Sri Lankan Supreme Court to be moved to lift bar on Rajapaksa’s presidencial bid

A move is afoot to approach the Supreme Court to get the “constitutional bar” on former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa becoming president for the third time.

The move has been initiated by GL Peiris, who was once the minister of constitutional affairs, and now the de jure leader of Rajapaksa’s new party, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP).

Peiris told bdnews24.com that he plans to approach the Supreme Court in early September.

The case 

The 19th Amendment (19A) of the Sri Lankan constitution, passed in April 2015 after Rajapaksa’s defeat in the Jan 8, 2015 presidential election, says that no person can hold the office of president more than twice.

The 19A was primarily meant to prevent Rajapaksa from contesting again as he had served two terms as president.

But Peiris argues that the clause in the 19A which put a cap on the number of times a person can be president, refers to the post of president as defined by the 19A and not to the post of president as defined in the constitution which existed before 19A. 

File Photo: GL Peiris (R) speaks during a press conference in Colombo March 26, 2012. REUTERS/Stringer

“Mahinda Rajapaksa and Chandrika Kumaratunga were presidents twice under the old constitution in which the functions and powers of the president were fundamentally different from the functions and powers of the president as defined by 19A.

“The office of the president in terms of powers and functions pre- and post-19A are as different as apples are from oranges. After the enactment of 19A, the presidency is a totally new office. Therefore, the cap stated by 19A should apply to the office as defined by it, and not to the previous office,” Peiris argues.

Delineating the differences between the presidency under the 1978 constitution and the presidency after 19A, Peiris said under the previous 1978 constitution, the president had vast powers, but 19A took away many of them.

Under the 1978 constitution, the president could appoint and sack any minister without prior consultation with the prime minister. He could sack the prime minister too.

Peiris also pointed out that the 19A does not say that the term limit would apply retrospectively. But another senior lawyer such as MASumanthiran says that it is not necessary to mention that it will apply retrospectively. That it is retrospective is understood, Sumanthiran said.

But Peiris’ case is that the question is about the radical changes in the nature of the office of President. These changes do not allow the application of  the 19A’s cap to a person who had served two terms as president under the old constitution ,he maintains.

“We have a strong case,” Peiris said.

However, he denied that the whole purpose of the legal exercise is to enable Mahinda Rajapaksa to run for the presidency for a third time.

“The issue is not Rajapaksa’s candidacy at all. Candidacy is a different issue, which will be taken up the parties concerned. The issue at hand is a legal and constitutional one about the applicability of a cap to a certain category of persons like Mahinda Rajapaksa and Chandrika Kumaratunga,” he explained.

“The 19A was passed in a hurry without due consideration of all relevant aspects,” he added.