Sunday, October 28, 2018

However nicely you wish to paint it – Coup, Constitutional Challenge, Cheating, it’s not Cricket! It’s the Elle crowd in charge, don’t you get it?

Fear has instantly gripped the nation, and law of the jungle has arrived, where the law does not hold water to those in power, as witnessed by the Presidential offspring’s behavior, behaving as if they own all Govt. establishments and NO ONE DARES TO STOP IT, remember the good old days guys? The job was in Namal baby’s palm to give or not to give.

Aiyo Sirisena, look what you have done for the sake of the Lust for Power?

You have sold your religion, your body, and your beliefs for what?

Oh ye with short memories the bad times have returned, and your mouth will be shut forever, whether you agree today or not, that is how it will be.  

Why the silence from the supporters of MR? Say it for what it is – Rule of the jungle. Hey you approve of it until it is you they come after and no one is there to defend you from this monster called lawlessness.

The supporters of the elected Government and appointed Prime Minister, just want to believe what their impotent leaders are telling them without a plan to counter this Coup, with a counter Coup. They are merely reading letters flying to and fro and believe their leader can save the day. Can he? Does he even have a plan?

Yes he can save the day and end our dissent into Chinese Slavery, but he is not making the call, because he is a Constitutionalist who believes in the rule of law and believes parliament and the MPs will save the day, once they have time to realize that this is the biggest crisis this Country has faced in its entire history, WORSE THAN THE BRITISH INVASION AND OVERTHROW OF THE KANDYAN KING

Only history when it is written, will tell you I am 100% accurate, as people of the day fail to see what is right in front of their faces. It is the future of the sons and daughters and grandchildren that are at stake, as 90% of parliamentarians will be dead before the 10 million Bangladeshis invade this Island as they have nowhere to go, when climate change and raising sea levels come sooner than you think, and Professor Nalin de Silva’s Preservation of the Sinhala Buddhist Culture goes the way of the Kelani Ganga with his demise, into the Ocean  no less. Simply put you cannot preserve something that is dying in the people.
The following words from poet Khalil Gibran are appropriate to understand what happens to a  Country in these circumstances. A student of history knows it repeats itself:

"My friends and my road-fellows, pity the nation that is full of beliefs and empty of religion. "Pity the nation that wears a cloth it does not weave, eats a bread it does not harvest, and drinks a wine that flows not from its own winepress. "Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero, and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful. "Pity the nation that raises not its voice save when it walks in a funeral, boasts not except among its ruins, and will rebel not save when its neck is laid between the sword and the block. "Pity the nation whose statesman is a fox, whose philosopher is a juggler, and whose art is the art of patching and mimicking. "Pity the nation that welcomes its new ruler with trumpetings, and farewells him with hootings, only to welcome another with trumpetings again. "Pity the nation divided into fragments, each fragment deeming itself a nation”. Khalil Gibran

As for the law here are three excerpts so you can make up your mind on who to believe or what to believe, but let’s face it, it was a coup, so none of what you believe matters. as the power of FEAR is with the President. whichever way you look at it and we are presently ruled by fear, even MR’s most ardent supporters cannot contradict me on that, as they know he has the POWER.

“Posting this since there is a lot of reporting & several theories on how & whether the President of Sri Lanka can remove the Prime Minister. This is what's in our constitution, it's just a clarification of the legal position, it's not meant to say whether the incumbent to stay or go.
A) After the 19 Amendment to the Constitution, the President no longer has the power to remove the Prime Minister at his discretion. [S. 9 of the 19th Amendment Act , Article 46(2) of the Constitution]
B) The PM can only be dismissed if
1) The Cabinet of Ministers is dismissed
2) The PM resigns
3) The PM ceases to be a Member of Parliament [See Article 46 (2) of the Constitution]
C) The Cabinet of Ministers can only be dismissed if
1) If the PM ceases to hold office by death, resignation or otherwise
2) If Parliament rejects the Statement of Government Policy or the Budget
3) Parliament passes a vote of no-confidence in the Government [Article 48 of the Constitution]
D) The President doesn't have the power to dismiss the Cabinet of Ministers. The President can remove any individual Minister ONLY on the advice of the PM. See table below for demarcation of power between PM & President regarding this.
E) The 19th Amendment changed a lot of things regarding the powers of the President. See this guide for details of these changes…/A-Brief-Guide-to-the-Nineteenth-A…
D) The demarcation of power between the President & PM was supposed to be a short-term arrangement it is not a system that can work in the long term (See photo 2 for a screenshot explaining why, See pg 19 of full publication at…/20…/02/Two-Years-in-Government.pdf
See Full text of the constitution

As for Racist Professor Nalin de Silva, his interpretation of the constitution is as follows: (MS may have adopted this tactic to justify)
රනිල් ඉවත් කිරීමේ නීත්යානුකූල බව
නලින් සිල්වා
මා මේ ලිපිය ලියන්නේ කරුණු කිහිපයක් පැහැදිලි කිරීම සඳහායි. රනිල් අගමැති ධුරයෙන් ඉවත් කළ යුතු යැයි අවුරුදු තුනකටත් පෙර මා කීවේ ඔහුගෙන් සිංහල බෞද්ධ සංස්කෘතියට හා පොදුවේ සිංහලයන්ට වන අසාධාරණ වැළැක්වීමටයි. ජා පෙරමුණ හා මෛත්රිපාලගේ නි සංධානය එකිනෙකට වෙනස් ප්රතිපත්ති මත පදනම් වූ පක්. පක් නව ලිබරල්වාදයේ පක් බව හා අවශ් වන්නේ ඊනියා ක්රමය වෙනස් කිරීම වැනි කිසි දිනෙක වලංගු නොවූ කසිකබල් මාක්ස්වාදී බහුබූත කීමෙන් කිසි පලක් නැහැ. ඔය කියන ක්රමය වෙනස් කිරීම හැමදාමත් කිය කිය ඉන්න පුළුවන් දෙයක් පමණයි. එයත් බාලගිරි දෝෂය වගෙයි.
රනිල් ඉවත් කිරීමේ ක්රම කිහිපයක් තියෙන්න පුළුවන්. විශ්වාසභංග යෝජනාවකින් රනිල් පරාජය කිරීම, අයවැය පරාජය කිරීම, පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරිම ආදිය ඉන් ප්රධානයි. එහෙත් දහනවවැනි සංශෝධනයෙන් පනවා ඇති බාධක මැඩ ගෙන. එය පහසු නැහැ. තිබෙන ආණ්ඩුවකට විරුද්ධ විශ්වාසභංග යෝජනා ආදිය ගේන එක පහසු නැහැ. එය ක්රියාවෙන් පෙන්වා දී තිබෙනවා. පහසු ක්රමය ලෙස මා දුුටුවේ ජනාධිපති ලවා අගමැති ඉවත් කිරීම. එය ව්යවස්ථානුකූල කරන්න පුළුවන්. සඳහා මහින්ද මෛත්රිපාලට ශක්තිය දීය යුතු බව මා කියා සිටියා. මේ ශක්තිය යනු ඉංගිරිසි energy නො වෙයි. මෛත්රිපාලට විධායක බලතල තිබුණත් ඔහුට ජනබලය නැහැ. ඔහු පත් වූයේ මූලික වශයෙන් ජා පෙරමුණේ ඡන්දවලින්. ඔහුට අවශ් ජනබලය ලබා දිය හැකි තිබුණේ මහින්දට. මහින්ද රනිල් ඉවත් කර හදන ආණ්ඩුවේ අගමැති වීමෙන්. මා බව පැහැදිලිව කිවුවා. රනිල් අගමැති ධුරයෙන් ඉවත් කර මහින්ද අගමැති ධුරයට පත්කිරීම තමයි ක්රමය. සඳහා මහින්ද කැමැත්ත පළ කළ යුතුව තිබුණා. සඳහා මෛත්රිපාල සමග වැඩ කිරීමට එකඟ විය යුතු තිබුණා. ඒක තමයි මෛත්රිපාලට ශක්තිය ලබා දීම. එහෙත් ජී එල්ලා පමණක් නොව මහින්දත් මෛත්රිපාල සමග එකතු වන්න කැමති වුණේ නැහැ.
මා හුදෙක් මෛත්රිපාලට ශක්තිය ලබා දිය යුතු යනුවෙන් කියා සෑහීමකට පත් වූයේ නැහැ. සඳහා ක්රමයක් පෙන්නුවා. එය ව්යවස්ථානුකුලුයි. මහින්ද අගමැති කිරීම සඳහා ව්යවස්ථාව යොදා ගන්නේ කෙසේ යන්නත් මා පෙන්වා දුන්නා. මේ ව්යවස්ථාව කියන්නේ දහනවවැනි සංශෝධනයෙන් පසු ව්යවස්ථාව මිස එයට පෙර ව්යවස්ථාව නො වෙයි. මෙහි දී අප ඉදිරියේ තිබුණේ මහා මැතිවරණයකින් පසු අගමැතිවරයකු පත් කිරීම නොවෙයි. ඉන්න අගමැතිවරයකු ඉවත් කර අලුත් අගමැතිවරයකු පත්කිරීම.
මැතිවරණයකින් පසු අගමැතිවරයකු පත්කිරීම නම් අරඹන්නේ 42 (4) අනුව්යවස්ථාවෙන්. අනුව ජනාධිපතිවරයාට තම මතය අනුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ විශ්වාසය උපරිම වශයෙන් ලැබිය හැකි මන්ත්රීවරයා අගමැති ලෙස පත් කළ හැකියි. මෙහි වැදගත් වචන වන්නේ තම මතය අනුව හා විශ්වාසය යන්න. මෙහි කියැවෙන්නේ නැහැ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ උපරිම ඡන්ද බලය ඇති අය අගමැති කළ යුතු කියා. ජනාධිපති තීරණය කරන්නේ තම මතය අනුවයි. එපමණක් නොව පත් කරන්නේ විශ්වාසය දිනාගත හැකි අයකු.
අගමැති පත් කිරීමෙන් පසු 43 (1) හා (2) අනුව අගමැතිගේ අදහස් විමසා උපදෙස් මත අමාත්යවරුන්ගේ සංඛ්යාව අමාත්යවරුන් පත් කළ යුතුයි. මෙහි දී අපි තවත් අනුවයස්ථාවක් දක්වමු. 43(3) යි. අනුව ජනාධිපතිට කවර අවස්ථාවක දී වුව අමාත්යවරුන්ගේ කාර්යභාරය , අමාත් මණ්ඩලයේ සංයුතිය වෙනස් කරන්න පුළුවන්. අගමැති විමසන්නේ නැතිව. ඊළඟට අපට වැදගත් වන්නේ 46(1) () හා (). අනුව ඇමතිවරුන් සංඛ්යාව 30 නොඉක්ම විය යුතු අතර අමාත් මණ්ඩලයේ සාමාජිකයන් නොවන අමාත්යවරුන්ගේ හා නියෝජ් අමාත්යවරුන්ගේ සංඛ්යාව 40 නොඉක්ම විය යුතුයි. එහෙත් 46 (4) (1) අනුව ඊනියා ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් ඇති විට ඇමතිවරුන් නියෝජ් ඇමතිවරුන් ආදීන්ගේ සංඛ්යාව පාර්ලිමේන්තුව තීරණය කළ යුතු .
දැන් අපට ප්රශ්නය වන්නේ අගමැතිවරයකු හා ඇමති මණ්ඩලයක් සිටින විට නව අගමැතිවරයකු හා නව ඇමති මණාඩලයක් පත් කරන්නේ කෙසේ යන්නයි. ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් තිබේ නැද්ද යන්න මෙහි දී ප්රශ්නයක් වන්නේ නැහැ. දහනවය අනුව අගමැති අස්කරන්නත් බැහැ. දහනවයට පෙර අගමැති අස්කරන්න පුළුවන්කම තිබුණා. එබැවින් පත් කළ තැනැත්තාට ඉවත් කළ හැකිය යනුවෙන් ඇති අර්ථදැක්වීම් ආඥාපනත අදාළ වන්නේ නැහැ. එමෙන් ඊනියා ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් තිබී ඉන් එක් පක්ෂයක් ඉවත් වුවත් අගමැති ඉවත් වන්නේ නැහැ. එක් පක්ෂයක් ඉවත් වුවොත් සිදුවන්නේ ඇමති නියෝජ් ඇමති ආදී සංඛ්යාවලට සීමා පැමිණවීම පමණයි. අගමැති පත් කෙරෙන්නේ 42(4) යටතේ. ඇමතිවරුන් ආදීන් පත්කෙරෙන්නේ අගමැති පත් කිරීමෙන් පසු 43(1) හා (2) යටතේ. ඊනියා ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් අහෝසි වීමෙන් පසු ඉන්න අගමැතිගේ උපදෙස් මත ඇමතිවරුන් 30 දෙනකු ආදී වශයෙන් පත් කරන්න වෙනවා. කියන්නෙ රනිල්ගෙ උපදෙස් මත තිස්දෙනකුගෙන් යුත් නව ඇමති මණ්ඩලයක් පත් කිරීම. අද කෙරී ඇත්තේ එය නොවෙයි. දැන හෝ නොදැන හෝ වෙනත් දෙයක්. ඊනියා ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවෙන් අස්වීම යන්න වැඩකට නැති කොන්දේසියක්. කටයුතු සිදු වී ඇත්තේ කොන්දේසිය අනුව කටයුතු කිරීමෙන් යැයි කවුරුන් කීවත් එය වැරදියි. එසේ සිතා ගැනීමට වුවමනාවක් තිබෙනවා නම් එසේ කිරීමට හැකියි.
වෙනුවට මා යෝජනා කෙළේ 43(3) යොදා ගෙන ඇමතිවරුන්ගේ කාර්ය හා සංයුතිය වෙනස් කිරීම. (43) (3)න් කියන්නේ අගමැතිගේ කාර්ය වෙනස් කරන්න පුළුවන් කියා. 2015 ජනවාරි 09 දි මු ජයරත්න සිටිය දී රනිල් , 2018 ඔක්තෝම්බර් 26 රනිල් සිටිය දී මහින්ද පත්කරනු ලැබුවේ අනුවයි. දි මු ගේ කාලයේ දහනවයට පෙර අනුව්යවස්ථාව 44(3) වූවා. අංකය කුමක් වුවත් දෙකෙන් කෙරුණේ එකම කාර්යයක්. වත්මන් 43(3) යොදා ගැනීමේ දී පළමුව ඉන්න අගමැති වෙනුවට වෙනත් අගමැතිවරයකු පත් කර දෙවනුව නව අගමැතිගේ උපදෙස් අනුව අමාත් මණ්ඩලය පත්කර ගත හැකියි. අද මෙහි පළමු පියවර ඉටු වී අවසන්. මහින්ද අගමැති ලෙස පත් කෙරිලා. දැන් ඇත්තේ දෙවැනි පියවර මහින්දගේ උපදෙස් මත නව ඇමති මණ්ඩලයක් පත් කිරීම. මෙය ඊනියා ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් නොවන බැවින් ඇමතිවරුන් සංඛ්යාව 30 නොඉක්මවිය යුතුයි.
නිසා මෙහි ව්යවස්ථා අවුලක් අර්බුදයක් නැහැ. කළ යුත්තේ 43(3) හා 42(4) යොදා ගැනීම පමණයි. අනුව්යවස්ථා හා 46 (2) හැරෙන්න වෙනත් ව්යවස්ථාවක් සලකා බලන්න අවශ් නැහැ. 46 (2)න් කියන්නේ අමාත් මණ්ඩලය පවත්නා තාක් 46 (2) හි () හා () යටත්ව අගමැති ස්වකීය ධුරය දරන බව. එහෙත් 43(3) යොදා ගෙන තත්වය නොසලකා සිටිය හැකියි. 43 (3) අනුව රනිල් සිටිය දී මහින්ද අගමැති ලෙස පත් කිරීම ව්යවස්ථා විරෝධී නැහැ. 43(3) යටතේ මහින්ද අගමැති ලෙස පත් කළ විගස රනිල්ගේ අගමැතිකම අහෝසි වෙනවා. ඔහු හැකි ඉක්මණින් අරලියගහ මැදුරෙන් පිටවිය යුතුයි. මහින්දගේ උපදෙස් මත පත් කෙරෙන ඇමතිවරුන් අද හෙට දිවුරුම් දෙනු ඇති.
මා මෛත්රිපාලට ශක්තිය දිය යුතු කියා පමණක් නිකම් හිටියේ නැහැ. කරන්නේ කෙසේ කියාත් පැහැදිලිව සඳහන් කළා. එහෙත් මා ඊනියා ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවෙන් ඉවත් විය යුතු කියා කීවේ නැහැ. එය අවශ් නැහැ. 43(3) හා 42(4) පමණක් ඇති. අනෙක් අතට ශ්රී නි ඊනියා ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවෙන් ඉවත් වීම යන්නට පක්ෂයේ සභාපති මෛත්රිපාලත් ඉවත් වීම ඇතුළත් ? මෛත්රිපාල එසේ අස් වුණා නම් රනිල් ජනාධිපති වෙනවා. මේ කරුණු මා ඇතැම් ලිපිවලින් කිව්වා. උදාහරණයකට ගතහොත් ඊයේ නැවතත් උපුටා දැක්වුණු 2017 නොවැම්බර් 25 වැනි දින ලිපියෙන් විස්තර කර ඇති. කරන්න මෛත්රිපාලට ශක්තිය දිය යුතුයි. මෛත්රිපාල දුර්වල කිරීමෙන් එය කරන්න බැහැ. මහින්ද මෛත්රිපාල ශක්තිමත් කළා. එසේ නොකර සිටියා නම්, මෛත්රිපාල දුර්වල කළා නම් රනිල් තවමත් අගමැති.
එහෙත් මේ තර්කවලට වඩා දැන් අවශ් මහින්දට 113 ලබා දීමයි. සිංහලයන්ගේ අයිතිවාසිකම් නැති නොකර එය කළ යුතුයි.
We have lost Media Objective OVERNIGHT, with this latest biased editorial that is so partisan, there is no point reading the Observer anymore, just as it was becoming a little balanced under the editorship of Dharisha Bastians, so another nail in the coffin my friends, some of you will only realize once your coffin is nailed.

The swearing-in of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as the new Prime Minister may have taken many by surprise, but it was the inevitable result of a sequence of events that led President Maithripala Sirisena to take drastic action. Keen political observers knew that this was the only course of action available to the President that could literally save the nation from the economic and other calamities precipitated by the UNP.

It has since been argued by the outgoing Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and others that his sacking and the appointment of former President Rajapaksa in his place was unconstitutional. However, the same process was followed in January 2015 when Wickremesinghe was appointed as the Prime Minister, virtually from the “back door”. On that occasion, the incumbent Premier D.M. Jayaratne was removed and Wickremesinghe was appointed overnight. No one protested. In this instance, the entire Cabinet which is headed by the Premier was sacked and the Premier automatically lost his position. The entire move has been done in accordance with the Constitution, on the advice of legal and constitutional experts, most of whom have no political affiliations.

However, the President and the new Prime Minister have both indicated that they are prepared to go before the people (The People’s Court) to reaffirm this decision and seek an even bigger mandate. Judging by the performance of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) under the guidance of President Rajapaksa at the February 10 Local Polls, this could turn out to be an even bigger victory, with the combined strength of the SLFP and the Joint Opposition. This is the one option available to Wickremesinghe to prove his popularity, having shied away from contesting both the 2010 and 2015 Presidential Elections. Moreover, a Presidential Election is due in 2020 and Wickremesinghe can try his luck then perhaps without hiding behind another candidate.

The National Unity Government formed by the UNP and the SLFP was a fine idea on paper, but in practice it proved to be a very difficult marriage as the two parties had fundamentally different views on most issues. Being the honest politician that he is, President Sirisena trusted the UNP with some of the most crucial ministries including Finance, despite the misgivings of some of his closest advisers. This was to prove disastrous for the nation, for the UNP masterminded one of the biggest scams in recent memory through the Central Bank bond issue barely a month into the term of the new Government. This was a huge loss for the economy, which went downhill from there. Although one Minister was sacrificed for this crime, the real architects are hiding in foreign lands with the apparent support of Wickremesinghe.

The UNP’s imprudent economic policies also led to the free fall of the Rupee, which has stumbled to nearly 172 against the US Dollar. This has been a disaster for our import-driven economy, with the prices of many essential items going up uncontrollably with an immense impact on the Cost of Living. Fuel prices have become unbearable, hitting especially, the three wheeler drivers, motorcyclists and transport operators hard. Wickremesinghe’s economic philosophy mostly centered on selling the family silver, a fact recently alluded to by a Malaysian Minister. Fortunately, his last proposal to sell the East Container Terminal of the Colombo Port was shot down by the President. The sale of the country’s prized economic assets to foreign entities cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

Then there were the obvious lies, which initially many believed. One UNP Minister boasted that the Rajapaksas had pilfered as much as US$ 18 billion out of the country. Having even dug up swimming pools in various houses, not even one cent of this much talked-about money had materialized. They talked about Lamborghinis, but found only a legally purchased Ford Mustang which has since been handed over to the registered owner. It was obvious that the people did not believe any of these lies, as they handed over one of the biggest electoral victories to the SLPP back in February.

Another factor which angered many patriotic citizens was the Government’s capitulation before sections of the International Community on Human Rights and Accountability issues arising from the final days of the conflict in 2009. It went so far as to co-sponsor a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council which was critical of Sri Lanka. The UNP leaders did not give much thought to protecting our war heroes and began a witch hunt against them on various pretexts mainly to please sections of the Tamil Diaspora. Several war heroes are still languishing in jail and we hope the new Government will set this matter right. In the meantime, the security situation in the North turned worse with armed groups, nullifying the gains made in 2009.

Mahinda Rajapaksa is just what the doctor ordered for an ailing Sri Lanka. He brought peace to Sri Lanka in 2009 and he can take Sri Lanka to greater heights now that he is firmly at the helm of affairs. Brave and forthright, ever ready to act in the interest of all communities and religious groups in Sri Lanka, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa has once again risen to the occasion. There is no doubt that along with President Sirisena, he will steer the country in a new direction. Engagement, not capitulation, will be his keyword as he deals with the international community and even the antagonistic sections of the local community.

Now the next step is to select a Cabinet that can deliver the goods and efface some of the damaging steps taken by the UNP leadership. It must necessarily be kept to 30 members or less, to lessen Government expenditure. We are glad that MPs from the UNP and several other mainstream parties have already pledged their support to the President and the new Prime Minister for this new political journey. Sri Lanka is indeed on the cusp of turning a new chapter in its history. 
For constitution experts the link below is to the Guide to the 19th Amendment, but for rogues it does not matter a hill of beans, if we have descended to a Banana Republic again, due to the lack of the rule of law. Remember the cases against all the rogues that were slow in coming to the courts will now burn for lack of evidence!
For the Colombo Telegraph article by a constitutional expert who says the President cannot remove the PM here goes.
Rusiripala Tennekoon opines as follows:

Dear Mr Reza Hamid
Please consider the following
When there is any language inconsistency the Sinhala version prevails. That is law and cannot have any disagreements on that issue.
Please see Art.48(1) of the 19th refers to dissolution of cabinet. The underlying factor in this section is that the cabinet stands dissolved when PM ceases to hold office
According to English 48(1) which I believe is what you read PM ceases to hold office by death,resignation or otherwise.
But the Sinhala version says the PM ceases to hold office due to removal from office, resignation or otherwise. Removal is defined under 46(3) as removal by letter issued under the hand of the President
In the constitution before 19th amendment section 47(a)the PM can b removed by President by issuing a letter under his signature
So 48(1) Sinhala refers to the same circumstances while 48(1)English has dropped the removal part in it
If the English version had this clause referring to the removal of PM I trust you will agree that such a step can only b taken by the President.
As contained in the Sinhala clearly to an event of removal of PM there cannot be any doubt that it will b by the President only
I have clearly pointed this out in my article published in Colombo Telegraph few days back
I kindly invite you to read at least this section in that article for which I take full responsibility
If the cabinet stands dissolved due to the removal of PM it Ipso facto follows that there is provision for President to remove him
Sorry I had to pin pout these sections since it is important to resolve an issue by referring to all relevant articles
More so when the whole affair appears to be a deliberately cooked up confusion!
Thank you

Dr Asanga Welikala’s interpretation as a Constitutional Law expert in Edinburgh is as follows:

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.
Dr Asanga Welikala
Lecturer in Public Law
Director, Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law
Edinburgh Law School
University of Edinburgh

In Summary I wanted to get as much legal opinions so that the reader can weigh the pros and cons of what happened and also look whether there was more to it as a desperate and opportunistic man, who wanted the best chance of an extension to power, without ceding power to anyone.

It is now up to the Sri Lankan people before the next presidential election to find someone with the true knowledge of what it is that Sri Lanka needs to improve the quality of life of those living here, without simply pandering to the masses to retain personal popularity and thereby hold a vice like grip on power, effectively fooling those masses while stealing from the exchequer for everything that they do.

Sri Lanka has gone from crisis to crisis in 70 years and this is NOT JUST ANOTHER crisis, it is the body blow that ends all crises we know. Just watch this space for the final exodus of the best 500,000 people who can truly add value to this economy, leaving us with the has beens and cannot work remainder to scratch the soil to live, as no one except the Chinese will bail us out in future, and in the end when we cannot repay they will effectively control the country, after Rajapakse dies, and so he does not care, TRUST ME ON THAT.

He loves to bask in popularity and the sound of his own voice which people misinterpret as they are serfs, a good god father who takes care of their spiritual life, while stealing the rug from under them without their knowing as they are under the spiritual spell, so that anything can happen without their being even aware of it. May God Bless Sri Lanka from their own foolish PEOPLE.