By 2003, President Chandrika was in a precarious position as her term was nearing its end in 2005. Despite her attempts to topple Ranil’s government, she feared that government officials, including the military and police, would disregard her orders and protect Ranil’s administration due to her limited remaining term. Chief Justice Sarath Silva employed a strategy to strengthen her position. He released a photograph confirming that she had taken the presidential oath again a year after her 1999 election victory.
Sarath Silva argued that just as J.R. Jayewardene had taken the oath after winning the presidential election, Chandrika could reclaim the year lost due to the emergency presidential election, which she contested before the end of her first term. However, the difference was that Jayewardene didn’t swear in twice; he took the oath a year later. Chandrika, on the other hand, took the oath again a year after her 1999 victory, shocking the nation with this photograph. This second oath led her supporters to claim that the presidential election scheduled for 2005 would instead be held in 2006.
By displaying her renewed strength, Chandrika successfully undermined Ranil’s government, won the general election, appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister, and formed a coalition government with the JVP. She asserted that she had until 2006 to govern and that the next presidential election would be held in that year.
Ranil and the U.N.P. were shocked by Chandrika’s maneuver. In response, Ranil organized a march from Dondra Head to Colombo, insisting that Chandrika could not extend her presidency by another year and that the presidential election should be held in 2005. The march drew massive crowds, with participants chanting, “2005 Presidential Election – Chandrika Must Go.”
As the march reached Colombo, Ranil sent U.N.P. Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya to the South Asian Democratic Conference, which was attended by then U.S. President George Bush. The conference passed a resolution stating that Sri Lanka’s presidential election should be held in 2005, rejecting any conspiracies to postpone it.
Meanwhile, Mahinda Rajapaksa, holding the SLFP presidential candidacy, enlisted Champika Ranawaka and Udaya Gammanpila of the Jathika Hela Urumaya to challenge the election postponement in court. Mahinda feared that if Chandrika extended her term by a year, he would lose his position as Prime Minister, jeopardizing his presidential candidacy.
Chief Justice Sarath Silva, who leaked the photograph of Chandrika taking the oath for the second time, delivered a surprising verdict. He stated that Chandrika’s term, starting with her 1999 election and swearing-in, would end in 2005. He emphasized that the responsibility for calling the 2005 presidential election lay with the Election Commissioner, not her. This ruling set the date for the 2005 presidential election.
In a similar scenario, President Maithripala Sirisena, who took office in 2015, sought to extend his term by one year. By 2018, he realized that he had no party backing for the upcoming presidential election, and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party faced defeat. With his term ending in 2019 and lacking a platform to contest again, he considered extending his tenure by a year to gain more time.
Sirisena argued that he was elected for a six-year term by popular mandate in 2015, which was later reduced to five years by the 19th Constitutional Amendment. He claimed that since he was initially sworn in for six years, the amendment should not retroactively shorten his term. He pointed out that the amendment did not explicitly state that the reduction to five years would apply to existing terms, suggesting a constitutional gap.
Sirisena took this argument to the Supreme Court via the Attorney General, seeking an interpretation of this gap. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and the U.N.P. opposed Sirisena’s attempt to exploit this loophole. Publicly, U.N.P. leaders condemned what they saw as a constitutional coup. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Sirisena’s term was limited to five years, as per the 19th Amendment, and the absence of a clause mentioning retroactive effect did not justify extending his term to six years.
Both Chandrika and Sirisena, despite being elected by popular mandate, were thwarted in their attempts to extend their terms through constitutional loopholes. This raised questions about whether the Supreme Court would allow Ranil, who became president via the national list after losing the parliamentary vote, to extend his term similarly.
The U.N.P. claims that Ranil can extend his term by one year, but the Supreme Court has previously ruled against such attempts. If Ranil seeks the Court’s interpretation, it will likely deliver a verdict similar to Chandrika and Sirisena’s.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has ruled on referendum issues. In 2001, when Chandrika called for a referendum to adopt a new constitution, Sujeeva Senasinghe challenged it. The Court declared the referendum illegal, stating that the question posed to the public was unclear.
Ironically, Ranil and the U.N.P., who previously championed democracy against term extensions by Chandrika and Sirisena, now seem to be seeking constitutional loopholes to extend Ranil’s term, similar to those earlier attempts.
