19 November 2018
The President’s Declaration is Adverse to the lawful derivation
Laws of Prescriptive rights are valid on the basis of demonstrated belief. Vaddukkoddai Resolution 1976 was one of them. The latest declaration of No Confidence by majority members in the decision made by the President to appoint Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa is another.
To be valid – we need to be believe that we are the owners of that place / institution. Where it is not by law it becomes de facto until formalized. But Belief has to be the basis of such a title / claim and the evidence is by ‘show of undisturbed possession’. The title has to be adverse to OR independent of any other form of title – for example through purchase. (Section 3 of Prescription Ordinance of Sri Lanka)
As per Daily News report headed ‘Academics say General Election the best option’ , Attorney at law Raja Goonaratne, the head of Legal Studies Department of the Open University , addressing the media in Colombo stated:
‘Enable the people to decide who their representatives should be. Hold elections to let the people enjoy their sovereign powers to elect a government of their choice’
If indeed, the President was advised by such a group – that explains the irrational expressions and actions over the past few weeks. This Daily News report itself confirms that an important section of the media has lost its independence. Belief confirms independence. Belief is perfectly rational to the believer.
Academics who ‘tell’ non-Academic institutions are confirming serious interference in politics. This is especially of concern to our Australian Academics especially those such as Edith Cowan University which is reported to be collaborating with University of Sri Jayewardenepura of Sri Lanka.
The core purposes of a University are Research & Teaching. Through Research, Academics find ‘connections’ between causes and effects. In this instance therefore they must seek and find the reasons why the manifestations of the Parliament have become disorderly – as if that is a disease. Given that the President is not a law expert – and given that he did not confirm that he sought the advice of the Supreme Court before making his declaration his declaration is taken to be belief based – just as Vaddukoddai Declaration was.
In terms of Property – such belief base possession needs to be for a period of 10 years in most instances. The parallel in terms of the Parliament is 5 years.
Practitioners of law often become believers before legal professionals who USE the law to earn benefits.
I believe that Legal Academic Raja Goonaratne has failed to show the connection between the causals forces and the manifestations of President Sirisena, from zero base – as I usually do – or as per the particular provisions in the Constitution.
As per the above report
[The University Academics also condemned Speaker Karu Jayasuriya’s conduct during the current political crisis and called his action “illegal and politically driven”]
If it is illegal – the section of law under which it is illegal needs to be mentioned and the derivation shown as per the logic of that law. As for it being politically driven – every member of parliament has to use her / his discretionary powers in instances where there is breakdown in law and order and/or where all lawful avenues have been exercised – but without showing derived effective outcome. That is when discretionary powers are used beyond the law to deliver an outcome. Discretionary powers used outside there parameters show disorder and v.v.
The disorder was caused by the side disrupting the use of discretionary powers by the Speaker – as the CEO of the Parliament.
The President’s declarations may be belief based but unlike in the case of Prescriptive titles – such declarations are yet to have legal validity. Hence one could conclude that this is the return karma for punishing Tamil politicians who within their borders of belief – declared Independence of Tamils through Vaddukkoddai Resolution. They were punished for this. If the President and his group fail to punish themselves – then they are guilty of breaching the tenets of karma and therefore Article 9 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka