The Hon. (Ms.) Kaushalya Ariyarathne

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson, in joining this debate on the Local Authorities Elections (Special Provisions) Bill, I wish to begin with an important observation cited by a Hon. Justice in the Supreme Court’s opinion on this Bill.

¶ 02 Under our Constitution, our country is the “Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka”. The term “Republic” derives from the Greek “res publica” — that which belongs to the people. “Democratic” derives from “demokratia” — rule by the people. These two concepts — what belongs to the people and rule by the people — are fundamental. Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution speak to popular sovereignty. In particular, Article 4(a) provides that sovereignty is exercised by the Legislature elected by the People. Further, under Article 27 on Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties, Article 27(4) states:

¶ 03 “The State shall strengthen and broaden the democratic base of government by decentralizing the administration and by affording all such opportunities to the people to participate at every level in national life and in government.”

¶ 04 On that basis, I emphasize the special importance of local authorities.

¶ 05 In the case “Hajiyaar Mohamed v. Election Commission (2012)”, former Chief Justice Priyasath Dep observed that local authorities have a long history and perform vital grassroots functions — by-laws, public health, utilities, roads, protection and promotion of the comfort and welfare of residents — “from cradle to grave”, with some even administering maternity clinics to cemeteries. Delaying elections deprives people of the right to elect representatives to address their needs.

¶ 06 As Hon. Bimal Rathnayake noted, beyond concepts of women and youth representation, local authorities have a profound impact on daily life. On women’s political participation, this law was a commendable step to promote it; for the first time, twenty women from non-political family backgrounds entered Parliament from one party — showing our commitment in practice.

¶ 07 Courts have repeatedly held that postponing local and other elections infringes fundamental rights, including equality under Article 12 and freedom of speech and expression under Article 14(1)(a). When the Supreme Court in 2023 held that the Government’s postponement violated fundamental rights, an MP allied to Hon. Namal Rajapaksa then brought a Motion implying contempt of court, to question judges before the Committee on Ethics and Privileges — that was their history. Those who tried to cancel democratic rights then now pass the ball to us.

¶ 08 Some have raised O/L exams, New Year and the Budget Debate. Yes, it is difficult to hold elections during such times. But note page 43 of the 2023 Supreme Court judgment: any restriction must have a proximate and rational nexus to its objective; it must be proportionate and not unreasonable. Even amid a severe economic crisis, the Court held that postponement resulted in a grossly unjustified delay in exercising the right to vote.

¶ 09 Therefore, we cannot justify any form of postponement on grounds such as exams, the Budget Debate or New Year, when even an economic crisis did not justify curtailing fundamental rights. I, too, was puzzled by statements saying, “Do not postpone, but consider ninety days.” Which is it? We accept the need for a level playing field — campaign finance is a serious, well-studied obstacle for women and youth, pushing some to rely on corrupt money. The solution is collective reform, not delay. As a party, we did not inherit dynastic power or personal war chests. We work through a common fund and declared expenditures. Others may depend on one individual’s private funds; we do not.

¶ 10 Finally, I quote from the 2023 FR petition in which the SJB General Secretary himself was a petitioner; his counsel, on his instructions, described the Treasury Secretary’s actions as “arbitrary, wrongful, illegal, malicious, capricious, pernicious and unlawful.”

¶ 11 We must hold this election swiftly. Local authorities are critical to daily life. We did not and will not dismantle democratic institutions; we strengthen them. We have set a precedent of elections without misuse of public funds. We reiterate our commitment to protect democracy and fundamental rights.