Thread for News on Local and Foreign Politics

American voters are worse donkeys than Sri Lankans

Dennis Hof, a brothel owner who died last month, overwhelmingly won an election to Nevada’s State Assembly on Tuesday.

Hof, a reality-television star touted as the state’s most well-known pimp, ran as an outspoke Republican for Nevada’s Assembly District 36 before he died in October at the age of 72. Due to state law, however, he remained on the ballot and the state’s leading GOP officials had urged voters to still cast their ballots for him in order to deprive Democrats of the chance to flip the seat.

The Nevada Independent noted that signs had been posted at polling places throughout Hof’s district informing voters that he had died, but some estimates say he still won about 63 percent of the vote regardless.

The Nevada Republican Party will now be responsible for filling the dead man’s office.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dennis-hof-dead-brothel-owner-083109134.html

malanp wrote:American voters are worse donkeys than Sri Lankans

Dennis Hof, a brothel owner who died last month, overwhelmingly won an election to Nevada’s State Assembly on Tuesday.

Hof, a reality-television star touted as the state’s most well-known pimp, ran as an outspoke Republican for Nevada’s Assembly District 36 before he died in October at the age of 72. Due to state law, however, he remained on the ballot and the state’s leading GOP officials had urged voters to still cast their ballots for him in order to deprive Democrats of the chance to flip the seat.

The Nevada Independent noted that signs had been posted at polling places throughout Hof’s district informing voters that he had died, but some estimates say he still won about 63 percent of the vote regardless.

The Nevada Republican Party will now be responsible for filling the dead man’s office.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dennis-hof-dead-brothel-owner-083109134.html

This movie in 2006 becoming a reality . If you have time just watch.

Actually these were Elephants not Donkeys. Republicans are Elephants.

Anyway, this was a strategic move .
People knew he was dead , it was also announced by GOP to vote for him ( knowing he was dead)

i) to stop Democrats getting power
ii) due to existing state law for him to be on ballot
iii) once the dead person is elected , they can replace another

He won beating Democrat Lesia Romanov. Now they will replace the dead person with
another.

ruwan326 wrote:

malanp wrote:American voters are worse donkeys than Sri Lankans

Dennis Hof, a brothel owner who died last month, overwhelmingly won an election to Nevada’s State Assembly on Tuesday.

Hof, a reality-television star touted as the state’s most well-known pimp, ran as an outspoke Republican for Nevada’s Assembly District 36 before he died in October at the age of 72. Due to state law, however, he remained on the ballot and the state’s leading GOP officials had urged voters to still cast their ballots for him in order to deprive Democrats of the chance to flip the seat.

The Nevada Independent noted that signs had been posted at polling places throughout Hof’s district informing voters that he had died, but some estimates say he still won about 63 percent of the vote regardless.

The Nevada Republican Party will now be responsible for filling the dead man’s office.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dennis-hof-dead-brothel-owner-083109134.html

This movie in 2006 becoming a reality . If you have time just watch.

slstock wrote:Actually these were Elephants not Donkeys. Republicans are Elephants.

Anyway, this was a strategic move .  
People knew he was dead , it was also announced by GOP to vote for him ( knowing he was dead)

i) to stop Democrats getting power
ii) due to existing state law  for him to be on ballot
iii) once the dead person is elected , they can replace another

He won beating Democrat Lesia Romanov. Now they will replace the dead person with
another.

ruwan326 wrote:

malanp wrote:American voters are worse donkeys than Sri Lankans

Dennis Hof, a brothel owner who died last month, overwhelmingly won an election to Nevada’s State Assembly on Tuesday.

Hof, a reality-television star touted as the state’s most well-known pimp, ran as an outspoke Republican for Nevada’s Assembly District 36 before he died in October at the age of 72. Due to state law, however, he remained on the ballot and the state’s leading GOP officials had urged voters to still cast their ballots for him in order to deprive Democrats of the chance to flip the seat.

The Nevada Independent noted that signs had been posted at polling places throughout Hof’s district informing voters that he had died, but some estimates say he still won about 63 percent of the vote regardless.

The Nevada Republican Party will now be responsible for filling the dead man’s office.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dennis-hof-dead-brothel-owner-083109134.html

This movie in 2006 becoming a reality . If you have time just watch.

Hamme..hope non of Sri Lankan politicians follow this forum.
We might have to vote for DS JR SWD again.

Sri Lanka Speaker insists on vote to settle power struggle

ECONOMYNEXT – Parliamentary Speaker Karu Jayasuriya announced Wednesday that he will allow a vote on the floor of the House to end a bitter power struggle and a constitutional that have crippled the country for nearly two weeks.

Jayasuriya’ said he will go along with the wishes of 116 legislators who wanted him to take up the question of resolving the crippling political crisis.

President Maithripala Sirisena’s faction in parliament was opposed to any other business apart from reading out his proclamation reconvening parliament on November 14, Jayasuriya said in a statement.

However, a majority of MPs (116) wanted to suspend standing orders of the House and take a vote to decide if the purported Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa had a majority as claimed.

The Speaker said he will go along with the majority of members who wanted to end the crisis by taking a vote soon after the president’s proclamation was read out. (COLOMBO, November 7, 2018)

Sri Lanka Speaker insists on vote to settle power struggle

ECONOMYNEXT – Parliamentary Speaker Karu Jayasuriya announced Wednesday that he will allow a vote on the floor of the House to end a bitter power struggle and a constitutional that have crippled the country for nearly two weeks.

Jayasuriya’ said he will go along with the wishes of 116 legislators who wanted him to take up the question of resolving the crippling political crisis.

President Maithripala Sirisena’s faction in parliament was opposed to any other business apart from reading out his proclamation reconvening parliament on November 14, Jayasuriya said in a statement.

However, a majority of MPs (116) wanted to suspend standing orders of the House and take a vote to decide if the purported Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa had a majority as claimed.

The Speaker said he will go along with the majority of members who wanted to end the crisis by taking a vote soon after the president’s proclamation was read out. (COLOMBO, November 7, 2018)

Officers of Sri Lanka Parliament cannot block decisions of speaker: lawyers collective

ECONONOMYNEXT - Recent decisions by Sri Lanka's Speaker Karu Jayasuriya have been made according to constitutional interpretation backed by precedent, and it they cannot be blocked by officials of the Parliament, a collective of senior lawyers have said.

"Since the commencement of the constitutional crisis on 26th October 2018, the Speaker has made several public statements on the need to reconvene Parliament," Lawyers for Democracy said in a statement.

"His most recent statement issued on 5th November reiterates this position. This is not the first time a Speaker of Parliament has made such a decision.

"In 2003 the then-Speaker, Joseph Michael Perera, came to the same conclusion. We also have a rich history of decisions where the separation of powers is clearly established."

The lawyers said Article 33A of the constitution provided that the President "President is responsible to Parliament for due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any written law.

Article 42 (2) provided that the Cabinet of Ministers is collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament.

Article 148 clearly provides Parliament full control over public finance.

The parliament also had the power to impeach a President and under the 19th amendment, Parliament had the power to dismiss a government by a motion of no-confidence, a defeat of a budget or a defeat of a Statement of Government Policy.

"The above demonstrates that the Parliament has a unique role in holding the executive arm accountable for its use of the people’s power," the Lawyers said.

"As such, any interpretation of the Constitution must seek to protect, rather than prevent, this function. An interpretation of the Constitution that allows the executive to subvert this role, to silence Parliament and prevent it from deliberating on these key issues is one that subverts the sovereignty of the people."

Public servants cannot block decisions by the Speaker, the lawyers said.

"We are deeply disturbed by reports that the Secretary-General of Parliament and his staff have acted beyond powers provided under the Standing Orders and attempted to delay the Speaker’s decision from being implemented," the statement said.

"We see this as an extremely serious development which undermines and threatens the Speaker’s office.

"Parliament is the custodian of our Parliamentary democracy and any attempt to prevent his powers and functions must be considered as a serious affront to Sri Lanka’s democracy.

"We believe the present crisis is an attempt by the Executive to actively and deliberately undermine the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

"Several unconstitutional and illegal acts have followed since the unconstitutional dismissal of Prime Minister Wickramasinghe.

"Whilst the President has the power to prorogue Parliament, the present instance reeks of mischief where Executive action has deliberately prevented the elected representatives of the people to decide what has been constitutionally mandated.

"It is the people’s representative who has the power to decide who forms government, not one individual.

"Sri Lanka now faces an unprecedented constitutional crisis that goes to the heart of our democracy. We urge the Speaker to take immediate steps to reconvene Parliament."

The full statement is reproduced below:

Short Brief on the Present Constitutional Crisis in Sri Lanka- Whether the Speaker can convene Parliament

Since the commencement of the constitutional crisis on 26th October 2018, the Speaker has made several public statements on the need to reconvene Parliament. His most recent statement issued on 5th November reiterates this position. This is not the first time a Speaker of Parliament has made such a decision. In 2003 the then-Speaker, Joseph Michael Perera, came to the same conclusion. We also have a rich history of decisions where the separation of powers is clearly established. In this short brief, Lawyers for Democracy, sets out why the reconvening of Parliament is in accordance with the spirit and the letter of our Constitution, and must be respected and upheld by all parties.

First, the Speaker’s decision accords with the principles of Constitutional interpretation. A Constitution is
different to an ordinary statute. It is meant to last generations and unlike ordinary laws, an attempt to amend the Constitution may in some instances require a 2/3rd majority and even a referendum. It sets out the grand purposes and objectives of a country, indicating among others how power is structured, the values and principles that guide State conduct and the means of ensuring the sovereignty of the people. It is now established that constitutional interpretation is fundamentally different to statutory interpretation.

Therefore, its overarching purposes, as found in its text, history and structure, are relevant. Thus, it must be read as a whole, in a manner that harmonises its different parts, and in manner that realises its purposes as the constitutive document of a democratic State.

We note that the Preamble of the Constitution speaks of the following principles: representative democracy, freedom, equality, justice, fundamental human rights and independence of the judiciary – all enshrined to ensure a just and free society. Any interpretation must seek to reconcile the text with these purposes.

In the present context, Article 70(1) of the Constitution is relevant and reads as follows: “The President may by Proclamation, summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament”. It is a canon of statutory interpretation that the inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of all others. In this case, it is argued that the inclusion of the President as the agent of prorogation denudes all other agencies, especially Parliament, from having any say in the question of prorogation. We disagree with this type of clause-bound literalism. A Constitution must be interpreted of its purposes, so long as the text can bear such purposes. These are found in its structure, its history and its text.

Second, we note that the Constitution organises the power of the people in a distinct manner. As provided in Article 3 of the Constitution, it is the people, rather than any branch of government, that are sovereign.

The powers of government that flow from sovereignty are held in trust and exercised by the different organs of government with Parliament exercising the legislative power of the people, the President and Cabinet the executive power of the people and Parliament through courts and other institutions exercising the judicial power of the people.

As set out in the Constitution, Parliament plays a unique role as the body that holds the executive branch accountable.

We allude to a few aspects here:

First, Article 33A provides that the President is responsible to Parliament for due exercise,
performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any written
law.

Second, Article 42 (2) provides that the Cabinet of Ministers is collectively responsible and
answerable to Parliament.

Third, Article 148 clearly provides Parliament full control over public finance.

Fourth, any Member of Parliament may initiate impeachment proceedings against the President in
adherence to the steps provided in Article 38(2)

Fifth, Parliament has the sole power post the enactment of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution to
dismiss a government by a motion of no-confidence, a defeat of the Budget, or a defeat of the
Statement of Government Policy (Art.48(2)). !

The above demonstrates that the Parliament has a unique role in holding the executive arm accountable for its use of the people’s power. As such, any interpretation of the Constitution must seek to protect, rather than prevent, this function. An interpretation of the Constitution that allows the executive to subvert this role, to silence Parliament and prevent it from deliberating on these key issues is one that subverts the sovereignty of the people.

The power to prorogue Parliament is found in Chapter XI of the Constitution titled “Legislature: Procedure and Powers”. It must be read and understood from the perspective of its historical roots. The power to prorogue is a ceremonial power of a Head of State, identical to the ceremonial power that titular heads of State have under Westminster systems. Thus in Sri Lanka’s Independence Constitution, and in the 1972 Constitution, the Governor-General and the President respectively had this same power.

In such systems, the power to prorogue can only be exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister with the concurrence of Parliament. The fact that this power is a ceremonial power derived from the Westminster system, and therefore best understood as governed by the conventions of that system, is confirmed by the fact that other executive presidential systems, most notably France and the United States of America, do not give the executive this power.

We note that the power to prorogue entails serious consequences for democracy and the functioning of our system of government. The power to prorogue must not be read in a manner that allows one branch of government to silence another, or to prevent it from carrying out its constitutional function.

Prorogation is different to dissolution, since dissolution has an in-built checking mechanism to prevent its abuse – it is immediately followed by a hearing from the people at an election. Prorogation, on the other hand, if the broader textual, historical and structural context is ignored, can be used to subvert the will of the people.

Therefore, we state that Article 70(1) must be read as including an implied requirement that when exercising this power, the President must act in accordance with the will of a majority of the representatives of the people, as conveyed by the Speaker of the House. This has been the convention in Sri Lanka.

We also note that a decision by the Speaker cannot be prevented by any officer. We are deeply disturbed by reports that the Secretary-General of Parliament and his staff have acted beyond powers provided under the Standing Orders and attempted to delay the Speaker’s decision from being implemented. We see this as an extremely serious development which undermines and threatens the Speaker’s office. Parliament is the custodian of our Parliamentary democracy and any attempt to prevent his powers and functions must be considered as a serious affront to Sri Lanka’s democracy.

We believe the present crisis is an attempt by the Executive to actively and deliberately undermine the
Constitution of Sri Lanka. Several unconstitutional and illegal acts have followed since the unconstitutional dismissal of Prime Minister Wickramasinghe.

Whilst the President has the power to prorogue Parliament, the present instance reeks of mischief where Executive action has deliberately prevented the elected representatives of the people to decide what has been constitutionally mandated. It is the people’s representative who has the power to decide who forms government, not one individual.

Sri Lanka now faces an unprecedented constitutional crisis that goes to the heart of our democracy. We urge the Speaker to take immediate steps to reconvene Parliament.

Delaying Sri Lanka parliament vote could deter investors, EU warns

ECONOMYNEXT – Delaying a parliament vote on a new Sri Lankan government could damage the island's reputation and deter investors, the European Union has said.

“We consider it essential that Parliament be allowed to demonstrate its confidence by voting immediately when reconvened, in order to resolve the serious uncertainties currently facing the country,” a statement said.

“Any further delay could damage Sri Lanka’s international reputation and deter investors,” said the statement by the Delegation of the European Union issued in agreement with EU Heads of Mission and ambassadors of Norway and Switzerland resident in Colombo.

“ Respect by all stakeholders for the provisions of the constitution will be important to maintain the confidence of the Sri Lankan people in democratic governance and the rule of law,” they said.
(Colombo/Nov09/2018)

As per sources President has signed the Parliament dissolving papers. Wait for confirmation as still rumours

Its getting close

Done deal. Already signed

Thanks sashi

Sri Lanka Parliament, President in epic battle

AFP - Sri Lanka's speaker on Sunday accused President Maithripala Sirisena of usurping parliament and urged public servants to defy his "illegal orders", as the president scrambled to defend his controversial sacking of the legislature.

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya said Sirisena's actions over the past two weeks in sacking prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and dissolving parliament undermined the freedoms of the people.

"I have watched over the last two weeks as the executive branch has seized the rights and usurped the powers of members of parliament who were elected to represent the people," he said.

"I call upon all public servants to refuse to execute any illegal orders they may receive, no matter from whom....We must all act with patriotism and independence to safeguard the future of democracy in our country."

He urged public officials to uphold "the independence of the public service, police and the judiciary".

Sirisena triggered an unprecedented constitutional crisis last month when he sacked Wickremesinghe and replaced him with former strongman Mahinda Rajapakse before suspending parliament.

In his first address to the nation since the sacking of parliament, Sirisena defended his move -- which has alarmed the international community -- saying violent clashes among rival MPs could have led to "civil unrest" across the country if the legislature had met.

Sirisena said there were media reports that politicians would clash during a vote to decide between the two men claiming the premiership.

"If I allowed the parliament to meet on November 14, there would have been violence in the House and it could have spread to our villagers and towns," Sirisena said in his televised address. "I acted to prevent civil unrest."

He also claimed that he was disturbed by reports that MPs were being "bought" for up to $2.8 million dollars each. His party had secured the defection of eight MPs from Wickremesinghe's side.

Sirisena's rivals maintain that he had no constitutional power to sack the assembly until it completed four-and-a-half out of its five-year term that ends in August 2020.

Despite bowing to international pressure and repeatedly promising that he would reconvene parliament, he instead dismissed MPs and called a snap election for January 5, nearly two years ahead of schedule.

Wickremesinghe's United National Party as well as several other groups representing a majority of 124 members in the 225-member House are due to petition the highest court on Monday against Sirisena's actions.

"Since the president has prevented parliament from ruling on the legitimacy of the president's actions, it will be up to the Supreme Court to determine the legality of these actions," Jayasuriya said.

- International ridicule -

Sirisena's party had acknowledged that it did not have a majority in the assembly, despite arranging defections.

The president's new foreign minister, Sarath Amunugama, had told diplomats on Saturday that the assembly was sacked because speaker Jayasuriya planned to block an address to the legislature by the president.

Jayasuriya hit back saying the excuse was laughable.

"I wish that the purported minister had proposed a more honest and plausible excuse for the actions of his colleagues, that would have drawn less ridicule to our country on the world stage," Jayasuriya said.

"Based on this fiction, several of his cohorts have openly threatened to send me to jail," Jayasuriya said, adding that he would gladly face any consequence for his actions to defend the rights of MPs.

Wickremesinghe insists he still heads the government and has refused to vacate the prime minister's official residence in Colombo until the highest court decides on the power struggle. Hundreds of his supporters staged a candle-light vigil near a lake in the capital to protest his sacking.

His rival Rajapakse said that nobody would stop the snap elections going ahead.

"The international community must realise that this is democracy. They must understand our position. We are seeking a mandate from the people," he said.

Only China has recognised the appointment of Rajapakse, who during his decade as president relied heavily on Beijing for both diplomatic and financial support as the West shunned him over his human rights record.

The United States has led a chorus of international voices expressing concern over threats to democracy in the island of 21 million people strategically located in the Indian Ocean.

"The US is deeply concerned by news the Sri Lanka parliament will be dissolved, further deepening the political crisis," the US State Department said in a statement.

Election monitors have questioned the legality of the election.

The People's Action for Free and Fair Elections said it had already asked the independent Elections Commission to seek an opinion from the attorney general and an order from the Supreme Court.

Sri Lanka parliament sacking against constitution: lawyers collective

ECONOMYNEXT - The sacking of Sri Lanka's Parliament by President Maithripala Sirisena is clearly unconstitutional and undemocratic, a lawyers grouping has said.

"This arbitrary move is clearly both unconstitutional and undemocratic," Lawyers for Democracy said in a statement.

"The unconstitutionality is stark, in as much in Article 70 of the Constitution expressly prohibits the President from dissolving the Constitution by proclamation without 2/3rd of the Parliament approving a resolution requesting him to do so, at any time during the first 4-1/2 years of its term."

The lawyers argued that the parliament has not been duly dissolved and the speaker could still convene the parliament on November 2018 as planned.

Sri Lanka's United National Party and several activists are expected to go to court against the dissolution of parliament next week.

The full statement is reproduced below:

"We note with grave concern that President Maithripala Sirisena has plunged Sri Lanka into further political turmoil with his decision to purportedly dissolve the duly elected Eighth Parliament of Sri Lanka with effect from midnight of 09 November 2018. This arbitrary move is clearly both unconstitutional and undemocratic.

The unconstitutionality is stark, in as much in Article 70 of the Constitution expressly prohibits the President from dissolving the Constitution by proclamation without 2/3rd of the Parliament approving a resolution requesting him to do so, at any time during the first 4-1/2 years of its term. However, not only has he sought to do so without receiving such a constitutionally required Parliament resolution, but he purports to do so, while actively obstructing Parliament from meeting, despite repeated calls and a written request from a majority (116) Members of Parliament that Parliament must meet to demonstrate who enjoys the majority confidence of the House, based on which the Speaker made earnest repeated requests of the President, which have been ignored.

The obstruction of Parliament by a sudden prorogation was done without consulting the Speaker as per Parliamentary tradition, and as part of a design to purport to replace and supplant Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe with Member of Parliament, Mahinda Rajapaksa (former President). This was done, after a previous move to remove Prime Minister Rani] Wickremesinghe two months ago failed to muster a majority in Parliament.

Consequent to such purported removal of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and moves to allow Member of Parliament, Mahinda Rajapaksa to take over such role, by a later backdated gazette notification, the lawful Cabinet of Ministers was also declared as dissolved, in an effort to justify steps taken to make purported new appointments of Cabinet Ministers, unconstitutionally.

We note with grave concern and disappointment, that having contested the January 2015 Presidential Election as a common candidate to defeat the repressive regime of Mahinda Rajapaksa and having publicly pledged to re-establish the Rule of Law, President Sirisena has now betrayed the confidence of 6.2 million citizens who reposed in him, the confidence to establish democratic values and an ethical society.

We also note with concern, tint the purported appointment of a new cabinet of Ministers during the last two weeks, is most evidently conducive to greater and easier abuse of state resources during a potential election.
President Sirisena has by his unconstitutional actions, also now exposed individuals in all sectors, who acted honestly and in a forthright manner in furtherance of their duty towards good governance, to grave risk of retribution at the hands of a potentially repressive regime, which would derive its existence and de facto power by unconstitutional means. The collaborative /collusive role and hand of Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa in all these events, is beyond doubt.

Considering the grave predicament the country has now been plunged into, while strongly condemning the unconstitutional dissolution of Parliament, Lawyers for Democracy urge the Election Commission to act with fortitude and ignore the unconstitutional decision of the President to hold a general election while the Eighth Parliament of Sri Lanka has not been duly dissolved, but remains obstructed from meeting by unconstitutional, repressive and undemocratic measures. We are firmly of the view that there is no legal impediment to the Speaker's right to convene the Eighth Parliament on 14th November 2018, as planned.

We further reiterate that it is the duty of all actors and citizens to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution (the Supreme Law) in this perilous situation, where unconscionable, unpatriotic, diabolical and manifestly collusive, collaborative measures are being taken by President Sirisena and Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa to bury constitutional process and protections as never before, depriving the People of Sri Lanka of the very essence of assured democratic governance.

Speaker calls citizens to defend constitution; says freedoms at risk

ECONOMYNEXT - The Speaker of Sri Lanka's controversially sacked parliament has asked citizens and public officials to defend the constitution and warned that the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens are at risk

"As the custodian of Parliament, I have watched over the last two weeks as the executive Branch has seized the rights and usurped the powers of Members of Parliament who were elected to represent the people," Karu Jayasuriya said in a statement.

"The wilful disregard demonstrated by the executive towards Parliament, the engine of Sri Lanka's sovereignty, leaves the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens at grave risk of similar abuse.

"Under these dire circumstances, I urge all public servants who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution to revisit that oath.

"Ask why we are required to pledge fealty to this document and not to any one person or a single position of power. Our foremost duty is to the Constitution.

"I ask all public servants across the country to remember their obligations to this supreme law of our motherland, and to safeguard the independence of the public service, police and the judiciary. I call upon all public servants to refuse to execute any illegal orders they may receive, no matter from whom.

The full statement is reproduced below:

Karu layasuriya

No 02, Amarasekera Mawatha, Colombo 5

The leaders of several political parties represented in Parliament have informed me that they will be challenging the purported dissolution of Parliament in the Supreme Court. Since the President has prevented Parliament from ruling on the legitimacy of the President's actions, it will be up to the Supreme Court to determine the legality of these actions.

As the custodian of Parliament, I have watched over the last two weeks as the executive Branch has seized the rights and usurped the powers of Members of Parliament who were elected to represent the people. The wilful disregard demonstrated by the executive towards Parliament, the engine of Sri Lanka's sovereignty, leaves the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens at grave risk of similar abuse.

Under these dire circumstances, I urge all public servants who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution to revisit that oath. Ask why we are required to pledge fealty to this document and not to any one person or a single position of power. Our foremost duty is to the Constitution. I ask all public servants across the country to remember their obligations to this supreme law of our motherland, and to safeguard the independence of the public service, police and the judiciary. I call upon all public servants to refuse to execute any illegal orders they may receive, no matter from whom.

Every citizen who is entrusted with responsibilities under the Constitution should think first of the country and not of party politics or personal, affiliations. We must all act with patriotism and independence to safeguard the future of democracy in our country.

I lament that the purported Foreign Minister, a highly regarded politician, has falsely alleged that I intended to prevent the President from delivering the Statement of Government Policy when Parliament was set to reconvene on 14th November. It is on this imaginary premise that the Minister suggests that Parliament had to be dissolved.

I wish that the purported minister had proposed a more honest and plausible excuse for the actions of his colleagues, that would have drawn less ridicule to our country on the world stage. Based on this fiction, several of his cohorts have openly threatened to send me to jail.

The actions of the Speaker and Parliament may not always be aligned with the wishes of the executive.

This tradition of parliamentary independence dates to at least 1641, when Speaker William Lenthall of the House of Commons shielded members of that house from being arrested by King Charles I.

He knelt before his king and said "May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here; and humbly beg your majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this is to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me."

A floor vote on the legitimacy of the government was requested by 124 Members of Parliament. 116 Members met me in person. Another eight thereafter contacted me and expressed their support of this motion. Just as Speakers of Parliaments have done for centuries before us, I ruled in favour of the rights of the majority of Members and political parties represented in Parliament and declared that I would allow a floor vote. No member made request that the Statement of Government Policy be prevented nor would I have entertained such a request.

As a former military officer, I have always been prepared to make whatever sacrifice that my country may require of me. It has been my privilege to stand up to the executive and defend the rights of Parliament, the supremacy of our Constitution and the sovereignty of the people.

For the record I am prepared to face any consequences for these actions without hesitation.

Karu Jayasuriya

Sri Lanka parties file court challenge against parliament sacking

AFP - Sri Lanka's main political parties on Monday filed petitions challenging President Maithripala Sirisena's sacking of parliament and asked the Supreme Court to restore the legislature.

Three parties, which together enjoy an absolute majority in the assembly, asked the highest court to also declare Sirisena's October 26 sacking of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe illegal.

Sri Lanka has been gripped by an unprecedented constitutional crisis since Sirisena appointed former strongman Mahinda Rajapakse to replace Wickremesinghe, who insists he is still prime minister.

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීමට එරෙහිව පෙත්සම් 12ක් ගොනු කෙරේ

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීමට එරෙහිව ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය හමුවේ පෙත්සම් 12ක් ගොනු කර ඇති බව වාර්තා වෙනවා.

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීමට ජනාධිපතිවරයා ගත් තීරණයට එරෙහිව පාර්ශ්ව රැසක් අද (12) දිනයේ අධිකරණයට යාමට තීරණය කර තිබුණා.

ඒ අතර එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය, ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණ, ශ‍්‍රී ලංකා මුස්ලිම් කොංග‍්‍රසය, සමස්ත ලංකා ජනතා කොංග‍්‍රසය ප්‍රධාන වශයෙන් වනවා.

http://nethnews.lk/article/60299

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ දේශපාලන අර්බුදය: පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවීමට එරෙහිව ශ්‍රී ලංකා මැතිවරණ කොමිෂන් සභාවේ සාමාජිකයෙකුගෙන් පෙත්සමක්

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීම සහ මහ මැතිවරණයක් පැවැත්වීම නීති විරෝධී බව දක්වමින් නීතිපති, මැතිවරණ කොමිසමේ සභාපති ඇතුළු වගඋත්තරකරුවන් පස් දෙනෙකුට එරෙහිව ශ්‍රී ලංකා මැතිවරණ කොමිෂන් සභාවේ සාමාජික මහාචාර්ය රත්නජීවන් හූල් විසින් ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට මූලික අයිතිවාසිකම් පෙත්සමක් ඉදිරිපත් කරනු ලැබ තිබේ.

එම පෙත්සමේ වගඋත්තරකරුවන් වන්නේ, පිළිවෙළින් නීතිපතිවරයා, ශ්‍රී ලංකා මැතිවරණ කොමිෂන් සභාවේ සභාපති මහින්ද දේශප්‍රිය, ශ්‍රී ලංකා මැතිවරණ කොමිෂන් සභාවේ සාමාජික එන් ජේ අබේසේකර, මැතිවරණ මහ කොමසාරිස් එම් ඒ පී සී පෙරේරා සහ ජනාධිපති ලේකම් උදය සෙනෙවිරත්න වෙති.

පෙත්සමේ සුවිශේෂී කරුණු
ඔහු සිය පෙත්සමෙන් දක්වා ඇත්තේ, පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හරිමින් ජනාධිපතිවරයා නිකුත් කළ අතිවිශේෂ ගැසට් නිවේදනය නීතියට පටහැනි සහ ව්‍යවස්ථානුකූල නොවන බවය.

නිදහස් සහ සාධාරණ මැතිවරණයක් සඳහා අවශ්‍ය ශ්‍රී ලංකා මැතිවරණ කොමිෂන් සභාවේ උපදෙස්වලට අනුකූල නොවී අදාළ ගැසට් නිවේදනය නිකුත් කර ඇති බව ද පෙත්සම්කරු පවසයි.

එහි දැක්වෙන්නේ, පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීම ව්‍යවස්ථාවට පටහැනි සහ නීතිවිරෝධී ක්‍රියාවක් බව නොවැම්බර් 10 වන දා රැස්වූ අවස්ථාවේ ශ්‍රී ලංකා මැතිවරණ කොමිෂන් සභාවේ සියලු සාමාජිකයින්ගේ අදහස වූ බවය.

කෙසේ වෙතත්, නීතිවිරෝධී බව පසෙකලා මැතිවරණයට සූදානම් විය යුතු බවට දෙවන සහ තුන් වන වගඋත්තරකරුවන් අදහස් පළ කළ බව එහි සඳහන් වේ.

තව විස්තර
https://www.bbc.com/sinhala/sri-lanka-46176880

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීම: පෙත්සම් විභාගය කල් තැබේ

   මිනිත්තු 7 පෙර BBC Sandeshaya


ජනාධිපති මෛත්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන විසින් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හරිනු ලැබීමට එරෙහිව විරුද්ධ පක්ෂ ඇතුළු පිරිසක් විසින් ඉදිරිපත් කර තිබෙන පෙත්සම් පිළිබඳ විභාගය ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය විසින් අඟහරුවාදා (නොවැම්බර් 13) දක්වා කල් තබන ලද බව නීතිඥ අජිත් පී පෙරේරා මන්ත්‍රීවරයා බීබීසී සිංහල සේවයට කියා සිටියේය.

පෙත්සම්කරුවන් සහ එම පෙත්සම්වලට එරෙහිව කරුණු දැක්වීම පිණිස කල් ලබා දෙන මෙන් නීතිපතිවරයා කළ ඉල්ලීම සලකා බලා විභාගය අඟහරුවාදා දක්වා කල් දැමීමට තීරණය කෙරුණු බව ද ඔහු සඳහන් කළේය.

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හරිමින් ජනාධිපතිවරයා නිකුත් කළ ගැසට් නිවේදනයට එරෙහිව පෙත්සම් 17ක් ගොනු කර තිබෙන බව ජනාධිපති නීතිඥ එම්ඒ සුමන්දිරන් මන්ත්‍රීවරයා මාධ්‍යට පැවසීය.

පෙත්සම්වලට අදාළ කරුණු දැක්වීම අගවිනිසුරු නලීන් පෙරේරා, ප්‍රියන්ත ජයවර්ධන සහ ප්‍රසන්න ජයවර්ධන යන ත්‍රිපුද්ගල ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණ විනිසුරු මඩුල්ල හමුවේ ආරම්භ කෙරිණි.

එය ආරම්භ වූ අවස්ථාවේ දී අධිකරණය හමුවේ කරුණු දැක්වූ නීතිපති ජයන්ත ජයසූරිය මෙම පෙත්සම්වලට අදාළ ලේඛන තමන් වෙත ලැබුණේ අද දිනයේ බැවින් මේ සම්බන්ධයෙන් කරුණු අධ්‍යයනය කර දේශන ඉදිරිපත් කිරීම සඳහා ප්‍රමාණවත් කාලයක් ලබා දෙන මෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටියේය.

එහෙත් අගවිනිසුරුවරයා ප්‍රමුඛ ත්‍රිපුද්ගල විනිසුරු මඩුල්ල තීන්දු කළේ පෙත්සම්වලට අදාළ කරුණු විමසීම ඒ අවස්ථාවේම ආරම්භ කිරීමටය.

ඒ අනුව දෙමළ ජාතික සන්ධානයේ නායක ආර් සම්බන්ධන් මන්ත්‍රීවරයාගේ පෙත්සම වෙනුවෙන් ජනාධිපති නීතිඥ කේ කනගේශ්වරන් කරුණු ඉදිරිපත් කළේය.

ජනාධිපති නීතිඥවරයා අධිකරණයට දන්වා සිටියේ ඉකුත් 09 වෙනි දින පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හරිමින් ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් නිකුත් කර ඇති ගැසට් නිවේදනය මුළුමනින්ම ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවට පටහැනි බවය.

ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 19 වෙනි සංශෝධනයට අනුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරිය හැක්කේ අවස්ථා දෙකකදී පමණක් බව පෙන්වා දුන් ජනාධිපති නීතිඥවරයා, පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ නිල කාලය අවුරුදු හතර හමාර ඉක්මවා ගිය පසුව එය විසුරුවා හැරීමට ජනාධිපතිවරයාට බලය පැවරීම ඉන් එක් අවස්ථාවක් බව පෙන්වා දුන්නේය.

Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption ස්වාධීන මැතිවරණ කොමිසමේ සාමාජිකයෙක්ද පෙත්සම්කරුවන් අතර සිටිති

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හරින මෙන් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ තුනෙන් දෙකක බහුතරයකින් යෝජනාවක් සම්මත කර ජනාධිපතිවරයාගෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටින අවස්ථාවක එය විසුරුවා හැරීමට ජනාධිපතිවරයාට බලය පැවරීම අනෙක් අවස්ථාව බව ද ජනාධිපති නීතිඥ කේ කනගේශ්වරන් අධිකරණය හමුවේ පෙන්වා දුන්නේය.

එහෙත් ඉකුත් නව වනදා පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හරිමින් ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් නිකුත් කළ ගැසට් නිවේදනය ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවට මුළුමනින්ම පටහැනි නීති විරෝධී ප්‍රකාශනයක් බව ජනාධිපති නීතිඥවරයා පෙන්වා දුන්නේය.

එබැවින් ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් නිකුත් කර ඇති ගැසට් නිවේදනය නීතිය ඉදිරියේ බලරහිත ප්‍රකාශනයක් බව සඳහන් කළ ඔහු, එය අවලංගු කිරීමට අධිකරණයට බලයක් පවතින බව ද සඳහන් කළේය.

ඉන් අනතුරුව පෙත්සම්කාර එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය වෙනුවෙන් හිටපු විදේශ අමාත්‍ය, ජනාධිපති නීතිඥ තිලක් මාරපන කරුණු ඉදිරිපත් කළේය.

ජනාධිපති නීතිඥ මාරපන මහතා ද අධිකරණය හමුවේ පෙන්වා දුන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හරිමින් ඉකුත් සිකුරාදා ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් නිකුත් කරන ලද නිවේදනය ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවට පටහැනි බවය.

මේ ආකාරයෙන් 19 වෙනි ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයට පටහැනිව පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීම සඳහා ජනාධිපතිවරයාට කිසිදු බලයක් නොමැති බව ද ජනාධිපති නීතිඥ මාරපන පෙන්වා දුන්නේය.

ඊට අමතරව ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණ, ශ්‍රී ලංකා මුස්ලිම් කොංග්‍රසය, ශ්‍රී ලංකා මහජන කොංග්‍රසය, විකල්ප ප්‍රතිපත්ති කේන්ද්‍රය සහ හිටපු පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් වන මනෝ ගනේෂන් සහ එම්ඒ සුමන්දිරන් වෙනුවෙන් ද නීතිඥවරු කරුණු දක්වමින් කියා සිටියේ ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීමට ගත් තීරණය ව්‍යවස්ථා විරෝධී බවය.

අඟහරුවාදා පෙත්සම් පිළිබඳ වැඩිදුර කරුණු දක්වන අවස්ථාවේ නීතිපතිවරයා විසින් කරුණු දැක්වීමට නියමිතය.

එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය, දෙමළ ජාතික සන්ධානය, ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණ, සමස්ත ලංකා මහජන කොංග්‍රසය, , ශ්‍රී ලංකා මුස්ලිම් කොංග්‍රසය, හිටපු පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී මනෝ ගනේෂන්, විකල්ප ප්‍රතිපත්ති කේන්ද්‍රය, නීතිඥ අරුණ ලක්සිරි සහ ශ්‍රී ලංකා මැතිවරණ කොමිසමේ සාමාජිකයෙකු වන මහාචාර්ය රත්නජීවන් හූල් ඇතුළු පාර්ශව ගණනාවක් විසින් පෙත්සම් ඉදිරිපත් කරනු ලැබ තිබුණි.

ජනාධිපති මෛත්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන, අගමැති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ, මැතිවරණ කොමිසම සහ එහි සාමාජිකයන් එම පෙත්සම්වල වගඋත්තරකරුවන් ලෙස නම් කර තිබේ.

ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ දහනව වන සංශෝධනය ප්‍රකාරව මේ ආකාරයෙන් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීමට ජනාධිපතිවරයාට බලයක් නොමැති බවට එම පෙත්සම් සියල්ලෙන්ම පෙන්වා දී තිබේ.

එසේ තිබියදී ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීම ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවට පටහැනි ක්‍රියාවක් බව ද පෙත්සම්කරුවෝ පවසති.

එබැවින් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හරිමින් ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් නිකුත් කරන ලද ගැසට් නිවේදනය බලරහිත කිරීමේ ආඥාවක් නිකුත් කරන ලෙසත්, විභාගය අවසන් කර තීන්දුවක් ලබාදෙන තුරු පැවැත්වීමට නියමිත මහ මැතිවරණය අත්හිටුවීමේ නියෝගයක් නිකුත් කරන මෙන් ද පෙත්සම්කරුවෝ ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටිති.

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීමේ බලය ජනාධිපතිවරයා සතුයි - ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේදී නීතිපති කියයි

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීමේ බලය ව්‍යවස්ථාවට අනුව ජනාධිපතිවරයා සතු බව නීතිපති ජයන්ත ජයසුරිය අද (13) ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට දැනුම් දුන්නා.

ඒ, ජනාධිපතිවරයා ගත් තීරණයට එරෙහිව ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ ගොණුු කෙරුණු පෙත්සම් අද දෙවන දිනටත් සලකා බැලූ අවස්ථාවේදීයි.

Ethical Trader wrote:

Fancy seeing a person I met/got to know  many years ago ( when I was much younger) !  
I can tell you one thing , this guy is a fighter  for what he stand for ( right or wrong)
Wonder he will remember me now !  

He had to leave the country during LTTE times.


Anycase ,  seems the Election commission is unanimous in their decision !

Gazette notification declaring dissolving parliament suspended till 18th Nov.
Order by Supreme Courts.

Thanks Kith.
Now what.

කිත්සිරි ද සිල්වා wrote:Gazette notification declaring dissolving parliament suspended till 18th Nov.
Order by Supreme Courts.

It's is till 7th December kith. Can President keep on suspending parliament till 7th December is the question now.