Category Archives: Viva!

Paradise Lost? Preliminary Notes on a Constitutional Coup

Featured image courtesy Alexander Nikiforov

There were three dramatic announcements on the evening of Friday 26th October 2018 from the Presidential Secretariat, which occurred in the following order: (a) the announcement of the withdrawal of the UPFA from the government; (b) the swearing-in of Mahinda Rajapaksa before President Maithripala Sirisena as the Prime Minister; and (c) the announcement that the President has informed Ranil Wickremesinghe in writing that he has been removed from the office of Prime Minister under Article 42(4).

Even if the legality of the procedure and the clarity and meaning of the relevant constitutional provisions can be debated, the fact that the event was planned in complete secrecy, with no consultation of Parliament or giving the serving Prime Minister and Cabinet the courtesy of even a short prior intimation before the course of action was made public, that it was suddenly carried out on a Friday evening, and that it has taken the country by total surprise, point to some extremely questionable motives.

Indeed, the whole set of circumstances suggest not the way a change of government ought to occur in a democracy, but the sharp practices associated with a constitutional coup, which is likely to lead to a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional coup because the serving Prime Minister has not legally ceased to function in office before a new Prime Minister has been appointed. And it will lead to an unprecedented constitutional crisis because there are now two competing Prime Ministers and their parties jostling for power, authority, and legitimacy at the very heart of the state. Until one of these persons – Mahinda Rajapaksa or Ranil Wickremesinghe – can demonstrate that he has the confidence of Parliament through the support of a majority of MPs, and force the President to accept the will of Parliament, the crisis will not be resolved. Only time will tell what long-term damage this does to Sri Lanka’s constitutional fabric.

After the Nineteenth Amendment was enacted in 2015, the Prime Minister can only cease to hold office by death, resignation, by ceasing to be a Member of Parliament, or if the government as a whole has lost the confidence of Parliament by a defeat on the throne speech, the budget, or a vote of no-confidence (Articles 46(2) and 48). Since the Constitution after the Nineteenth Amendment specifies these ways in which the Prime Minister ceases to hold office, and has impliedly removed the previous power of the President to remove the Prime Minister at will, it follows that there are no other ways in which this can happen. In particular, the President can only appoint another Prime Minister where the serving Prime Minister has lost office in any one of these ways.

It is clear that the serving Prime Minister has not ceased to hold office in any one of these ways. Rather, the President has purportedly removed the Prime Minister from office by acting under the provisions of Article 42(4), which states that the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament. The President seems to have taken these words rather too literally than is constitutionally permissible. When this provision speaks of the President’s opinion, it contemplates not the subjective and personal opinion of the President as to which MP is best suited to be Prime Minister, but an objective and constitutional view formed by reference to who can command the confidence of Parliament. This is usually, although not always, the leader of the largest party represented in Parliament.

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe survived a vote of no-confidence by a substantial majority earlier in the year. No other canvassing of Parliament’s confidence has occurred since then, or before the purported appointment of Rajapaksa tonight, and therefore the President can neither constitutionally remove a Prime Minister who has not lost the confidence of Parliament nor appoint another in his place.

It must also be stated that Article 42(2) speaks only of the appointment of the Prime Minister by the President and says nothing about the removal of the Prime Minister by the President. While the power of dismissal could be assumed as inherent to the power of appointment in the constitution prior to 2015, the Nineteenth Amendment has changed this by now providing expressly for the specific ways in which the Prime Minister can be removed (under the previously noted Articles 46(2) and 48). That these procedures have not been followed render the purported presidential acts tonight illegal and unconstitutional.

If the parliamentary numbers have changed since Wickremesinghe’s confidence vote in April in favour of a majority now supportive of Rajapaksa by, among other things, the withdrawal of the UPFA from the national government – presumably the basis for tonight’s presidential acts – then it is also not clear why Sirisena and Rajapaksa did not choose to take the constitutional path to removing Wickremesinghe by defeating him in Parliament first. The crisis will be prolonged if Rajapaksa cannot swiftly demonstrate his command of Parliament, but the strategy he and Sirisena have followed tonight shows that they have chosen to seize the political initiative and momentum by the element of surprise, with the probable intention of consolidating their hold on the state machinery and in particular the police and armed forces over the weekend, before conforming to constitutional and parliamentary niceties. They would also quite correctly have concluded that technical illegalities would not effectively be justiciable, because it is unlikely in the extreme that the Sri Lankan courts would risk a venture into such a high-stakes political game.

This kind of behaviour of course is entirely normal in Rajapaksa, and to his credit, he has never pretended to be anything other than a banana republic presidential populist. But Sirisena was elected in 2015 exactly to instantiate changes to curtail this dubious and destructive strain in Sri Lankan politics. His descent from the heroic standard-bearer of high idealism to a despised villain of the lowest form of low politics has been truly Miltonian.

groundviewssl?d=yIl2AUoC8zA groundviewssl?i=iFMdaPDcz4Y:uGBZMjCCZJM: groundviewssl?d=qj6IDK7rITs

Jamal Khashoggi killing: what we know and what will happen next

Money talks it seems and Saudi Crown Prince gets away with murder?

3199.jpg?width=300&quality=85&auto=forma

Where things stand with the investigation, his family, Saudi Arabia and global politics

It is nearly four weeks since the journalist Jamal Khashoggi disappeared from the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Saudi officials now admit that he was killed inside the embassy by a team of agents sent from Riyadh, but so far his body has not been recovered.

Continue reading…

Split Jury Spares Iraq-War Vet in High Profile Virginia Capital Case

A Virginia jury has spared the life of Iraqi war veteran Ronald Hamilton (pictured, right, with his father) in the 2016 killings of his wife and a rookie police officer. The jury split 6-6 on whether to impose the death penalty for Hamilton’s murder of his wife, Crystal Hamilton, but unanimously agreed to impose a life sentence for the death of Officer Ashley Guindon, who was killed while she responded to Crystal Hamilton’s 911 call. Under Virginia law, the court must impose a life sentence if any of the jurors vote for life. At the sentencing phase of the trial, Hamilton’s lawyers presented evidence of his possible posttraumatic stress disorder from two tours of duty in Iraq, emphasized his development into a model soldier who, as an Army sergeant, saved a colleague’s life while they were under mortar fire, and presented testimony from his father, Ronald W. Hamilton, and other family members. During his testimony, the elder Ronald Hamilton—a retired police officer whose career included service at the White House and who served as the second-in-command of the Charleston, South Carolina police force—expressed his sympathy to the family of Officer Guindon and to the two other officers who were wounded. “I see the prosecutor’s side and defense side, and I can sit on either side. I feel the pain. I understand the duty,” Hamilton testified. “If anyone in this courtroom had their relative sitting where my son was, they’d be asking for mercy,” he said. As is often the case in capital trials of war veterans, the prosecution had attempted to convert Hamilton’s military service into an aggravating factor, repeatedly referring to him as “depraved” and “dangerous.” Prosecutor Richard Conway told the jury that soldiers “deserve respect and deserve protection, but they don’t get a pass for capital murder,” while his co-counsel, Matthew Lowery urged the jury to “[p]ut him in the grave because that’s what he deserves.”

No Virginia jury has imposed a death sentence since 2011 and Hamilton had offered to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of life without parole. However, Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul Ebert – known for his frequent use of the death penalty – rejected the offer. The county is responsible for more executions since 1976 than any other county in the Commonwealth and is among the 2% of counties that account for a majority of all executions in the United States in that period.

(Ian Shapira, Va. jury deadlocks on death sentence for man who killed wife and police officer, The Washington Post, October 25, 2018; Emily Sides, Jury deadlocked on death penalty, Hamilton sentenced to life in double murder, InsideNoVA, October 25, 2018; Matthew Barakat, Jury spares life of soldier convicted of killing wife, rookie police officer, Associated Press, October 25, 2018; Matthew Barakat, Life-or-death decision faces jury in cop killer case, Associated Press, October 23, 2018; Ian Shapira, For Va. man who killed his wife and a police officer, a push for death and plea for mercy, The Washington Post, October 1, 2018; Ian Shapira, Retired police commander tries to save his son — a cop killer — from execution, The Washington Post, October 17, 2018.) See Sentencing.

  • 239 reads

Reports of Voter Intimidation at Polling Places in Texas

20181023-texas-mailer-3x2.jpg

by Blake Paterson

Tempers are flaring during early voting in Dallas County, Texas, and reports of voter intimidation are on the rise. The county’s nonpartisan election administrator said that the harassment — including name-calling and interrogating voters waiting in line — is the worst she’s seen in decades.

“I’ve been here for 30 years, and this harassment that’s going on, I haven’t ever seen the likes of this,” said Toni Pippins-Poole, the county’s election director. “I’ve seen some other things, props being used and whatnot, but nothing like this type of mentality or aggressiveness or demeaning type of actions.”

At the Lakeside Activity Center in Mesquite, Texas, election administrators received complaints of a partisan poll watcher looking over voter’s shoulders as they cast their ballots and questioning voters on their politics. The person was later escorted out by Mesquite Police Department officers on Monday after refusing to leave the premises, according to Pippins-Poole.

Texas law requires that any form of electioneering — including passing out political literature or advocating for or against candidates or issues — can only occur more than 100 feet outside a polling location. Within that distance, poll workers can kick people out for causing a disturbance. When the nuisance is farther away, Pippins-Poole instructs her poll workers to call law enforcement.

Stay Informed With the Daily Digest

Join 100,000 discerning readers and get everything we publish by signing up for ProPublica’s daily email.

Poll greeters at Dallas’ Lochwood Library reported being “harassed” and “verbally abused” and described a person with a bullhorn driving by yelling about “baby killers,” according to a tweet by the Texas Civil Rights Project, an organization tracking voting-related issues in the state. Despite notifying law enforcement, Pippins-Poole said the person has not been identified and the reports of harassment are ongoing.

At the Richardson Civic Center, multiple reports emerged of a person standing beyond the 100-foot-perimeter accosting voters as they arrived to vote, calling people “bipolar” and “alligators who live in swamps.” A video posted on Twitter by the Texas Civil Rights Project shows a person pacing and yelling about similar subjects.

There is currently no evidence to suggest that the incidents reported in Dallas County have blocked voters from casting a ballot. When harassment occurs, however, it can be particularly discouraging for those inexperienced with voting, said Calvin Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University.

“If you are a first time voter — say a young voter or a minority voter, a newly enfranchised Hispanic citizen voting for the first time — and you have some aggressive white guy yelling at you as you walk in, it might have a negative effect. It’s meant to dissuade people from voting,” Jillson said.

The secretary of state’s office has been in regular contact with Dallas County election officials regarding issues of harassment and intimidation, according to Sam Taylor, the office’s communications director. In written statement sent to ProPublica, Rolando Pablos, Texas’ secretary of state, said “everyone should continue to treat their fellow Texans with dignity” whether inside or outside a polling location.

“We strongly condemn harassment of Texas voters in any form or fashion. We encourage Texans to make their voices heard at the ballot box, and to be respectful and courteous to other voters wishing to do the same,” Pablos wrote.

Tensions are high across Texas. The state is in the midst of an unexpectedly close Senate race between Republican incumbent Ted Cruz and Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke, which has driven record-breaking registration and early voting turnout.

10663962.gif