Saturday, December 15, 2012

Government facing a massive financial crisis

Friday, 14 December 2012

Economic analysts say that the country is faced with an economic crisis even without economic sanctions being imposed.

Ministry Secretaries have already sent circulars to all institutions under ministries to stop paying over time with immediate effect. State sector employees are still unsure of getting their December salaries leave alone a bonus for the season.

A special circular by the Finance Ministry has asked ministries to stop special payments being made to ministers, deputy ministers and other executive level officers and to limit the fuel allowances as well. The Ministry has proposed that the ministries could even decide to either limit or stop the fuel allowances given to the executive level officers.

Economic analysts show that the government would not be able to even make the interest payments on loans obtained if the current situation does not ease at least by mid next year. The country is likely to record a minus growth rate as a result.

R.100 million for Rajapaksa sons’ duty free racing cars

BASL Will Not Welcome A New CJ – ‘Give Justice To Our Chief Justice’

By Colombo Telegraph -December 15, 2012

“The Bar Association of Sri Lanka today unanimously adopted the resolution; President to reconsider the impeachment, in the light of his recent statement on the report -If the parliament proceeds with it, then to enact a procedural law, guaranteeing Rules of Natural Justice – If the CJ is removed without following Rule of Law and Natural justice, then the Bar would not welcome the new appointee” says Lawyers Collective.

According to the Lawyers Collective Update of Today’s meeting of the BASL as follows;

1. Bar Association of Sri Lanka held general meeting of the Bar with the largest ever attendance. Approximately 3000 lawyers representing all Branches attended the meeting. As expected, the Government had done their work to get down their crowd but it finally was around 250-300 lawyers, mainly who are holding political positions (ex. parliamentarians, Provincial Counselors) and directors of public corporations (government appointees) were there.

2. The President of BASL formulated the resolution based on the two sets of resolutions that have been received. He presented it to the House. In summery the resolutions had three items:

(a) President to reconsider the impeachment, in the light of his recent statement on the report.

(b) If the parliament proceeds with it, then to enact a procedural law, guaranteeing Rules of Natural Justice

(c) If the CJ is removed without following Rule of Law and Natural justice, then the Bar would not welcome the new appointee

3. About 20 lawyers spoke, 18 of whom were in favour of the resolution and among those who supported the resolutions were well known lawyers from the President’s own party. Some felt the resolutions were too mild while others felt it was strong. However, the President was moving towards a unanimity. The message from all the speakers was to have unanimity rather than a division so that the Executive would know how the legal fraternity feel about the impeachment. Message on the floor was “give justice to our chief justice“.

4. After about 90 minutes of the debate, the Chairman move the resolution and asked whether the House agreed to adopt it unanimously. No member (not even from the Government group) moved for a division or a secret ballot. Arrangements had been made to have a secret ballot. The House unanimously adopted the resolution (three resolutions as one single resolution).

5. Thereafter the meeting concluded and the lawyers started moving out. A section of the Government lawyers (known group of lawyers who are holding positions in the government) then tried to create a scene (obviously for political reasons with a TV coverage to undermine the unanimous decision) but dispersed peacefully.

“In our view, these resolutions are extremely far reaching and does not prevent any further actions at a later stage. Had there been a voting, the division would have been about 2700 to 250 (for and against respectively). Undoubtedly, what ever the Government’s propaganda says, the Bar is unanimously against the Impeachment of CJ.” says the Lawyers Collective.

Video: Resolution passed not to welcome new CJ

SATURDAY, 15 DECEMBER 2012

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), during their special general meeting this morning passed three resolutions including one to refrain from officially welcoming any new Chief Justice appointed on the basis of a vacancy created by wrongful impeachment, BASL President Wijeyadasa Rajapaksa said.

Speaking at a media briefing held following the BASL meeting this morning, Mr. Rajapakshe also announced the two other resolutions, which he stated were unanimously passed during the meeting held today.

Among the other two resolutions passed at the BASL meeting today are:
• In consideration of the speech made by the President on December 11, in which he stated the Parliamentary Special Committee report of the impeachment against the Chief Justice will be evaluated through an independent committee, we urge the President to reconsider the impeachment motion

• In the event where the President, the Speaker or the MPs who are signatories to the impeachment motion decide to proceed with it further, we urge them to take necessary measures to formulate and enact procedural laws with regard to the removal of judges of the superior courts while guaranteeing a fair trial that adheres to principals of natural justice before further proceedings are taken on the said impeachment.

C’Wealth Secretary General calls GL over CJ’s impeachment

December 15, 2012

Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma telephoned Sri Lankan External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris early this week to discuss the impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, the Commonwealth Secretariat said.

A statement issued on the Commonwealth Secretariat website said that the Secretary General had expressed appreciation for the briefing provided by Minister Peiris and the readiness of the Government of Sri Lanka to discuss concerns that have been raised regarding the impeachment of the Chief Justice.
“We encourage full and practical application of shared Commonwealth commitments with regard to the impeachment process,” the Secretary-General concluded.
He said all Commonwealth governments have recognised the importance of maintaining the separation of powers and the integrity of the roles of the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, and all Commonwealth governments have recognised that access to justice and an independent judiciary are fundamental to the rule of law.
Minister Peiris and the Secretary General had agreed to remain in contact about the issue, Sharma said.
The Secretary General’s comments followed the announcement that Sri Lanka would be the hosts of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in November 2013 and would serve as CHOGM chair for two years following the summit.

Editorial : Let there be justice

FRIDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2012

The controversy over a Parliamentary Select Committee convicting Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake has taken a dramatic turn, with three socialist parties in the UPFA government expressing dissent over the probe and the senior-most judge in Sri Lanka appealing that the Chief Justice be given a fair trial.

The LSSP, the CP and the DLF have said they believed it was unjust to try the CJ under Parliament Standing Order 78A. Last Thursday the CJ asked the PSC for five weeks time to study the charges against her. She also wanted to know the rules of procedure such as whether those who made the allegations could be cross-examined. When her requests were rejected the CJ walked out. The opposition members of the PSC also walked out saying it was obvious the CJ will not get a fair hearing.

The LSSP, the CP and the ULF leaders in a statement said the appropriate and universally accepted procedure to probe allegations of a judge of a superior court was through an independent judicial body. They suggested that a committee comprising three retired Supreme Court judges should have first probed the charges against the CJ and submitted a report to the PSC. The party leaders expressed regret that legal bodies such as the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and other civic action groups did not suggest or insist on such a procedure which was followed in India and other democratic countries.

In another significant development on Wednesday, Justice C.G. Weeramantry – a former senior vice president of the International Court of Justice and the senior most-judge in Sri Lanka -- appealed that the CJ be given a fair trial. In a statement, Justice Weeramantry said as the senior-most retired judge in the country and as one who has been associated with the law both locally and internationally for 65 years, he felt compelled to make some observations in regard to the current crisis facing the Sri Lankan Judiciary.

“It is a judiciary which has been a great pride to the country and has been highly esteemed both domestically and internationally. An independent judiciary is vital to democracy, for without it citizens lack the basic protection without which a democracy cannot exist,” he said.

The eminent Judge said there could not be a fair hearing unless the tribunal was totally and patently impartial. It was essential that a tribunal deciding on the rights of any citizen must consist of persons who were totally uncommitted before the hearing.

Justice Weeramantry said if any members of the tribunal had directly or indirectly indicated their views upon the matter in advance of the hearing that tribunal ceased to be impartial. It followed that such a tribunal was not functioning according to the rule of law. He also said the rule of law demanded that every person investigated by a tribunal had a right to be informed of the charges and to be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses.

We hope President Mahinda Rajapaksa will listen to the advice of this elder statesman when appointing an independent committee or commission to review the PSC conviction.

SC cannot probe CJ, own judges – AG

December 14, 2012, 9:47 pm

By Chitra Weerarathne-December 14, 2012,

Attorney General Palitha Fernando PC, yesterday told the Supreme Court that a panel of Supreme Court Judges could not be called upon to investigate allegations of misconduct against the Chief Justice or any other judge of the Supreme Court.

The authority to investigate had been handed over to Parliament consisting of representatives of the people in a unitary state where the people and the Constitution were Supreme, the AG said, adding that if judges did anything wrong the people could not throw them out. Hence, the authority had been bestowed upon Parliament to investigate judges. A Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) probe was not a criminal trial; the presumption of innocence came only in a criminal trial. The process carried out by PSC was to decide whether a Justice needed to be impeached, he said.

The AG added that the PSC had been appointed by a resolution of Parliament, under Standing Orders. Article 173 of the Constitution said that Parliament by law or by Standing Order, provided for a resolution to investigate the conduct of a judge. The PSC had been appointed by the Speaker. Judges of the apex court held a very special office. Their discipline could only be investigated by the institution appointed by the sovereign people, the AG said, noting that the word, guilt, could amount to culpability in an impeachment process.

The Supreme Court yesterday continued to hear the reference to it by the Court of Appeal to interpret Article 107/3 of the Constitution.

A group of petitioners had filed Writ Application in the Court of Appeal, seeking to prohibit the proceeding of the Select Committee appointed to investigate the conduct of the Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake.

Counsel Chandra Liyanapatabandi appearing for an intervenient petitioner and said that the Courts of law had no jurisdiction to investigate matters before Parliament.

The Court of Appeal could not entertain a writ against the PSC and make a reference to the Supreme Court, which in turn would not have jurisdiction over Parliament.

Counsel added that the matters of Parliament could not be interfered with by any court. The PSC was an extension of Parliament and comprised members of Parliament, the counsel said.

The law provided no remedy against anything done in Parliament. The Parliament had a separate autonomy of its own to regulate its affairs, he said.

Prof. Suffrullah supported another intervenient petition. He said that the Court of Appeal should not have made the reference without notifying the Attorney General. Hence, there was no proper reference before the Supreme Court.

The exercise of judicial power was not involved in the impeachment process. Once a resolution was passed by Parliament, the President had to dismiss the judge concerned. Power had been given to the Parliament to remove the judge. Even the entire Parliament could sit to conduct an investigation. The PSC was an extension of Parliament. Even in Australia, the Parliament could impeach judges, after an address of Parliament. Article 107 of the Constitution had given similar powers to the Sri Lankan Parliament, he argued.

Prof. Suffrullah said that the Court cannot determine the constitutionality of the Standing Order 78A, because the original jurisdiction was in the Court of Appeal. It should come by way of appeal to the Supreme Court. The power to remove a judge was with the legislature, unless Article 107/3 was amended.

Counsel Razeek Farook, PC supported another intervenient petition. The process of impeachment had to go through Parliament. The PSC findings should be placed before Parliament for necessary action. That was not a criminal process. The Court of Appeal had failed to call the Attorney General when the Writ Application was heard. He would have said it was a matter for comprehension and not one to seek interpretation on.

The Bench comprised Justices N. G. Amaratunga, K. Sripavan and Priyasard Dep.

The Supreme Court will send their determination on the reference to the Court of Appeal shortly.

SRI LANKA: 15th of December; a day to remember

By Basil Fernando -December 15, 2012

Basil Fernando

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka passed a historical resolution today opposing the impeachment motion and avowing that, if the incumbent CJ is removed, the Bar Association will not welcome anyone who is appointed in her place. The following is a summary of the resolution given by the Lawyer’s Collective.

“The President of BASL formulated the resolution based on the two sets of resolutions that have been received. He presented it to the House. In summary the resolutions had three items:

(a) President to reconsider the impeachment, in the light of his recent statement on the report.

(b) If the parliament proceeds with it, then to enact a procedural law, guaranteeing Rules of Natural Justice

(c) If the CJ is removed without following Rule of Law and Natural justice, then the Bar would not welcome the new appointee”

The Bar Association meeting was a response to a letter written by Mr. SL Gunasekara, a senior lawyer, whowrote,

“My suggestion is that the Bar Association adopts a resolution and/or makes a public pronouncement that it requests all its members to refrain from accepting appointment as Chief Justice in the event of the incumbent Chief Justice being impeached. Similarly I believe that the Bar Association should call upon all others who are not members of the Bar Association also to decline to accept that post if it was offered to any of them; and also that the Bar Association should call upon all its members and others to boycott and boycott completely, both socially and professionally, any person whoever it may be who accepts appointment as Chief Justice in the event of the Impeachment of the incumbent Chief Justice being effected. Such boycott should in my considered view go to the extent of refusing sit with such new Chief Justice (if any) on the Bench of the Supreme Court [if a Judge], or to appear before such new Chief Justice (if any) as the case may be. [if an Attorney-at-Law].”

It was also reported that about 3000 lawyers attended the general meeting. This is the largest reported number that have ever attended such a meeting of the Bar Association. The lawyers came from all parts of the country. The response of the lawyers on this occasion is a welcome change to many years of apathy and inaction. However, as the members of the bar have begun to grasp the gravity of the situation, they have moved to respond.

Earlier this week, the Judicial Services Association also, in a clearly worded statement, expressed their opposition to the Parliamentary Select Committee “trial” and urged the President not to take any actions on the basis of the recommendations of the PSC. They further explained that the removal of a judge should only be done by following the internationally accepted norms and standards.

Thus, the lawyers and the judges of Sri Lanka have spoken, and they have let the President and the country know that the impeachment process as it stands now is unacceptable and illegal, and that they would oppose it.

With these expressions of clear opposition in unambiguous terms, one of the most vicious aspects of the 1978 Constitution has now been challenged. This constitution was passed with the clear intention of displacing democracy and the rule of law, and to give the Executive President absolute power. An early application made by the President to the Supreme Court through a Solicitor General clearly expressed his wish to have the same status as that of a monarch. The Supreme Court, even in the early years after the passing of the 1978 Constitution, rejected this view.

However, from the passing of the 1978 Constitution up to now has been a long period, during which the independence of the judiciary has been severely undermined, and the system of rule of law and due process, well established back then, have seen alarming setbacks during this period.

However, what was in favour of President Jayewardene were the long years of internal conflict, which finally blew up into a civil war. As a result of this internal conflict, the entire society was silenced on all other matters. One of the results was that the reaction against the authoritarian move on the part of the Executive President went unchallenged. There was even an idea that, during a time of internal conflict, an authoritarian leader may be a better alternative. Ideological developments during this period and the way they were manipulated have already been exposed by many and much written material exists on that issue. What is important to note is that there was a silencing of the society during that period, and the emergency regulations, the anti-terrorism laws and the intense violence that existed at the time prevented strong opposition to the undermining of the rule of law and democracy.

The move by the present government to remove the Chief Justice herself in an arbitrary and very rude fashion has created a backlash and perhaps the most important constitutional crisis that has taken place in Sri Lanka since the promulgation of the 1978 Constitution.

The lawyers, the judges and the civil society in general are beginning to reckon with the danger that the society is faced with under the Executive Presidential system. The opposition that the lawyers, judges and civil society have demonstrated against the impeachment move by the government is only a manifestation of a much larger protest and even anger that exists in the country today against the political development that tends towards the establishment of the hegemony of security forces taking the place of the institutions of the rule of law.

In these circumstances, these protests, if they achieve their ultimate aim, should be directed towards then ending of the Executive Presidential system and bringing about significant constitutional changes to re-establish democracy and rule of law. We hope that the firm determination shown on the 15^th of December 2012 will be the beginning of a serious reckoning on the part of the society as a whole against the threats forced against it.

The times they are a’changing. Hopefully a better time is beginning.

An independent committee, really!

Editorial

2012-12-14

The winding journey the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka has taken, does not look likely to straighten out any time soon.

The latest ‘public’ position assumed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa – that he had made a decision to appoint an independent committee to study the report - not only subjects the ‘findings’ of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to utter ridicule, but also throws a new and slightly plausible last straw for the drowning independence of the judiciary of Sri Lanka.

The President’s declaration, made during a ceremony to open a new building for the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Colombo, slammed by opposition parties as ‘grandstanding’ to appease the growing resentment, contains a few glaring contradictions.

He cautions everyone not to rush to judgment, ignoring that it was precisely what the PSC did on Saturday, 8 December 2012. After hearing the case ex parte, consequent to both the Chief Justice and the Opposition Members of the PSC withdrawing from the hearings, the Committee rushed to issue the report and in a wild haste, handed the report to the Speaker of the House of Parliament in less than twenty hours of the hearings being ‘concluded’.

The President’s public assertion that he would not agree with the stance adopted by the parliamentarians, who initiated the impeachment motion, is a tremendous blow to the ‘independence and impartiality’ of the PSC, which he has taken great pains to ensure, has acted both impartially and independently. That is another contradiction.

The between the line nuances of Tuesday’s declaration, has the President almost echoing the sentiments of hundreds of thousands of fair-minded citizens of this country. But just committed is President to appointing the independent committee and more importantly who will be in it?

The President’s unwillingness to ‘comment’ about the report of the PSC and the constitutional cop out that there is a one-month period before the report is taken up for debate in Parliament, for such abstention from comments, is curious to say the least.

The government provided itself with bargaining/negotiating time with the allowance of this one-month period. The haste that was the hallmark of this gripping saga was thrown out of the window and most surprisingly, the government applied brakes to the hurried journey towards conclusions. It was wildly rumoured that in the wake of the Chief Justice’s ‘walk-out’ of the PSC proceedings, some telephone calls were exchanged between the government and an attorney associated with the Chief Justice.

It is also being whispered that these telephone conversations included, among other things, a possible quid pro quo arrangement, which the Chef Justice had not consented to. Then the obvious change of mind on the part of the government and its expression by none other than the President himself is most revealing and interesting. This offers much scope for thought for the intellectually-curious.

The legal fraternity in the country is still shocked and stunned by the most one-sided judgment rendered by the Government Members of the PSC. They are more stunned by the fact that of the seven Government Members, four are lawyers and their apparent betrayal of the very integrity of the profession, which earned their first pay cheques. The depths into which our society has collapsed seem beneath contempt. In such a context, the President’s announcement is indeed a fresh wind that blows across the stale and malodorous atmosphere that hangs upon the country’s polity.

The President has asserted that he did not want to undermine the Judiciary mainly because he is a lawyer himself. The main purpose of his speech seems to create space between the findings of the PSC members and himself. “The independent committee appointed by me will look into all aspects of the matter and on that basis, I will take my decision on the issue,” the President said.

But these are contradictory words. For, as the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP’s) Parliamentarian Anura Kumara Dissanayake, stated, “The President is the one who coordinated the impeachment and no matter who laid the egg (referring to the impeachment), the President clucked.” Such words are most disturbing.

In an environment in which the ‘rule of law’ seems to be fast-vanishing, and in a scenario, where even international legal bodies have expressed concern about inappropriate procedure and lack of fairness in the manner in which the impeachment proceedings were carried out, the question arises, how seriously should one take the words of the President?

Chief Justice Is Grateful To The Bar

By Colombo Telegraph -December 15, 2012

“The Chief Justice is grateful that the members of the Bar have unanimously agreed that the proceedings against her have been conducted devoid of the principles of natural justice and without affording her a fair hearing, and that they have called upon a cessation of these proceedings unless these principles are adhered to.” say CJ’s lawyers.

Issuing a statement on Chief Justice’s instructions the lawyers say; “Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake remains committed towards her efforts in ensuring that judges in Sri Lanka are able to perform their functions without interference and with sufficient safeguards that will protect their independence.”

We publish below the full statement;

Media Release on behalf of the Chief Justice on today’s Bar Association meeting

The unanimous resolution passed by the General Membership of the Bar Association today vindicates the position of the Chief Justice as to the attempt to impeach her by a procedure devoid of fairness and without adhering to the basic principles of natural justice.

Today’s General Meeting brought together nearly 3000 lawyers from Sri Lanka- the largest ever gathering of the legal profession in Sri Lanka. The Chief Justice is humbled by the fact that so many lawyers have gathered together to express their commitment to safeguard the independence of the judiciary of Sri Lanka. She is also moved by the deep commitment of the members of the legal profession- including the junior members of the profession. She is encouraged by their commitment to justice and fair play.

The Chief Justice is grateful that the members of the Bar have unanimously agreed that the proceedings against her have been conducted devoid of the principles of natural justice and without affording her a fair hearing, and that they have called upon a cessation of these proceedings unless these principles are adhered to.

Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake remains committed towards her efforts in ensuring that judges in Sri Lanka
are able to perform their functions without interference and with sufficient safeguards that will protect
their independence.

“Sir, why are you trying to sacrifice only me?” – Wimal asks the President

Friday, 14 December 2012

Minister Wimal Weerawansa had asked the President in why he was trying to sacrifice him by getting him to approve the charges in the impeachment motion while asking Minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne not to approve it, a governing party member in the parliamentary select committee (PSC) that probed the impeachment motion said. The President had asked Senaratne not to agree to the charges since he had a case being heard before the Supreme Court. Weerawansa had then informed the President that he too had a case pending before the Supreme Court and had asked why his plight was not considered.

The incident had taken place during a meeting at Temple Trees after the opposition members in the PSC staged a walk out objecting to the manner in which the proceedings were conducted.

The President had spoken with glee at the move by the Chief Justice and opposition members to walk out of the PSC. “Since we have the majority in the committee, Rajitha won’t have to give his consent to the charges. You have a case before courts; therefore others can give the consent.”

Weerawansa had then said, “Sir, I also have a case before courts, why are you trying to sacrifice only me?”

The President had responded saying, “Tell me where you don’t have a case? You have cases at home and outside. Alright then everyone give their consent.”

It was finally decided for all governing party members to approve the charges in the absence of the opposition.

Reconciliation: Looking Forward 4 – The Impeachment: The History Of Parliament Acting Judicially

By Rajiva Wijesinha -December 15, 2012 Our Man

Rajiva, finally you wake from your long slumber and romance with the despotic and corrupt Rajapassa regime! Welcome to the real world!
The Sri Lanka legislature/ parliament is a DEN OF CORRUPT SCOUNDRELS with a handful of notable exceptions. These filthy politicians who invoke “parliamentary privileges” to protect the abuse that pours from the mouths of the likes of Wimal weerawansa and Dilan Perera who MUST BE FORCED TO RESIGN FOR THE UNACCEPTABLE THINGS THEY SAID TO THE CJ – do not know the first thing about DECENT behaviour.
Time has come for you to stop complaining about the Judiciary and examine the behavior of the corrupt scoundrels in the parliament who are fattening themselves while the people of Lanka starve, and the most corrupt of them all – Mahinda Rajapassa!

...........................................................................................................

Lady Gaga - December 15, 2012
10:58 am
Reply

Dr. Rajiva Wijesinha MP

It is ironic that, having been the only government Member of Parliament to complain over the year of the failure of the Judiciary to administer justice either effectively or efficiently, I seem now to be the only one who thinks impeaching the Chief Justice would be a mistake. This struck me when Ravaya was interviewing me about the matter, which was when I also realized how quickly history is forgotten, and in particular the perversion of justice that this Constitution seems to have entrenched.

My first active political intervention in this country occurred when I resigned from my job with Peradeniya University to protest the manner in which MrsBandaranaike’s Civic Rights had been taken away for seven years, the maximum punishment possible under the law. That was the most egregious instance of Parliament acting as a judicial body, and it was a horrifying sight. I can still recall then Prime Minister Premadasa claiming that one reason to punish Mrs Bandaranaike was because she was an example of absolute power corrupting absolutely. He said this with no sense of irony while nearly 140 government parliamentarians cheered and jeered. The TULF had left the chamber, so Mrs Bandaranaike had barely half a dozen supporters, and the dignity she displayed on that occasion has remained the most impressive of my political memories.

The manner in which Mrs Bandaranaike was condemned shows the perversity of both the judiciary and the legislature. She was tried by members of the judiciary, two Supreme Court judges and one judge of the Court of Appeal, handpicked by President Jayewardene who then claimed that the judgment against her was made by senior judges. Before that he had shown exactly what he thought of judicial independence, in that he had sacked all judges through his new Constitution, and only appointed to the bench those he thought would play ball with him. Thus brilliant intellects such as Noel Tittawella were left out, and characters such as Joe Weeraratne, known to be dim if devoted, made the Bench. President Jayewardene then appointed him to the Special Presidential Commission to try Mrs Bandaranaike.

But worse was to come. Mrs Bandaranaike’s lawyers appealed for a Writ to halt the grindstone, and this was granted. Jayewardene promptly amended his Constitution to prevent such appeals. This provision was made retrospective, which made clear his total contempt for judicial process as well as his own Constitution, which prohibited retrospective legislation. He had indicated earlier that he did not take such matters seriously, in that Mrs Bandaranaike was charged with actions that did not constitute an offence when they were alleged to have been committed.

The Special Presidential Commission was chaired by Justice Sharvananda who was subsequently made Chief Justice, leapfrogging Raja Wanasundara who was renowned for integrity as well as independence. Sharvananda went on to become Governor of a Province, in the first outrageous example of a judge accepting a further office of profit, in effect putting paid to the idea of judges being immune from such temptations.

So Mrs Bandaranaike was found guilty of four charges, with the judges pronouncing on decisions which obviously were the prerogative of the executive. The effrontery with which they presumed to judge how the executive should have responded to an armed insurrection was matched only by the sycophancy with which they found her guilty of a charge pertaining to the treatment of President Jayewardene’s son while he was in prison.

Though she was cleared of the majority of the charges, Parliament decided to go for the maximum penalty possible, namely expulsion from Parliament and deprivation of Civic Rights for 7 years. Jayewardene clearly had no qualms about making it clear that his principal purpose was political, namely to prevent her from standing against him at the next Presidential election, due in 1984 (in fact he later changed the Constitution yet again, in an equally cynical move based on his declining popularity, to enable him to advance the date of the Presidential election, with the ridiculous provision that an incumbent would take office at a later date than any challenger who might have won).

I am not sure if my distaste for impeachment is based on my continuing abhorrence of what Jayewardene did in 1980, and my knowledge of the appalling consequences of such a cynical use of power both for himself and the country. I know quite well that Sirimavo Bandaranaike and Shirani Bandaranayake are very different characters, and that the latter has not behaved with the dignity and the discretion that her position required, even though since the impeachment was mooted she has corrected the worst of her errors. But I do believe that Parliament must be very careful about using powers it has conferred on itself, by law or by Standing Orders, and that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done, by whatever body sits in judgment.