Exclusive interview with Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne, President’s Counsel and member of the Government’s constitution drafting team … courtesy of The Island, 16 April 2015
In your view, what are the main points of interest in the Supreme Court’s decision on the 19th Amendment Bill? For some time, various views have been expressed regarding the extent to which the executive power of the President can be restricted without having a referendum. Article 3 of the Constitution states that ‘sovereignty is in the people and is inalienable. Sovereignty includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and the franchise.’ Art. 4 (b), which is the provision relevant to us, says that ‘the executive power of the People including the defence of Sri Lanka, shall be exercised by the President of the Republic elected by the People.’ Art. 3 is in the list of provisions that require referendum but not Art. 4. In the Thirteenth Amendment case, a decision of a Full Bench, CJ Sharavananda stated for the majority that Article 3 would be violated only if there is a ‘prejudicial impact’ on the sovereignty of the People. But in 2002, in the earlier 19th Amendment case, the Court presided over by CJ Sarath Silva held that Article 4 must be read with Article 3 and this was interpreted by many to mean that every violation of Article 4 would require a referendum. In the present case, the Court used the phrase, ‘prejudicial impact’ and made it clear that ‘not all violations of Article 4 will necessarily result in a violation of Article 3.’ Continue reading
