CPA On Charge 10 In CJ’s Impeachment And The Proceedings
“We have observed that one of the charges reported in the press appears to refer to CPA. The charge as reported reads, “Whereas, the Supreme Court special rulings petition No. 02/2012 filed by the institution called Centre for Policy Alternatives to which the Media Publication Section ‘Groundview’ that had published an article of the Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake, while she was a lecturer of the Law Faculty of the University of Colombo prior to becoming a Supreme Court judge, has been heard and a ruling given.” We note in this respect that the case filed by CPA was in fact SC (SD) 3/2012, that CPA came into existence in June 1996, that our online publication Groundviews was only established in 2006 which was ten years after Dr. Bandaranayake took oaths as a Justice of the Supreme Court, and that Groundviews has to date not received nor published a single contribution by Dr. Bandaranayake. While other charges are also of concern, we desist from publicising our comments at this stage.” says the Centre for Policy Alternatives.
CPA Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
Issuing a statement CPA says “CPA is also concerned that the procedure laid down in Standing Order 78A of Parliament for impeachment proceedings are incompatible with the principles of natural justice.”
We publish CPA statement in full;
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) expresses grave concern over the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. A number of reports in the press reveal that several charges against her have now been placed before Parliament in the form of a Resolution presented to the Speaker. The context within which these proceedings have been instituted, the procedure established by Parliament for impeachment hearings in Standing Order 78A, and the content of a number of charges against the Chief Justice are deeply troubling.
Context
The context and timing of the institution of impeachment proceedings strongly point to a deliberate effort by the government to extinguish any embers of resistance to the executive from the judiciary. In the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill and the Divineguma Bill Determinations, the Supreme Court held that the Bills in question required prior reference to all Provincial Councils before being placed on the Order Paper of Parliament. The Chief Justice presided over the nominated bench in both cases. These judgments halted the government’s attempt to weaken the meagre extent of devolution provided by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution by attempting to pass laws that were in respect of Provincial Council subjects. A brief narration describing the events following the communication of the Court’s decision in respect of the Divineguma Bill is telling.
