Sri Lanka expert panel members submit four different reports
Divided Lanka expert panel members submit four different reports
By D.B.S. Jeyaraj
[transCurrents.com]The seventeen member panel of multi – ethnic group of experts appointed by Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapakse to submit recommendations regarding power sharing and Constitutional reform has failed to formulate a unanimous report due to deep divisions within, it is learnt.
As a result of these divisions at least four separate preliminary reports had been prepared and were ready to be handed over to President Rajapakse on Wednesday Dec 6th .
The expert panel was scheduled to hand over its report to the All Party Representatives Council (APRC) at the Presidential Secretariat in the evening of Dec 6th. President Rajapakse himself was expected to be present but informed sources said he may “miss” the APRC meeting to avoid the embarrassment of receiving four separate reports.
According to informed sources eleven of the seventeen expert panelists had agreed on a common report though individual members had noted reservations on certain points. This would be presented as the majority report.
The main minority report will be submitted by four other members. There will also be two dissenting reports presented by two other members.
The main issues of contention dividing the majority report and other dissenting reports have been over matters like maximum devolution amounting to quasi – federalism, unitary state and retaining the salient points of the 13th Constitutional amendment.
The 13th amendment to the Constitution was brought in 1987 as a result of the Indo – Lanka Accord. The major achievement of that amendment was the introduction of the Provincial Council system and merger of Northern and Eastern Provinces subject to an Eastern referendum proviso.
Of the eleven expert panel members who agreed on the minority report six were from the Sinhala community. Four Tamil and one Muslim member also signed the majority report.
The dissenting reports were all submitted by members of the majority Sinhala community.
President Rajapakse convened an All Party Representatives Conference to make recommendations on Constitutional Reform allowing maximum devolution within a unitary system. He also appointed an expert panel to formulate Constitutional reform recommendations that were expected be adhered to “mutatis mutandis” by the APRC.
Initially twelve members were appointed to the panel. The membership was later increased to fifteen and subsequently to seventeen.
The members of the expert panel are:
Mr H L De Silva, PC
Mr R K W Gunasekera PC
Dr Jayampathy Wickremaratne, PC
Mr Faisz Mustapha, PC
Dr Rohan Perera, PC
Mrs Therese Perera, PC
Mr Gomin Dayasiri PC
Mr. Manohara De Silva PC
Prof GH Peiris
Mr MDD Peiris
Mr K H J Wijayadasa
Dr Sivaji Felix
Mr N Selvakumaran
Dr K.Vigneswaran
Mr Asoka Gunawardena
Dr Nirmala Chandrahasan
Ms Malkanthi Wickremasinghe
The four members submitting the minority report are Mr. HL de Silva, Mr. Gomin Dayasiri, Prof GH Peiris and Mr. Manohara de Silva. Mr. KHJ Wijayadasa and Mr. MDD Peiris will submit two other dissenting reports separately.
Ms. Therese Perera, Ms. Malkanthy Wickremasinghe, Dr. Nirmala Chandrahasan, Mr. Asoka Gunawardena, Dr. K. Vigneswaran, Mr. N. Selvakumaran, Dr. Sivaji Felix,Dr. Rohan Perera, Mr. Faiz Mustapha, Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne and Mr. RKW Gunasekera agreed on the majority report. Since Dr.Wickremaratne, Dr. Felix and Mr. Asoka Gunaewardene are out of the Country at present their signatures are not on the document but their consent has been duly obtained.
It is learnt that Dr. Wickremaratne, Mr.RKW Gunasekera, Dr. Rohan Perera and Dr. K. Vigneswaran had expressed reservations on particular matters while agreeing on the whole to the report.
The expert panel report or reports will be discussed in detail by the APRC scheduled to meet on Dec 6th. The APRC will then prepare a separate report which is expected to be finalised by December 15th. The APRC report will be the final report and is expected to be based on the majority report with substantial input from other minority and dissenting reports.
The non – majority reports are said to be focused more on strengthening the unitary state while the majority report emphasizes a united Country with maximum devolution.
The majority report has recommended that Sri Lanka should be known as “Republic of Sri Lanka” and does not specify whether it should be unitary or federal. It has also proposed four different options in resolving the prickly issue of North – East linkage. Among other recommendations are two vice – presidents from comunities other than to which the President belongs, Parliament seats to be 180, establishment of a second chamber elected by provincial legislatures, specific measures to ensure territorial integrity and prevent secession etc. (SEE FULL TEXT IN SEPARATE POSTING)
India has shown keen interest in the working of the Expert panel and provided much documentation including the Sarkaria Commission report on Centre – State relations it is known.
The APRC has representatives from the Sri Lanka Freedom Party , United National Party, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna , Jathika Hela Urumaya , Sri Lanka Muslim Congress , National Unity Alliance, Ceylon Workers Congress , Mahajana Eksath Peramuna . Lanka Sama Samaja Party , Communist Party of Sri Lanka, All Ceylon Muslim League, Eelam Peoples Democratic Party. National Muslim Congress , Up Country People’s Front and Western Peoples Front
The Memorandum of understanding signed between the major national parties the SLFP and UNP was widely hailed as a historic event in the annals of contemporary Sri Lankan politics. The UNP which initially kept way from the APRC began participating as a result of the MOU.
Since both these parties together represent more than 75% of the majority Sinhala Community any conclusion agreed to by the SLFP and UNP is likely to be accepted by the Country at large if sufficient political will and determination is shown.
Even though hardline parties like the JVP, JHU and MEP may oppose the majority decision there is very little chance of these forces being able to be “spoilers” as long as the two major parties show firmness and unity.
It remains to be seen as to how the APRC will react to the submission of four separate reports and how much of each report will be reflected in the final outcome.
It is also a moot point as to how the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) will respond to these reports or how the APRC will approach the tigers. The pro – tiger Tamil National Alliance (TNA) is not participating in the APRC at present.
The inability of the Expert panel to finalise a single report evokes memories of the Commission on Devolution appointed by President JR Jayewardene in 1979. In that instance the majority of members in the Commission headed by Victor Tennekoon submitted one report while the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) nominee Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam presented a dissenting report.
The visible divide in the expert panel also revives memories of the Supreme Court in examining the proposed 13th amendment legislation in 1987. Five Judges voted for and four against in a nine judge bench. All four who voted against were Sinhala while three of those who voted for were members of the Tamil, Muslim and Burgher communities. It was the praiseworthy stance of two Sinhala judges that saw the legislation being approved.
Likewise the commendable and courageous position adopted by six members of the Sinhala community has enabled this “majority” report to emerge. If these eminent ladies and gentlemen had let their “ethnic loyalty” overrule their inherent sense of justice and feeling for what was good for the Country the results may have been very different. They deserve all the praise and gratitude from peace loving Sri Lankan people.
transCurrents feedback :Contact DBS Jeyaraj : djeyaraj2005@yahoo.com
