Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

Oral statement made by Sunila Abeysekera on behalf of Forum Asia, Pax Romana, INFORM and Centre for Policy Alternatives – 18 September 2006

Oral statement made by Sunila Abeysekera on behalf of Forum Asia, Pax Romana, INFORM and Centre for Policy Alternatives as part of the Inter-Active Dialogue with the High Commissioner for Human Rights: Geneva, September 18, 2006 is available as a PDF in English and Sinhala

Oral statement made by Sunila Abeysekera on behalf of Forum Asia, Pax Romana, INFORM and Centre for Policy Alternatives – 18 September 2006

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

Statement by civil society organisations on space for humanitarian activities focusing on safety, access and restrictions – 18th August 2006

Statement by civil society organisations on space for humanitarian activities focusing on safety, access and restrictions. This statement is available as a PDF in English, Sinhala and Tamil (18th August 2006)

Statement by civil society organisations on space for humanitarian activities focusing on safety, access and restrictions – 18th August 2006

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

Concerns on Legislation to Establish a Reconstruction and Development Authority – 16th June 2005

Press Release
Concerns on Legislation to Establish a Reconstruction and Development Authority

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has raised concerns on the legislation to establish the Reconstruction and Development Authority (RADA), raising several legal and constitutional issues as well as impacting future reconstruction and development activities in Sri Lanka at a consultation held on the 16th of June. Following are several of the concerns raised.

A significant feature of the bill is that it vests broad powers with the President and RADA, including powers over land acquisition, controlling and monitoring foreign and local organization as well as designating areas to be classified as being affected by natural or man made disasters. As actions by the President carries with it presidential immunity in accordance with the Constitution, there are no checks and balances in place to ensure that the relevant actors do not abuse such broad powers. The bill at no point mentions the role of Parliament, and whether RADA will be answerable to Parliament or any other actor. It is of grave concern, as the bill is perceived to be increasing and strengthening the powers of the President, with no oversight mechanism in place and thereby raising questions of accountability and transparency.

A key feature of the bill is that it can create a precedent in relation to land acquisition as it will bypass existing legal provisions set under the Land Acquisition Act, and vest such powers with the President. Further, the President and RADA may decide to acquire land in the national interest but there is no definition as to what would fall under ‘national interest’. CPA is concerned with the ambiguity of the term ‘national interest’ as the President and RADA may arbitrarily decide what would be a ‘national interest’ and require any land or property to be acquired in the guise of ‘national interest’, resulting in unjustly taking away land and property belonging to people. Such blanket powers could be used in an arbitrary and prejudicial manner, targeting opponents of the administration or for personal gain and therefore such powers should be curtailed.

Additionally CPA raises concern with vesting vast powers with RADA in relation to foreign and local organizations, with powers to monitor and control the activities of such actors and issuing of licenses for the carrying out of activities. Measures must be in place to reduce the likelihood that there is no witch hunt against such actors and that there is no abuse of powers.

CPA wishes to also highlight the importance of appointing board members to RADA in a transparent and accountable manner, ensuring that the board is composed of persons who are knowledgeable and possess expertise in reconstruction and development activities. The bill provides vast powers to the President to appoint persons that he may deem fit creating space for appointments based not on merit but on personal favoritism and connections.

Further, concerns have been raised as to the modalities within which RADA will work with existing actors. CPA reiterates the importance of giving local actors a greater role in reconstruction and development efforts, involving them in the formulation of plans and giving greater responsibility in implementation of projects.

Dr. P. Saravanamuttu
Executive Director

Concerns on Legislation to Establish a Reconstruction and Development Authority – 16th June 2005
Concerns on Legislation to Establish a Reconstruction and Development Authority – 16th June 2005

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

President violates 17th Amendment to the Constitution – 12th April 2006

PRESIDENT VIOLATES 17TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION – CPA

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) expresses its deep concern at and opposition to the decision of President Rajapakse to unilaterally appoint members to the National Public Service Commission and the National Police Commission, in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. The justification for this intentional violation of the Constitution is totally unconvincing.

The 17th Amendment to the Constitution was passed by Parliament in September 2001, mainly at the initiative of the People’s Alliance and the JVP. CPA had some reservations both with respect to the process of adoption and the substance of the Amendment, but supported the rationale of the Amendment, which was the depoliticisation of key public institutions with a view to promoting good governance. The Amendment is today part of Sri Lanka’s Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land. Both the Police and the Public Service were institutions urgently in need of depoliticisation, especially after the increased malpractices and perception of partisanship during elections since the early 1980s.

As indicated by CPA in its public statements and in the petition filed in the Court of Appeal, the President and his predecessor should have taken urgent steps to fill the vacancies on the Constitutional Council. We note that these occurred as early as March 2005. The President or the Speaker should have summoned a special meeting to resolve the dispute with respect to which of the parties in Parliament were entitled to have their members serve on an electoral college to elect a nominee to the Constitutional Council. An alternative course of action would have been to constitute the Constitutional Council without the nominee of the smaller parties. This would have enabled the Council to commence its primary function – that of recommending persons who are and are seen to be non-partisan, to the various positions and Commissions required by the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. Whilst this would not have been the ideal course of action, from the perspective of governance it certainly would have been a better one than that pursued by the President.

The President’s action also has repercussions for the process through which a negotiated political settlement of the ethnic conflict can be attained. Embarking on a course of action which is in flagrant violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution while at the same time taking a strict, legalistic approach to constitutional interpretation in its negotiations with the LTTE on issues such as the constitutionality of the Cease fire Agreement and the P-TOMS mechanism, is particularly unfortunate, as it demonstrates inconsistency and double standards. The LTTE and Tamil nationalists will be able to argue, with justification, that the Rule of Law and fidelity to the Constitution become relevant only when dealing with issues of peace, reconciliation and reconstruction but not when dealing with the exercise of power by governments of Sri Lanka and their leaders.

CPA believes that the intentional subversion of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution poses a threat to the Rule of Law in Sri Lanka, probably unparalleled since the assault on the independence of the judiciary by the government of President J.R. Jayewardene in the 1980s.

CPA calls upon President Rajapakse to revoke his unconstitutional decision and take urgent steps to fully implement the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. It also calls upon all those nominated to positions on these two Commissions to refuse to accept the appointments, thereby lending their support to upholding the Rule of Law in Sri Lanka. It calls upon all sections of civil society including the Bar Association of Sri Lanka to act in solidarity to uphold the letter and spirit of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
Executive Director

12th April, 2006

President violates 17th Amendment to the Constitution – 12th April 2006
President violates 17th Amendment to the Constitution – 12th April 2006
President violates 17th Amendment to the Constitution – 12th April 2006