FR Cases Challenging Legality Of Standing Order 78A Refixed For July 25th As Asked By AG
July 16, 2013
Four fundamental rights cases filed, challenging the legality of Standing Order 78A were taken up in the Supreme Court today. The special bench named by de facto Chief Justice Mohan Pieris to hear these cases consisted of Justices Saleem Marsoof (PC), Chandra Ekanayake, Sathya Hettige (PC), Eva S. Wanasundara (PC) and Rohini Marasinghe.
CJ Shirani
The Supreme Court allowed a person represented by junior President’s Counsel Nigel Hatch to intervene and support the Attorney General’s arguments against the petitioners. This was after the petitioners’ request to withdraw the cases was denied. Deputy Solicitor General Shavindra Fernando appearing for the AG claimed that although the AG objected to leave to proceed being granted in the cases (before Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was removed), he now wants the cases to continue ‘in the public interest’.
The petitioners had moved to withdraw the cases, because the Supreme Court had earlier made a ruling which covered the relief they had asked for. The Supreme Court had held that the Parliament needed to provide by law (not Standing Order) for an independent mechanism to inquire into any allegations against any judge of the Superior Court. The Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) appointed to try Chief Justice Bandaranayake was not independent and controlled by government Ministers of the Rajapaksa regime. Their crude misconduct of the process attracted local and international condemnation and strong protests from the legal profession. Read More
Special Bench Refuses MPs Herath & Sampanthan Their Right To A Hearing In AG’s CJ Impeachment Appeal
July 16, 2013 |
The Colombo Telegraph reported yesterday, how 2 opposition Members of Parliament – Vijitha Herath (JVP) and R. Sampanthan (TNA) had appealed to the Supreme Court not to deny them their rights as respondents in the controversial appeal by the Attorney General from the Appeal Court judgment based on a Supreme Court ruling.
Click here for yesterday’s story which contains the background and the full text of the court motion filed by Herath. Sampanthan had also filed a similar motion.
Justice Marsoof
When the case was taken up, lawyers M. A. Sumanthiran and J. C. Weliamuna both told the court that they stand by what is said in their court motions and that even Attorney General Palitha Fernando (PC) who appeared personally earlier should confirm the facts. However Deputy Solicitor General said there was no need for the AG to say anything.
Sumanthiran and Weliamuna told the 5 judges chosen to hear the case by de facto Chief Justice Mohan Pieris (Saleem Marsoof (PC), Chandra Ekanayake, Sathya Hettige, Eva S. Wanasundara and Rohini Marasinghe), that if the judges cannot remember, the court should listen to the recording of the relevant day’s proceedings which would confirm the truth of what they say. However Marsoof responded by saying that there may not be a recording of that day’s proceedings. Proceedings are normally recorded so that whether what the court stenographers have written is accurate can be checked. Mikes and recording machines have been there for years for this purpose and is used daily.
The Supreme Court abruptly refused the appeal of Herath and Sampanthan without going into the matter and fixed the appeal for final hearing on 26.09.2013 based only on AG’s submissions. This is against the normal practice in other appeals.
