The Expected Return On Patronage Appointments
Elmore Perera
In February 2006, President Rajapaksa appointed Nihal Jayasinghe J as Acting Chief Justice overlooking the seniority of Bandaranayake J and Weerasuriya J. On 11th March 2008, in the presence of the Hon. D.E.W. Gunasekera, C.R. de Silva (then Attorney General) Lalith Weeratunga and several others, President Rajapaksa pleaded that Ranil Wickremasinghe had mis-led him into believing that he could not appoint Shirani (his good friend who hailed from Anuradhapura and was doing very good work) as Acting Chief Justice for the reason that she had not served in the legal profession for 25 years.
In return, Jayasinghe J totally suppressed one application to the Supreme Court challenging inter alia the appointment of Balapatabendi J as President of the Court of Appeal in May 2006, and in another such case, fraudulently altered in August 2006, the order made by him on 30th June 2006 rejecting the application. Jayasinghe J was the beneficiary of further patronage by appointment as High Commissioner in the UK, immediately after retirement.
On 6th April 2006, Speaker W.J.M.Lokubandara received a letter from President Rajapaksa purportedly urging him to activate the Constitutional Council. Without directing the Secretary General of Parliament to summon a meeting of the nine members already duly appointed and/or duly nominated for appointment to the Constitutional Council, the Speaker consulted the Attorney General, K.C.Kamalasabeyson, PC to discern what legal powers he had to carry out such a function. The AG responded setting out clearly what steps the Speaker could and should take to activate the Constitutional Council. Speaker Lokubandara refrained from doing so and in due course was the beneficiary of a patronage appointment as a Provincial Governor. In time, AG Kamalasabeyson was requested by the President to retire prematurely and C.R. de Silva, PC received appointment as Attorney General, from President Rajapaksa. Read More
Un-Truths And Distortions About The Impeachment Process
Chandra Kumarage
The campaign justifying the impeachment of the CJ is forging ahead regardless with enhanced vigour even after Supreme Court has pronounced through the Court of Appeal that “it is mandatory under article 107(3) of the Constitution for the Parliament provide by law the matters relating to the forum before which the allegations are to be proved, the mode of proof, burden of proof and the standard of proof of any alleged misbehaviour or incapacity and the judge’s right to appear and to be heard in person or by representative in addition to matters relating to the investigation of the alleged misbehaviour or incapacity.”
Despite that legality of the impeachment proceedings are continued to be discussed in public even by members of the Parliamentary Select Committee. Minister Susil Premajayantha, himself a lawyer has stated that a burden of proof is not a crucial ingredient in the impeachment inquiry of a judge. If it was said by Minister Wimal Weerawana one can ignore it as balderdash but when it is said by a lawyer the reader will be bewildered as to whether he is bluffing or is lacking in his knowledge of the basic tenets of law. Surely he should be aware of that Article 12 (1) and 13(5) respectively of the Constitution of Sri Lanka stipulate that all persons are equal before the law and every person shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. Although the Supreme Court has given a final verdict rebutting all these so-called ‘law points’ raised by many lawyers, journalists and others, it will be still pertinent to have a look at the procedures adopted by some countries in impeaching their judges which have relevance to our jurisprudence on the subject.
