Constitutional Affairs Minister D. E. W. Gunasekera believes that a no confidence motion against Minister Milinda Moragoda was a premature move and one that emanated from a political need.

In a wide ranging interview with our sister paper Irudina, Minister Gunasekera spoke about allowing the contents of the COPE report be gone into by the CID and the Bribery Commission before moving a no faith which was a case of trying to be the judge and the jury long before the judicial process is even activated. Excerpts:

A: Any citizen has the right to challenge a bill and to seek legal redress from the judiciary. This is not the first time it has happened. It has happened before. That’s the right of any citizen. It is not a problem. Courts will determine the rest.

A: The matter is now before the highest court in the land for interpretation and adjudication. We can’t predeterminate anything. If there is any defect, the courts will direct as to how to remedy such. The government is duty bound to correct any flaws as per the ruling.

A: I don’t know. In fact I have not heard of any such thing. What I have heard is about the division caused within the UNP following the submission of this motion.

No faiths are also not a new phenomenon. Since 1947, many no confidence motions have been brought before parliament.

As for this specific motion, we in the government still do not know the exact contents of the motion. In any case, we will face it as a strong government if and when it comes up for debate.

A: I think it is highly inappropriate to move a no faith based on COPE report findings. The opposition has been demanding that the very same report be referred to the respective ministries, CID and Committee Investigating into Allegations of Bribery and Corruption for further action.

The idea is to allow these institutions to take action against any violations based on the contents of the report at their level. Here is an attempt to prejudge these issues raised in the report without allowing the respective institutions to go into the specific charges.

In my opinion, it seeks to devalue the COPE effort and politicises it. The opposition should wait for the Bribery Commission’s recommendations without jumping the gun. This effort to prejudge issues actually defeats the COPE work. The opposition has tainted it by politicising it.

A: The COPE findings are not aiming at a particular minister. Ministers do not exercise powers with regard to finance. Though ministers take decisions, ministry secretaries sign the documents. The responsibility therefore lies with the secretaries.

There is no way to infer anything specific about a single minister in this report. It refers to many institutions and many instances of alleged corruption and abuse.

A: The names are mentioned but direct allegations have not been leveled against them in the report. How can a no faith be brought before anyone is found guilty by some institution of repute? This is a futile exercise caused by political opportunism.

A: This has not reached that stage. The opposition demanded that the report be submitted to the Bribery Commission. That was the decision of parliament as well. If the investigations prove some acts of corruption, then it is possible to press charges against the alleged violators. Or the Attorney General could press criminal charges against alleged offenders.

All I am saying is before such decisions are reached, it is wrong to pre-judge. The law does not seek to condemn even before investigations commence. Suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That’s the law. Let us not go above that.

Let the inquiry process commence and if any offence has been committed by anyone, let’s allow the judiciary to take appropriate action.

A: A no confidence motion should have specific allegations with enough proof. It can’t be based on vague generalisations or matters that need to be further probed.

I have not seen the no faith motion still. But I will always defend the inherent right to move a no faith.

A: I am not attempting to cover up for Minister Moragoda here. I am simply saying that this exercise is a political one when the charges raised are still vague and unsubstantiated. When a no confidence motion is submitted, it should contain enough material to infer that on the face of it, some irregularity, corruption or abuse has been committed thereby aiding the members to take a decision. I don’t think this motion qualifies.

A: Of course. It is wrong to decide otherwise. Are you suggesting that the entire county should accept Sripathi Sooriyaarachchi’s version?

There are relevant officials to be questioned as well. This is entirely a political exercise.

When allegations are strong, it creates a situation where the President and the cabinet can demand the respective member to resign. But before reaching that stage, this political agenda has emerged.

A: There has been no such instance before. Here, we must accept that charges have not been duly supported. Newspapers can’t be the judge and the jury. We may assume people to be crooks based on the exterior of charges. If this be the case, why do we have a judiciary to adjudicate?

Also, parliament cannot decide whether Minister Moragoda is guilty or not. All I am saying is let it take its due course.

A: First, one must understand the reasons for the rising cost of living. There are two main reasons. First is the international factor — the world market prices. The second is the increased government expenditure due to enhanced defence spending. They collectively contribute to the cost of living.

The end result is the price hikes. This is why we removed all taxes imposed through the 2007 budget proposals. For granting such relief, the government now incurs a Rs.10 billon loss. If we did not do that, by now the rate of inflation would be over 30%.

A crude oil barrel sells at US$ 88 at present. Economists believe this will shortly reach US$ 100. This is beyond our control. It plagues all developing countries like us who do not have oil resources. That’s an economic concern.

We could have somehow controlled the situation if we only had economic concerns to deal with. Unfortunately, we are also saddled with a costly war. We concede that the situation is burdensome.

A: That concerns the political culture of this country. All of Sri Lanka’s problems emanate from two sources — the current constitution and the neo liberal economic policy. They have been the bane of our country.

One of the key features of such an economic order is to render half the population poor and economically disadvantaged. It is the same the world over. Development does not flow to all tiers of a society due to economic bottlenecks within the system.

To reduce the negative impact, a government must intervene. This government is making the necessary interventions.

A: It’s part of our political culture. Except for the US and UK, every other country in this world has coalition governments. It is a new political development.

New issues keep cropping up and societal requirements change. Ethnic and religious disputes emerge. Political parties surface based on these factors.

Earlier Sri Lanka had only a few political parties. But now there are political parties identified with ethno-religious factors. Society is fragmented and all these factions are having separate representation.

Under the prevailing constitution, there will never be a government commanding a comfortable majority. President Chandrika Kumaratunga survived for six years with a single additional vote. That was no mean feat. In order to retain a working majority, the leadership is compelled to grant many things including portfolios. That’s the political reality.

A: I can speak for myself. I use a cheap mobile telephone worth Rs. 10,000 only. I know that mine is the cheapest mobile device used by a minister. I think your phone must be more expensive than mine.

I also know that my office, residential and mobile telephone bills are the cheapest. I travel in a jeep which is over 15 years old. I can’t travel in a petrol jeep because that is too expensive to maintain. We do exercise control. I am sure I am not alone in this exercise.

A: True. I admit that that’s the prevailing political culture. It is very sad.

A: I don’t know. I can only speak for myself. It is up to you to find out whether they do or not, given your role as watchdog. I would like you to expose any extravagance committed by me, if you find any such instance.

A: It could be. They must know what they are talking about.

A: Even if all these spendings were slashed, the impact on the cost of living would be minimal. Actual government spending is due to other reasons. Out of each Rs.100 of government spending, Rs. 24 goes for debt repayment and Rs. 42 for public sector salaries and pensions.

Next, the government has to support state institutions running at a loss. If the cabinet is slashed to 50 ministers, I can vouch for the fact that the cost of living would remain the same.

A: True. We removed some taxes to give some relief. While attacking the government, the media has been significantly silent with regard to the international factor preventing prices from coming down. There is no discussion in parliament or elsewhere. On the other hand, the government has given a lot of relief to the public sector which is also not recorded by the media.

A: No, it is being discussed. We are currently not in a position to hold discussions with the LTTE. That’s a fact. In such an event, what should the government do? I believe we should fully implement the 13th Amendment.

It was never properly implemented. If that is inadequate for the Tamils who are not supportive of the LTTE, then we should go beyond the 13th Amendment and bring proposals that are broader in concept and application.

I am implementing what this country failed to implement for 50 long years. There had been 7,000 public sector employees. They are bilingual. Now that’s a salient factor of the 13th Amendment aimed at amity.

In order to share power as per the constitutional amendment, I think first we must duly implement the language policy. We have got divided on the language issue. We do not communicate anymore.

Here I am talking about something that goes beyond the APRC. Eventually, a two-thirds majority is required to amend the constitution for which both main political parties should reach some consensus.

A: They have not been officially submitted.

A: I am also of the same view. Elsewhere in the world, these words are not used much. Even if included in their constitutions, they are not the decisive factors. They have practical schemes to overcome linguistic limitations that prevent solutions from emerging.