Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

Press Release on takeover of Nepal by King Gyanendra – 7th February 2005

Press Release – The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), Free Media Movement (FMM) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) together issued a joint letter to the Royal Nepalese Embassy on 7th February 2005 highlighting the current strife faced by journalists in Nepal following the 1st February takeover of the country by King Gyanendra

Press Release on takeover of Nepal by King Gyanendra – 7th February 2005
Press Release on takeover of Nepal by King Gyanendra – 7th February 2005

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

Civil Society Presentation By Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu at the Tokyo Conference on Reconstruction and Development of Sri Lanka – 9th – 10th June, 2003

Civil Society Presentation By Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu at the Tokyo Conference on Reconstruction and Development of Sri Lanka, 9th – 10th June, 2003

Civil Society Presentation By Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu at the Tokyo Conference on Reconstruction and Development of Sri Lanka – 9th – 10th June, 2003
Civil Society Presentation By Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu at the Tokyo Conference on Reconstruction and Development of Sri Lanka – 9th – 10th June, 2003

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

Press Release Re: National List Nominations, Constitutional and Statutory Obligations, and Representative Democracy – 7th April 2004

On
Wednesday 7th April 2004, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA)
wrote to the Commissioner of Elections expressing deep concern at
certain newspaper reports that various persons whose names do not
appear in the nomination lists or lists under Article 99A of the
Constitution (i.e., National List) as submitted to the Commissioner
during the nomination period, are to be nevertheless nominated to
Parliament as National List members.

The
letter sought to bring to the Commissioner’s attention that
if a political party or independent group adopts a course as indicated
above, they would be acting in contravention of Article 99A of the
Constitution as amended. That provision seeks to introduce the principle
of nominated Members of Parliament, and in doing so imposes certain
safeguards so as to prevent abuse. Significant in this regard is
the constitutional duty placed upon the Commissioner requiring him
to give notice to the public of persons nominated by parties as
National List candidates, so that voters have access to that additional
information prior to casting their votes.

In
addition to Article 99A of the Constitution, the Parliamentary Elections
Act No. 1 of 1981 also contains certain statutory obligations that
must be followed in replacing vacated parliamentary seats. In particular,
CPA wished to draw the Commissioner’s attention to Section
64 (5) of the said Act, which seems to suggest that upon vacation
of a national list seat, the secretary of a political party or the
leader of an independent group may nominate any member of such party or group to replace the vacancy.

CPA
urged the Commissioner to reject such an interpretation of the Act
which would serve to defeat the will of the people, in that candidates
whose merits the public had not considered in the exercise of the
franchise, would nevertheless be represented in Parliament.

CPA
reminded the Commissioner of the view taken by the Supreme Court
in the recent case of Centre for Policy Alternatives, Saravanamuttu
and Edrisinha v. Dissanayake and Weerawanni (2002) SC 26/27/2002,
where the Court stated:

“When
constitutional or statutory provisions have to be interpreted, and
it is found that there are two possible interpretations, a Court
is not justified in adopting that interpretation which has undemocratic
consequences in preference to an alternative more consistent with
democratic principles, simply because there are other provisions,
whether in the Constitution or another statute, which appear to
be undemocratic.”

In
this context, CPA asked the Commissioner to firmly resist any attempt
made by any political party or group to nominate persons whose names
are not in the district nomination papers or national lists submitted
to him during the nomination period.

Dr.
P. Saravanamuttu
Executive Director		 Rohan
Edrisinha
Director – Legal
 
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

Sri Lankan Draft Media Policy Critiqued – 13 September 2007

13 September 2007: ARTICLE 19 and the Centre for Policy Alternatives today made a Joint Submission to the Sri Lankan Ministry of Mass Media and Information on its Proposed National Media Policy (draft Policy), released on 22 August 2007. From the perspective of international best practice and standards, the two organisations critiqued the draft Policy, which focuses almost exclusively on certain aspects of media responsibility, rather than the obligations of the State to put in place an enabling environment for a free, independent and pluralistic media.

The government released the draft Policy on 22 August 2007 and called for submissions to be provided by 15 September 2007. While the draft does contemplate a limited number of government commitments – for example to provide adequate training and development opportunities for media personnel – it fails to make key commitments which are recognised as international standards of law and practice and which have long been demanded by civil society in Sri Lanka. These include adopting right to information legislation, freeing State media from government control, putting in place an independent system of broadcast regulation and doing away with the many legal rules that unduly restrict the content of what may be published or broadcast in the media. In this context, the two organisations note in particular the recommendations of the Sidath Sri Nandalochana Committee on the broad-basing of ownership of the Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd (ANCL) in 1994 and the R.K.W. Goonesekera Committee on the Reform of Laws Affecting Media Freedom and Freedom of Expression in 1996 which have not been acted upon by successive governments, and which the present draft Policy also ignores. The two organisations also note that the recent statement in response to the draft Policy issued by the Free Media Movement (FMM) and its partner organisations have also alluded to these issues.

Instead of addressing these critical issues, the present draft Policy focuses on the responsibility of the media to serve various social goals such as upholding ‘national identity, unity and harmony’, that is ‘socially responsible and ethical’ and that brings about ‘a well-informed and democratic society’. The idea of a free media is referred to only once and the idea of media independence is completely absent from the draft Policy. It is for the media, not the government, to establish set ethical standards for itself through internal codes of conduct and self-regulatory mechanisms.

We urge the government either to drop entirely the idea of developing a media policy or to restart the process from the beginning through a broad consultation with interested stakeholders to determine what such a policy should contain.

NOTES TO EDITORS

  • The Joint Submission is available for immediate download below, that includes as an Annex the draft Policy proposed by the Ministry of Mass Media and Information, Sri Lanka.
  • For more information, please contact Toby Mendel, Law/Asia Programmes Director, [email protected] or Sanjana Hattotuwa, Senior Researcher, [email protected]
  • The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) was formed in the firm belief that there is an urgent need to strengthen institution- and capacity-building for good governance and conflict transformation in Sri Lanka and that non-partisan civil society groups have an important and constructive contribution to make to this process.
  • ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works around the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

Supreme Court holds Vavuniya pass system violates fundemental rights in CPA sponsored case – 5th September 2003

The
Supreme Court today (5th September) upheld the challenge to the
pass system that was in operation in Vavuniya since 1993. The Petitioner,
Peter Vadivel, a refugee from the Sithamparapuram Refugee Camp,
petitioned the Supreme Court that his fundamental rights were violated
by the requirement to obtain travel passes to travel to Colombo.

The
respondent took up the position that the pass system was implemented
in the interest of National Security, reasonable and necessary in
the situation that the country was in. The court upheld the contention
that the petitioners fundamental right to movement under Article
14(1)(h) of the Constitution was violated and awarded compensation
and costs at a sum of Rs. 30,000 awardable by the State.

M.A.
Sumanthiran with Ms P.S. Bandaranayake, Ms Renuka Senanayake, K
Pirabaharan appeared for the Petitioner. Ms Indika Demuni de Silva,
State Counsel appeared for the respondents.

The
Centre for Policy Alternatives sponsored the case in addition to
carrying out the necessary legal research.

 
Rohan Edrisinha
Director – Legal

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

CPA CHALLENGES 18TH AND 19TH AMENDMENTS

The
Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has filed two petitions in
the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka challenging the constitutionality
of passing both the 18th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution
with a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament. The reasons for the
challenges are quite distinct from those of most of the other petitions.

CPA’s
opposition to the 18th Amendment is premised on its violation of
fundamental first principles of the rule of law. The Constitutional
Council which is a creature of the Constitution must be bound at
least by the chapter on fundamental rights contained in the Constitution.
While the Constitutional Council must have substantial freedom and
autonomy to exercise its important functions, CPA also believes
that the Supreme Court should have the discretion to review decisions
of the Council if they are in flagrant violation of fundamental
rights.

The
Centre for Policy Alternatives, unlike a number of other petitioners
challenging the 19th Amendment, welcomes a constitutional amendment
to remove the President’s power to dissolve Parliament. It also
believes that such an amendment does not require a referendum. However,
CPA strongly disapproves of the specific provisions in the 19th
Amendment that permit a President to dissolve Parliament if the
holder of the office of President and the party that has a majority
in Parliament are the same. The 19th Amendment is, therefore, not
based on the principle that an Parliament should exist free from
the whims and fancies of a powerful Executive President, but rather
is ad hoc, ad hominem and partisan.

Similarly
with respect to the freedom of conscience of Members of Parliament,
CPA believes that Article 99 (13) of the Constitution which has
helped entrench the spurious principle of “party democracy”
should be repealed. At the very least, the principled approach to
constitutional amendment would have required an amendment to permit
an MP to vote according to her/his conscience with respect to ALL
constitutional amendments. The 19th Amendment protects an MP who
defies the party line on only the 19th Amendment itself, from expulsion
from Parliament. Furthermore in a bizarre twist that undermines
freedom of association and the autonomy of political parties, the
19th Amendment even prevents a party from expelling an MP from the
party. Therefore, the misleadingly described “conscience clause”
is itself ad hoc, ad hominem and partisan in nature.

A
short amendment removing the President’s power to dissolve Parliament
and permitting MPs freedom of conscience would have been principle
based, compatible with constitutionalism and, therefore, justifiable.

M.
A. Sumanthiran assisted by Viran Corea and Renuka Senanayake will
represent CPA in the legal proceedings.


 
Rohan Edrisinha
Director – Legal