Lanka, Iran work out deal on huge oil bill

By Aanya Wipulasena

Teheran to transfer unpaid Rs. 2 b for Uma Oya irrigation project

Two billion rupees in unpaid fuel bills to Iran will be diverted to fund the Teheran-aided Uma Oya Project, Irrigation and Water Resources Management Ministry Secretary Ivan de Silva said yesterday.
This is in the light of Sri Lanka’s inability to remit the funds to Iran due to current sanctions imposed by the United States.

Mr. de Silva told the Sunday Times the money spent by the Government would be set off from funds Iran would provide for the project.

“Because of the US sanctions there is a delay in transferring funds from Iran to Sri Lanka but both governments have decided to use the money which is to be paid off for the fuel we bought from that country to go ahead with the project,” he said.

The secretary said an estimated two billion rupees due to Iran for fuel purchases was with the Sri Lankan Government.�The estimated cost of the Uma Oya project is US$ 529 million with the Iranian Government agreeing to pay US$ 450 million of it while the balance will be met by the Sri Lankan Government.

Under the Uma Oya project, two dams would be constructed across two main tributaries of the Oya at Welimada and Dyraaba and an underground hydropower plant with 134 MW capacity would be constructed at Randenigala along with a 23 km long underground tunnel, he said.

The secretary said that although the main objective was to divert water from the Uma Oya to the Southern Province, farmers of Moneragala, Badulla and Ampara districts would also be benefited by this project.
The agreement to provide financial aid for the project was signed by the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2008, during his visit to Sri Lanka and the project would be completed by Nov 15, 2015, Project Director Sunil de Silva said.

Mayor Rob Ford kicked from office, found guilty of conflict of interest

Mayor Rob Ford testified he didn't read a handbook for councillors that outlines when to declare conflict of interest.

In a bombshell ruling, a judge has found Mayor Rob Ford guilty of breaching provincial of conflict of interest law and ordered him removed from office, but put that ruling on hold for 14 days.

That apparently means Ford remains in office while his lawyer launches an appeal and asks Divisional Court to put an indefinite stay on the removal order pending the outcome of that appeal.

Rob Ford out: Text of judge’s decision

It also gives city council time to figure out how to deal with the prospect – unprecedented, in modern times – of a mayor being removed from office by the courts.

James: All Torontonians will pay for Rob Ford's ‘wilful blindness’

If Ford’s lawyer cannot convince Divisional Court to stay the removal order within 14 days, council will have the option of either appointing a councillor to be caretaker mayor until the end of the term in December 2014 or triggering a $7-million byelection.

Justice Charles Hackland’s decision appears to disqualify Ford from running in a byelection before the end of the current term, but does not say he can’t run in future civic elections.

In finding the mayor to have violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, Hackland had the option of banning Ford from running for up to seven years.

The hotly awaited decision followed a two-day hearing in early September that saw Ford grilled over his conduct at a Feb. 7 council meeting and the events that led up to it.

The city’s integrity commissioner ruled in 2010 that then-councillor Ford was wrong to use official letterhead and other city resources to solicit donations from people lobbying him for his namesake football foundation.

Council agreed and ordered Ford to repay $3,150 to lobbyists, their clients and one private firm. Ford ignored six reminders from the integrity commissioner before she brought the issue back to council Feb. 7.

There, Ford made an impassioned speech about why he shouldn’t be forced to repay the money, arguing it was spent distributing football equipment to schools. He voted with the 22-12 majority to cancel the order that he repay.

In March, Toronto resident Paul Magder alleged Ford broke a provision in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act which states elected officials can’t speak to, or vote upon, items in which they have a “pecuniary interest.”

At the hearing before Hackland, Magder’s lawyer Clayton Ruby argued Ford was “reckless” and “wilfully ignorant” of the law when he did not recuse himself from the debate and vote.

Ford, who was on council for a decade before becoming mayor in late 2010, testified he never read the Conflict of Interest Act or the councillor orientation handbook. Nor did he attend councillor training sessions that covered conflicts of interest.

The mayor promised in his oath of office to “disclose conflicts of interest” but, when asked by Ruby if he understood the words, Ford said: “No. My interpretation of a conflict of interest, again, is it takes two parties and the city must benefit or a member of council must benefit.”

Ruby accused Ford of “wilful blindness.”

“As mayor he ought to have had a clear understanding of his obligations. This entire pattern of conduct shows that he chose to remain ignorant, and substituted his own view for that of the law,” Ruby said.

Ford, longtime coach of Etobicoke’s Don Bosco Eagles, vehemently disagreed, saying he acted only in the best interests of high school students.

Ford’s lawyer, Alan Lenczner, offered a three-pronged defence.

He said council had no legislative authority to make Ford repay $3,150 in football charity donations in the first place.

Second, that if council did impose a penalty it was under Toronto’s code of conduct, not the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, so Ford could not have breached the act. If the Act applied, elected officials could not defend themselves when criticized by the integrity commissioner, he added.

Finally, that if Ford did err by not declaring a conflict, it was an inadvertent “error in judgment.”

“He may (have been) wrong (to vote),” Lenczner said. “And the case may allow for that, because that’s what an error of judgment is. You’re wrong, but that’s an excuse under the Act.”

Ford himself went into the trial saying he did nothing wrong. During the grilling by Ruby, he allowed that, if he had been advised that voting on the matter could land him in court, he wouldn’t have voted.

“I would have declared a conflict like I have every other time,” the mayor said. “But now that we’re here, I’m here. I can’t change what happened.”

30 top government officials involved in the bribery corruptions

[ Sunday, 25 November 2012, 05:32.28 PM GMT +05:30 ]

In a shocking disclosure, 30 top ruling party parliamentarians, some who enjoy portfolios of ‘collective responsibility’ are to be charged before court shortly for accumulation of assets through unscrupulous methods, sources said.

According to the sources there were 60 such politicos down to the Pradeshiya Sabha level trapped in the bribery net on various allegation of accumulation of wealth, assets, and corruption or bribery charges. Meanwhile, the Head of the Commission to Investigate Allegations into Bribery and Corruption, Retired Supreme Court judge, Justice Jagath Balapatabendi claimed that there were 400 cases under investigation involving political and public figures over allegations ranging from illegal assets to bribery. Speaking on this issue, Justice Balapatabendi said that the Bribery Commission was unable to investigate those complaints as the petitioners were not named through fear. He said the Education Ministry could hold an inquiry into such petitions and report back to the Bribery Commission to decide whether further action could be contemplated ஆளும் கட்சி 30 உறுப்பினர்களுக்கு எதிராக லஞ்ச ஊழல் குற்றச்சாட்டு 25 நவெம்பர் 2012, ஞாயிறு 3:25 பி.ப ஆளும் கட்சியினுடைய 30 உறுப்பினர்களுக்கு எதிராக லஞ்ச ஊழல் குற்றச்சாட்டு முன்வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளதாக தெரிவிக்கப்படுகின்றது. சட்டவிரோதமான வகையில் சொத்து சேர்த்தமை தொடர்பில் ஆளும் கட்சியின் முன்னிலை நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர்கள் 30 பேருக்கு எதிராக லஞ்சம் மற்றும் ஊழல் குற்றச்சாட்டுக்கள் முன்வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன. இந்தநிலையில் குறித்த 30 பேருக்கும் எதிராக விசாரணைகள் ஆரம்பிக்கப்படவுள்ளதாக லஞ்ச மற்றும் ஊழல்களுக்கு எதிரான ஆணைக்குழு தெரிவித்துள்ளது. அத்துடன் சுமார் 60 பிரதேச சபை உறுப்பினர்களுக்கு எதிராக லஞ்சக் குற்றச்சாட்டுக்கள் சுமத்தப்பட்டுள்ளதுடன் நாட்டின் அரசியல்வாதிகள் மற்றும் முக்கியஸ்தர்கள் என்று 400 பேர் மீது லஞ்ச ஊழல் குற்றங்கள் சுமத்தப்பட்டுள்ளதாக லஞ்ச ஊழல்களுக்கு எதிரான ஆணைக்குழுவின் தலைவர் ஜெகத் பாலபட்டபெந்தி குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார். இதேவேளை அரசியல்வாதிகள் மற்றும் முக்கியஸ்தர்கள் பலர் தொடர்பில் முறைப்பாடுகள் கிடைக்கப் பெற்றுள்ளன. எனினும் முறைப்பாட்டினை மேற்கொள்பவர்கள் பயம் காரணமாக தமது பெயர்களை குறிப்பிடாமல் செல்கின்றனர் இதனால் ஆணைக்குழுவினால் விசாரணைகளை மேற்கொள்ள முடியாதுள்ளதாகவும் அவர் மேலும்  தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

'UN internal report meaningless without action, long term solution needed’: Tamil activist

Nov-24-2012

Expert says more lives could have been spared.

Dr. Sam Pari

(COLOMBO, Sri Lanka Colombo TamilNet) - TamilNet: Criticizing the UN for its deliberate silence which “protected the Sri Lankan state from international criticism and allowed it to strategically conduct a genocidal campaign under the guise of a “war on terror””, Dr. Sam Pari, an Eezham Tamil activist with the ATC, argues in news site Crickey.com that the recently released internal review report of the UN on Sri Lanka is meaningless to the Eezham Tamils without concrete steps in action. Giving an outline of different ways in which the Sri Lankan state is conducting genocide of the Eezham Tamils, she writes “The Sri Lankan regime’s strategy of eradicating the Tamil people through various avenues is only being abetted by the super powers’ silence. What is required is a longer term solution that deals with the root cause — an oppressive force, the racist Sri Lankan regime, intent on erasing the identity of a people, the Tamils.”

Excerpts from Dr. Pari’s article published on Australian news site Crikey.com on Friday follow:

“The report, released by the UN to the public without the executive summary, outlines that UN senior officials not only abandoned the Vanni region as the war escalated, but purposely avoided revealing casualty figures collated by its own staff, while knowing the death toll had entered the tens of thousands.”

“Furthermore, the UN was found to have failed to mention that the majority of killings that took place were inside government-declared “safe zones”, and chose to hide the fact that the Sri Lankan regime was responsible for these civilian deaths, instead casting blame solely on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).”

“This recent internal review substantiates what the Tamil people had desperately tried to alert the world: the UN’s deliberate silence protected the Sri Lankan state from international criticism and allowed it to strategically conduct a genocidal campaign under the guise of a “war on terror”.”

“Tamils, displaced by war, are regularly being denied their right to resettle in their traditional lands. On 24 September, 2012, over three years since the war, Sri Lanka announced it had closed its military internment camp, once one of the largest in the world, which detained Tamil survivors of the war. However, further inquiry on where those “released” were resettled revealed that many were simply relocated rather than resettled, and that too into areas that were not sustainable for life.”

“The military occupation of the Tamil homeland is reportedly at a ratio of one army officer to every five civilians. Data from civil officials have revealed a concerted and structural move to turn traditional Tamil lands within the former warzone into a military enclave of the Sri Lankan forces, which is comprised overwhelmingly by Sinhalese.”

““Systemic Sinhalisation” of traditional Tamil lands is also taking place at an alarming rate. Buddhist temples are being built to cater for the changing demography, while religious churches and temples of Tamils people are being destroyed. Names of roads and villages are being converted from Tamil to Sinhala.”

“Rape of Tamil women by the military is a common threat, with several cases “reported to have been perpetrated in cells by guards or by officers usually at night, sometimes repeatedly and sometimes by more than one individual”.”

“Former female members of the LTTE are the most vulnerable with several cases of release and rearrest reported, with rape and sexual abuse taking place both during detention as well as during “routine investigations” conducted on regular “summons” post-release. One such victim, a 38-year-old woman, was reported to have committed suicide as a result of repeated sexual harassment and abuse.”

“Heavy military presence and the impunity that prevails mean not just Tamil women but men too are regularly arrested, tortured and disappeared. Sri Lankan prisons are notorious for deaths and disappearances in custody. In July this year, a young Tamil political prisoner reportedly assaulted by prison officials and died of injuries sustained.”

“In the scenario of such continuing abuses, for the Tamil victims and their families, the words of the UN internal review are meaningless without action. The conduct of the last war resulted not just in great loss of life for the Tamils, but also of dignity and freedom. For the Tamil people the pain and fear of war, excepting the bombs and bullets, continue even today.”

“Acts of genocide can take different forms. The Sri Lankan regime’s strategy of eradicating the Tamil people through various avenues is only being abetted by the super powers’ silence. What is required is a longer term solution that deals with the root cause — an oppressive force, the racist Sri Lankan regime, intent on erasing the identity of a people, the Tamils.”

Special thanks to TamilNet

Miliband Q&A: An Interventionist Government?

       Impact Magazine

Tuesday 20th November 2012 

One recurrent issue in the Q&A with David Miliband was the debate over the responsibility of the government to intervene in politically volatile countries where human rights are being abused. This is a pertinent issue considering  the current situation in Syria and Sri Lanka, the war in Afghanistan , the revolution in Egypt and the fall of Gaddafi in Libya.

During Miliband’s time as Foreign Secretary under Gordon Brown, he spent time in Sri Lanka, where he faced the issue of terrorist group Tamil Tigers and the conflict with the government.

When asked what he regretted during his time in office,  Miliband stated that, “We failed to stop between 60-120 thousand people from being killed in the civil war in Sri Lanka. You can’t help but have enormous regret and frustration about that”.

Miliband discussed this in the light of a recent report by the UN which stated “inadequate efforts by the world body to protect civilians during the bloody final months of Sri Lanka’s civil war marked a grave failure that led to suffering for hundreds of thousands of people”. Miliband said that he had tried to “raise the alarm” about the situation but had failed to do enough. He also regretted the decision of the UN officials to pull out of the country in 2009.

One of the issues, surrounding the debate over whether or not powerful countries such as the USA and its allies, including Great Britain, should intervene  in the conflicts of foreign countries is that it can be a “Catch 22” situation for politicians. Governments can be chastised for not intervening in situations such as Sri Lanka, yet the war in Iraq and Afghanistan exemplify how intervention can be misguided and sometimes leave countries in a worse state than they were before.

Miliband noted within the Q&A session that  in the history of Labour the war in Iraq will be a “chapter rather than a footnote”. When Politics Professor Philip Cowley, Chair of the Q&A session, probed Miliband about Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction in particular, Miliband’s answer was uncharacteristically curt.

“If Saddam had let the inspectors in to do their work, there would have been no case for a war, and if we had known what we know now I would not have voted for a war in Iraq”.

Whilst Miliband was cautious  over who should claim responsibility over the war in Iraq he was at least honest about its consequences, highlighting the issue of the increased Shia and Sunni hostility in the region since the war.

However,  despite admitting that he regretted not getting Afghanistan on the right “political track”, he highlighted his belief in the interconnection of nations and how this should lead to a global “conscience” on issues such as human rights; issues which should be acted upon.

The main issue, as Miliband pointed out himself, is that this philosophy can conflict with that of other nations, such as China, who believe that countries should manage their own “internal affairs”, undoubtedly with an eye on their own human rights record. Consequently  a global conscience simply does not exist, with countries’ ideologies and political philosophies divided and often conflicting.

There will always be a fine line between global stewardship and the invasive, forced imposition of western ideals. A line which politicians will have to tread carefully in the future. If Ed Miliband wins the election in 2015, he will undoubtedly remain cautious over any intervention on foreign soil, while Labour still recovers from the backlash over the war in Iraq. As to whether David Miliband will have the opportunity to be at the heart of global politics again, who knows? On questioned as to whether he would return to the Labour front bench he remained ambiguous, however its hard to imagine a man so absorbed in politics staying out of the “bubble” for long.

Edward Haynes

EAM leaves President in the cold

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Leave alone major diplomatic issues, the fact that the External Affairs Ministry has sunk to such low depths in efficiency, is no secret.

Minister G.L. Peiris or his mandarins there were able to correctly advise President Mahinda Rajapaksa that he was arriving in the Kazakhstan capital of Astana in below zero temperatures. That was during the three-day official visit to that country, once a part of the now dismembered Soviet Union.

The discomfort of Rajapaksa was noticed by none other than the Kazakh President, Nursultan Nazarbayev. Just hours after arriving in Astana, Rajapaksa and his entourage were at a cultural show to mark 20 years of diplomatic ties between the two countries.

President Nazarbayev hurriedly looked for Sri Lanka’s Moscow ambassador who is also accredited to Astana, restaurateur turned diplomat, Udayanga Weeratunga. It was not difficult for his aides to locate him. Weeratunga had worn a flame red national dress and stood out in the crowd like a performing artiste. “When I saw your President’s dress, I thought he was feeling the cold. We should not allow him to be uncomfortable,” Nazarbayev told Weeratunga.

Not surprising, since the temperature by then was a minus 10 degrees Celsius. The Kazakh President asked Weeratunga for the size of Rajapaksa’s clothes. Even without measuring, the Sri Lankan envoy knew the size and rattled off.

The next day, Rajapaksa received three different, finely tailored winter coats and matching head gear. Kitted in the gear, Rajapaksa met Nazarbayev the next morning. The Kazakh President asked, “Your Excellency, what would you like to have for lunch.” Rajapaksa replied “I am vegetarian this week.” President Nazerbayev assured that his wish would be granted and there was indeed a spread of Kazakh vegetarian specialities.

For the others in the entourage, there was a choice of meat. There was even yak yoghurt though it was not known whether it was the same quality an expert offered to Nazarbayev to stay younger for several more years.

Be it below zero temperatures or burning heat in one country or the other, the EAM is unable to brief the President, when he plans a visit. As one wag in the EAM remarked, other than the media statements, there is little else in the form of reports that are being distributed.

Whilst Rajapaksa was in Kazakhstan, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) leader, Somawansa Amerasinghe, was in Azerbaijan — another former State of the Soviet Union. He is attending an International Conference of Asian Political Parties which are holding their seventh meeting in the Azerbaijan capital of Baku. In his absence, party secretary Tilvin Silva chaired a meeting of the political bureau in Sri Lanka.

Hair-raising joke at Sajith’s expense

Beneath the bitter rivalry between Government politicians and those in the Opposition, there is also some camaraderie.

UPFA Parliamentarians Namal Rajapaksa, Udith Loku Bandara, Shantha Bandara and Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage were at a table in the Parliament canteen. They were engrossed in a conversation after lunch when UNP Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa happened to pass by.

Bandara told Premadasa there was a blond strand of hair on his back. “Vihilu karannethuwa inna (Don’t joke), replied Premadasa. Namal intervened to say “Nehe nehe, athathatama thiyenawa (Seriously, there is one).Then Namal took the hair from Premadasa’s back.

Holding the hair by his thumb and index finger, Minister Aluthgamage walked towards Rosy Senanayake (UNP) who was having lunch in another table. He asked her “Mey oba thumiyage da? (Is this yours?).
Premadasa, Rosy and the foursome at the table had a good laugh, but the question remained unanswered.

Security scare over CJ’s lawyers

The lawyers accompanying Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake to Friday’s first hearings of the Parliamentary Select Committee unintentionally caused a security breach in Parliament.

As they walked through the public entrance accompanied by two suitcases full of law books and reference material, they went unnoticed. They had even got into the lift to go to the upper floor where the committee rooms are located.

A police officer who noticed it a bit too late literally gave chase. He had it opened on the upper floor and found to his amazement that they were bagful of briefs. The suitcases were security-cleared immediately.

Ghosts after Welikada gun battles

The spectre of ghosts seems to be haunting prison staff working on night shifts at the Welikada Jail.

This was after the prison mutiny that ended with 27 deaths. One of the jailors has complained that he heard screaming sounds in the cells where shooting took place.

A second said he was “touched by a headless ghost.” A third complained that a killed inmate, familiar to him, had asked for a lighter.

Prison authorities are now planning a pirith ceremony.

Laptops, loans and white vans

Some media personnel recently received free laptops and Rs 1.2 million interest-free loans each to purchase vehicles.

A witty politician in the main opposition United National Party (UNP) told journalists who did not seek the two giveaways from the state that there was more on offer. If he was interested, the politician said, “There were white vans on offer.”

Toughies wanted to send CJ in bus

Saner counsel prevailed when some ruling party politicians wanted to give Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranaike a rough ride when she arrived in Parliament.

It was to attend the Parliamentary Select Committee meeting probing allegations against her.The suggestion was to make her to travel in the bus once she arrives at the main guard point to cross the roadway that divides Diyawanna Oya. The bus service is operative for the media, officials and visitors. Only MPs or special invitees are permitted to take their vehicles in, a security procedure in place since the ‘war years’.

More responsible among the lot said they should not do anything that would devalue the office of the Chief Justice and bring disrepute to the Government. Bandaranayake remained the Chief Justice of the country and was entitled to all the respect that went with that office.�The toughies could not have their way.

Three-hour drama outside Parliament committee room

As the Parliamentary Select Committee probing Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was gathering in Committee Room One of the Parliament complex, media personnel were having an altogether different experience.

They waited for almost three hours in a waiting room outside watching the goings on. Curious Government and Opposition Parliamentarians swung by the area.

One was the former Tiger guerrilla eastern commander, Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan. Asked to comment on Chief Justice Bandaranayake, he quipped “everybody loves her”.

Minister Jagath Pushpakumara was generous enough to order tea for the waiting media. Then came another scene in the drama.

UNP Parliamentarians Sajith Premadasa, Rosy Senanayake, Palitha Range Bandara and Sujeeva Senasinghe made a beeline to wish the Chief Justice. That was just before the PSC sessions began.

2012 deadliest year for journalist

During a United Nations-led meeting in Vienna last week, the world body and its partners renewed their pledge to improve safety for journalists and prosecute those who commit acts against them through a new plan to protect media workers.

The UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity follows two days of discussions by UN agencies, independent experts, governments, media groups, and civil society organisations on the most pressing issues facing freedom of expression, during the 2nd UN Inter-Agency Meeting on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity.

More than 100 journalists have been killed so far this year, making 2012 the deadliest year for media since the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) began keeping records on the issue.
The new action plan outlines more than 100 areas of work that different UN agencies and civil society groups intend to contribute to securing the safety of journalists, and will operate at the national and global level.

Activities that will be implemented as a result of the plan include: helping governments develop laws on safeguarding journalists, raising awareness so that citizens understand the damage done when a journalist’s rights to freedom of expression is curtailed, providing training courses for journalists in safety and safety online, establishing real-time emergency response mechanisms and strengthening the safety of journalists in conflict zones, among others.

The plan also calls for enhancing protection for women journalists in response to the increasing incidence of sexual harassment and rape, decriminalising defamation offences and encouraging adequate remuneration for full-time and freelance employees.

Wedding brings UNP rivals to common table

If a political round table of the trio to resolve differences was not possible so far, there was a social one where they engaged in light hearted banter. UNP leader Ranil Wicremesinghe sat at the same table as his deputy, Sajith Premadasa and erstwhile deputy Karu Jayasuriya. The occasion was the wedding of Bandarawela Urban Council Chairman W.A. Premachandra �at the Bandarawela Hotel on Friday.

Sports Minister and Harsha in cake play

It was Sports Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage’s birthday last Wednesday.�His ministerial and Parliamentary colleagues arranged a party in the Parliament Canteen.

Also invited was UNP Parliamentarian Harsha de Silva, a classmate of Aluthgamage at Royal College.
As the party was underway, Aluthgamage shouted “Mehe vareng ombata cake kallak kavanna (or come here, I want to feed you a piece of cake).

As de Silva went closer, Aluthgamage put his arms around him and rubbed a piece of cake all over his face. A while later, de Silva had the opportunity of returning the favour on the birthday boy, much to the amusement of all those present.

A wag at the party cracked paraphrasing Queen Marie Antoneitte’s infamous words that led to the French Revolution; “paan naththam kayk muney gaapan” (If there’s no bread, rub 

CJ’s Response In Full: Select Committee Has No Jurisdiction To Hear And Determine The Impeachment

By Colombo Telegraph -November 25, 2012

“We state that the select committee has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the impeachment motion for the following inter alia reasons; The select committee has no jurisdiction to exercise judicial powers which in this instance it purports to do. Without prejudice to 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.” says Chief Justice’s lawyers. 

CJ

We publish the full text of the reply given by the Chief Justice;

…………………………………

………………………………… 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 morefully.

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

1. The people are the sovereign in the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

2. The sovereignty of people is recognized by the constitution.

3. The sovereignty of the people is not granted / conferred / given by the constitution – it is merely recognized by the constitution.

The sovereign people, that is, the sovereign in the land, have determined the manner in which their sovereignty is to be exercised.

No one at all can interfere with such determination of the sovereign.

It should be pointed out that in Sri Lanka the sovereign are the people and not the president, parliament or judiciary. In this context, it is noted that parliament is not the sovereign of this country.

Article 4(c) of the constitution states as follows:-

“the judicial power of the People  shall be exercised by parliaments through courts, tribunals and institutions created and established, or recognized, by the Constitution, or 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 the People may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law;”[emphasis ours]

In the circumstances Parliament or a Select Committee of parliament cannot exercise the judicial power save and except in the exception set out in article 4(c) which is in regard to matters privileges, immunities and power of people and its members, which exception is not relevant to these proceedings.

The Select Committee purports to exercise judicial power in this instance.

Article 107(2) states that a judge can be removed only for proven misbehavior or incapacity. In this case the allegations are of misbehavior.

The decision or determination whether or not a person is guilty of misbehavior is clearly an exercise of judicial power.

In the circumstance it is only a court that can determine whether or not a judge is guilty of proven misbehavior.

Parliament or its Select Committee cannot determine whether a judge is guilty of proved misbehavior since such determination or decision is the exercise of judicial power.

Parliament cannot by the enactment of standing orders confer to itself judicial power and/or usurp judicial power, which the sovereign (the people of Sri Lanka ) have vested in the courts (parliament through courts).

Thus it is submitted that the select committee has no jurisdiction to hold this purported inquiry.

RULE OF LAW                                   Read More

48 Colombo court judges vow solemnly to support CJ: Barbaric Basil organizes hooting campaign against her

(Lanka-e-News -25.Nov.2012, 3.30PM) 48 judges including 

Magistrates, district court judges, appeal court judges and Supreme court judges in Colombo and vicinity had met the chief justice (CJ) at her chambers yesterday morning (23) prior to her leaving for the Parliamentary select Committee meeting , and solemnly vowed to extend their unstinted support to her regardless of the lop sided impeachment motion.

This means in other words ,only a handful of judges are aligned with the dastardly , despicable and most repugnant moves and measures of the crude , callous and despotic Rajapakse regime. 

Meanwhile , the despot MaRa had from America instructed the Parliamentary select Committee chairman , Minister Anura Priyadharshana Yapa and the other Committee members of the Govt. by phone that the impeachment motion against the CJ should be somehow concluded by 8th of December . BaRa the brother of MaRa , the other evil half of the latter and Samurdhi fund cum comic economic development clown of a Minister who is carrying this treacherous responsibility on his Mongol shoulders had compelled Yapa and his group to see to it that this impeachment process is finished between the 4th and 8th by fair or foul means.

It is the plan of the regime to present the Diva neguma bill in Parliament on the 8th of January 2013 after the budget debate is concluded on the 7th, and on that same day , to have the Select Committee meeting and summon the CJ to Parliament.

It is Mongol Basil’s concerted plan to organize about three thousand henchmen and make them hoot and jeer at the CJ when she arrives at the Parliament after getting her down. Already messages have gone out instructing the Samurdhi officers and the Samurdhi recipients to get ready to be present in front of the Parliament on the 8th to stage protests and hoot ( now a national phenomenon advocated by the Rajapakse regime barbaric brutes).

Meanwhile the readers can by clicking on the banner under the main headline of the front page of this website , read the complete and comprehensive written answers filed and forwarded to the Select Committee by the lawyers for the CJ absolutely pulverizing the charges mounted against her . Since this answer is in English , and as Minister Wimal Weerawansa ,a member of the select Committee sitting on this inquiry , unfortunately has not been able to reach beyond grade 9 educationally and therefore unable to read , write or understand English , we have published a Sinhala version of it to extricate him out of his embarrassment.

Catholic Bishop Council condemns impeachmen​t motion against CJ

[ Sunday, 25 November 2012, 03:14.09 PM GMT +05:30 ]

SriLankan bishop council condemns the impeachment motion filed against the Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranaike.

Special report released by the Colombo Catholic Bishop Council briefs, It’s necessary to brief about the allegations blamed against the Chief Justice. Administrative, judiciary and law should work separately in the country. Recent government activities have cause threats towards independent activity of the Lankan judiciary system. It was blamed Chief Justice has delayed the “Divineguma bill” presented by the minister of economic development Basil Rajapaksa and also issuing judgment against the central government on taking the powers of provincial council.

Why Only Judges Should Judge?

By  Basil Fernando -November 25, 2012 

Basil Fernando

The Parliamentary Select Committee‘s inquiry has raised the issue of the politicians being judges. Some have even said that the politicians have a better right to judge because they are elected representatives of the people whereas the judges are not.

The people elect their representatives for particular purposes. By the very nature of judging guilt and innocence that is not a matter that would depend on people’s consent even if a hundred percent of the electors declared a guilty person innocent or an innocent person guilty, their verdict do not represent justice.

This is not a difficult problem to understand. We entrust only qualified medical doctors to deal with the affairs of illness and healthcare. It is only qualified and experienced surgeons that we entrust with the duty of conducting surgery. This list can be long in terms of various other professions.

In each of these the efficacy depends on “a judgment made” on the basis of evaluation of factual circumstances and established principles that belongs to each of the branches of such professions. Where no such knowledge of those principles exists there cannot be a valid judgment within that field.

Among all subjects that humans have to deal with the most difficult are the problems of justice. Justice means fairness as John Rawls so comprehensively explained. Dealing with fairness is perhaps the most complicated and difficult of all categories of thinking and arriving at conclusions.

This may be illustrated by an example. Between 1975 and 1979 Pol Pot ruled in Cambodia, during which time, one-seventh of the population of that country was destroyed. Among them was almost the entirety of the educated sections of the society. Among all other professionals lawyers and judges were also completely wiped out.

Between 1980 and 1989 there was the period of trying to rebuild Cambodia out of the tremendous and indescribable destruction that was caused in the past. Much of the rebuilding took place under the guidance of the Vietnamese advisors. It is they who built the new administrative structure, though at a most rudimentary level. The biggest obstacle they had for rebuilding of the structure was the absence of trained human resources.

Where this was most manifest was when an attempt was made to create some form of a court system. It was an elementary dispute settlement system and not a formal justice system. However, even to do that there were no educated group of persons. People were randomly selected mostly by the skills they have shown in party work to works as “judges” in the new setup.

When the UN Transitional Authority started in 1992, to prepare the elections for 1993 May, one of the major problems that were identified was the absence of the justice sector. The UN and the international agencies tried to conduct training programmes for “the judges.” In one such programme where many “judges” attended was to last for two weeks and was attended by two internationally renowned judges, one from India and the other from Australia.

After the second day of the sessions, “the judges” requested that they needed special sessions where they want to raise some questions and it was accordingly arranged. During this meeting Cambodian “judges” asked the international experts what they are proposing to achieve by this training programme to which the international experts replied that they were trying to help them to be trained as judges. The Cambodian “judges” in return asked how long does it take in other countries to make a judge. The international experts replied with the details of legal education, followed by periods of actual practice of law and thereafter the selection process to become judges and the gradual process of learning from being a lower court judges to ascend to various steps in the judicial ladder, which in each case took many years. The Cambodian “judges” then asked the experts, whether they thought it is possible to give that training to them in two weeks. Thus exposing the ridiculousness of the situation.

Judging in a judicial sense involves dealing with the problems of truth without consideration for anything else. Acting without consideration for anything else, one of the most difficult endeavours for humans. In normal circumstances, people think of so many things when dealing with any particular thing. People bring into their judgments the problems about their personal ambitions, expectations and hopes, problems of their families, of those relating to their properties and other issues concerning with prestige, reputation and the like. A judge alone is expected to completely disregard all such matters in dealing with the questions of guilt or innocence of persons they are judging.

A politician is by the very nature a person who cannot divorce his political interest from his judgments. In fact a politician is a person who has internalised abilities to turn everything into a political advantage. What votes he would gain or lose, the implications of that he does has on the political party he belongs to and the problems of power are the maters that the politicians mind deal with all the time. A politician simply cannot make judgements, which could have disastrous impacts on the interest of his political party and his own political interest.

Thus when the politicians sit in judgment on issues on which they have a deep interest such for example as the outcome of this inquiry into the Chief Justice‘s affair there is no possibility at all of such politicians being able to deal with the intricate problems of fairness which is the essence of justice.

A nation that is incapable of ensuring of ensuring a process of justice is a society in great peril for no single case is case only about the persons involved. The standards of justice affecting each case, affects the entire society. And this is even more so when obvious matters of national interest such as the case of the Chief Justice is involved. If such an activity is done with careless disregard for basic issues of fairness, the society as a whole will have to pay a huge price for the absence of justice.

Read more about the Impeachment against Chief Justice here