The Prime Minister's defence of the provisions of the 20th amendment sound like cleverly written legal arguments designed to deflect. A quick response to some of these arguments is important considering the coverage this press statement is getting (1/15) https://twitter.com/FT_SriLanka/status/1312910122969182214

First of all, what he said @sanjanah https://twitter.com/sanjanah/status/1312914806605668352 context is important & the PM's press release lacks that For more context read the statement by The Sri Lanka Audit Inspectors’ Association who are also challenging these provisions of 20A http://www.newswire.lk/2020/09/12/sl-audit-inspectors-highlight-reasons-to-object-20th-amendment/ (2/15)

An clear theme of those defending the 20A in Court & outside is to down play the changes it is making. This is what the Attorney General is doing right now, this is the exact same thing the PM has done. If the changes proposed by the 20A are not consequential why do it? (3/15)

And that's a problem in the PM's statement, he never explains why his government is making that change in the 1st place, why are the provisions in the 19A relating to the Auditor General bad? this is an important question to ask about all the changes being made in the 20A. (4/15)

The PM is relying on regulations to justify his position that changing the constitution isn't a big deal. He does this to justify removing Presidential Secretariat and the Office of the PM & State-owned companies from the purview of the Auditor General in the Constitution (5/15)

Regulations can be changed at any time by Gov, citizens need not even know about it, regulations can be limited & ignored. But you can't change the constitution without citizens knowing, without a debate in Parliament & outside. So you can't say constitution = regulation (6/15)

If the gov does NOT intend to make a change to what actually happens, why not leave it as it is? look at the proposal made in the 20A, the term "Departments of government" doesn't cover everything, which is why the Cabinet office, JSC & PSC are specifically mentioned by name(7/15

So why not mention the Presidential Secretariat and the Office of the PM & State-owned companies by name. in case a future Gov wants to exclude these institutions from the purview of audit they will be prevented from doing so? these are questions for those in Gov to clarify (8/15

I am not going to pretend to understand the role of the Audit service commission (AC), there are people who have expertise in that area (CC @tisrilanka). What i know is that without an the AC the National Audit Act, No. 19 of 2018 becomes very difficult to implement (9/15)

Especially the surcharge to be imposed on those who have engaged in a transaction which were contrary to any written law & have caused any deficiency or loss due to fraud, negligence, misappropriation or corruption of those involved, in entities that come under the AC (10/15)

The National Audit Act is controversial, but it's the 1st time an attempt was made to recover losses caused by public officials, whether it works or not is to be seen. But it won't even have a chance to be tested if 20A is passed because the law becomes unworkable (11/15)

And then we come to the last point, allowing the President to hand pick an Auditor General & have full control of the people who work there is not a good idea. Because it makes them beholden to the President. It was a bad idea in 1978 & it's an even worse idea today (12/15)

The PM is right that you have to read the constitution with common sense. But what if a President appoints someone who is not an qualified auditor? this President might not but what about the next one? will they say "the constitution doesn't require a qualified auditor"? (13/15)

Citizens can't challenge a bad appointment. Because after the 20A the President will be immune again. In 2008 when the now PM as President & appointed the Attorney General through a clearly unconstitutional process, the Supreme Court said it couldn't even hear the case (14/15)

...Because of the immunity of the President. See http://www.supremecourt.lk/images/documents/SCFR297.08.578.08.pdf That's how far reaching the immunity provision is. So isn't it common sense that we can never guarantee that a President down the line won't appoint an accountant buddy as the Auditor General? (15/15)