Impeachment of CJ: An Effort To Preserve Arbitrary Rule
By Laksiri Fernando -November 1, 2012
Dr Laksiri Fernando
It may appear that the Rajapaksa regime is so powerful that even for the initial impeachment motion against the Chief Justice, Dr Shirani Bandaranayake, it has gathered 117 signatures of parliamentarians. What it actually required was 75 or one third of the 225 member Parliament. But what appears on the surface is not actually the case. It is so powerful; but it is so weak. It is powerful in numbers within and outside Parliament, at present, but weak in moral legitimacy and justice both from a national and an international perspective.
Motives Behind
The reason behind the impeachment is so obvious. It is to retaliate and circumvent the constitutional and legal objections coming from the Supreme Court and the judiciary at large for its arbitrary rule. It is not yet revealed what the full content of the impeachment motion is. But the appointment of the Secretary to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Manjula Tilakaratne, and even the ‘refusal’ to meet the President on 18 September, highlighting the interference with the judiciary, must have been included in the impeachment petition. While the appointment of the JSC Secretary was made a long time back, there is no rule to say that the senior most judge should be necessarily appointed to the Secretary position. What the JSC required was a competent and an efficient person. This is nothing against the others who are perhaps equally qualified.
The government spokesman, Keheliya Rambukwella, has used the terms ‘overstepping’ its role and ‘improper conduct’ in justifying the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice. It is quite possible that the determination on the Divineguma Bill, both the initial one, determining to direct the bill to all provincial councils, and yesterday’s one, determining whether the endorsement of the Governor of the Northern Province is sufficient on behalf of the Provincial Council, must have angered the government.
It is extraordinary, however, to impeach a Chief Justice, in the midst of a Supreme Court determination, on the constitutionality of a bill and its procedure, that apparently disfavours a government action, whatever the importance or the merits of such a bill. This is particularly so, as the decision is a unanimous one, of a three member bench of the Supreme Court. This is in itself exposes the ulterior motive behind the impeachment motion. No other argument is necessary.
Implications Read More
