Change established procedure and treat sovereign voters as ‘Principals’ in Constitution making

Former Secy. General of Parliament Nihal Seneviratne has outlined the procedure for the passage of the proposed New Constitution as follows:

“These eminent lawyers would sift through the representations and memorandums received and prepare a draft report which is expected to be submitted to the President. The President is expected to submit the report and draft to the Speaker and the Speaker would submit this report and thereafter appoint a Select Committee comprising members from both the Government and the Opposition.

“The Select Committee following the usual established procedure would invite representations from the public and would study all these memorandums and submit the report back to Parliament with their recommendation. It would deliberate at length, studying all the representation made and submit its final report to Parliament.”

The preparation of a Draft report by an ‘Experts Committee’ consisting of eminent lawyers is acceptable as the Ministry of Justice has called for proposals from the public for their consideration. Barring that aspect, the above stated, procedure clearly shows that the Politicians acting in collusion as ‘Agents/Representatives’ of the people have got a ‘blank cheque’ to usurp the powers of their ‘Principals’ – the sovereign voters, and have their own way through a ‘Parliamentary Select Committee’ under the false pretext of following the ‘usual established procedure’ of inviting representations from the public which is a mere eyewash.

As we know, such a Select Committee of Parliamentarians will even collude to overturn the very objective of the ‘Draft Report’ in order to protect their privileges and narrow vested interests. The process continues with a two-thirds Parliamentary majority culminating with the final eyewash of a ‘Referendum’ where the people are asked to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a document framed according to the whims and fancies of politicians under a procedure marred with ‘Conflict of Interest’.

Against this backdrop and in keeping with natural justice and the prevailing ‘Law of Agency,’ I as a concerned citizen, would strongly suggest that our ‘sovereign voter dedicated’ organisations like Paffrel, Caffe, CMEV and other civil rights organisations and the Academia,  prevail upon the National Elections Commission (NEC) to appoint a ‹Civilian Task force for Constitutional Reforms› comprising eminent retired judges and representatives of the aforesaid civil society organisations to study and make their own recommendations to the ‘Draft Report,’ bereft of politicians for whom it will be a ‘conflict of interest’ as they are only ‘agents’ of the sovereign people who are the ‘principals’. The final document by the ‘Civilian Task Force’ after being whetted by the NEC and the Supreme Court respectively, should go before the Parliament only for formal approval.

The time is ripe for us to press for a change from the present irregular system of governance dominated by unprincipled and dishonest politicians to a system of ‘people based governance’ through a robust Constitution.

Bernard Fernando

Moratuwa