Four visits in nine months and statements in the Commons on the controversial Rajapaska regime: why does the 28-year-old MP for Stockton James Wharton care so much about Sri Lanka?

His opponents say James Wharton’s defences of Colombo regime are influenced by his travels –but he insists he’s no cheerleader

For a 28-year old backbench Tory MP it was a highlight of his young political career. James Wharton beamed for the camera as he accepted a ceremonial plate from the Sri Lanka Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.

Wharton was the head of a delegation of nine UK parliamentarians on a journey to the South Asian nation in July and August of this year as guests of the Sri Lanka government – which is anxious to improve its international reputation in the wake of the bloody civil war that ended three years ago after Mr Rajapaska masterminded the army’s success.

Mr Wharton was returning to familiar territory. He had also been a guest of the Sri Lankan government on a trip in January, when he visited the cities of Colombo, Killinochi and Jaffna.

Then in March he flew out again, this time with a non-governmental organisation, International Alert, as one of two politicians accompanying a group of second generation Sri Lankans from the UK.

And in September, he was back in Sri Lanka again – his fourth trip in nine months – as a member of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation.

In his short time as an MP, Mr Wharton, who has no significant Sri Lankan community in his Teesside constituency of Stockton South, has also attended official Sri Lankan functions in Britain on at least five separate occasions in the past 12 months. He has also spoken in the House of Commons on Sri Lankan matters.

In February he joined the British-educated High Commissioner Christopher Nonis to toast Sri Lanka Independence Day. In June, he met President Mahinda Rajapaksa during his visit to London to celebrate the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee (Mr Wharton had also met the President in December 2010, barely six months after being elected to Parliament). In August this year he again returned to the High Commission so that Mr Nonis could introduce him to members of the Sri Lanka Olympics team after it arrived to take part in London 2012.

Questioned by The Independent over the level of his involvement in Sri Lanka affairs, Mr Wharton said: “I am very much not… the Sri Lankan government’s cheerleader.”

Mr Wharton adds that the lack of Sri Lankans in his constituency is “an advantage” because it allows him to make an independent contribution to the debate. “It means I can take an objective view on Sri Lanka without having pressure from either of the big two diaspora communities that live in the UK.”

Mr Wharton spoke out during a Parliamentary debate on Sri Lanka in February this year, saying that a report by a United Nations panel of experts, which detailed allegations of human rights violations by the Sri Lanka government and the rebel Tamil Tigers during the civil war, should be treated with caution. “Is it not clear that, while the report sets out a narrative and raises legitimate concerns, it must not be taken as a factual account?” he asked.

The Sri Lanka civil war ended in a bloody slaughter that has attracted widespread concern from UN bodies and NGOs. Allegations of human rights abuses by the Sri Lanka army were raised by Channel 4 in its documentary Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields but were denounced as “baseless accusations” by Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.

In September last year, Mr Wharton took part in another Parliamentary debate in which he defended the Sri Lankan government’s military campaign to bring an end to the civil war. The Sri Lankan Army’s actions, the MP argued, amounted to “an effective but ruthless military campaign of the sort necessary to put down an organisation such as the LTTE using military means”.

Mr Wharton says he has made friends on both sides of Sri Lanka’s ethnic divide and that he hopes to make a contribution to building peace in a country that is still recovering from conflict. “There are areas that haven’t been resolved and areas where people have irreconcilable differences but there are a large number of areas where people could work together to make life better for the people in Sri Lanka.”

Asked about the frequency of his visits to Sri Lanka and the country’s High Commission in London he said: “I don’t think it’s disproportionate or unreasonable, no.”

Mr Wharton told this paper that he wished to introduce more balance into the discussion. “I do not pretend that things are absolutely fine in Sri Lanka, it would be ridiculous to do so. But I do think that the debate we have in the UK about it is very one-sided.”

In December 2011, at Portcullis House in Westminster, Mr Wharton sat alongside Mr Nonis as the High Commissioner presented to parliamentarians a report on Sri Lanka’s 'Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission' which was set up to help bring peace to the country. The MP is said to have commended Mr Nonis on his “very thorough overview”. After meeting the President in June, Mr Wharton described the visit as a “watershed” moment in relations between Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom.

Mr Wharton said he had travelled to Sri Lanka with International Alert in March because “I felt it was important to go with other organisations and not be seen to be in the pocket of one side or the other”. The trip was jointly arranged with the Royal Commonwealth Society – which has Christopher Nonis, the Sri Lanka High Commissioner to the UK, as its deputy chairman.

Asked about his apparent obsession with Sri Lankan affairs, Mr Wharton said his interests were partly business-related on behalf of his constituents. “I’ve got a number of companies on Teesside that do a lot of work out there.”  He declined to identify the companies.

He said he had become aware of British economic connections with Sri Lanka after flying to South Asia. “I will be honest with you the business connection is only something I realised after getting involved when I was out there and came across various British companies that were doing work. Marks & Spencer are manufacturing most of their garments in Sri Lanka, there are companies in my patch up here that do a lot of work out there, engineering and things.”

The Sri Lanka government was formerly represented by the lobbying companying Bell Pottinger but Mr Wharton said he had not had any dealings with any such companies. “I have not been engaged by any lobbying companies about Sri Lanka at all.”

He said that he had not declared in the Register of Members’ Interests the gifts he had received from Sri Lanka officials, including the ceremonial plate, because they were not of sufficient value. “It’s normal on those visits to exchange a token of friendship or appreciation, it’s a tradition or custom that they have in a number of countries.”

Mr Wharton’s interest in Sri Lanka echoes that of the former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, who was a frequent visitor to the country despite having no obvious responsibilities for it. Dr Fox was forced to call off one visit to Colombo in late 2010 after his controversial assistant Adam Werritty had already flown on ahead amid reported concerns from the Foreign Office.

When Mr Wharton first visited Sri Lanka at the start of this year he went with his researcher Christopher Duggan. The MP said that he had not been part of a parliamentary delegation and required some support. “The itinerary was packed and yes, to be frank, we did a lot of work whilst we were out there.”

But John Mann, a Labour MP who has also travelled to Sri Lanka with the Royal Commonwealth Society, said the country still had “huge human rights problems” and that Mr Wharton had become too close to the government.

“There’s a reason why he has been invited so many times by the Sri Lankan government, paid for by the Sri Lankan government so many times and that they are wining and dining him so often at the Sri Lanka High Commission in London,” he said. “This is not a very effective use of parliamentary time and he’s going to have difficulty explaining it to his constituents.”

SRI LANKA: WHAT THEY SAY

UN Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Sri Lanka

“The Panel’s determination of credible allegations reveals a very different version of the final stages of the war than that maintained to this day by the Government of Sri Lanka... The Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law was committed by both the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

James Wharton MP in Parliament after trip to Sri Lanka

“The Sri Lankan Government launched a campaign to bring the civil war to an end – an effective but ruthless military campaign of the sort necessary to put down an organisation such as the LTTE using military means. We have heard much discussion of some of the atrocities that are alleged to have been committed during that campaign, but in the context in which it happened we must all understand that the LTTE was one of the worst oppressors of the Tamil people during and before the conflict.”

GOVT PUTTING RS.10 IN PEOPLE’S POCKET AND TAKING RS.90 - RAVI

November 24, 2012 

The government is following a system where it puts 10 rupees in the people’s pockets and takes back 90 rupees from them, charged UNP MP Ravi Karunanayake.

Even thought the government says it has raised wages of public sector employees, not even a wage hike of “5 cents” has been afforded to private sector worker, he said during the Committee Stage Debate on the 2013 Appropriation Bill in Parliament today.

He accused the government of not taking any steps to increase the wages in the private sector, despite investing 50 to 60 percent in it.

While parliamentarian A.H.M Aswar had raised a Point of Order during Karunanayake’s statement, the Speaker however rejected it and proceeded to warn MP Aswar that he will be removed from parliament if he continued to raise Point of Order unnecessarily. 

Breaking News: Full Text Of The Interim Reply Given By The Chief Justice

By Colombo Telegraph -November 24, 2012 

“It is therefore apparent that these charges are baseless and groundless. It is a pity that the Chief Justice’s reputation has been adversely affected. We hope that with the true facts being revealed, the public will realize the evil perpetrated on her.” says Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake‘s lawyers in her  interim reply.

CJ

WE publish the full text of the interim reply given by the Chief Justice.

The charges are groundless and baseless. There has not even been an iota of consideration of the facts before the resolution was signed or placed on the Order Paper. The charges are levied to damage the reputation of an independent and fearless judge. The true facts illustrate the above.

CHARGES RELATING TO FINANCIAL IMPROPRIETY

PURPORTED CHARGE 3

“Whereas, by not declaring in the annual declaration of assets and liabilities thatshould be submitted by a judicial officer, the details of approximately Rs. 34 million in foreign currency deposited at the branch of NDB Bank located at Dharmalpala Mawatha, Colombo 07 in accounts 106450013024, 101000046737, 100002001360 and 100001014772 during the period from 18 April 2011 to 27 March 2012.”

The Charge is groundless and baseless.

In summary Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake’s position is as follows:-

There was no deposit of Rs. 34 million in foreign currency as alleged in the charge.

Dr. Bandaranayake’s sister remitted from Australia the equivalent of Rs.29,688,225.38 for the purchase of a housing unit at trillium residencies.

Out of such sum, a sum of Rs.27, 987,200/- was remitted to the vendor by cheques in connection with the purchase of the housing unit at trillium residencies.

The above sum of Rs.29,688,225.38 was not an asset of Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake.

Of the balance, a sum of Rs. 1,000000 was remitted to Dr. Bandaranayake’s sisters’s account.

The balance Rs. 800,000/= was retained by Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake to be used as per her sister’s instructions to be utilized for other purposes including the annual almsgiving in memory of their parents.

Though not an asset in her declaration of assets and liabilities, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake declared a sum of Rs.10,061,819/31 as “holding on behalf of my sister to pay for the apartment” [this was the only sum held by Dr. Bandaranayake for her sister as at 31.3.2012 and it had been declared].

In the circumstances,
(a) Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake did not receive a sum of Rs.34 million as alleged in the charge;

(b) the only sums received from abroad aggregated to the equivalent of Rs.29,688,225.38 which she received from her sister for the purchase of the apartment..

(c) of this sum, a sum of Rs.27, 987,200/- was remitted to the vendor to purchase the apartment;

(d) a sum of  Rs 1,000,000/= was credited to her sister’s account; the balance was retained as per her sister’s instructions for expenses.

(d) Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake had declared the full sum held by her on account of her sister as at 31.3.2012 in her declaration of assets and liabilities [that is a sum of Rs.10,061,819.31].

In the circumstances the purported charge that she did not declare Rs.34 million in her declaration is groundless, baseless, frivolous and malicious.

PURPORTED CHARGE 2

“Whereas, in making the payment for the purchase of the above property, by paying a sum of Rs 19,362,500 in cash, the manner in which such sum of money was earned had not been disclosed, to the companies of City Housing and Real Estate Company Limited and Trillium Residencies prior to the purchase of the said property.”

The Charge is groundless and baseless.

The sum of Rs.19,362,500/- was part of the purchase consideration of the housing unit referred to above.

This sum (Rs.19,362,500/-) is included in the aforesaid sum of Rs.29,688,225.38 remitted to our client by her sister for the purchase of the housing unit referred to above.

This sum of Rs.19,362,500/- is also included in the sum remitted to the vendor for the purchase of housing unit.

This sum of Rs.19,362,500/- never belonged to our client.

PURPORTED CHARGE 4.                                        Read More

MIC Youth and Indian NGOs to hold demo on Sri Lankan president’s visit to M’sia

PUTRAJAYA, Nov 23 : MIC Youth and Indian NGOs will hold a demonstration in front of the Sri Lankan High Commission next Wednesday to protest a planned visit by their president Mahinda Rajapaksa to Malaysia early next month.

The Star Online reported, MIC Youth chief T Mohan claimed Mahinda’s presence in the country is not welcomed by Malaysia’s Indian community, who hold him responsible for alleged atrocities committed against ethnic Tamil Sri Lankans when they crushed the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 2009.

Mohan handed over a memorandum of protest to Foreign Deputy Minister A Kohilan Pillay at the Foreign Ministry Friday.

Mahinda is scheduled to attend the three-day World Islamic Economic Forum in Johor this Dec 4-6.

The 67-year-old leader, who took over Sri Lanka’s presidency in 2005, was credited for the Government’s defeat of Tamil Tiger rebels four years later, ending a 26-year civil war.

He has however come under scrutiny by the international community over allegations of human rights violations against ethnic Tamil Sri Lankans over the final months leading to the Government victory over the Tamil Tigers.

CJ left for select Committee meeting amidst cheers and asiri gathas – Basil’s designs flop
(Lanka-e-News -23.Nov.2012, 11.55PM)The Chief 
justice (CJ) , Dr. Shiranee Bandaranayake appeared before the Parliament Select Committee a while ago. All the hindrances and insults organized by Basil Rajapakse in this regard were foiled because, following the exposures made by the news website , there was opposition from the side of the Govt. itself against Basil’s base motives and actions. Consequently the CJ could arrive in her official vehicle and alight at the entrance of the Parliament complex. With her were her Lawyers , Saliya Peiris and Romesh Silva. 

The Chairman of the Select Committee, Minister Anura Priyadharshana Yapa a dengue suspect was also present to participate in the select Committee session.

The Lawyers and civil Organization leaders in thousands who thronged the Aluthkade courts stood along both sides of the road when the CJ started her journey to attend the select Committee meeting , and cheered ‘ Jayawewa’ . They also shouted slogans ,‘ impeachment be doomed’ and ‘ victory for Chief justice’. The singing of the gatha ‘ sabhe diyo vivachaththu – samba rogovinasaththu ‘ along the way when she traveled past was a rare spectacle. 

A group of the large crowd that was present ,after she left began dashing coconuts on the ground roundly cursing all those who are the architects of this impeachment motion. Thereafter , senior Lawyers J C Weliamuna, Gunaratne Wanninayake and others addressed the crowds that were there .
The Lawyers speaking on he occasion said , they are totally opposed to the impeachment against the CJ as it is a deadly assault on the independent judiciary . The people of this country know very well , whether it is the CJ or the rulers of this country who are corrupt , they added.

A Lawyer who said that the people have already rejected the charges mounted by the MaRa rulers, warned that this struggle will be continued , and it will be carried on until even a fast unto death is staged, if necessary. The civil organization representatives and Lawyers are to meet the chief incumbent of the Kotte Nagavihara , Ven. Maduluwawa Sobhitha Thero and other Prelates this noon.

DIG Chandra Wakhishta , the chief of the State intelligence service had sent a group of his henchmen and videotaped the joint proceedings of the Lawyers and the civil Organizations . These have been done at the behest of BayaGotha who is these days staying out of the country.
Fate, curse or coincidence ,on the very day the Select committee took a cruel decision not to give time to the CJ despite her reasonable request , MaRa took ill and had to be rushed to America for treatment . The Lanka e news revealed this ahead two days ago. Now, the State media stooges had announced that the President had suddenly visited America (sudden concern) to inquire after the well being of the Prime Minister who is ill in the States.

The photo below depicts the CJ just before leaving the Court precincts.

Has The Parliamentary Select Committee Become A Political Tribunal?

By Laksiri Fernando -November 23, 2012

Dr Laksiri Fernando

The Parliamentary Select Committee’s rejection of the Supreme Court’s decision that the impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice should be postponed until the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of the Standing Order 78A that purportedly governs such proceedings, as requested by the Court of Appeal, undoubtedly is the latest breach against the judicial authority in Sri Lanka by the political authority.

The decision of the Supreme Court was good as a ‘determination’ or ‘order’ although the Deputy Speaker, Chandima Weerakkody, opted to ridicule it by saying a “request or something” to Live at 12 of Swarnawahini yesterday (23 November 2012). The format of the recommendation was like any other court order. It was argued and decided. The carefully worded directive after outlining the legal circumstances said:

“However, at this stage, this Court whilst reiterating that there has to be mutual respect and understanding founded upon the rule of law between Parliament and the Judiciary for the smooth functioning of both the institutions, wishes to recommend to the members of the Select Committee of Parliament that it is prudent to defer the inquiry to be held against the Hon. the Chief Justice until this Court makes its determination on the question of law referred to by the Court of Appeal.”

It is important to underline the importance of what it said about the “mutual respect and understanding founded upon the rule of law between Parliament and the Judiciary for the smooth functioning of both the institutions.” But, the Political Commissars over Diyawanna Oya apparently didn’t want to listen to this sober advice for reasons best known to them. Instead they decided to go ahead with the flawed proceedings. They apparently didn’t even listen to the four members of the opposition. Consensus over the procedure of the PSC perhaps is not their concern.

The Supreme Court decision was given after listening to the Counsels on behalf of the petitioners and the Attorney General, Palitha Fernando, as it commented “who appeared on very short notice.” As the decision quoted, the following was the main question that the Court of Appeal has referred to the Supreme Court:

“It is mandatory under Article 107 (3) of the Constitution for the Parliament to provide for matters relating to the forum before which the allegations are to be proved, the mode of proof, the burden of proof, the standard of proof etc. of any alleged misbehavior or incapacity in addition to the matters relating to the investigation of the alleged misbehavior or incapacity?”   

It is obvious that the above important question or questions would not have been referred to the Supreme Court unless there had been serious doubts about the Constitutionality of the Standing Order 78A that purportedly governs the proceedings of the impeachment. The following questions naturally come to my mind, as a result of the above and other reasons, even without a proper legal background as a concerned citizen as to the consistency between the Standing Order 78A and the Constitution and particularly its Article 107.

1. Is the PSC the correct Forum before which allegations against a Judge of the Supreme Court (including the Chief Justice) or the Court Appeal (including the President) are to be investigated and proved?
2. Why the Stating Order 78A from paragraphs 1 to 9 is completely silent on the mode of proof and the standard of proof? Can the PSC be considered a proper legal Forum?
3. Why the Standing Order 78A is completely silent on any prior investigating procedure into any allegations of Judicial Officers?
4. More importantly, who has the burden of proof? The PSC or the accused Judge?

Anyone who goes through the scantily drafted nine paragraphs of the so-called Standing Order would come to the conclusion – if the person is unbiased and concerned about natural justice – that the procedure of the impeachment is terribly flawed and the fate of the present Chief Justice should not be place under this Kangaroo Court. The following is what the Standing Order says about anything closer to the ‘burden of proof’ in paragraph (5). On all other matters except the question one the Standing Order is completely silent.

“The Judge whose alleged misbehaviour or incapacity is the subject of the investigation by a Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order shall have the right to appear before it and to be heard by, such Committee, in person or by representative and to adduce evidence, oral or documentary, in disproof of the allegations made against him.”

Now the accused, in the present case the Chief Justice, “shall have the right to appear before it and to be heard by such Committee, in person or by representative.” This may appear great or sufficient to some because she is given a hearing! Then she can “adduce evidence, oral or documentary.” For what, “in disproof of the allegations made against him!”

Now she is not a ‘He.’ Let alone the gender bias in the language, the Chief Justice has to disprove the allegations! This is travesty of natural justice and people like Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Nimal Siripala de Silva and Dilan Perera should be ashamed to sit in this Kangaroo Court, not to speak of others.

The Supreme Court also has given very obligingly the reasons why it requests the PSC to kindly postpone the proceedings. As it said, “In terms of Rule 64 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules of 1978 certain procedural steps have to be followed before a determination is made by this Court.” It has also been noted that a decision could be given within two months. This is completely ignored by the PSC. The decision also noted the following more substantially.

“According to the pleadings filed in the Court of Appeal and the submissions made by all learned counsel in this Court, standing order 78(A) of the Parliament contravenes Article 4(c) read with Article 3 , Article 12(1) and 13(5) of the Constitution and are also contrary to the accepted norms relating to the burden of proof.”

The observed points of inconsistency with the Constitution above are mainly four: (1) Article 4 (c) (2) Article 3 (3) Article 12 (1) and (4) Article 13 (5). This is in addition to the Article 107 of the Constitution which governs the overall impeachment procedure. The observation shows the absurdity and the arbitrary nature of the PSC procedure. It is also important to quote what it also said in terms of rule of law and justice in trying to persuade the PSC or the Speaker on the importance of postponing the impeachment proceedings.

“The desirability and paramount importance of acceding to the suggestions made by this Court would be based on mutual respect and trust and as something essential for the safe guarding of the rule of law and the interest of all persons concerned and ensuring that justice is not only be done but is manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done.”

Unfortunately all these good advices were completely ignored and proceedings went ahead yesterday morning at the Parliamentary complex. It appears that the Political Commissars in the Parliamentary Select Committee seem to think that they are ABOVE THE LAW. They are badly mistaken. The Standing Orders are not law but only rules of procedure. When the Supreme Court decides to hear the objections based on 9 petitions, on Constitutionality and natural justice, by all decency or good sense the PSC proceedings should have been postponed. But it is not to be the case under the present political administration.

What a tragedy of justice if the ‘Chief Justice’ has to prove her innocence before a Political Tribunal hastily convened with inaccurately drafted 14 charges for nothing but political reasons? How can one easily disprove allegations if those are framed and false? What are the implications on rule of law and the system of justice if the so-called Representative of the People (MPs) so behave? These questions speak volumes of the tragedy of Sri Lanka’s democracy under the Rajapaksa rule.

SC gives instructions and advice to select Committee : Boorish and brutish regime decides to ignore them
(Lanka-e-News -22.Nov.2012, 11.55PM) The Supreme Court (SC) today announced that there are legal tangles in the impeachment motion , and therefore the Parliamentary select committee be instructed to put on hold the inquiry into the impeachment until the clarification is made. The SC also stated that the clarification will be made known on the 13th of next month. The SC which did not issue an interim injunction order , added that until the 13th the Committee of inquiry shall be halted. This directive was given based on an examination of a request made by the appeal court for a clarification from the SC in regard to the petition filed in the appeal court.

It is to be noted that the SC in this instance did not give any orders against the Parliament but confined to prescribing what is to be done. This was issued by a panel of three judges with justice Nimal Amaratunge presiding. The other two SC judges were Sri Pavan and Priyasad Dep. The CJ did not include herself in this panel.
Meanwhile , in his characteristic boorish and brutish manner , Basil Rajapakse had given instructions this evening to the select Committee to go ahead regardless of what were prescribed, according to reports reaching Lanka e news , meaning that the Rajapakse regime had already decided to override the judiciary. 

The Presidential advisor Kumarasiri Hettige on the other hand is moving heaven and earth to avoid these reports being published by the media, and is busy distorting and misrepresenting them . He is instructing the media to avoid reporting on the ground it is impeachment news. However this is a misleading instruction because media is to be kept out from the impeachment news only when the Select Committee of the Parliament inquires , and not when it is a court proceeding.

Fight For CJ Without A “Pro People” Judiciary Helps Rajapaksa

By Kusal Perera -November 24, 2012 |

Kusal Perera

On 20 November (2012) afternoon, a fair gathering of people at the badly neglected Colombo Public Library, gave that old black and white look of an art gallery photograph. Grey haired, bald and elderly men on stage argued against the impeachment now being taken up by the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to decide on charges levelled against the Chief Justice (CJ). The audience, brought together by a group of city based trade unions for this public meeting, looking equally ancient, but was determined the impeachment should be defeated. The speakers argued their case quite well, and proved the impeachment was morally, legally, constitutionally and democratically wrong and should not be allowed to have its passage through parliament. A good case, they established.

The meeting had one very conspicuous lapse though, to put it mildly. The youth, the young generation that should take up the fight for the future, was almost absent with only a very negligible presence of women too. The audience was not one of a broad social representation. That added up to a question raised by another from the audience at the conclusion of the meeting. “All this is fine” he said and asked, “What all the arguments and explanations implied is, Rajapaksa would have his way. They never indicated what should be done ?” So the important question is “Critic and analysis is good, but what next ?”

This goes with all what was written to date on the impeachment, including interventions and comments on “FaceBook” and e-mail chains. They were all good and strong arguments to say the impeachment is and attempt to wrongfully remove the incumbent Chief Justice and politically control the judiciary. Yes it is. But it is one that can not be left as a campaign to save the Chief Justice. It has to be a campaign to save the judiciary. It should not stop at shouting hoarse to save the CJ, but go on to demand judicial reforms to have an independent, pro people judiciary. That seems the absent part in all of these segmented campaigns and protests.

The towel has already been thrown in, it looks, with the Rajapaksa regime declared the winner. Not merely because they have a steam rolling majority in parliament, but because the Opposition is clearly compromising on any and everything the regime wants. All decisions so far taken regarding the PSC proceedings has gone the way the regime wants, with the Opposition representation in it, consenting though at times with mild reservations. The time frames set, the refusal to grant the CJ her request for time to present her submissions, refusal by the Speaker and the PSC in accepting the judicial advice to defer PSC sittings till the Supreme Court determines on the petition before it, referred to by the Appeal Court, have all gone the way the Rajapaksa regime decides, with the Opposition timidly agreeing to fall in line with the government majority.

Thus all previous calculations (including my own assessment) on how the PSC impeachment process would get dragged on, at least till March 2013, now seems pretty much miscalculated. Ranil Wickramasinghe who was also initially calculating for long sessions, now goes with the Rajapaksa schedule in wrapping up everything in a month or so. So have the TNA and the JVP represented in the PSC. They end up giving the regime what it wants to do with the PSC without any serious and active dissent that can be seen by the public and boost the pro judiciary campaign outside.

This accommodation of the regime by the Opposition is not only with the PSC. It is how the Opposition actually play politics with this regime. None seem to defy the Rajapaksas in parliament, even on other important issues. That was the case with the Budget and the Divi Neguma Bill too. The Budget for 2013 was challenged for its provisions in handling public funds and was determined as against the Constitution by the Supreme Court that directed 03 proposals to be amended before the Second Reading is taken up. Neither the UNP leadership as the Opposition Leader, nor the TNA and the JVP, bothered to take that up, when the original budget was up for the Second Reading. Why did not the Opposition refuse to participate in the debate ? They had a social obligation to refuse participation in a budget debate that is not in line with the Constitution. So had the JVP too. But that was not how the Opposition acted.

The UNP leadership and some of their MPs did murmur few things from outside parliament for the media to carry. But not in parliament. In parliament they debated and voted at the Second Reading, allowing the same non amended budget to go through the final reading during the next week or two. So did the JVP that otherwise cries foul over anything by the Rajapaksas. The TNA may have been advised from Delhi, not to throw a spanner in their way, as they are “trying for the umpteenth time” to convince this Rajapaksa regime to agree on a serious devolution package. What ever the reason(s) may be, all in the Opposition have agreed to keep the parliament functioning, the way this regime wants.

In such adverse and frustrating context, the next best thing that should have developed is a strong, independent “people’s movement” that stands for serious judicial reforms. Strong enough to challenge the Opposition’s compromise with this R regime as well. Most unfortunately that potential is also absent in the protests that can be heard. If one maps the class and geographical presence of these protest campaigns to date, geographically it is horribly restricted to the Colombo city. Not even to the Colombo district. The only protests so far were in Hulftsdorf and once at the Public Library hall. A few provincial Bar Associations that met initially and the unanimous resolutions adopted by the Bar Association of SL, are all things of the past. They were any way a membership gathering of a single profession and not a public intervention. Even lawyers in Courts other than those in Hulftsdorf, in Mt. Lavinia, Kaduwela and Gangodawila have no part in any of the campaigns organised by the activists in Hulftsdorf. That leaves all satellite towns around Colombo and the other few major cities, almost oblivion to what’s happening in the Hulftsdorf Hill and within the Diyawanna Sanctuary.

Its class nature is also very apparent with the city upper middle class, dropping their ethnic politics to rally against the impeachment against the CJ. One now sees long time Sinhala campaigners like S.L Gunasekera and pro devolution activists like Jayampathy Wickramaratne together against the impeachment and a learned advisor to the Rajapaksa regime like Gomin Dayasri reluctantly and ambiguously talking against the impeachment. Discussions and statements were all Colombo city centred and by upper middle class personalities. It is clearly the upper middle class urban constituency that has got activated, for it is they who feel the need to have a judiciary independent of politicking. And, they have turned it into the academic exercise, they are more familiar with.

This leaves out the vast majority who should actually get mobilised to have not only an independent judiciary, but also an efficient and a clean judiciary. In 2010 November, reading out his 2011 budget speech, President Rajapaksa said, “A prolonged delay in legal disputes is one such cause for poverty. There are approximately 650,000 unsettled legal cases before our judiciary pending justice.” He promised an allocation of 400 million rupees in total to remedy this issue of “pending justice”. He also promised, he would allocate 150 million rupees for 2011 and the Ministry of Justice was to immediately set up 60 new courts with retired Judges to address this issue. What has come of it, is not been discussed even during this budget debate.

Thus it is not ONLY an issue of judicial independence that now needs to be taken up. But also that of a clean and an efficient judiciary to serve the people. The plight of those many thousands who daily linger around the Courts, spending their hard earned money, needs to be taken up with that of an independent judiciary. It is definitely a very long wait for justice, if it comes at all and in between that long wait, the ordinary people are also fleeced, not only by touts, but also by some hard bargaining lawyers. The whole system is corrupt and warped. Therefore today, while the need of an independent judiciary is more an upper middle class urban discourse, the majority of the common people would want an efficient and a clean judiciary. The fact is, an independent judiciary is only a fore runner to an efficient and clean judiciary that a country should have.

The impeachment against the CJ therefore allows much space for a more complete discourse and a campaign for judicial reforms that should include the slogan “efficient and a clean judiciary”. It is such a slogan that would allow for a broad social support base, but was lost due to this very narrow approach of the city campaigners and the compromising Opposition. It is not the strength of this Rajapaksa regime that keeps it afloat, but the supportive winds of the Opposition that leaves it roaming around. It is also the short sighted Sinhala outlook of the urban middle class that kept most what the regime did all this while, justified. Well, there isn’t a decent, intellectual “Left” discourse either to galvanise any futuristic thinking in society for now. That’s what this impeachment is all about.                                                     Read More

The purported charges do not constitute charges within the meaning of the Law.- A response on behalf of CJ

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2012

(i)         The document dated 14/11/2012 contains no charges in Law.
 

(ii)       The purported charges even if proved do not constitute proved misbehavior within the meaning of Article 107(2) of the Constitution and therefore cannot result in the impeachment of our client.

(iii)     The purported charges do not constitute charges within the meaning of the Law.

 (iv)     The purported Standing Orders have no legal validity in Law.

Dear Sir,

We regret that our client was not provided with more time.

The letter dated 14/11/2012 was delivered to our client’s official residence at approximately 7 pm on 14/11/2012 asking her to respond to the 14 alleged charges by the 22/11/2012, which is approximately one week’s time.

By letter dated 15/11/2012 sent by us on behalf of our client, and our client by our letters dated 16/11/2012 and 17/11/2012, requested further time to respond to the 14 alleged charges.

The request of our client for further time has not been permitted.

In the limited time available, we respond as hereinafter. We request that the details asked for be furnished, and request further time to respond more fully.

Our client denies the purported charges. Our client is totally innocent of the purported charges which are baseless, groundless and frivolous.

Our client has at all times been independent, and has refused to bow to pressure.

In the circumstances, I request that an inquiry be held by lawfully appointed body consisting of lawfully appointed body consisting of eminent and independent persons not politically affiliated.

Our client is convinced that she will be exonerated at such an inquiry.

We state that the select committee has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the impeachment motion for the following inter alia reasons:-

(1)        The select committee has no jurisdiction to exercise judicial powers which in this instance it purports to do.

(2)        Without prejudice to (1) above the purported inquiry violates the Rule of Law, which is the basis of governance and the gravamen/ foundation upon which the sovereign people have decided that they be governed and their judicial power exercised.

The aforesaid matters would be dealt with briefly hereinafter and more fully if necessary.

SOVEREIGNTY IS IN THE PEOPLE                             Read more »

Act in conformity with SC decision and avert conflict between judiciary and legislature – Opposition stance
(Lanka-e-News -22.Nov.2012, 11.55PM) The UNP , JVP and the TNA have decided yesterday evening (22) that the Parliamentary select Committee acts in conformity with the decision given by the Supreme court on the impeachment motion brought against the chief justice ( CJ). The opposition parties announced that they would be taking up this for discussion at the Select Committee meeting on the 23rd morning.

The CJ has been summoned before the select Committee at 10.30 in the morning on the 23rd. A spokesman for the UNP said, the SC decision had still not been received , but based on media reports the SC had acted according to the constitution and not in conflict with the Parliament . It is the view of the UNP that the Parliament standing order shall be amended in accord with the SC verdict in regard to the impeachment inquiry. Going by the decision f the SC on the 22nd , until the legal tangles in the impeachment process is clarified , it is imperative that the Select committee proceedings be put on hold.

The UNP stance is there should be no constitutional conflicts created , according to what they revealed to Lanka e news. The view of Sambandan of the TNA is also same , the UNP sources added. The UNP also pointed out it will be most repugnant ,unfair and unwelcome if the MPs are to mount charges , also sit in judgment and mete out punishment . Such a system is to create a pernicious precedent . When Lanka e news inquired from a politburo member of the JVP , he said, their stand is, until the legal tangles are cleared as decided by the SC , the Select committee inquiry be put on hold 

SL calls for restraint in Gaza

SL calls for restraint in Gaza FRIDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2012  While expressing its deep concern at the recent serious escalation of violence in Gaza, Sri Lanka today called on Israel and Palestinian leaders to display ‘restraint and avoid civilian casualties’. Issuing a statement the Ministry of External Affairs says: “Sri Lanka is deeply concerned and disturbed at the recent serious escalation of violence in Gaza and deeply regrets the loss of lives and the great suffering experienced by the people of Palestine. Sri Lanka strongly believes the use of force and militaristic threats should be halted and that there is no alternative to the peaceful resolution of the conflict through peace talks. We call upon both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to display restraint and avoid civilian casualties.  It is hoped that the parties would continue to demonstrate leadership and political courage and keep open the door to peace.