Nine charges fill the impeachment : Herein are they
(Lanka-e-News -05.Nov.2012, 6.30PM) The
impeachment motion presented to Parliament against the chief justice (CJ) Dr. Shiranee Bandaranayake contains 9 charges , based on reports reaching Lanka e news.
The principal charge leveled against her is the purchasing of The Finance Co. shares in the stock market exchange at unduly higher prices (this was subsequently halted) by her husband Pradeep Kariyawasam when he was the Chairman of the National savings Bank (NSB).
When a case is being heard relating to this allegation , as she is the CJ who would be appointing judges to the panel hearing this case , her position as CJ can militate against equity. ( Notably ,while Shiranee and Pradeep are wife and husband couple , the individual who appointed them as CJ and Chairman of NSB respectively failed in his duty primarily to realize this inequity resulting thereby
The next charge is the CJ maintaining 9 current accounts allegedly in a private Bank in others’ names.( it is not clear whether there is a limit imposed on the number of accounts that can be maintained by a CJ)
The sister of CJ is a resident in Australia and she had transferred all her powers to the CJ by a power of Attorney. By virtue of that , the CJ had bought a residence in the Ceylinco Towers Building for Rs. 260 lakhs. A sum of Rs. 60 lakhs had only paid in that regard .Meanwhile due to the non payment of monies owing to the depositors of Golden Key belonging to Ceylinco group , a case is pending. The judge Shiranee Thilakawardena in the panel hearing this case was replaced and her role in the panel was taken over by Shiranee Bandaranayake . Later, she had abused her power allegedly as the CJ in respect of the sum of Rs. 200 lakhs not paid to Ceylinco Tower residency by entering into a deal.
The other accusation is , as the CJ who is the power of attorney holder of her sister ,there exists a legal bond.
The charge that is is linked to the ‘Divi Neguma’is , the CJ was appointed as a supreme court judge during the period when Chandrika Bandaranaike was the President of the country. At that time , the present CJ was the Dean of the law faculty of the Colombo University. During that period when the package for separation of powers was brought forward by Chandrika along with Dr. GL Peiris , it was Shiranee Bandaranayake ,the Colombo law faculty Dean who took a stubborn and positive stance. She was then made the CJ.
A case was filed against her appointment on the grounds that an individual who had no experience as a judge had been appointed as a SC judge . That case which was heard by a panel of seven judges ,in a dissenting judgment, four judges for and three against decided in her favor.
One condition attached to this judgment however , that is , since Dr. Shiranee Bandaranayake prior to her appointment as the SC judge was prone to and involved in the documentation and its preparation pertaining to the separation of powers , she cannot be a member in the panel of judges deciding on the separation of powers. Now , this condition had been invoked against her in the impeachment motion , and that it therefore bars her from deciding on the provisions of the ‘divi neguma’.
(If it was known even before she was appointed as the present CJ that she was strongly prejudiced towards a separation of powers , aren’t those who appointed her despite being fully aware of this more guilty ? On the contrary , it is not made known how she could constitute an unevenness and inequity in respect of the separation of powers )
(Lanka-e-News -05.Nov.2012, 6.30PM) The impeachment motion presented to Parliament against the chief justice (CJ) Dr. Shiranee Bandaranayake contains 9 charges , based on reports reaching Lanka e news.The principal charge leveled against her is the purchasing of The Finance Co. shares in the stock market exchange at unduly higher prices (this was subsequently halted) by her husband Pradeep Kariyawasam when he was the Chairman of the National savings Bank (NSB).
When a case is being heard relating to this allegation , as she is the CJ who would be appointing judges to the panel hearing this case , her position as CJ can militate against equity. ( Notably ,while Shiranee and Pradeep are wife and husband couple , the individual who appointed them as CJ and Chairman of NSB respectively failed in his duty primarily to realize this inequity resulting thereby
The next charge is the CJ maintaining 9 current accounts allegedly in a private Bank in others’ names.( it is not clear whether there is a limit imposed on the number of accounts that can be maintained by a CJ)
The sister of CJ is a resident in Australia and she had transferred all her powers to the CJ by a power of Attorney. By virtue of that , the CJ had bought a residence in the Ceylinco Towers Building for Rs. 260 lakhs. A sum of Rs. 60 lakhs had only paid in that regard .Meanwhile due to the non payment of monies owing to the depositors of Golden Key belonging to Ceylinco group , a case is pending. The judge Shiranee Thilakawardena in the panel hearing this case was replaced and her role in the panel was taken over by Shiranee Bandaranayake . Later, she had abused her power allegedly as the CJ in respect of the sum of Rs. 200 lakhs not paid to Ceylinco Tower residency by entering into a deal.
The other accusation is , as the CJ who is the power of attorney holder of her sister ,there exists a legal bond.
The charge that is is linked to the ‘Divi Neguma’is , the CJ was appointed as a supreme court judge during the period when Chandrika Bandaranaike was the President of the country. At that time , the present CJ was the Dean of the law faculty of the Colombo University. During that period when the package for separation of powers was brought forward by Chandrika along with Dr. GL Peiris , it was Shiranee Bandaranayake ,the Colombo law faculty Dean who took a stubborn and positive stance. She was then made the CJ.
A case was filed against her appointment on the grounds that an individual who had no experience as a judge had been appointed as a SC judge . That case which was heard by a panel of seven judges ,in a dissenting judgment, four judges for and three against decided in her favor.
One condition attached to this judgment however , that is , since Dr. Shiranee Bandaranayake prior to her appointment as the SC judge was prone to and involved in the documentation and its preparation pertaining to the separation of powers , she cannot be a member in the panel of judges deciding on the separation of powers. Now , this condition had been invoked against her in the impeachment motion , and that it therefore bars her from deciding on the provisions of the ‘divi neguma’.
(If it was known even before she was appointed as the present CJ that she was strongly prejudiced towards a separation of powers , aren’t those who appointed her despite being fully aware of this more guilty ? On the contrary , it is not made known how she could constitute an unevenness and inequity in respect of the separation of powers )
