Judge Abrew who disgraced judicature and himself says ‘Yahapalanaya apita bamboo gahannadha?’ Masses outraged by Eva and Abrew (Bonnie and Clyde) verdict : Judiciary tops should appointed by the Commonwealth countries..!

(Lanka-e-News- 16.May.2015, 11.00PM) ‘Yahapalanaya apita bamboo gahanadhei’ (what can good governance do against us) was the question asked by supreme court (SC) judge  Sarath Abrew when he met some Judges after delivering the outrageously illegal  order prohibiting the arrest  of Gotabaya Rajapakse  , according to reports reaching Lanka e news inside information division.

Judges for independence of judiciary who did not wish to reveal their names expressing their views to Lanka  e News revealed, the judges Eva Wanasundara and Sarath Abrew who heard the fundamental rights petition of Gotabaya have acted diametrically contradictory to the laws behaving like Bonnie and Clyde (notorious criminals of the past), and therefore degraded and disgraced the SC on a scale  unprecedented in the history of SL.

The grounds in support of this are :

A two judge bench cannot hear such a petition as it  is mandatory that there should be a three judge bench. On the day of the hearing when the third judge Buvaneka Aluvihara withdrew from the case , and refused to hear it, what judges Eva and  Sarath ought to have done is , put on hold the trial until the third judge was replaced. Eva and Sarath by not abiding by that requirement had  villainously abused the powers of the sacrosanct bench.

The interim order given prohibiting the arrest of Gotabaya from 14 th May until 6 th October is untenable in law.. Such an interim order lasting 5 months had never ever been issued  in SL’s history of the  of the judicature. Apparently Eva and Sarath  have by this verdict shamelessly betrayed their ignorance of the fundamental laws  despite holding lofty positions in the judicature , whereby they have insulted the bench , for in such a petition , a prohibition order is tenable only for 14 days.  It is only after hearing the counter submissions of the other party to the case , can it be decided whether the order  should be restricted or extended. In the circumstances it is a glaring fact that Eva and Sarath have done a most deplorable and  disdainful strip tease  act on behalf of the rogue , the accused , while the entire nation was earnestly expecting most honorable official conduct from them upholding the sacrosanct judiciary and  its independence. Of course strip tease acts are enjoyed by one and all , more so when they are  performed before crooks ands criminals , regardless of the age of the performers.

The lawyers for good governance are of the opinion that this case can be heard by a five judge bench again by a motion filed by the AG .Besides , the other judges say , Eva and Sarath who prostituted their official positions by meeting with Rajapakses secretly before the day of trial at the premises of Ali Sabry , lawyer , have been meeting with the Rajapkses even before time and again. Mahinda Rajapakse was having very close association with Eva and Sarath since their Law College days, these judges added .

In addition, of these two judges who had made a most disgraceful sale of honor through professional villainy , Abrew has additionally  a most  putrid  antecedence  that disqualifies him  from being  a judge : he is tainted with charges of sexual molestation committed on his domestic servant ; assaulting a police officer who was in his security detail ; and behaving most degradingly and  aggressively in a market  place unbecoming of a judge .Mahinda Rajapakse notorious for exalting criminals and crooks suppressed all his wrongdoings .

The government of good governance too by not conducting an investigation into these past criminal records of his  despite being  a judge had  allowed these Rajapakse crooks and cronies  to continue flourishing in their favorite occupation of selling the lofty judicial profession and sublime national interests  at the altar of their self centered sordid ambitions and opportunistic gains .

Sarath Abrew is such a shameless judge by birth that when he was moving from  the appeal court to the SC, of the 99 cases he heard in the appeal court he had not prepared even a single report  on the 99 cases . Consequently , these cases have to be heard again , it is learnt. The Judicial service commission had not taken any action against him because he was a  most faithful bootlicking stooge of the Rajapakse regime  which all along considered bootlicking the regime  and sniffing their loin clothes as the best qualification a   public official must have irrespective of the latter’s crookedness , criminalities and treacheries which are most  detriment to the country and people.

Sadly , the present judges of the appeal court and SC are mostly lickspittles  and lackeys of Rajapkses and appointed by the Rajapkse regime. The judges for good governance have therefore pointed out , when this is the deplorable state of affairs in the judicature , the administration of true justice and upholding the rule of law to safeguard law abiding citizens of the country has become a major issue. The cooks and cronies of Rajapakses are not only having their way but even their say because the Rajapakses had systematically overturned  the legal Institutions  and processes so much so that the country is now at the brink of anarchy.

As a solution to this , the disconcerted and disgruntled judges who are wishing  that the government of good governance will rectify this grave situation , say, like how SL judges are appointed to the SC of Fiji Island , the judges appointed as president of the appeal court or as chief justice or to the judicial service commission of SL temporarily at least should be by the Commonwealth countries 

When such judges are appointed , as they will have no association with SL politicians , at least until an independent judicature is established in SL following the revival of the  independent judicial commission , a legal foundation based on judicial independence can be put in place  . the legal luminaries and lawyers for a lawful as opposed to a lawless SL asserted

---------------------------
by     (2015-05-16 19:27:28)