The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, I second the Motion to adjourn.

¶ 02 From the inception of the Executive Presidency, there has been strong opposition. In 1978, Sirimavo Bandaranaike told Parliament she would abolish it at the first opportunity. Hon. Nihal Galappaththi agreed in 1994, and on that consensus he decided not to contest the presidential election scheduled by 15 July 1995. You then supported that election campaign on that basis. It was a good process.

¶ 03 I served as Secretary to Prof. G. L. Peiris, then Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. With great effort, we prepared a constitutional draft in 2000—arguably one of the finest in our history—but clashes across the aisle squandered that opportunity.

¶ 04 Later President Mahinda Rajapaksa spoke of it, but it never happened. In 2015, under President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, a resolution established a Constitutional Assembly. All parties engaged; many views were obtained.

¶ 05 For the first time, presidential powers were reduced under President Sirisena. He deserves recognition. There were issues about independent commissions, but he implemented a process.

¶ 06 Your current policy statement “A Prosperous Country, a Beautiful Life” recalls that process. Under “Measures” it states that the 2015–2019 constitutional reform process will be expedited to produce a Constitution that devolves political and administrative power equitably to local bodies, districts and provinces, ensuring political pluralism of all nationalities.

¶ 07 Yes, let us act expeditiously. You have been in office six months. Major changes are possible when a government enjoys popularity, because reforms bring challenges: power‑sharing, devolution, skepticism. A strong government is needed. From the Opposition, we pledge full cooperation. We long argued—on both sides—that the Executive Presidency has harmed the country, and still do. Abolish it, but do so by building fair solutions for all, including religious leaders and national forces. It cannot be done as an external exercise alone; attempts under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa failed because it did not proceed through Parliament.

¶ 08 You now have strength and space. Please take the necessary steps.

¶ 09 Many constitutional amendments since 1978 have damaged the basic law. The Fourteenth Amendment, discussed from 1983 to 1988, introduced 29 National List seats to the 196 elected seats. When presenting it, Prime Minister R. Premadasa clearly stated under Article 82(5) that a two‑thirds majority of the whole number of MPs is required, and under 82(6) that non‑compliance renders an amendment void. What happened? President J. R. Jayewardene brought an additional bill that allowed persons not in the gazetted lists—i.e., defeated candidates—to be appointed on the National List. Premadasa himself said on 8 March 1988, “This is not what we worked for over years; this is wrong.” Yet it was treated as passed.

¶ 10 On 8 April 1988, President Jayewardene sought the Supreme Court’s view, but not on the exact bill passed by Parliament. Thus, a President could override Parliament’s intent and secure approval for a different text. Because of that error, defeated candidates now enter via the National List, which is entirely wrong. Justice Samarakoon later observed the judiciary had its hands tied in that era, with protections removed.

¶ 11 Today, 29 Members sit via the National List on a fundamentally flawed legal basis. Moreover, only 128 voted for that measure when 131 were needed for two‑thirds—hence it was not duly passed. We must correct these.

¶ 12 Let us stop blaming each other. Establish a special committee, bring in experts, and use the 2015 proposals as a foundation to move swiftly. Let us restore a Westminster‑style, Parliament‑accountable system, end subservience to a presidential stamp, and strengthen this House. I thank Hon. Ajith P. Perera for the timely initiative.

¶ 13 Thank you.