“An examination of the [Police] Ordinance as a whole indicates that it does not confer general powers on the police to declare curfew, Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka https://t.co/YtQHtAON5z
@sarojpathi Disappointing. The Ven. monk was speaking at the 80th birth anniversary of Ven. Maduluwawe Sobhitha who opposed PCs but later changed his position and agreed on the necessity of a political solution. See Item 3, NMSJ's 10-point programme.
@welikalaa Also, a setback for fundamental rights. SC in 20A and earlier held that a clause violating an FR also violates sovereignty and requires 2/3 plus referendum. But this time, only 2/3. A government having 2/3 thus free to violate FRs.
I have been quoted in social media as saying that “monies received from the initial MCC agreement were given by Ranil Wickremesinghe to the UNP and JVP for Presidential election expenses”. This is an utter lie. I have never made such a statement. - Jayampathy Wickramaratne
No, Asanga. We never tried the doctrine of necessity in 2000. Otherwise, why should we have presented it as a bill requiring 2/3 plus referendum. In 2000, there was no talk of 'necessity'. When 2/3 was not forthcoming, the Parliamentary debate was put off.
A (mischievous) caveat: the article’s author was the biggest proponent of the doctrine of necessity in trying to pass the 2000 Constitution Bill. Those of us who insisted on established procedure pointed at the time to the exact danger that we face today. Still, I’ll take it.