The Hon. Mujibur Rahman

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, particularly after the Justice Minister’s remarks. I noted that yesterday during the debate, the Hon. State Minister also spoke about the issue at the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC). Not only in the CMC, but across many local authorities islandwide, where no single party has a clear majority, elections for office-bearers are taking place.

¶ 02 When we look at how these votes are conducted, we observed two different approaches by the Provincial Commissioners of Local Government: in the Western Province and the Central Province. In the Central Province, the Commissioner decided whether the vote should be by secret ballot or open vote through a process. However, at the CMC the other day, we saw the Western Province Commissioner coming in with a fixed conclusion and speaking of a secret ballot from the very start of the meeting. Our Opposition group requested an open vote. The Government side proposed a secret ballot. With two competing proposals before the meeting, the Commissioner should have considered both. Instead, she kept insisting on a secret ballot.

¶ 03 Hon. Deputy Speaker, section 48 of the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Act, No. 22 of 2012, particularly 66A(6), states:

¶ 04 “Where two or more names of members are proposed and seconded for election as Mayor, the mode of election shall be by an open or secret vote as determined by a resolution passed by the members present.”

¶ 05 That means the members present must decide whether it is to be an open or secret vote. But the law does not set out the procedure for how that decision is to be made. For that, there are guidelines issued by the Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Mr. S. Aloka Bandara. Those guidelines, which the Western Province Commissioner should have followed, clearly state:

¶ 06 “4.1 – Voting for Mayor/Chairman when there is no clear majority: Where two or more candidates have been proposed and seconded, the Commissioner shall conduct a vote among the members to elect the Mayor/Chairman. The step-by-step procedure is provided in the Ordinance.

¶ 07 First, the members shall determine the mode of voting – whether it shall be an open vote or a secret ballot. If there is disagreement among members as to the mode of election when multiple candidates are contesting, the names of individual members shall be called and a vote taken to determine, by majority, whether the election shall be by open vote or secret ballot.”

¶ 08 The guidelines are explicit: the presiding officer must call each member by name and take a recorded vote to decide between open or secret ballot. That did not happen at the CMC. The Commissioner kept saying she was acting “according to the law” but did not cite the relevant section or even identify the provision she claimed to rely upon. At minimum, she could have applied the Municipal Councils Ordinance—section 272(1)(1) on voting in municipal councils—if she was unwilling to follow the guidelines. She followed neither.

¶ 09 It was clear she came with a prior decision to force a secret ballot, which she then conducted by coercion, ignoring protests. We could have forced a disruption, but we refrained to avoid disorder. Her conduct undermined the dignity of the public service. She did not even refer to section 66A. In contrast, the Central Province Commissioner handled similar processes transparently in places like Kadugannawa and other authorities. There cannot be two laws: one for the Central, another for the Western. Yet the Western Province Commissioner acted under political pressure. The entire country saw on live telecast how she pushed for a secret ballot.

¶ 10 To the Commissioner: remember the Code of Conduct for public officers. You have disregarded applicable guidelines and thereby breached discipline expected of public servants. Governments change. Do not compromise democratic norms for those temporarily in power. Public officers who became political tools have ended up in prison or disgrace. One day, we will hold you accountable before the law for undermining democracy—not necessarily within five years, but when the time comes.

¶ 11 Also, the JVP/NPP long argued that secret ballots enable deals and corruption and do not reflect the people’s will. They opposed secret ballots while in Opposition, but now in Government their stance seems to have changed. We are not surprised, but it is a contradiction.

¶ 12 We also hear talk of a “dogs-and-foxes alliance,” alleging the united Opposition is an unprincipled mix. Yet history shows Marxists allied with capitalist leaders before: in 2004, the JVP joined with President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, whom they would classify as representing capitalism, while they profess Marxism-Leninism. In 2005, they even worked with Mahinda Rajapaksa of the domestic capitalist/ comprador class, according to their own labeling. Later they called Ranil Wickremesinghe an agent of American imperialism, but spent much time in the PM’s Office in 2015. They vilify the US but met Ambassador Julie Chung regularly. They attack Rishad Bathiudeen as a “jackal,” but then combine locally for deputy mayoralties. They even tied up with Pillayan at times. So who exactly are the “dogs” and who are the “foxes”?

¶ 13 We, for our part, have not entered backroom deals. In this House, we vote for good laws regardless of who brings them. Seeking support across parties to constitute councils is not a corrupt deal; it is parliamentary cooperation. Thank you.