Acting Secy. General’s appointment valid only for 14 days

President cannot lawfully make another appointment without CC approval

By Lakna Paranamanna and Dilukshi Thomas
The appointment of Dhammika Kithulgoda as acting Secretary General of Parliament by the President is legally valid for a period of 14 days only, constitutional experts and lawyers said yesterday.

Organisation of Professional Associations (OPA) Chairman Elmo Perera said that the appointment of Kitulgoda for the post of the Acting Secretary General made by the President is lawful for two weeks, following which the President did not have the jurisdiction to make any further appointments to the position – acting or otherwise.

“The law states that the appointment should be made by the President’s recommendation, but only after the approval of the Constitutional Council. But the President has also been granted power to make an appointment, which will only be valid for 14 days since the date of appointment,” said Perera. He also added that after these 14 days it is not legal for the President to make another appointment and the position must be filled by a person approved and nominated by the Constitutional Council. “If the President made this appointment only to last for just a period of 14 days, I think it is a senseless move.

There is absolutely no need of appointing someone from outside to fill in for the vacancy that was created after the retirement of former Secretary General Priyani Wijesekara,” said Perera.

He also said that if this appointment continued for more than 14 days, it would not be lawful. “It will be an explicit violation of the Constitution and it will show clear signs of dictatorship,” added Perera. He said that if this appointment continued to exist without the approval of the Constitutional Council, they would work accordingly when the situation came. “We will cross the bridge when we come to it,” he said.

Meanwhile, speaking to The Bottom Line, Constitutional Lawyer Rohan Edirisinha said that despite the fact that the appointment was illegal, no legal action could be taken against the President, because under Article 35 of the Constitution, the President could not be tied to any legal proceedings, and also cannot be prosecuted on this account. “The only way to combat this decision would be through political and public opinion,” said Edirisinha. “People should voice their opinions about such practices and then only a change can be expected,” he said.