Govt. secures 2/3 majority

 Impeachment motion passed in Parliament
Three ministers, National List MP skip vote
CJ’s fate in President’s hands

January 11, 2013, 11:24 pm 

by Saman Indrajith

The impeachment motion against Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was passed with a two-thirds majority in Parliament yesterday–155 for and 49 against. Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa informed President Mahinda Rajapaksa of the ratification of the motion last night itself.

LSSP member Y. G. Padmasiri voted with the government though left party stalwarts D. E. W. Gunasekera and Prof. Tissa Vitharana and Chandrasiri Gajadeera abstained. UPFA National List MP Prof Rajiva Wijesinghe, too, abstained. The UNP and TNA voted against it.

It was the first time in Sri Lanka’s Parliamentary history that an impeachment motion was passed against a Chief Justice.

The government members decided to impeach Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake on Oct. 30, 2012. Accordingly, an impeachment motion containing 14 charges and signed by 117 government members was handed over to Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa on Nov 1, 2012.

Speaker Rajapaksa appointed a special Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) under the chairmanship of Environment Minister Anura Priyadarashana Yapa on Nov. 04, 2012. The PSC comprised seven government members and four opposition members.

Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake appeared before the PSC on Nov. 23 and Dec. 06. On Dec 06, 2012. She and her lawyers walked out of the PSC protesting against the process and procedure.

On Dec. 07, the Opposition members walked out of the PSC. Yet, the government members investigated the charges and summoned witnesses before the PSC on the same day.

The report of the PSC was presented to Parliament on Dec. 08, 2012 and after the lapse of one month it was taken up for debate on Jan. 10.

The report was debated on Jan. 10 and 11. The DNA members boycotted the debate. Galle District MP Ajith Kumara, elected on the DNA ticket, but an independent in the House, participated in the debate.

When the time arrived for the vote to be taken, the Opposition opposed it on the grounds that the report submitted to the President had not been placed the Order Paper which, it insisted, contained only the impeachment motion proposing that a Parliamentary Select Committee be appointed to investigate 14 charges.

UNP Kandy District MP Lakshman Kiriella, raising a point of order, said that the Order paper for yesterday did not mention anything pertaining to the report to the President.

Leader of the House, Irrigation Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva pointed out that when he proposed to the House on Thursday to commence the debate on the impeachment, he had mentioned that a report for the removal of the incumbent Chief Justice would be presented to the President and that had been duly seconded by Minister Tissa Karaliyadda. Therefore, the point of order raised by the Opposition had no effect and the House could vote, he said.

Members of the government and the Opposition argued over the provisions in the Constitution and the Standing Orders for nearly half an hour. Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa suspending the sittings said that he would announce his decision after ten minutes.

When the House resumed sitting around 7.40 p.m., Speaker Rajapaksa said that the motion had been included in the Order Paper in accordance with the provisions in the Sections 107 (2) and 107 (3) of the Constitution and Section 78 (b) of the Standing Orders. The motion said that a PSC would be appointed to investigate the conduct of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake and if she was found guilty of even a single charge mentioned in the motion, then the House could debate and vote on the report submitted to the President, requesting her removal from office. He moved the House for the vote. Leader of the House Nimal Siripala De Silva asked for a division by name. The Speaker announced the results around 8.00 p.m.

The President is expected to announce the removal of Shirani Bandaranayake from the office of Chief Justice shortly. Parliamentary sources said that an acting chief justice would be appointed by the President to fill the vacancy.

For Whom The Bell Tolls!

By Elmore Perera –January 11, 2013 

Elmore Perera

The Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka purportedly consists of representatives elected by the Sovereign people of Sri Lanka. This Parliament is currently debating (on 10^th and 11th January 2013), what is undoubtedly the most “momentous” issue ever placed on the order paper of Parliament. “Momentous” for the reason that their “inevitable”, “unlawful” decision will have “irreversible” and “drastic” consequences from the moment it is taken.

‘Inevitable’ because the division in Parliament will be by name to ensure that our representatives will not be troubled by their consciences – if they have any. ‘Unlawful’ because our elected representatives seem to be either ignorant of or blind to the fact that we the people in the exercise of our inalienable  Sovereignty have, by Constitution, delegated in writing only specific mutually extensive functions and powers to the Legislature, the Executive and Judiciary. ‘Irreversible’ because untimely death of the physical body resulting from rapidly escalating violence is irreversible as far as life on this earth is concerned. ‘Drastic’ because “civilisation”  will be relegated to history and any civilised behaviour will be considered traitorous or even acts of treason, and expeditiously dealt with by Kangaroo Courts (with apologies to the Kangaroos) bound by the extrajudicial norms set by
this incredulous PSC.

To avoid conflicts arising between our more literate and less literate representatives as to what the exact limits of the powers so vested in them are, the Sovereign people in their wisdom, have provided a very special mechanism. They have, by Article 125(1), entrusted the resolution of such disputes neither to the Legislature of wise and not so wise people, nor to the amiable and popular Executive President nor to the numerous Judicial bodies established by the Legislature, but solely and exclusively to the Judicial body established by Constitution  and named as the “Supreme”  Court. No other individual or institution has been deemed by the Sovereign people as being capable or worthy of being vested with any “supremacy”.

The Sovereign people did, however, by Article 74(1) specify that, “Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Parliament may by
resolution or Standing Order provide for –                           Read More