Sri Lankan judiciary wants impartial inquiry of chief justice
By Shihar Aneez and
Ranga Sirilal-COLOMBO |
The
government and the supreme court have been on a collision course since the
president's ruling party filed an impeachment motion against Shirani
Bandaranayake, Sri Lanka's first female head of the Supreme Court, on November
6.
The
government complained that she had been overstepping her authority but
Bandaranayake's supporters complained of political interference.
Parliament
Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa, the elder brother of the president, has appointed an
11-member select committee, of which seven are from the ruling party, to
investigate the impeachment charges.
More
than 300 judges meeting in the capital Colombo issued a statement rejecting the
panel, saying: "The impeachment against the Chief Justice should be impartial
and transparent."
"Conducting
an inquiry by the parties who brought the impeachment allegations is a blatant
violation of the natural justice. We reiterate that nowhere in the world those
who make allegations will hear their own case," the statement added.
On
Thursday, the parliament speaker rejected a Supreme Court summons challenging
the legality of the impeachment move and the composition of the select
committee. The Supreme Court rescheduled the hearing to December 13 and
14.
The
judges also said they were concerned about what they described as defamatory
media statements being made about the chief justice and the
judiciary.
"We
urge that all defamatory media statements against the Chief Justice and the
judiciary should be stopped. We request to consider the grave damage that could
be caused to the rule of law in the country due to such statements."
The
United States, the United
Nations and the Commonwealth have raised concern over the impeachment
move and have called on the government to ensure the independence of the
judiciary.
Bandaranayake
recently came under criticism from government supporters for ruling against a
bid by the central government to take control of an 80 billion rupees ($614.20
million)development budget, saying it had to be approved by nine provincial
councils.
The
ruling irked the government and its backers, some of whom accused the judiciary
of overstepping its authority.
(Writing
by Shihar Aneez; Editing by Michael Roddy)
