UNP weak at the knees again on the impeachment (Lanka-e-News-02.Jan.2013, 11.55PM) Based on the communiqués issued by the UNP , the main opposition party so far pertaining to the impeachment process that had gone this far , it is clearly confirmed that the UNP is taking a stance which is weak at the knees. A weak barren plantain tree does not bear fruit nor does it die. No matter how big its (tummy) stem is, a weak plantain tree is useless and it is natural for the people to uproot it and throw it away . Even the soil under it is removed and replaced with fresh soil implying it is that useless. Lakshman Kiriella , Attorney at law and a senior UNP er among those whose mouths cannot be gagged by the leader recently said in connection with the impeachment process , if notices are issued ,he would appear before the court ( in any case the UNP says , the court had not issued summons on the UNP representatives of the Select Committee), and the UNP will obey whatever directives issued by it. Yet , UNP Gen. Secretary , Tissa Attanayake who is not a Lawyer , had again stated that since the impeachment process is a Parliamentary matter , courts will not be attended. Because the UNP is even today following the verdict delivered by Anura Bandaranaike earlier on when he was the speaker , that the Legislature is supreme , his party will not attend courts as this will be lowering the dignity of the Parliament , Attanayake added. What is perplexing and vexatious about the statement of the UNP Gen. secretary is , it brazenly contradicts the UNP ‘s solemn undertaking given to the UN human rights Commission when the UNP was in power in 2002 ,and worse still is the UNP stance now alongside with the Govt. when the latter is conducting the impeachment process grossly unheeding the undertaking given to the UN Human rights Commission. In 2002, the Dep. Solicitor general of the Govt. had given a solemn undertaking that the decision of a Select Committee in regard to the impeachment motion shall be subjected to a supreme court review. In other words , the Parliamentary process shall be submitted to a judicial review. Hence , what Tissa Attanayake is blabbering now is incomprehensible by any stretch of imagination. As the UNP Gen. secretary is not a lawyer and is ignorant of the laws , he ought to have at least sought the advice of PC Wijedasa Rajapakse , a member of the UNP working Committee. Meanwhile, Dr. Jayampathy Wickremeratne a legal constitution expert has this to say : The Executive and some sections of the Parliament constitution makers say , neither the supreme court (SC ) nor the appeal court has no rights to give a court verdict on this issue. But let these individuals be enlightened and educated on the fact that in 2002, SL in its fourth report relevant to the covenant of the International civil and political rights, we have ourselves specially mentioned that when a judge is to be removed from her post , the Parliamentary process towards that can be reviewed by the courts. In such circumstances , the question springs up , how can these measures be taken now in defiance of this undertaking? True what was told in Geneva don’t apply in our courts. But , what I cant understand is how these individuals can make changes whimsically to those undertakings given internationally ? These individuals are making wild statements and taking such measures without considering the national interests . There is a more fundamental and vital question : under what provision of the constitution do you find what these individuals are waxing eloquent? I am also searching for these provisions. As far as I know , there are only two provisions in the constitution which limit the powers of the court. Section 35 of the constitution which grants immunity to the President. The other is , section 80 sub section 3 , where it states that after an enactment is passed , the courts cannot examine whether that is within the constitution.Except for these two limitations , I have not seen any other in the constitution. Though I have been diligently searching for it , so far I have not come across such a thing. Aren’t these individuals relating ancient stories by clinging on to the British Parliament as being supreme? What I cannot understand is , why these individuals who are so vociferous and speaking against dictatorial reign clinging on to the British Parliament ? In any event the British Parliament traditions are not at all relevant to us because we are a republic and we have a republican constitution . Our own constitution is supreme . Therefore , nowhere in our constitution is there anything mentioned to limit the court powers except in those two instances I had mentioned.