The Need To Re-Interpret The Executive President’s Impunity Under Article 35(1)

By Basil Fernando -November 14, 2012 

Basil Fernando

The constitutional wisdom of a people is the last resort that the people have when they are faced with constitutional peril. It is an almost unanimous opinion in Sri Lanka that the country is faced with constitutional peril due to the 1978 Constitution.

The first attempt to deal with this problem was in 2001, when the 17^thAmendment to the Constitution was almost unanimously agreed upon by almost all the members of the parliament.

This amendment also had the backing of the people. Although it was not a complete solution to the constitutional peril forced by the 1978 Constitution, it was a partial relief through the limitation of the powers of the Executive President. The office of the Executive President has wrapped itself around all the vital institutions of Sri Lanka like a python. The 17^th Amendment was meant to give some relief out of that grift.

However, it was an inadequate approach. It was the inadequacy of that approach which led to its demise when the 18^th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted and the absolute power of the Executive President reasserted itself with even greater strength.

What is important for the purpose of the present argument is that there was an overwhelming understanding that the 1978 Constitution has placed the system of governance in the country in peril and therefore there was a need to be rid of it.

Now that the grip of the Executive President has extended to making an attempt to destroy the independence of the judiciary as a whole, the peril the country is faced with is more obvious today than ever. At such times, there is reason to look again as to whether there are constitutional means to overcome this problem.

It appears that there are two approaches, both of which are constitutionally sound. What is required is, on the one hand, the wisdom and foresight to look into the problem and to gather the courage to muster sufficient consensus on reform.

The first approach                                            Read More

Investigation into Paris Assassination has reached a crucial stage

Wednesday, 14 November 2012 

Paris, 13 November 2012 – According to today’s French newspaper, “Le Parisien”, the investigation into the assassination of Nadarajah Mathinthiran alias Parithi, a Tamil activist and a French citizen has reached a crucial stage.

The French criminal investigation team told the media that one of the suspects in their custody said; "he has been contacted by someone close to the Sri Lanka embassy in France and he was told that in return for the execution of this Tamil leader, he would be given 50.000 Euros and a Sri Lankan passport. All these elements are being verified."

“Le Parisien” says :

Le Parisien, 13 novembre 2012 - « Selon nos informations, un des deux suspects en garde a vue aurait fait de troublantes confidences aux enquêteurs de la brigade criminelle, chargée de ce dossier sensible « Cet homme a affirme avoir été contactée par un proche de l’ambassade du Sri Lanka en France avant de se voir proposer 50,000 euros et un passeport sri lankaise, en change de l’exécution de ce leader tamoul, poursuit la même source. Tous ces éléments sont en cours de vérifications » (excerpt)

http://www.leparisien.fr/espace-premium/actu/deux-suspects-interpelles-apres-le-meurtre-du-leader-tamoul-13-11-2012-2315875.php

This is, in English; “According to our information, out of two suspects in our custody, one told the criminal investigation team, he has been contacted by someone close to the Sri Lanka embassy in France, he was told that in return for the execution of this Tamil leader, he would be given 50.000 Euros and a Sri Lankan passport. All these elements are being verified" (excerpt)

On 12 November 2012, the same news paper, “Le Parisien”, published the following:

“A man was arrested on Sunday 11 November, after the murder of a leader of the Tamil Tigers, Nov. 8, at 21: 30 pm, in the 20th arrondissement in Paris. The suspect, aged 33, a Sri Lankan was arrested by homicide investigators in the suburb known as Villeneuve-Saint-George. After few hours, the second suspect was arrested in the 18th district of Paris in area known as La Chapelle.

On 8th November 2012, Parithi Mathinthiran Nadarajah, 49, was shot in the back with three 9mm bullets as he left the Tamil Coordinating Committee of France (CCTF) office, in rue des Pyrenees”

So far, even though the French investigators have not disclosed the identity of either suspect, there are many deliberate rumours being spread in Europe and UK that both suspects arrested were Singhalese. This is with the motive of creating communal clashes among the diaspora in foreign countries.

Analysts say that if this assassination had taken place in any part of Sri Lanka, there would have been no investigation at all, nor arrests. That has been the routine in the case of many killings of politicians, journalists, religious leaders and others in Sri Lanka.

According to reliable sources, the Sri Lankan government is doing its best not to give any importance to news items regarding the assassination of Nadarajah Mathinthiran alias Parithi. The Sri Lanka government is at a critical juncture, where the UN resolution, the UPR report and the leaked draft UN internal report are all highly critical of it. Sri Lanka fears these will backfire on them at the forthcoming session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, in March 2013.

Every day there are vigils taking place at the spot where the assassination took place in Paris. Memorial meetings are taking place in many western countries for the assassinated leader Nadarajah Mathinthiran alias Parithi.

Impeachment Of CJ: Path To Standing Orders?

By Kamal Nissanka -November 14, 2012

Kamal Nissanka

The impeachment of the Chief Justice of Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka is by every mean seems to be a judicial function. In this context it is vital and interesting to see how the Select Committee appointed by the Speaker of the Parliament acquired its jurisdiction.

Article 4(c) of the 1978 Constitution stipulates on judicial power of the people as follows:

Article (4)c-the  judicial power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament through courts, tribunals, and institutions created and established by law, except in regard to matters relating to the privileges , immunities and powers of parliament and of its members wherein the judicial power of People may be exercised directly  by Parliament according to law.

According to the above article judicial power of the people is unequivocally vested in the courts, tribunals and institutions created by law (e.g.: Rent Boards)

According to article 4© of the constitution, Parliament can act judicially in regard to matters relating to privileges , immunities and regarding powers of Parliament and its members.

A literal interpretation of the Article 4© clearly manifests that the Parliament did not possess jurisdiction   to investigate an impeachment motion when the constitution was passed in 1978.

Then a question arises as to whether the parliament could grab judicial power directly for a subject which is not falling under privileges, immunities.

Impeachment of Superior Court Judges

It is clear that the Article   107(1) is regarding appointment of judges while Articles 107(2) and 107(3) are regarding impeachment of a judge.

Article 107(2) states as follows: Every such judge shall hold office during good behavior and shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of parliament supported by a majority of the total number of members of Parliament (including those not present) has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity.

 Provided that no resolution for presentation of such an address shall be entertained by the Speaker or placed in the on the order paper of parliament, unless notice of such resolution is signed by not less  one third  of the total number of members of parliament and sets out full particulars of alleged misbehavior or incapacity .

Article 107(3) states as follows: Parliament shall by law or by standing orders provide for all matters  relating to the presentation of such an address including the procedure for passing of such resolution the investigation and proof of the alleged misbehavior or incapacity and right of such judge to appear and to be heard in person or by representative .

When one scrutinizes   the above two Articles of the constitution the steps that would be taken for an impeachment motion   would be in two stages    Read More

Internal Probe Asserts UN Failed Tamil Civilians in Sri Lanka

Wednesday, 14 November 2012 

A leaked draft report states that the United Nations (UN) failed in its mandate to protect Tamil civilians during the final days of the military campaign conducted by the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) against the Tamil people in 2009.

Tamil rights groups believe the Tamil death toll could be as high as 146,000 predominantly due to indiscriminate targeting of civilian populations by the GoSL.

While outlining the shortcomings of the UN, the Petrie Report also lists recommendations for the UN in an attempt to prevent such an abandonment of humanitarian responsibilities in future conflicts.

“Such reports will only hold any weight if the UN acts to ensure that it redeems itself from its colossal failure in protecting the Tamil people,” said Dr. Sam Pari, spokesperson for the Australian Tamil Congress (ATC). “It is not just an international independent investigation into war crimes that is much overdue now, but sovereignty of the Tamil people with their right of self-determination being restored post genocide, as was in the case with nations such as Kosovo.”

The ATC has continued to call for an independent international investigation into war crimes during and since the end of the bloodbath and has also joined other Tamil community groups, both within the island of Sri Lanka and amongst diaspora communities for the restoration of Tamil sovereignty within the traditional Tamil homeland. This call was also affirmed at an international conference held in London on Saturday attended by representatives from Tamil diaspora communities as well from India and the island of Sri Lanka.

Media contact:

Dr. Sam Pari, Australian Tamil Congress – 0433 428 967

Judging The Chief Of The Judiciary

By  C. A. Chandraprema -November 14, 2012 

C. A. Chandraprema

As one newspaper editor said, we get budgets once every year, but an impeachment (especially one that goes the whole hog) will be seen only once in a lifetime. Throughout the past week, the media has been on a feeding frenzy over the impeachment motion against the chief justice. The budget has been all but forgotten in the excitement. What enhances the heat and controversy is the fact that the same individual may be in two minds about the judiciary and its decisions. There is no doubt about the fact that former Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva was a tyrant whose attitude towards power was in many respects similar to that of R.Premadasaand Chandrika Kumaratunga. We journalists were more scared of him than we were of Chandrika Kumaratunga. If you got jailed by president, at least you could raise a hue and cry about it. But if you got jailed by the CJ, even that would not be possible. Yet, the same S.N. Silva is also a hero to many including the present writer. The entire history of this country would have been different if not for S.N. Silva.

If not for his decision in the fundamental rights application made by Ven Omalpe Sobitha Thero against the Elections Commissioner (S.C.(FR)278/2005) a presidential election would not have been held in 2005, Mahinda may not have been elected to power and the war would never have ended. This was clearly an instance where tyrannical power and diabolical brilliance has been used for the ultimate benefit of the nation. Chief Justice Silva made use of a comma in Article 31 (3A) d (i) and the definition of the word ‘date’ to include not just the day and month but the year as well, to send Chandrika home in 2005 instead of 2006. Though we may like that decision, certain other rulings given by S.N. Silva like the prohibition on permanent checkpoints issued in 2007 may seem daft.  This brings us to the question whether everything is subjective and whether there are no objective criteria by which judges could be judged?

Last Thursday, Batty Weerakoon the former LSSP heavyweight gave an interview to the Lakbima where he had argued that nobody has said anything about the chief justice and that anything that has been said, has been about her husband and that one cannot blame the wife for something that the husband has done. He further said that if the husband has done something wrong, action should be taken against him, not the wife. What Weerakoon said as a former Minister of Justice and as a former political party leader, carries weight.  Weerakoon has in  fact focussed on what the present writer also considers to be the most damning charge in the impeachment motion – Charge No: 5 which says that Pradeep Kariyawasam, the husband of the CJ is a suspect in a case filed at the Magistrate’s Court of Colombo by the Commission to Investigate into Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, and that as the ex-officio chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission which is vested with powers to transfer, disciplinary control and removal of the Magistrate of the said court which is due to hear this case, and also to examine the judicial records, registers and other documents maintained by the magistrate’s  court and therefore there is  a conflict of interest.

It should be noted in this regard that the Sri Lanka Establishments Code lays down very stringent standards of conduct even for ordinary public servants. According to Appendix I of Volume II of the Establishments Code which provides a ‘Definition of Offences Caused or Committed by Public Officers’ an ordinary policeman or government clerk  ”who fraternises with a law breaker or reputed law breaker would be guilty of improper conduct”. The CJ’s husband, by Batty Weerakoon’s reckoning, is a ‘reputed law breaker’. So what happens if ‘a reputed law breaker’ is living in the same house as the chief justice of the country? If the wrong precedent is created in this case, no action can be taken against police officers and judges who keep company with criminals.

Y. K. Sabharwal, a former chief justice of India said that while every public servant is governed by a certain basic code of conduct which includes the expectation that he shall maintain absolute integrity, the office of a Judge requires much more. The code of ethics expected of those in the judiciary goes beyond the call of duty of an ordinary public servant. He said that there are three cardinal principles of judicial ethics that apply to any person holding a judicial office: 1) concerning the acts attributable to his official functions as a Judge; 2) concerning his conduct while in public glare; 3) the expectations of him in his private life.

The Bangalore Principles                                                Read More                  

CJ’s husband to be summoned before the PSC

Wednesday, 14 November 2012

The parliamentary select committee (PSC) to probe the government’s impeachment motion against Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake is to be taken up on the 14th and the Chief Justice’s husband is to be summoned before the committee, a senior UNP MP said.

The UNP has proposed that the Chief Justice’s husband, former National Savings Bank (NSB) Chairman Prasad Suraj Kariyawasam be summoned before the PSC to inquire about a charge in the impeachment motion referring to alleged irregular dealings carried out by him during his tenure as the NSB Chief.

Meanwhile, UNP parliamentarian Ravi Karunanayake has filed a complaint with the Bribery Commission against Central bank Governor, Ajith Nivard Cabraal and his alleged involvement in the NSB’s controversial purchase of The Finance Company shares.

WikiLeaks: Pact With JVP Is ‘Just Words’, I Know How To Handle And Use Them – Mahinda Assured US

By Colombo Telegraph -November 14, 2012 

I know how to handle them and use them (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

“The Prime Minister told the Ambassador that there should be no cause for concern since the agreement was ‘just words.’ Moreover, there had been translation inaccuracies from the signed Sinhala original into English. Rajapakse reviewed his long history of opposition to and district electoral victories over the JVP and told the Ambassador that he knew how to handle them and use them. In order to win the election, the PM said, JVP support was essential, and he knew from experience that the way to handle the JVP is to agree to whatever they want in order to get their support. ‘You must understand this is an election campaign. I want to win, so I need everyone.’ Moreover, Rajapakse concluded, there is nothing in the agreement he signed with the JVP that could be construed as not supporting the peace process. ‘I want peace.’ the US Embassy Colombo informed Washington.

US Ambassador Jeffrey Lunstead wrote “the Ambassador, accompanied by DCM (notetaker), called on Prime Minister (and Sri Lanka Freedom Party – SLFP- Presidential candidate) Mahinda Rajapakse September 12. The Ambassador noted that he had just returned to Sri Lanka after five weeks and conveyed condolences on the assassination of former Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar and expressed appreciation for Sri Lanka’s gestures of support in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, both of which had occurred during the Ambassador’s absence. Renunciation of Peace Process?”A Leaked “CONFIDENTIAL” US diplomatic cable, dated September 12, 2005, updated the Secretary of State on Sri Lanka’s presidential election 2005. The Colombo Telegraph found the related leaked cable from the WikiLeaks database. The cable was signed by the US Ambassador Jeffrey Lunstead. The cable details a US meeting with Prime Minister and the Presidential candidate Mahinda Rajapaksa.

“Turning to the presidential election campaign, the Ambassador told the PM that the agreement that he had signed with the Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) to bring them into his electoral coalition had caught the attention of the international community. (Note: the agreement, signed September 8, calls, inter alia, for a complete renegotiation of the cease-fire agreement (CFA), a re-examination of the role of the Norwegian facilitators, insists on a ‘unitary’ state and trashes the Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure (P-TOMS) signed with the LTTE, but now entangled in court challenges to its constitutionality. The agreement also criticizes privatization in key economic sectors and promises to follow JVP economic policies. Over the weekend, the press published an acerbic letter to the PM from President Chandrika Bandanaraike Kumaratunga (CBK) in which she criticized Rajapakse for signing an agreement which, in her view, contradicted key SLFP tenets and policies. End Note) The Ambassador noted that, taken at face value, the agreement with the JVP would appear to be a complete renunciation of the ongoing peace process which has long enjoyed the support of the international community. No Cause for Concern: ‘Just Words’” he further wrote.

Sri Lanka denies intimidating UN over Tamil deaths

14 November 2012

Tamil civilians fled the conflict in northern Sri Lanka

The Sri Lankan government has denied allegations that it intimidated UN staff at the end of the civil war.

The claims were made in a UN report leaked to the BBC, in which the UN accused itself of failing the civilian Tamil population in the final stages of the conflict in 2009.

The Sri Lankan UN ambassador said it was "absolute nonsense" to say a "small country" could intimidate the UN.

Palitha Kohona said his country had worked with senior UN officials.

Plantations Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe told a press conference in the capital, Colombo, that he did not want to comment directly on the report.

But he said: "How can you intimidate them [the UN]? They don't get intimidated by anyone."

The UN's investigation into its own conduct during the last months of the conflict concluded: "Events in Sri Lanka mark a grave failure of the UN."

It said the organisation should in future "be able to meet a much higher standard in fulfilling its protection and humanitarian responsibilities".

The report does highlight the positive role played by some UN staff on the ground and the secretary general, but it points to a "systemic failure".

It questions decisions such as the withdrawal of UN staff from the war zone in September 2008 after the Sri Lankan government warned it could no longer guarantee their safety.

A Tamil school teacher now seeking asylum in Britain, said "We begged them [the UN], we pleaded with them not to leave the area. They did not listen to us."

The teacher who did not want to be named, added: "If they had stayed there, and listened to us, many more people would be alive today."

'Difficult dilemmas'

The UN's former humanitarian chief, John Holmes, has criticised the report.

Mr Holmes said the UN faced "some very difficult dilemmas" at the time and could be criticised for the decisions it had taken.

"But the idea that if we behaved differently, the Sri Lankan government would have behaved differently I think is not one that is easy to reconcile with the reality at the time," he told the BBC's Newshour programme.

In September 2009, Sri Lanka expelled the country spokesman for Unicef, James Elder, who had updated the media on the plight of children caught up in the conflict.

Palitha Kohona, who was then permanent secretary at the Sri Lankan ministry of foreign affairs, accused him of spreading propaganda for the Tamil Tigers after he reported seeing babies with shrapnel and gunshot injuries.

The government and Tamil rebels are accused of war crimes in the brutal conflict which ended in May 2009.

The 26-year war left at least 100,000 people dead. There are still no confirmed figures for tens of thousands of civilian deaths in the last months of battle.

An earlier UN investigation said it was possible up to 40,000 people had been killed in the final five months alone. Others suggest the number of deaths could be even higher.

Hundreds of thousands of Tamil civilians remained in the war zone, exploited by both sides: forcibly recruited by Tamil Tigers or used as human shields; or under indiscriminate government fire.

On the day before the war ended, 17 May 2009, Mr Samarasinghe said: "Soldiers saved all the Tamil civilians trapped inside the war zone without shedding a drop of blood."

The 26-year war left at least 100,000 people dead (This report was first broadcast in May 2009)

UN spokesman Martin Nesirky told the BBC the UN does not comment on leaked reports.

He said a final version would be published once the secretary general had received and read it.

Senior UN sources say Ban Ki-moon is determined to act on its wide-ranging recommendations in order to "learn lessons" and respond more effectively to major new crises, such as Syria, now confronting the international community.

Rajapaksas have washed their hands off the impeachment motion – Wimal Weerawansa

Wednesday, 14 November 2012 

NFF Leader, Minister Wimal Weerawansa has told several of his friends that the Rajapaksas have distanced themselves from the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice by not placing their signatures on it.

Weerawansa has given his analysis on the impeachment motion to his friends. He has said Nirupama Rajapaksa is the only Rajapaksa to sign the motion. He has added that the President had forced her signature by threatening to expose her husband’s dirty dealings.

Weerawansa has explained that the impeachment motion has been prepared in a manner that it would not be linked to the Rajapaksas if and when it is taken up for discussion in future as part of Sri Lanka’s political history.

The architect of the impeachment motion, Minister Basil Rajapaksa has not placed his signature on the motion. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has not signed it since he is the head of state. Chamal Rajapaksa has not signed it since he is the Speaker of parliament. Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has not signed it since he is not in parliament. MP Namal Rajapaksa has refrained from signing the motion thinking it would have an adverse impact on his legal career.

Weerawansa has also pointed out that the President had also prevented his most trusted people from getting involved in the impeachment motion. He has cited Deputy Minister Jayaratne Herath, who tabled a scurrilous document against the Chief Justice in parliament, as an example.

Herath is currently at loggerheads with Minster Johnston Fernando over the post of SLFP organizer for the Kurunegala electorate. The President had protected Fernando and had put Herath forward.

Weerawansa has also noted that the President ensured that Minister Pavithra Wanniarachchi, who has recently complained that her husband was being ignored in governing party politics, could not engage in the legal profession future.

Impeachment Of CJ: Government Must Adhere To International Standards Of Due Process Says ICJ November 14, 2012  ds of due process says the International Commission of Jurists. “Many people in Sri Lanka have called the impeachment proceedings against Chief JusticeBandaranayake a politically motivated attack on the independence of the judiciary,” said Sam Zarifi, Asia Director of the   (ICJ). “If the government wants to dispel any such notion, it must adhere to international standards of due process in the impeachment proceedings.” The proceedings come in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on a controversial bill, the Divi Neguma bill, before Parliament. The bill seeks to establish a centralized development authority by amalgamating three provincial development agencies. If the bill passes, the Minister of Economic Development (who is also the President’s brother Basil Rajapakse) would have control over a fund of 80 billion Sri Lankan rupees (611 million USD). In early September, the Chief Justice, leading a bench of three Supreme Court Justices, issued a ruling, directing Parliament to obtain the consent of each of the elected Provincial Councils before passing the bill. Following the ruling, all of the provincial councils, except the Northern province, endorsed the Divi Neguma bill. The Tamil-majority Northern Province, until recently the stronghold of the insurgent armed Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, has still not held elections for the Provincial Council. However, the appointed Governor of the Northern Province endorsed the bill on the basis that no provincial council had been elected or established in the Northern province. The Tamil National Alliance (a political alliance of minority Sri Lankan Tamils) filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the authority of the Northern Province Governor to approve the Divi Neguma Bill in the absence of an elected provincial council. On 1 November 2012, the Chief Justice handed the decision on the Divi Neguma bill to the Speaker of the House. On the same day, the Government coalition, the United People’s Freedom Alliance presented a motion to initiate impeachment proceedings in Parliament. The Speaker of Parliament then postponed the tabling of the impeachment motion until the announcement of the decision on the Divi Neguma bill. “The timing of the impeachment motion, just as the Supreme Court had challenged the government, certainly has raised some eyebrows,” said Zarifi. “And all this comes against the backdrop of increasing tensions between the between the judiciary and the Government, which have escalated to the point of physical violence in the past few months,” Zarifi said. In July 2012, Government Minister Rishad Bathiudeen threatened a Magistrate in Mannar and then allegedly orchestrated a mob to pelt stones and set fire to part of the Mannar courhouse. In early October, the secretary of the Judicial Service Commission, Manjula Tillekaratne was assaulted by four unidentified persons in broad daylight. The ICJ issued a report earlier this month, Sri Lanka’s Crisis of Impunity, documenting the recent attacks on judicial officers and judges, explaining how the systemic erosion of accountability has led to a crisis of impunity in Sri Lanka. Fourteen charges The impeachment motion against Chief Justice Bandaranayake sets out 14 charges. Allegations include failing to follow Constitutional provisions by handing a Court decision to the Secretary of Parliament instead of the Speaker of Parliament; not declaring all of her bank accounts to the auditor general; and misusing her position. Opposition leaders have called on the Speaker of Parliament to allow observers from the International Commission of Jurists and other international organizations to attend the proceedings. ”The fact that members of parliament believe it is necessary to have international observers indicates the strong perception that this impeachment motion is politically motivated,” Zarifi added. Under the UN Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary, a judge should only be removed for incapacity or serious misconduct. Exceptional measure In the region, impeachment is an exceptional measure reserved only for gross misconduct. Only India and Nepal allow for the impeachment of the Chief Justice and neither country has ever initiated proceedings. In the two instances where a provincial high court judge was removed in India, allegations involved criminal acts or egregious acts of corruption. Where a judge is at risk of being removed, he or she must be accorded the right to be fully informed of the charges; the right to be represented at the hearing; the right to make a full defense; and the right to be judged by an independence and impartial tribunal. The removal proceedings must meet international standards on fair trial and due process. In India, an impeachment hearing is presided over by a three-member committee comprised of a Supreme Court justice, a Chief Justice of any High Court and an eminent jurist. In Sri Lanka, a seven-member Select Committee, comprising only Parliamentarians, presides over the impeachment hearing. The Judicial Service Commission does not play a role in the impeachment process and there is no appeal to a judicial body. At least twice, the Sri Lankan government has attempted to impeach its Chief Justice. In 1978, the Government attempted to impeach Chief Justice Samarakoon. The Chief Justice, however, retired before the Committee report could clear him of the charges after some two years of hearings. In 2001, the Government initiated impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Sarath Silva. However, before a Committee could be constituted President Kumaratunga dissolved Parliament. CONTACT: Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, m:            +66 80781 9002      ; email: sam.zarifi@icj.org Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t:            +66 85720 0723      ; email: sheila.varadan@icj.org Source www.icj.org