Cold war comes to the open: A motion against the Judiciary
Sunday 28 October 2012
By Ranga Jayasuriya
Late last week the ruling party members of Parliament were queuing up to sign a motion that ostensibly called for measures to prevent the Judiciary from overstepping its purview. Over 100 odd signatures from government MPs had already been obtained for the motion by the end of the week. The motion requires 75 votes for it to be presented to Parliament for a special debate. Once presented, it can be taken up at an emergency debate.
The latest government manoeuvering appears to be aiming to keep the chief justice under check. Though the motion has not specifically referred to the chief justice, the government has openly been critical of the chief justice, last week. The signs of a cold war between the government and the judiciary being fought in the
public domain were seen last week.
Last Thursday, Foreign Minister G.L. Peiris alleged that Chief Justice Shirani Bandara- nayake had overlooked 29 more senior judges when naming Manjula Thilakaratne as secretary of the JSC.
“The Constitution has been clearly violated in making this appointment of the JSC secretary. The Supreme Court has no discretion to appoint any judge, it (the JSC secretary) must be the senior most judge from courts of first instance,” Peiris said in a statement to parliament on Thursday.
It is however interesting that the government did not raise objections to Thilakaratne’s appointment back in May, when he was appointed as the JSC secretary. The government’s concerns over Thilakaratne’s suitability were raised only after he issued a public statement, condemning the interference of the judiciary.
The impending parliament motion is the latest salvo by the government against the judiciary in an increasingly open battle, which came into the surface after Thilakaratna issued the public statement.
Two weeks back, the Cabinet of ministers appointed a committee to look into allegations levelled against the JSC. Many of those complaints were directed against Manjula Thilakaratne, including alleged harassment of a female magistrate. The trigger for the committee was the issuance of a public announcement by the JSC secretary, though the government said it had received complaints against the conduct of the JSC for a long period.
Multipronged strategy
The committees met only once in the presence of the president. Since then no meeting was held. The motion could well be a pressure tactic engineered by the government to rein in an increasingly assertive judiciary.
It also appears to be part of a multipronged strategy. The Bribery Commission, last Thursday, filed a report in the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court against the husband of the chief justice, Pradeep Kariyawasam, the former chairman of the National Savings Bank (NSB) over alleged instances of corruption in the purchase of shares of The Finance Company by the NSB. Kariyawasam stands accused of causing a monetary loss of Rs391 million to the government by unlawful purchases of shares of The Finance Company.
The Commission in its report on the complaint had stated that the former chairman had committed an act punishable under Section 70 of the Bribery Commission Act.
Colombo Chief Magistrate Rashmi Singappuli ordered Kariyawasam to appear in Court on February 28, 2013.
It would be the first time in Sri Lanka that a spouse of a chief justice in the country is charged by the country’s courts. However, it is not a unique phenomenon altogether. Crusading Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Chaudhry was suspended by former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, ostensibly for violating the norms of judicial propriety and corruption. That was after the chief justice shot down plans by President Musharraf to keep his military position as the army chief of staff, while running for the presidency. Chief Justice Chaudhry was later removed from the post and put under house arrest by Musharraf. However, the removal of the chief justice triggered a revolt by the legal fraternity that grew into a mass movement which finally ousted President Musharraf. These are food for thought for the current regime as it plans what appears to be a fresh assault against the judiciary.
Sunday 28 October 2012
By Ranga JayasuriyaLate last week the ruling party members of Parliament were queuing up to sign a motion that ostensibly called for measures to prevent the Judiciary from overstepping its purview. Over 100 odd signatures from government MPs had already been obtained for the motion by the end of the week. The motion requires 75 votes for it to be presented to Parliament for a special debate. Once presented, it can be taken up at an emergency debate. The latest government manoeuvering appears to be aiming to keep the chief justice under check. Though the motion has not specifically referred to the chief justice, the government has openly been critical of the chief justice, last week. The signs of a cold war between the government and the judiciary being fought in the
public domain were seen last week. Last Thursday, Foreign Minister G.L. Peiris alleged that Chief Justice Shirani Bandara- nayake had overlooked 29 more senior judges when naming Manjula Thilakaratne as secretary of the JSC.
“The Constitution has been clearly violated in making this appointment of the JSC secretary. The Supreme Court has no discretion to appoint any judge, it (the JSC secretary) must be the senior most judge from courts of first instance,” Peiris said in a statement to parliament on Thursday.
It is however interesting that the government did not raise objections to Thilakaratne’s appointment back in May, when he was appointed as the JSC secretary. The government’s concerns over Thilakaratne’s suitability were raised only after he issued a public statement, condemning the interference of the judiciary.
The impending parliament motion is the latest salvo by the government against the judiciary in an increasingly open battle, which came into the surface after Thilakaratna issued the public statement.
Two weeks back, the Cabinet of ministers appointed a committee to look into allegations levelled against the JSC. Many of those complaints were directed against Manjula Thilakaratne, including alleged harassment of a female magistrate. The trigger for the committee was the issuance of a public announcement by the JSC secretary, though the government said it had received complaints against the conduct of the JSC for a long period.
Multipronged strategy
The committees met only once in the presence of the president. Since then no meeting was held. The motion could well be a pressure tactic engineered by the government to rein in an increasingly assertive judiciary.
It also appears to be part of a multipronged strategy. The Bribery Commission, last Thursday, filed a report in the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court against the husband of the chief justice, Pradeep Kariyawasam, the former chairman of the National Savings Bank (NSB) over alleged instances of corruption in the purchase of shares of The Finance Company by the NSB. Kariyawasam stands accused of causing a monetary loss of Rs391 million to the government by unlawful purchases of shares of The Finance Company.
The Commission in its report on the complaint had stated that the former chairman had committed an act punishable under Section 70 of the Bribery Commission Act.
Colombo Chief Magistrate Rashmi Singappuli ordered Kariyawasam to appear in Court on February 28, 2013.
It would be the first time in Sri Lanka that a spouse of a chief justice in the country is charged by the country’s courts. However, it is not a unique phenomenon altogether. Crusading Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Chaudhry was suspended by former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, ostensibly for violating the norms of judicial propriety and corruption. That was after the chief justice shot down plans by President Musharraf to keep his military position as the army chief of staff, while running for the presidency. Chief Justice Chaudhry was later removed from the post and put under house arrest by Musharraf. However, the removal of the chief justice triggered a revolt by the legal fraternity that grew into a mass movement which finally ousted President Musharraf. These are food for thought for the current regime as it plans what appears to be a fresh assault against the judiciary.
