Abuse Of National List: Impotent Judiciary Reported To Commonwealth
January 19, 2016
A body of Sri Lankan professionals living in the UK have reported to the commonwealth about the executive controlled impotent justice system in Sri Lanka, to seek immediate intervention to ensure that the government of Sri Lanka adhere to the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles, with regards the judiciary.
Chief Justice K. Sripavan
The report submitted to the Commonwealth draws its attention to the abuse of National List to elect rejected candidates as MPs by the political party secretaries, which is now being challenged in the Supreme Court, by the public interest litigation activist and a lawyer Nagananda Kodituwakku, with a request made to appoint a fuller bench of the Court to hear and determine this case, considering the national importance of the matter.
However, the Chief Justice giving no reasons whatsoever has arbitrarily rejected the request. The CJ stated that in his opinion the case filed challenging the abuse of people’s sovereign right of franchise is not a matter of national importance. This ruling, apparently made under intense pressure from the Executive, has then been challenged by the Counsel Kodituwakku on the basis that CJ’s ruling was manifestly flawed, as the CJ had failed to give any reasons, justifying his ruling on a matter of national importance, despite it directly affecting the sovereign right of franchise of the people a right protected by the constitution.
In this backdrop the counsel had urged the CJ by a Motion filed in Court to appoint a fuller bench to hear the case, sans the Chief Justice K. Siripavan, as he has shown his bias towards executive. The counsel has also requested the Chief Justice not to appoint Justice Sarath Arbrew (an accused charged on a indictment served on him) and also Justice Eva Wanasundara, as she had refused to release Supreme Court determination record citing that it contained ‘classified information’. Whereas the said record contained the blatant fraud involving all three branches of the government; the legislature, the executive and also the judiciary which permitted the 14th amendment to the Constitution 1988, without refereeing it to the people at a referendum. The Counsel had also informed the Court that it had already violated the Constitution for its failure to hear and determine the case filed in Court on 13th Oct 2015 [within the stipulated period of two years].
In this background CJ has alleged that the stand taken by the Counsel Kodituwakku, where the counsel stated that the hearing should be held without the presence of the CJ, was an ‘obstruction of justice’. The CJ has called upon the Bar Association for the 26th Jan 2016 to make its own observations on the CJ’s allegations made against the Counsel Kodituwakku. Read More
