- Political solution acceptable to all people essential
- We will be the decisive factor in an election
In a candid interview with the Sunday Observer, Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Member of Parliament M.A. Sumanthiran shared his perspectives on a wide range of critical political issues facing Sri Lanka. Covering topics such as internal party dynamics, electoral strategies, constitutional reforms, reconciliation efforts, and land issues in the North, Sumanthiran’s remarks provide nuanced perspectives into the current state of affairs and the challenges ahead for the nation.
Excerpts from the interview
Q: You lost the leadership battle for the ITAK. Do you think of this as a setback to your political career and how are you going forward to champion the party’s causes?
A: This is the first time in the history of our party, which is 75 years old this year, that an election was held for the post of leader. I myself championed it for the reason that I thought party delegates from all our districts must have a say in the choice of the leader rather than a few seniors who have generally decided on the matter.
So it’s a success story really that we had an election. My failure at winning the election from that perspective is really immaterial. I think the party coming of age with regard to internal democracy is far more important. My position within the party hasn’t changed. I have played a key role in the affairs of the party, and I think that will continue. I don’t think this is a setback at all, in terms of my political engagement.
Q: This is an election year according to many. What are your party’s plans? Is there a candidate from your side or will you align with one of the mainstream candidates?
A: We have never fielded a candidate of our own for the reason that such a candidate cannot win the election. Therefore, it’s futile to field a candidate. But we can play a decisive role. That is what the party will look for, particularly this time when there are no clear signs as to whether any one of the candidates can get 50 percent of the vote. Our party’s support might turn out to be the decider in that. So, we are keeping all our options open. We are talking with all the aspiring contestants and their parties. And at the right time, we will make a decision.
Q: Are you supportive of moves to abolish the Executive Presidency? Is this a good time to do it?
A: We have always been advocating the abolition of the Executive Presidency. That is our party’s stand. Personally, I don’t think there is a bad time to do good things. Any time is good. So I do not buy the argument that this is a bad time to abolish the Executive Presidency. Any time the Executive Presidency can be abolished is a good time.
Q: Is there any possibility of Presidential Elections (PE) being postponed?
A: The PE cannot be postponed under the Constitution. It must be held, but with the experience of the Local Government elections not being held last year, we cannot be certain that the PE will be held. But whether it is held or not, the term of the current President will come to an end later this year. So there won’t be a President if an election is not held between the 19th of September and the 19th of October this year.
Q: The Government recently said it is prepared to give all powers except Police Powers to the Provinces. Are you satisfied with this or what do you expect in terms of a solution to the Tamils’ issues?
A: The Constitution provides for Police powers to be devolved. If any Government says we are not willing to do that, then they are violating provisions of the Constitution. If a President says that, it is an impeachable offence as well. Our position has been clear. We want a solution based on a Federal model. In the last Parliament, when a Constitutional Assembly was set up, we negotiated this. Although we were not fully satisfied with the outcome, we were willing to go along with the draft made at the end of that process.
It did not overtly describe Sri Lanka as a Federal State. But it had features that we were happy with, mainly features that provided for devolved powers not to be taken back unilaterally by the Centre and the Centre not to interfere in matters that have been devolved to the Provinces.
If those two features are properly provided for and implemented, then that is as good as any Federal arrangement. So that is our position. Our party was called the Federal Party (FB) for a long time for this very reason. That is our core policy.
Q: The Government has appointed an Office of National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) to recommend steps for ethnic Reconciliation. What is your view of this?
A: We think it’s a cart before the horse. There is no reconciliation possible in the way that the Government expects it to happen. Reconciliation happens when two or more communities that have been estranged for a variety of reasons deal with those issues that have distanced themselves. Then only that reconciliation becomes meaningful. But here all of those issues still remain intact. Particularly issues regarding accountability.
Nothing has happened with regard to addressing the core or the root causes for the conflict and that is devolution of political power. That is still to be done. With all of those matters still pending there cannot be any meaningful reconciliation. And no office can perform that function.
Obviously, there has to be a proper political solution that all people in the country accept, that is primary. Then during the course of the conflict, particularly during the armed conflict, there have been serious violations and those must be addressed. That is what the Government must concentrate on and if those are addressed reconciliation will automatically happen.
Q: The Government says a large number of lands in the North have been de-mined and returned to civilians. Are you satisfied with the progress of this process and also the demilitarisation of the North?
A: There is no demilitarisation at all. The military is still in large numbers there. As to the return of lands, firstly, yes, a substantial section of the land that is privately owned has been handed back to the original owners. But the title still remains with the Government. That is something that we have been asking that must be put right because these lands were all supposedly acquired.
Although the old owners have been allowed to go and stay there, the acquisition has not been reversed. That revocation of those acquisitions hasn’t still happened. So those owners who physically got possession of their own lands still don’t have a title to it. So they cannot gift it to their children, they cannot sell it.
There are two other issues. Secondly, there are some private lands, large extents of them that are still not being returned, and there is no reason why they should still be kept. There is one large parcel of land on the east side of Palali airport where the military is cultivating that land. That is farmland mainly, and the owners are in temporary shelters. While the Army and the Air Force are cultivating that land, getting produce out of that and selling that produce to these owners of that land themselves. So those issues must be resolved. Those lands must be returned.
Thirdly, these are all private lands that we are talking about. There is also the issue of State land for the use of the public like libraries, playgrounds, cemeteries, and various other public places which the military occupies. A large section of that has not been returned to those public institutions like the Pradeshiya Sabha or another institution vested with those properties. It is not enough to just hand over land owned by private individuals but land that was for public use also has to be returned to the public.
Q: Will you be supporting the No Confidence Motion (NCM) against the Speaker?
A: I signed that motion and filed a Fundamental Rights (FR) petition in my own name against the Speaker’s action of endorsing the Online Safety Bill. The Supreme Court has refused to grant Leave to Proceed, but the act of the Speaker in endorsing that flawed bill should be condemned. This did not happen due to any oversight. The Speaker did it knowingly because I raised it at the Committee Stage itself. I was told at that point that it was to be rectified then and there.
There are 13 issues that I raised; six are still outstanding. And before the Speaker signed it at the Party Leaders meeting, Opposition party leaders requested him not to sign it until they compared the Supreme Court’s determination with the bill that was said to have been passed and to ensure that all of the Supreme Court’s determinations have been complied with. The Speaker went ahead and signed it, and after he signed it, we found at least six serious issues have not been complied with.
What the Supreme Court does is not just an advisory opinion. The Supreme Court’s determination, according to the Constitution, is binding on Parliament. It says Parliament shall give effect to that. Even if Parliament perpetually passed that law, it is the duty of the Speaker before he endorses it to ensure that the determination of the Supreme Court is properly given effect in the eventual bill that is passed. And if he did not do that, that leads to a very serious crisis. If this is the way these things are going to be done, then there is no purpose in the Supreme Court making determinations as the Constitution provides. Because whatever determination they make, Parliament can ignore it and do as they please, and the Speaker can sign it and then say, now that the Speaker has signed it, this is law. That is not the intention of the Constitution.
This has not happened previously, so this is a turning point in the history of Constitutionalism in this country, and the Speaker is primarily responsible for this. And that is why we have moved a NCM on him.
