C V Wigneswaran is yet to be appointed as the Chief
Minister of the Northern Province. The constitution is very clear on the
appointment of chief ministers and the other ministers of provincial councils.
Article 154F (4) and (5) are reproduced below.
(4) The Governor shall appoint as Chief Minister, the
member of the Provincial Council constituted for that Province, who, in his
opinion, is best able to command the support of a majority of the members of
that Council: Provided that where more than one-half of the members elected to
a Provincial Council are members of one political party, the Governor shall
appoint the leader of that political party in the Council, as Chief Minister.
(5) The Governor shall, on the advice of the Chief
Minister, appoint from among the members of the Provincial Council constituted
for that Province, the other Ministers.
Wigneswaran, I presume a Tamil, had been a Judge of the
Supreme Court, in a country where it is said that Tamils are discriminated, and
should be familiar with the supreme law of the country and cannot continue to ask
for the removal of the present governor for ever. He has to be appointed by the
present governor as the Chief Minister unless he doesn’t want to function in
that capacity. He has no alternative but to accept the letter of appointment as
the Chief Minister issued by the present governor, and having accepted the
appointment there should not be any obstacle to take his oaths before the
selfsame governor. The oath as specified in the fourth schedule has to be taken
by the Chief Minister and the other ministers according to Article 154F (7),
and need not be taken before the governor, but if the appointment made by the
governor is accepted why make a fuss about taking the oath before him claiming
that he was in the Armed Forces. The present governor was in the armed forces
but now he acts in a different capacity as the governor, just as much
Wigneswaran was a judge of the Supreme Court but if he accepts the appointment by the governor would be
functioning as the Chief Minister representing the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi.
They are two different roles and I would not question the judgments given by
the former judge merely because he is now representing a political party. In
any event the appointment and removal of governors are also specified in the
constitution and no one especially a former judge of the Supreme Court can go
anywhere else, Geneva or Timbuktu, invoking some so called international jury
to act against the law of the country. The relevant articles are as follows:
154B (2) The Governor shall be
appointed by the President by warrant under his hand, and shall hold office, in
accordance with Article 4(b), during the pleasure of the President.
(3) The Governor may, by writing addressed to the President, resign his
office.
(4) (a) The Provincial Council may, subject to sub-paragraph (b) present
an address to the President advising the removal of the Governor on the ground
that the Governor-
(i) has intentionally violated the provisions of the Constitution;
(ii) is guilty of misconduct or corruption involving the abuse of the
powers of his office; or
(iii) is guilty of bribery of an offence involving moral turpitude,
if a resolution for the presentation of such address is passed by not less
than two-thirds of the whole number of members of the Council (including those
not present).
The governor is appointed by the President and holds
office during the pleasure of the President and not of the TNA. There is no
provision for the Provincial Council to advise the President to remove the
governor on the grounds that he had been in the armed forces. In any event the
provincial council can only advise the President who is not obliged to follow
the advice. The TNA instead of following a confrontational policy should work
within the provisions of the constitution. In this regard it is heartening to
learn that Wigneswaran and Sumanthiran have met the governor who is the
appointee of the President. The TNA that objects to the governor being an
officer of the armed forces is not consistent if they are prepared to take the
oath before the President who now as then is the commander in Chief of the
armed forces.
It is said that the TNA wants to go to Geneva to obtain
land powers defying the constitution and the recent judgment by the Supreme
Court on land rights. Is Wigneswaran the former judge prepared to go to Geneva
against a judgment of the Supreme Court? Theoretically there is nothing to
prevent him objecting to judgments of the Supreme Court as he is no longer a
Judge. However he or any member of the
TNA going to Geneva against the constitution will be judged by vast majority of
the Sinhala people in a different perspective. The Supreme Court has
interpreted the constitution and it is now clear that the land rights are not
with the Provincial Councils according to none other than the thirteenth
amendment. Anybody going to Geneva or Timbuktu will be construed to be violating
the constitution, and of course the thirteenth amendment. The same holds as far
as the police powers are also concerned as there is no mechanism to establish
the provincial police divisions and provincial police commissions, stipulated
in the thirteenth amendment or anywhere else in the constitution.
If the TNA is not prepared to abide by the constitution
let them say so openly. Let Wigneswaran make a statement to that effect and
work with western powers to undermine the constitution and hence the
sovereignty of the people. Any party or individual that does not agree with the
constitution has two options. One is to work within the constitution and take
steps to amend the constitution. I do not agree with the thirteenth amendment
with or without land and police powers as I consider it as a so called solution
to a non existing ethnic problem, and I write and speak against it within my
capabilities. I do not appeal to foreign powers nor do I take up arms to
achieve my objectives. The TNA following Prabhakaran or both following the same
procedure have opted to change the constitution through foreign intervention
with or without arms. At present TNA has not taken up arms but there are voices
including that of Wigneswaran that advocate resorting to an armed struggle.
This is one of the reasons why the army cannot be removed from Jaffna, and in
any event as the President correctly said at the interview with Aljazeera if
everybody asks him to remove the forces he would have no place to keep the army,
and probably all these people want him to disband the forces so that they can
establish whatever they want without any resistance.
This itself shows that the problem is
not ethnic, though mainly Tamils are involved, but a problem of undermining the
constitution and the place given to Sinhala Buddhist culture in Sri Lanka, and
the sovereignty of the people. The so called ethnic problem in its present form
is a creation of the English who used English speaking Tamil Vellalas against
the Sinhala people. It was only the Sinhala people who fought against the
colonial English commencing with the 1817-18 independence struggle. The
struggle continues and Mahinda Rajapkse with all his shortcomings is the
present leader of the anti colonial struggle of the Sinhala people and some
Muslims. The English interpreted the gradual loss of privileges that the
English speaking Tamil Vellalas enjoyed under them, as discrimination against
the Tamils and used the Vellala leaders many of whom were Christians, against
the independence struggle of the Sinhalas. The ordinary Tamils who are led by
their Vellala leaders were misled and there was no anti colonial struggle of
the whole nation against the English. The English speaking Tamils as well as
their Sinhala counterparts confined their “independence movement” to writing
petitions and were dissociated from the anti colonial struggle of the Sinhala
people. The English very shrewdly turned
away the ordinary Tamils through the Vellalas at whose hands the Tamil people
suffered against the Sinhalas and substituted the anti colonial feelings with
anti Sinhala sentiments. Thus among the
Tamils anti colonial struggle was displaced by an anti Sinhala battle. If the
TNA leadership is genuinely patriotic they should change these attitudes and
join the Sinhala people with the anti colonial struggle. Unfortunately it is
not the case and they are still with the English and other western powers
working against the Sinhala people to undermine the constitution and the
sovereignty of the people. If Wigneswarn goes to Geneva against the
constitution and the sovereignty of the people, it will only reinforce the
Sinhala perception that Tamil leaders are working with the westerners against
the country.
Nalin De Silva
02-10-2013