Govt Should Realise Human Rights Norms Don’t Depend On Personalities Alone: Lawyers Collective
August 26, 2014A group of senior legal practitioners have advised the government to be realistic of in their expectations in hoping for a change in the decision making process of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) concerning Sri Lanka, following the retirement of outgoing UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay on August 31.
Outgoing UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay
The Lawyers Collective in a statement today have pointed out that although international decision making and norms do not depend on personalities alone, the Rajapaksa-regime unfortunately is expecting Pillay’s successor – Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein to bend human rights norms.
Criticising this mindset of the government, the Lawyer’s Collective has pointed out that its time the government realises that international decision making is not heavily reliant on personalities while adding it is a grave mistake to perceive international decision making processes in the same light as that of the local political sphere.
In the joint statement issued by the Lawyers’ Collective co-conveners- Lal Wijenayake, Chandrapala Kumarage and JC Weliamuna, they have commended Pillay furthermore, describing her as an individual who was ‘in the forefront in protecting and promoting human rights norms’ and as a personality who discharged her functions as the UN HR Chief free of any fear or favour.
The legal practitioners meanwhile recalling Pillay’s visit to Sri Lanka and her concluding remarks have noted that they made an enormous impact on the human rights community globally.
They have pointed out that its extremely praiseworthy, the manner in which she maintained objectivity and professionalism in assessing the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and accurately identifying the authoritarian tendencies as well as concerning how terrorism has affected the Sri Lankan human rights situation, despite the Rajapaksa-regime and its supporters ridiculing her and the various other challenges she had to face.
Furthermore, the Lawyers Collective has noted that they hope Pillay’s successor will follow her footsteps.
13th Amendment Inhibitions
By Rajiva Wijesinha -August 26, 2014
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha MP
I had a bizarre experience recently when I had to attend what is termed Standing Committee B of Parliament, which deals with legislation. This was in connection with the Vasantha Senanayake Foundation (Incorporation) Bill which I had sponsored. The experience was rendered worse by the Minutes which I received subsequently, which bore no relation to what had actually taken place.
I presume that there is some formula for reporting the meetings of these Standing Committees, but it was certainly inappropriate in this case, given that I had raised some matters which I had asked to be recorded. The Minutes state that I moved several amendments to the original draft of the Bill I had presented. This was not the case. What happened was that we were told the legal advisers had gone through the draft and suggested amendments. I accepted these, but I asked the basis on which they had been made.
It turned out then that the representative from the Legal Draughtsman’s Department who was supposed to liaise with Parliament regarding the Bill had no idea of the reasons. After much discussion one bright lawyer from the Attorney General’s Department said that the changes were probably because the Bill as it stood seemed to be in conflict with the Constitution.
I gathered then that for years the Attorney General had advised against many charitable works by Foundations on the grounds that the Constitution, following the introduction of the 13th Amendment that introduced Provincial Councils, declares that ‘No Bill in respect of any matter set out in the Provincial Council List shall become law unless such Bill has been referred by the President…. to every Provincial Council’.
