of the President in his support will have to bear the burden of demonstrating that such acts of the President are warranted by law; the seal of the President by itself will not be sufficient to bear that burden”.
Abuse of the five-sixth majority in Parliament, by J.R. Jayawardena, was curtailed, not by choice but by the fierce independence of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Regrettably however, the Supreme Court, constituted as the guardian of the people’s Fundamental Rights and Franchise, has been slow to act in terms of this unambiguous interpretation by the 9-judge Bench, the validity of which has never since been questioned and/or considered by a Bench of 9 or more judges of the Supreme Court. Perhaps emboldened by this reluctance, the abuse of Presidential power rapidly escalated culminating in the infamous Wayamba P.C. election in 1999. The People were so enraged by such flagrant abuse of their executive power, delegated to the President, that in September 2001, their elected representatives in Parliament, with only one solitary abstention, passed the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, explicitly revoking certain executive powers “delegated” to the President. This was certified by the Speaker on 3rd October 2001 and duly incorporated in the 1978 Constitution.
The 199th Head of State reluctantly complied with the restrictions imposed by the 17th Amendment, except that she intentionally violated the Constitution by refusing to appoint the Elections Commission in 2002. However, the present incumbent has consistently acted in violation of the Constitution by refusing to appoint the duly nominated members of the Constitutional Council and arbitrarily appointing his selectees to the posts of Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court, the President and Judges of the Court of Appeal, Members of the Judicial Service Commission, the Attorney General, the Auditor General, the Inspector General of Police and the Secretary General of Parliament. For rather obvious reasons, the only provision in the 17th Amendment being complied with by the President is the transitional provision in Section 27(2) of the Act which enables Mr. Dayananda Dissanayake to continue as Commissioner of Elections for 8 years after reaching retirement age.
As cogently stated by a fervent supporter of the 200th Head of State, “the question before Sri Lanka is “Who are we and what kind of state are we evolving into?” What is at stake, he says, is “Do we or do we not belong to the system of representative pluralist democracy? Do we or do we not intend to play by the rules of the game? It was one thing to defend liberal democracy from the armed JVP and the Tigers, and another to damage or fail to restore that liberal, pluralist democracy ourselves. It is one thing to resist the West when we must, and another to brush off constructive advice from all and go it alone, filled with self-righteousness”.
The reported creation of a “Special Police Unit to protect the good name of Rajapakses”, the transparently ruthless suppression of any dissent and the demand for a two-thirds majority in Parliament are tantamount to a naked attempt to lawfully vest in the President the inalienable sovereignty which is presently vested in the People. History is likely to repeat itself to the extent that the Attorney General (who has been appointed to that post by the President in violation of specific provisions in the Establishments Code as well as the Constitution), will predictably support such action. Sadly, however, there will be no objections raised by the numerous siblings of the President who are actively supporting his every move. The Judiciary is our last bastion
The Judiciary is our last bastion. Keeping in mind that the objectivity of their approach itself was in issue, in a spirit of detached objective inquiry, which is a distinguishing feature of Judicial Process, the Supreme Court, in 1983, in the full consciousness that it was their solemn duty and obligation to uphold the 1978 Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, proceeded, objectively and impersonally, to discharge their duty “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”. In the exercise of the Executive power of the People vested in him, the 200th Head of State has effectively wrested from Parliament our Legislative Power and seems to be making inroads into our Judicial Power as well.. As of today, the last of the Independent Commissions has ceased to exist effectively giving a green light to Bribery and Corruption. Our legitimate expectation is that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court will rise to the occasion and repeat their performances of 1981 and 1983, and restore de facto sovereignty to where it lawfully belongs – in the people.
The lady who agrees to a contract of marriage without having seen or spoken to the prospective groom is virtually agreeing to the irreparable loss of her virginity. The rape of our Sovereignty is manifested by the blatant intentional violation of many Constitutional provisions. We cannot willingly be seduced to barter away our Sovereignty by an illusory though unspecified bright future. The one and only tool still in our hands is this ballot. This could well be our last opportunity to discharge our obligation by future generations of Sri Lankans to retain inalienable sovereignty in us, the people.
Elmore M. Perera B.Sc., LL.B, F.C.M.A., Dipl. PMD (U. Conn), TREND (U. Conn), CSSI,
Chartered Management Accountant, Chartered Surveyor,
Management and Training Consultant,
Attorney-at-Law, Commissioner for Oaths, E-mail: elm144@sltnet.lk
Notary Public and Company Secretary,
Former Addl. Director SLIDA and Surveyor General,
Past President, Organisation of Professional Organisations,
Vice President, Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance.
|
|
