No extra year for maithripala sirisena

No extra year for maithripala sirisena

The Sri Lankan Supreme Court’s ruling that President Maithripala Sirisena’s term will end when he completes five years in office comes as no surprise. What was surprising was how such a doubt had arisen in the first place. Mr. Sirisena, who was elected President in January 2015, had wanted the court to clarify whether he would have a six-year term as the law stood on election day or whether it would be five years in accordance with the 19th constitutional amendment adopted in April 2015. That the Sri Lankan President could suddenly harbor (keep (a thought or feeling, typically a negative one) in one's mind, especially secretly) such a doubt is inexplicable (incapable of being explained, interpreted, or accounted for) given his frequent assertions (the act of stating clearly and strongly or making others aware) that he was that rare head of state who had voluntarily agreed to a shortening of his tenure. It is the National Unity government that he heads along with Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe that brought in the amendment containing provisions that considerably dilute the powers of the executive presidency. Second, the amendment has a clear, unambiguous transitional provision that the incumbent (the holder of an office or post or one that occupies a particular position or place) President and Prime Minister will continue to hold their respective offices “subject to the provisions of the Constitution as amended by this Act”. There appears to be an unfortunate trend in Sri Lanka of presidents using constitutional provisions for political ends. Mr. Sirisena’s predecessor, Mahinda Rajapaksa, had sought the court’s opinion on whether there was any impediment (something that interferes with movement or progress) to his contesting a third term. Another former president, Chandrika Kumaratunga, had a ‘secret’ swearing (to assert or promise emphatically or earnestly) -in one year into her second term, but the court denied her bid for an extra year in office.

Even though Mr. Sirisena’s supporters say he was exercising his right to approach the Supreme Court for a clarification based on a valid doubt, the rationale behind his reference could only have been political. He was obviously looking for a loophole that would give him another year in office. If he had an extra year, his term would go on till early 2021, and he would still be president at the time of the next parliamentary election, due in 2020. Mr. Sirisena possibly thought he needed more time to consolidate (to bring together into a single or unified whole; unite; combine) his position in the power-sharing arrangement between his Sri Lanka Freedom Party and Mr. Wickremesinghe’s United National Party, as well as with respect to the joint opposition that backs Mr. Rajapaksa. The developments come at a time when there are signs of a strain (make an unusually great effort) in the coalition (a temporary alliance of distinct parties, persons, or states for joint action). The SLFP and UNP are set to contest next month’s local government polls separately. The President recently unveiled the findings of an inquiry into a bond scam that has indicted (to charge with a fault or offense) a UNP minister as well as the Central Bank governor, an appointee of Mr. Wickremesinghe. Far from strengthening his position, Mr. Sirisena has ended up looking desperate to remain in office. He could have done without this setback to his image.