In Putin's Oversized Shoes Would or Could Ranil Walk Straight ?

Kusal Perera for Salem-News.com

Sri Lanka needs an alternate political leadership with a democratic, secular programme.

Ranil Wickramasinghe and Majinda Rajapakse

(COLOMBO, Sri Lanka Samakaalam) - This was the crowning joke. Sajith Premadasa staked claim for the presidency of Sri Lanka at the annual conference of the UNP on 01st December. Though completely routed, he said he would contest the next presidential elections as the UNP candidate, IF Ranil Wickramasinghe would not. His was an impotent bid to pre empt any attempt at UNP compromising on a "common candidate" as at the last presidential elections and also, in any one else from the UNP coming in, to substitute Wickramasinghe.

The next presidential elections is almost 03 years from now and have little importance for the people. What is important is the role the UNP would play on its new “Radical Programme” with an “undisputed” leader, during the next 06 years. Two constitutional amendments, one to the Constitution of Sri Lanka as the 18th Amendment and the other to the Constitution of the UNP on a resolution adopted at the special conference, gave extended life to both the President and the Leader of the Opposition. How democratic are such moves, though adopted with a two thirds majority in parliament and an overwhelming 4,640 majority votes at the party special conference ? Manipulated majorities they were. Whether in parliament or in an organisation, they are neither democratic, nor politically valid.

This country is going through a post war socio economic and political turmoil and needs an alternate leadership on a democratic political platform, to get out of that crisis. The war, hyped with a Sinhala racist frenzy in eliminating the LTTE as a “separatist terrorist” group, helped this family regime to usurp unlimited power, that now contradicts constitutional governance, through Executive Presidency. The parliament as the legislature, functions only as a subordinate forum, dictated by the President and compromised by the Opposition Leader. With a heinously corrupt regime, the society runs without law and order. Political elites are publicly accused criminals and fraudsters. The two most important, apex positions in the economic life of the country is allowed to be in the hands of two fraudsters, proved and not too difficult to be proved. The not so independent, but inept judiciary is being publicly humiliated by the regime, to be brought under the heels of an all powerful ruling elite. Post war “democracy” is dominated by the defence establishment that now pre decides policy over the legislature. It is declining, degrading Sinhala politics that has to take total blame for the chaos that is setting in, but looks for excuses in “international conspiracies” and possible “LTTE terrorist rumps” remaining in the Diaspora.

In such fragile and fast degenerating social life pushed into new conflicts, Sri Lanka needs an alternate political leadership with a democratic, secular programme. One, that on the first count would demilitarise and democratise all State agencies and public life and immediately move to honour the long neglected political aspirations of the Tamil society. Without such a democratic, secular programme that could de construct polarisation in society, the Sinhala society on its own, would not have any democratic life.                Read Full Article

Wijedasa asked to mend strained relations between the President and CJ

Tuesday, 04 December 2012

President Mahinda Rajapaksa has asked President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), MP Wijedasa Rajapakse to try and mend the soured relation between the President and the Chief Justice. The President has said he was ready to drop the impeachment proceedings if the Chief Justice did not try to go for an unwanted clash.

Wijedasa has said that it was difficult to intervene at this juncture since the matter has now gone out of hand. However, he has said that he would make an attempt to rebuild a friendship between the President and the Chief Justice.

Meanwhile, the President has also asked several well known mahanayakes to intervene as well.

It is learnt that the President is greatly disturbed following information received from a senior President’s Counsel that the Chief Justice was prepared to make some startling revelations at the next parliamentary select committee (PSC) to probe the impeachment motion meets next.

The Chief Justice it is learnt is going to present written evidence to prove the pressure exerted by the President, External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris and Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunge to get judicial approval from the 18th Amendment and in the case against former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka.

The Chief Justice is to also present to the PSC letters given by the Central Bank Governor in relation to the controversial National Savings Bank purchase of The Finance shares.

Overkill

By Kath Noble -December 5, 2012 

Kath Noble

We really should have learned by now that suppressing the peaceful activities of young people, however much we disagree with them, never actually works. There are always repercussions.

The Indian police created a massive public outcry a couple of weeks ago when they arrested a 21 year old girl for making a totally innocuous comment on Facebook. Why, she asked, should the city of Mumbai shut down for a day to mark the death of a politician? A friend who ‘liked’ the post was also indicted. They were first accused of ‘deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs’, then ‘statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes’. After spending a night in a cell, during which time the cops were presumably scouring their legal textbooks for something a bit less obviously untrue, the students were finally charged with ‘sending false and offensive messages through communication services’.

The objective of the exercise was to let people know that some opinions are simply not acceptable. They will not be allowed to pass, and the response will not come only in the form of words. There will be action too.

Followers of the politician mobilised both official and unofficial agencies to get their point across to Maharashtrians. An angry mob gathered outside the police station in which the girls were being held and goons attacked a hospital owned by one of their relatives.

They counted themselves lucky to be locked up.

Such is the legacy of Bal Thackeray, founder of the Shiv Sena. The man was never so much as Chief Minister, but he was tremendously influential in Maharashtra. And he was even more controversial. A populist in the style of Adolf Hitler, who he sometimes professed to admire, he continually railed against outsiders, and he openly encouraged violence against them. After his first Dusshera rally in Mumbai in 1966, his supporters went off to burn South Indian shops and restaurants, and they never looked back. They were responsible for the first political assassination in the state after Independence too – the 1970 killing of communist party leader and trade unionist MLA Krishna Desai. And in 1974 they murdered Dalit leader Bhagwat Jadhav, announcing yet another target group.

Mumbai is now best known for the 26/11 attacks, but there have been many worse atrocities in the city. For example, riots killed several times as many people in 1992 and 1993. And a commission set up by the state government blamed the Shiv Sena for the worst of the crimes – its MLAs even testified that Bal Thackeray had personally called them and ordered them to get Muslims killed.      Read More

SC has the power to remove the 117 members if convicted for intentional violation of the constitution or for moral turpitude

(Lanka-e-News-04.Dec.2012, 11.30PM) # The speaker and any parliamentary committee are subject to Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Sri Lanka’s constitution # The Sri Lankan constitution is different to the Indian and British Constitutions. # Further the Supreme Court has the power to investigate the truth of the facts in the Impeachment resolution. It has power to remove the 117 members if convicted for intentional violation of the constitution or for moral turpitude. Every news media, civic association and the Bar association alleged that the impeachment resolution to remove the Chief Justice has been introduced with malice and bad faith. According to the Constitution if a resolution presented to the Parliament based on untrue facts and has misled the Parliament, the Supreme Court has power to punish the Members who signed such a resolution. They can be removed from Parliament if the violation is amounting to an “Intentional violation of the Constitution”. The President can be removed for “intentional violation of the Constitution” or “for violation of involving moral turpitude” by the Supreme Court and that can be applied to the members of parliament as well. The meaning of “Moral turpitude” has broader meaning that includes “ Corruption, misleading the parliament, false statement, false allegation to remove the Chief justice or any act that can be considered by the civilized world as misleading to the public. Courts have held that moral turpitude “refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one’s fellow man or society in general.” One common definition applied by the courts is “an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity.” Some cases define an act of moral turpitude as one which “grievously offends the moral code of mankind.” Further, the Supreme Court can order to testify before the court every Member of the Parliament who signed the resolution to determine the constitutionality of such a resolution. If the Supreme Court finds that the resolution was signed without reading it or signed in blank, then it is apparent that the resolution is presented to the Parliament with bad faith and can be considered as “intentional violation of the Constitution” or a act that can be considered as breach of “moral turpitude”. Constitution states as follows: 38 (2) (a) Any Member of Parliament may, by a writing addressed to the Speaker, give notice of a resolution alleging that the President is permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office by reason of mental or physical infirmity or that the President has been guilty of- (i) intentional violation of the Constitution, (ii) treason, (iii) bribery, (iv) misconduct or corruption involving the abuse of the powers of his office, or (v) any offence under any law, involving moral turpitude, and setting out full particulars of the allegation or allegations made and seeking an inquiry and report thereon by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:                                      More >>

A Reflection On The Attack On Jaffna University Students

By Fr. Sarath Iddamalgoda -December 5, 2012 

Fr. Sarath Iddamalgoda

There has been a military-police attack on Tamil residents attending commemorative events for their dead in the North. Other similar incidents were reported from Mannar as well. Two catholic priests have received orders prohibiting the celebration of Mass.

Some of the dead that the Tamil people commemorate no doubt may have been the Tigers or the LTTErs, who were perhaps their family members or their kith and kin.

Could a ritual – lighting of oil lamps be a threat to the country’s security? How can such religio-cultural annual commemorative events be prohibited? Holding such events serves a human need to release a person’s emotional burdens accumulated due to the loss of one’s dear ones.

Does commemoration by their comrades of the dead JVPers who took up arms against the State, cause a threat?

What Sri Lanka should earnestly seek in the post war area is reconciliation. Such attacks unfortunately lead only to generate contrary results eg. further alienation of the Tamil youth. Alienation of youth could one day be a security threat. If that happens again in the North, as in 1971 and 89-90 period in the south, the government should take the blame.

The attacks on the students point to the fact that the government is not interested in reconciliation. This is what is reflected in the move to abolish the 13^th amendment. The devolution of power has been accepted as a solution to the problem from the time of Bundaranaike and Senanayaka.

It was also a promise made by the President Rajapaksha on several occasions. But unfortunately, he seems to go back track. What we witness now is not sharing of power but greater centralization of power. The attack on the judiciary is one more step in that direction. This is not a healthy phenomenon.

As it has been mentioned in the LLRC recommendations, the national war has been a creation of power hungry political leaders. The politicians are not interested in working out a solution.

Our country needs honest leadership. What we have in the country at present are opportunists and politicians who are corrupt to the core. A way for them is to create LTTE or Tamil diaspora phobia among the gullible population.

The national issue for them is only a political tool to remain in power or come in to power. They would betray religion, language, national flag or even the people for their selfish ends namely to seek more power and wealth.

Therefore we should not depend on these politicians and should not expect solutions from them.

However there are positive signs emerging. Unlike in the past the students of other universities in the South have stood in solidarity condemning the attacks on the Jaffna university students. This solidarity is a sign of hope for future.

Also, the leadership role played by Ven Sobitha of Naga Viharaya Kotte, the FUTA and Lawyers for Democracy on current issues, ought to be appreciated. People of this country expect a greater contribution from them to bring the country out of this mess.

President reprimands Basil

Tuesday, 04 December 2012

The President has recently reprimanded Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa, who is the architect of the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, sources from temple Trees said.

The reason for the President to lose his temper was the difficulty faced by him and the government locally and internationally due to the impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice that was pushed by Basil.

The President had blamed Basil for the current situation and had said he would be held responsible if there was a disaster within the government.

Soon after hearing the news of Basil’s attempt to bring an impeachment motion against the Chief Justice, the First Lady had told the President not to fall for such antics. The President had laughed it off considering it to be part of a long-standing clash between the First Lady and Basil.

The First Lady had later informed son Namal Rajapaksa, “your father will learn an unforgettable lesson from uncle Basil.” She had then asked Namal not to sign the impeachment motion.

The young MP had taken his mother’s advise and had refrained from placing his signature on the impeachment motion. Namal is currently speaking highly of his mother’s intelligence with his professional colleagues. He had said that it was much better use of his time to focus on his law firm, NR Associates, rather than angering other lawyers.

CJ denied even that relief granted to murderers :Dilan and Wimal taught elementary law - Select Committee 2nd day proceeding full report hereunder

(Lanka-e-News- 05.Dec.2012, 5.00AM) The chief justice (CJ) attended for the second time the Parliament impeachment select Committee inquiry today. The members of the Select Committee met before the arrival of the CJ at 1030 a.m. The main question posed by the opposition representatives was , what is the methodology that is going to be adopted in regard to this Committee affairs? The Govt. members had no answer to give for this.

Vijitha Herath M P cited the announcement made by the speaker at the last meeting that the directive of the SC to Parliament to postpone the last meeting was not received on time . While the speaker made that announcement to the Committee , the Dep. Speaker Chandima Weerakkody had reported to the media that the SC directive was received the previous day and was directed to the speaker . Herath produced a CD cassette to the Committee containing the statement made by the Dep . Speaker to the media as testimony. Herath accused the speaker of lying and misleading the Committee.

The Committee chairman said he would inquire about it from the speaker while the Govt. members were nonplussed and were unable to furnish an answer .The Select Committee had so far not reached a consensus pertaining to the methodology to be followed : whether evidence is to be led or not ? Finally after this issue was debated a conclusion was arrived at with Chairman Anura Priyadharshana Yapa who said , a notice will be issued on this subsequently.

Thereafter the CJ and her Lawyers were invited to participate in the Select Committee meeting.
                        Full story >>

Sri Lanka judge appears on corruption charges

4 December 2012 Last updated at 15:28 ETHelp

Sri Lanka's most senior judge, Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, has appeared before a parliamentary committee which is looking into corruption allegations against her.

Her defenders, including many lawyers, say she is being victimised for making independent rulings.

The BBC's Charles Haviland reports from the Supreme Court in Colombo.

Read More

• S Lanka top judge hearing begins

• S Lanka top judge denies charges

• S Lanka demo over impeachment bid

Request for BASL, C’wealth observers rejected

Second day of impeachment probe by PSC

December 4, 2012, 9:52 pm 

By Saman Indrajith

The second appearance by Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayke, before the Parliamentary Select Committee yesterday resulted in the entire area around the Parliament complex, in Kotte, being cordoned off and declared out of bounds for the media.

The Chief Justice arrived at the Parliament accompanied by seven lawyers around 10.10 a.m. and was escorted to the Committee room where the PSC began its proceedings at 10.30 a.m.

A group of protestors holding up posters with the words "Shame Madam!" had lined up along the Parliament roundabout and a large number of Police as well as some army personnel had been deployed for security.

Unlike during her previous appearance before the committee, journalists covering Parliament were strictly prohibited from entering the area where the Committee was in progress as well as lingering along the corridors.

During the pre-lunch sessions, which were held up to around 1.15 p.m. lawyers for the Chief Justice requested that a team of observers from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and the Commonwealth be allowed to observe the committee proceedings. However, the request was rejected.

Her lawyers also noted, as they had done on the previous occasion, that documentary evidence of the charges made against the Chief Justice had not yet been made available to them.

Another request to summon all 117 MPs who signed the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice, before the Committee is under consideration.

Meanwhile, the four Opposition members of the Committee said that they had requested the Speaker to adjourn sittings of the Committee for one month from Dec. 8 to January 8, when Parliament sessions for the year are to end after the Budget is passed.

They also said there was no clarity on the procedural progress of the PSC and that the Leader of the Opposition Ranil Wickremesinghe would raise the issue in Parliament this morning.

The post-lunch session of the PSC began around 2.30 p.m. with the Chief Justice’s lawyers returning after lunch while the Chief Justice arrived around 2.55 p.m.

The team of lawyers, who appeared for the Chief Justice included Romesh de Silva PC, Kandiah Neelakandan, Nalin Laduwahetty PC, Sugath Caldera, Riyaz Ameen, Iraj de Silva and Saliya Peiris.

I can only trust Mervyn Silva and Sarath Silva – the President

11.8 Billion

I can only trust Mervyn Silva and Sarath Silva – the President

Wednesday, 05 December 2012 

The President had recently told several of his friends that he could only trust Minister Mervyn Silva and former Chief Justice Sarath Silva in the current political scenario.

The President had made this statement when several of his friends had inquired who the next prime Minister would be.

“I cannot trust any of these fellows, given what has happened now. DM can be trusted since he does not have a good memory power. Actually, I can trust only Mervyn and our former Chief Justice Sarath Silva. I would not be in this place if not for him. He has now understood that it is wise to be my friend rather than clash with me,” the President had said.

However, the President had added that he did not have any intention of handing over the post of Prime Minister to any other person.

WikiLeaks: Mervin Silava Is A Drug Kingpin Patron Chief

SRI LANKA: Judiciary sans independence: The Sri Lankan chronicle

Contributors: Jasmine Joseph-December 5, 2012

The future of a judge who would have been the longest serving Chief Justice of the nation is grim in Sri Lanka. Widely alleged as politically motivated, the current move by the President to impeach her gives an opportunity to analyze the soundness of constitutional principles relating to judiciary in general and impeachment of judges in particular.

The bedrock on which the judiciary in Sri Lanka is built like most constitutional democracies is found in the Constitution. Unlike many constitutions, it has detailed provisions spanning from 107 to 147 with myriad of amendments relating to judiciary.

The primary concern in the present context is the competence of the relevant constitutional provisions to safeguard the interests of the institution of judiciary in a democracy. The most fundamental value would be independence of judiciary.  The independence is not only an end in itself but is also a means. It is in the independence of the institution, the present and future of a democracy rests. Independence of judiciary is a prerequisite of a sound legal and governance system. The provisions relating to appointment, tenure, conditions of service and removal are the bulwarks of judicial independence. Provisions of Sri Lankan constitution are an anathema to the claim of independence.

In the context of the current attempt to impeach a judge, an assessment of the provisions and procedure of removal is taken up to test on the claim of judicial independence.

Removal of judge in Sri Lanka as per the constitutional scheme is virtually in the hands of the executive. This cuts at the very root of judicial independence. Though the legislature is involved, the requirement of the simple majority makes the ultimate decision at the sweet will of any government, which invariably will have majority in the parliament. Article 107 of the constitution of Sri Lanka provides that the President may remove a judge on proved misbehavior and incapacity. The process is established by the standing orders (see, Standing Orders 78A). The impeachment process is kick started by the parliamentarians with a notice of resolution signed by one third of the members. After the lapse of one month, the speaker shall appoint a select committee of not less than eleven members who investigates and submits a report within a stipulated timeframe, which is one month from the commencement of the sitting of the committee. On the report of the select committee a resolution shall be passed by the parliament and the same shall be presented to the President for the action of removal. In this scheme of events, the judiciary is entirely under the benignancy of the government in power. It therefore remains as the affair of the government in power.

The breaches of independence vis-à-vis removal in the above scheme could be best understood in contrast with the structure provided by India, a neighbouring nation. Removal of a judge in India is commenced on the recommendation by the judiciary. The proceedings are detailed in the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968. It has elaborate provisions about the process. The enquiry is conducted by a committee of three; two from judiciary and one a distinguished jurists. The report of the committee is so decisive that if it does not find alleged misbehavior or incapacity, the proceedings are dropped.   Only on an adverse finding that there will be any further proceedings in the House and the same shall be discussion and adoption of the motion to impeach with special majority.  This process if nothing else does not leave the judges at the mercy of the government in power.

This limited comparative exercise brings out the inadequacies of the Sri Lankan scheme of removal of a judge, which is a heavy setback on independence of the institution. Judicial independence has been accepted as a coveted virtue world over. The lack of it is a severe dent on the rule of law record, human rights protection and liberty quotient of the citizen in its relation to its own government.

* Jasmine Joseph is a professor of law at the National University of Juridical Sciences, India.

Fraud charges against Minister Anura Yapa

TUESDAY, 04 DECEMBER 2012

A group of lawyers are preparing to file a case in Bribery Commission against Minister of Environment Anura Priyadharshana Yapa on fraud charges.

It is charged that Minister Anura Priyadharashana Yapa had appointed Nimal Bandara, who had mediated in a transaction where the Chairman of Seylinco Group of Companies Lalith Kothalawala had presented an asset known as ‘Gal Bunalow’, as the director general of  National Gem and Jewellery Authority.

Also, the charges include that Minister Yapa, blatantly violating circulars of the Ministry of Environment and using ministerial powers improperly, made available a gemming license to Minister Pavithra Wanniarachchi.

Minister Anura Priyadharashana Yapa is the President of the Parliamentary Select Committee appointed by the Speaker to probe allegations mentioned in the impeachment motion presented by the government against the Chief Justice.

Not Justice – But Hunger!

By Sajeeva Samaranayake -December 5, 2012

Sajeeva Samaranayake

It is rather superfluous to have debates on a question of ‘justice’ when our central issue is one of unappeased hunger.

Dealing with hunger first

There is hunger for food; and there is hunger for wealth, power, position and influence. In this rat race there is an insatiable appetite for ‘more’ and ‘better’ things – but hardly any concern for sharing. So long as our temples of ‘democracy’, ‘justice’, ‘nirvana’, ‘progress’ and a growing culture of five star hotels can co-exist with one third of our children being malnourished, we cannot afford to speak of one society – still less of ‘rights.’ Our true values have excluded social justice and integrated the egoistic pursuit of personal satisfaction to the fullest measure.

The Second Republican Constitution of 1978 has now unraveled to its logical conclusion. In the immortal words of Dr. N. M. Perera we are fully committed to a bogus value system which ensures “justice for the rich and freedom for the poor to starve.” While the poor hunger for food, a voice and access to justice, the rich hunger for better food, leisure, entertainment and power. It is all about food for the body and food for the mind; and we desire more and more variety as we stumble upon the feasts and riches only the kings and nobles enjoyed in the past. Both the rich and poor are essentially united by a mindless hunger, and alienated by everything else.

We discuss matters of justice as if we were a society of human beings. My humble submission is that we are not; that this talk about justice is yet another aspect of the self-deception we have clothed ourselves with.  Not having asked ourselves what it takes to be human we have not attained to this status yet.

Truth of violence

The noble truth of suffering is inextricably interwoven with the truth of violence. Nyanaponika Mahathera (Four Nutriments of Life) referred to the reality of violence involved in our incessant search for food:

 If we wish to eat and live, we have to kill or tacitly accept that others do the killing for us. When speaking of the latter, we do not refer merely to the butcher or the fisherman. Also for the strict vegetarian’s sake, living beings have to die under the farmer’s ploughshare, and his lettuce and other vegetables have to be kept free of snails and other “pests,” at the expense of these living beings who, like ourselves, are in search of food. A growing population’s need for more arable land deprives animals of their living space and, in the course of history, has eliminated many a species. It is a world of killing in which we live and have a part. We should face this horrible fact and remain aware of it in our Reflection on Edible Food. It will stir us to effort for getting out of this murderous world…

Beginning with this way we get our food we can go on to the whole structure of human society and ask ‘on what do we stand?’ This question is important because we assume in our critical mode, at least at the sub conscious level, that we are respectable men and women of worth. We have learnt to separate the good from bad in our society under the terrible influence of the criminal law. As such we take this frivolous attitude that individuals are to blame for the chaotic state of society. In fact all individuals – however powerful externally, are powerless inside. We would never concede that we are suffering together because we are collectively culpable.

Society is founded on violence                                     Read More

SRI LANKA: Why not telecast the impeachment proceedings?

December 5, 2012

According to reports, the Chief Justice (CJ) through her lawyers have informed the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) that she wishes to waive the right to have the impeachment proceedings in-camera and instead wishes the inquiry to be open to the public. The Rajapaksa government has used every opportunity to make their allegations against the CJ public; in fact, a propaganda war has been waged making use of the state media, taxi drivers and paid demonstrators. Since the government is so eager to create the widest possible publicity and thinks that such publicity is to its advantage there is no reason for it not to grant the wish of the CJ, the affected judge, to waive her rights given under Standing Order 78A (8) which prescribes that the proceedings should be published only if the judge is found guilty. Since this Standing Order is a safeguard against the judge who is being accused the waiving of the safeguard is the prerogative of the affected judge. 

Since 117 Members of Parliament have signed the petition supporting the allegations it is not only their right but also their duty to find out whether the allegations they have made are sustainable or they are blatant lies. The CJ through her lawyers have invited the MPs to come and there is no valid reason for them to refuse that invitation. Surely any honest accuser would want to know whether they accusations he or she has made are true or false. 

The Rajapaksa government relies heavily on propaganda. It has used the state television and other media to propagate its position with extraordinary zest. In fact, it has even allowed the broadcasters to break all their ethical codes and do all they can to put before the people whatever the government wishes to propagate. Under such circumstances if the government believes that it has a genuine case against the CJ there is no reason to deny the wish of the CJ to have the allegations inquired into in full glare of the public.

In fact, when allegations are being made against the chief of the judiciary such allegations are of the highest public importance and therefore the public would have a good reason to know what is going on. If the government wants to deny the public their right to know it is their obligation to explain to the public as to why it is denying the request made by the CJ. The government cannot take cover under the Standing Order 78A (8) which is available to a judge for the purpose of protecting that judge against unfair allegations. By indicating that the CJ wishes the inquiry to be held in public she is clearly stating that she has nothing to hide and that she is willing to bear the consequences of having the inquiry in public. 

The judicial officers who met last week expressed their concern about the process of impeachment which they see as unfair, not only to the CJ but also to the independence of the judiciary as a whole. They are concerned that under the abuse of media freedoms used against the judiciary it would become difficult to continue with the judicial function in the country and this is a serious warning of what is at stake. It is the administration of justice in the entire country which is in peril due to manner in which the government has proceeded in this case.

By all indications most people in the country and also in the international community are not with the government as far as these proceedings are concerned. The government has failed to convince the public and the international community that it, in fact, has a just cause to take the steps that it has on this issue. There are open accusations of blatant unfairness and injustice made by senior citizens including Buddhist monks. 

Under these circumstances the government is under the obligation to respect the right of information of the public. As the CJ herself has invited the government to grant the public their right to view the inquiry the refusal of the government would indicate that it is deliberately attempting to withhold information on a matter of the greatest public importance. 

As for the example of other countries it was quite recently that an impeachment inquiry was held in the Philippines against their Chief Justice. The entire proceedings were telecast internationally. In that particular instance that Chief Justice was found guilty of the charges as it was proved that he held about two million US dollars in foreign banks without disclosing this in his declaration of assets. As the people had the opportunity to watch the proceedings there were no allegations of any kind of unfairness towards the judge during the proceedings. 

As the CJ of Sri Lanka has herself invited the government to provide opportunity for the public to view these proceedings the government might follow the example of the Philippines and telecast the proceedings. 

Judges and layers to protest the appointment of an acting CJ

Wednesday, 05 December 2012

A majority of the members of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has decided to boycott working any of the courthouses if the government moves to appoint an acting Chief Justice during the period of the impeachment proceedings, it is learnt.

Lawyers affiliated to the government have pointed out that the only measure to be taken is to appoint an acting Chief Justice. They have explained that it would stop the pressure being placed on parliament by a fundamental rights petition filed by lawyers supportive of the Chief Justice.

However, a majority of the judges serving around the island have decided not to follow the directives of such an acting Chief Justice. Lawyers have also decided not to appear in front of such an appointee in court.

External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris and former Attorney general Mohan Peiris are currently looking at the possibility of appointing an acting Chief Justice on a Presidential directive.