Perceived Judicial Bias, Disqualification And Duplicity On The Part Of CJ Tendered To The SC
Nihal Sri Ameresekere
Written Submission as far back as February 9, 2012 on perceived judicial bias and disqualification, and duplicity on the part of Chief Justice tendered to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court declines to entertain same and returns the same being taken off the Court Record, on making the following Minute s by Justices N.G. Amaratunga, R.K.S. Sureshchandra and Sathya Hettige.
“All papers submitted by the Petitioner in supporting this application to assist the Bench is returned to the Petitioner and those papers shall not form a part of record in this case.
The record consists only of the Petition and the amended petition filed by the Petitioner and no other material is to be considered as a part of the record.”
Further to the earlier Oral Submissions, with Written Submissions thereon, the Petitioner, in the national and public interest, most respectfully tenders these additional Submissions, arising from the dicta in the given facts and circumstances disclosed by the Judgments of the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords inre – Pinochet cited in the said earlier Submissions.
On the persuasive submissions by the Queens Counsel appearing for Senator Pinochet, contending that,although there was no exact precedent, the House of Lords must have jurisdiction to set aside its own Orders, where they have been improperly made, since there is no other Court, which could correct such impropriety, another Committee of the House of Lords entertained the Petition of Appeal by Senator Pinochet for review of their own Judgment, whilst unanimously holding that they have jurisdiction to rescind or vary an earlier order to correct an injustice caused – viz: dicta of Lord Browne-Wilkinson, with the other Lords agreeing: (Copies of Judgments attached marked “A”, with relevant paragraphs highlighted, with emphasis added)
“Jurisdiction
As I have said, the respondents to the petition do not dispute that your Lordships have jurisdiction in appropriate cases to rescind or vary an earlier order of this House. In my judgment, that concession was rightly made both in principle and on authority.
In principle it must be that your Lordships, as the ultimate court of appeal, have power to correct any injustice caused by an earlier order of this House. There is no relevant statutory limitation on the jurisdiction of the House in this regard and therefore its inherent jurisdiction remains unfettered.
However, it should be made clear that the House will not reopen any appeal save in circumstances where, through no fault of a party, he or she has been subjected to an unfair procedure. Where an order has been made by the House in a particular case there can be no question of that decision being varied or rescinded by a later order made in the same case just because it is thought that the first order is wrong. “
1. In the public interest, the Petitioner is reluctantly compelled to most respectfully place the following, asadditional grounds warranting the exercise of the inherent powers of the Supreme Court, to set aside or rescind or rectify the Determination No. 2/2011 of 24.10.2011 on the Bill titled – “An Act to provide for the vesting in the Government identified Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets” .
2. A 5 Member Committee of the House of Lords delivered Judgment on 25.11.1998 allowing an Appeal by a majority 3 to 2 verdict, against the quashing by the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court of an arrest warrant against former Head of State of Chile, Senator Pinochet, to be extradited from the UK; against whom there had been allegations of crimes against humanity, for the prosecution of which, the Spanish Supreme Court had issued international warrants for his arrest.
3. Thereafter, upon discovery, that one of the Lords, who allowed such Appeal, namely, Lord Hoffmann and his wife, Lady Hoffmann, had links with Amnesty International, who had intervened in the Application for the arrest and extradition of Senator Pinochet, his Lawyers in such circumstances, proffered a Petition to the House of Lords to review their own Judgment.
4. The foregoing discoveries were consequent to squealing, whistleblowing and media exposures, resulting in Amnesty International’s Solicitors by Letters dated 1.12.1998 and 7.12.1998 admitting that Lady Hoffmann had been working at the International Secretariat of Amnesty International in UK, mainly in administrative positions; and further admitting that Lord Hoffmann had been Director and Chairman of Amnesty International Charity Ltd., UK, which carried out some aspects of work of Amnesty International Ltd., UK, both being functionaries of Amnesty International. Lord Hoffmann had no financial interest and had not received any remuneration from these institutions.
5. The new 5 Member Committee of the House of Lords, who entertained the Petition of Appeal by Senator Pinochet for review of the Judgment of 25.11.1998 by a 5 Member Committee of the House of Lords, delivered on 17.12.1998 the Judgment of Their Lords of Appeal, with reasons given on 15.1.1999, setting aside the previous Judgment of the House of Lords of 25.11.1998, and directing a re-hearing by a differently constituted Committee, without any of Their Lords, who had heard the matter.
6. The kind attention of the Supreme Court is very respectfully drawn to the paragraphs highlighted with emphasis added in the Judgments of the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords annexed marked “A”
7. SC Special Determination No. 2/2011 of 24.10.2011 on the Bill titled – “An Act to provide for the vesting in the Government identified Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets”, was delivered by a 3 Judge Bench, presided by Her Ladyship the Chief Justice, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, with His Lordship Justice, P.A. Ratnayake and Ladyship Justice, Chandra Ekanayake.
8. In the Judgment delivered on 4.6.2009 in SC (FR) Application No. 158/2007 by the Supreme Court,annulling the privatization of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd., (SLICL), as wrongful, unlawful and illegal, the Supreme Court, inter-alia, made the following Order: Read More
