It has been the contention of the Tamil people that no viable solution to the Sri Lankan ethnic problem can be found within the frame work of a rigid constitution. In contrast, the South insists on a solution only within the present constitution of Sri Lanka.

There lies the problem.

It must be noted that whether it be the 1972 constitution or the 1978 constitution, they were both structured without the consensus of the Tamil people.

Neither constitution reflects the legitimate aspirations of the Tamil people. They deny the Tamil people of their fundamental basic rights. They were the product of Sinhala chauvinism imposed on the Tamil people against their wishes through the strength of a Buddhist-Sinhala majority.

These constitutions deprive the Tamil people of their reasonable rights and make them second class citizens. These constitutions paved the way for the passage of oppressive laws such as anti terrorism act. Therefore, how can a viable solution, be envisaged under such a constitution?

That is why the Tamil people maintain that the present constitution is too rigid to accommodate any new concept of devolution.

What is more, not only is the present constitution an impediment to accommodate a resolution to the ethnic conflict, it also exempts the Sri Lankan government from its obligations to fulfill its international commitments. This has been confirmed by a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.

There are certain international covenants and charters that have been formulated to ensure the fundamental rights, human rights, natural justice and rule of law in all countries.

Most of the governments are signatories to these sacred documents and such countries have obligations to ensure the rights contained in them. In 1980, Sri Lanka became a signatory to human charter of civil and human rights. Later on October 3rd 1997 Sri Lanka accepted the amendments brought to those charters. Being a signatory to the charter, there is an onus on Sri Lanka to observe the provisions of the covenant.

It is relevant to mention that by virtue of becoming a state party to the optional protocol to the International covenant on civil and political rights, Sri Lanka has recognized the competence of UNHRC to determine whether there has been a violation of the covenant or not.

It was under this provision that appeals were made to UNHRC regarding six cases determined by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. UNHRC comprising 18 legal luminaries from different countries has made its recommendations after listening to both the appellants and the Sri Lankan government.

It is in this context that the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has ruled that Sri Lanka’s judiciary is not bound to implement UNHRC recommendations against Sri Lanka’s constitution or the legal frame work.

The Supreme Court has also observed that Sri Lankan leaders should be more responsible in signing international treaties affecting the country’s sovereignty. It concluded that rulings by the UNHRC in Geneva can be ignored if they go against the country’s constitution or the legal frame work.

This ruling of the Supreme Court has been made although provision 27(15) of the constitution of Sri Lanka refers to the obligations of the State to honour international agreements.

It is therefore, quite evident that it is impractical to resolve the ethnic problem or ensure human rights within the parameters of the present rigid constitution of Sri Lanka.

An English translation of the Editorial in Udhayan, a Tamil daily based in Jaffna.

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed