SRI LANKA: WFP eyes cash/voucher expansion

Photo: Contributor/IRIN

Thousands have already benefitted

JAFFNA, 20 December 2012 (IRIN) - The World Food Programme (WFP) hopes to expand its ongoing cash/voucher (C/V) programme across northern Sri Lanka, allowing thousands of recent returnees to diversify their diets.

“More than 15,000 men, women and children have so far benefited from the programme in Jaffna,” Mads Lofvall, WFP acting country representative, told IRIN. “With the expansion we hope to reach more than the currently planned beneficiary caseload - 45,000 over the next two years.”

Under the programme, beneficiaries receive vouchers valued at US$11 per month per person, for a six-month period that can be redeemed at 815 multi-purpose cooperative society outlets across the north.

C/V enhances diet diversification, allowing beneficiaries to purchase 21 different types of essential food commodities identified according to community preferences, including cereals, pulses, coconut oil and condiments.

Initially launched as a pilot scheme in Jaffna District in March 2012, WFP, pending funding, hopes to include all five districts in Sri Lanka’s Northern Province - Jaffna, Mullaitivu, Kilinochchi, Vavuniya and Mannar - either through voucher or cash transfers.

C/Vs are more advantageous than traditional food distributions, experts believe, as they allow people access to a greater variety of food options, according to findings in the country and globally.

At the same time, the approach benefits the local economy as it allows beneficiaries to spend the money locally and purchase locally produced commodities. Moreover, the programme allows WFP to reach more people in need at the same cost to its donors.

But for most recent returnees to the area, many of them now focused on rebuilding their homes, it was the opportunity of choice which was most important.

“I like the choice. Now I can buy the items I want,” said one recent returnee outside his battle-scarred home outside Jaffna.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, more than 440,000 people have returned to Northern Province after years of displacement and the end of that country's decades-long civil war.

Over the past two years, food security in the north has improved, from 60 percent of households assessed as severely or moderately food-insecure in 2011 to 40 percent in 2012 - a drop attributed to a reduction in poverty, increased dietary diversity and a change in livelihood patterns.

More than three years after the conflict was officially declared over, however, most returnees are still struggling to establish sustainable livelihoods and depend on external existence for help.

ds/cb

Theme (s): Food Security, Health & Nutrition,

[This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations]

Sri Lanka, Between The Hammer Of Rajapaksa-Absolutism And The Anvil Of Societal-Indifference

By Tisaranee Gunasekara -December 20, 2012

“This is what happens when men decide to stand the world on its head”. Hannah Arendt (Responsibility and Judgement)

Their greed, our apathy; their fanaticism, our indifference; their brutal aggression, our embarrassing cowardice: such are the basic ingredients of the baleful concoction which is seeping into almost every aspect of Lankan life, undermining Lankan stability and destroying Lankan security.

The unnatural and repeated earth-tremors affecting Ampara and the (mercifully unsuccessful) attempt to divide the Bar Association, the attack on the President of the Colombo Magistrate Court Lawyers’ Association, Gunaratne Wanninayake and the dangerous babblings about a ‘Hulftsdorf coup’, the disgracefully trite decision to withhold funds from the UNDP-sponsored Annual Judges Conference and the road bisecting the Yala National Park which has become a death-trap to the wildlife: these are some of the many disasters generated by Rajapaksa-absolutism, in the enabling atmosphere created by our indifference.

Miracles are occurrences which fall outside/violate the natural order. In that sense, Rajapaksa Sri Lanka is rapidly becoming a land of daily miracles. The tremors in Ampara, often accompanied by massive noises variously described as ‘explosive’ and ‘booming’, are not caused by natural seismic activity, according to the Chairman of the Geological Survey and Mines Bureau: “These earth tremors are unusual, as they occurred several times in one day, and some people claimed they heard an accompanying loud noise…. That’s too unusual to be natural. That’s why we are suspecting these tremors are manmade” (The Sunday Times – 16.12.2012).

In Ampara (like in the rest of the East and the North) large-scale economic operations are not possible without Rajapaksa involvement/sanction. Ampara is also the chosen location for the next Deyata Kirula extravaganza. So the tremors shaking Ampara cannot but be of Rajapaksa provenance, as much as the impeachment is or the white-vans are.

Manmade tremors, if ignored, can grow in intensity and destructive-power. GivenSri Lanka’s minute size, the earth-shattering activities in Ampara can eventually impact on the rest of the island. Will we wake up from our self-enforced slumber at least then?

Commenting on the Connecticutelementary school massacre, John Lee Anderson asked, “What does it take for a society to be sickened by its own behaviour and to change its attitudes?” (The New Yorker – 16.12.2012). That question would not be inapposite in today’sSri Lanka, caught between the hammer of Rajapaksa-absolutism and the anvil of our collective indifference. We Lankans have ample reason to be concerned about the present state and the future trajectory of our country. Even if we do not care about politics, we should be bothered by the erosion of the rule of law. Even if the mass arrests ofJaffna students do not move us, we should be affected by the damage done to our environment, to the point of creating unnatural earth tremors. Even if we feel that the assault on lawyers and judges is not our problem, the arbitrary price hikes and the wanton waste of public funds should outrage us.

We must realise that none of us can remain islands of comfort and safety, when all around us the skies are darkening and the seas are heaving.

The Absolutist Project

The Rajapaksas are absolutists. Nothing less than total power and complete control can satisfy them. They abhor independent spaces. They are distrustful of and hostile to any institution which is not under their complete control. They work actively to undermine, divide and, if necessary, destroy anyone and anything standing in their way. No political corner or societal cranny is beyond the reach of their power-grab. Their victims vary from civilian Tamils to the war-winning army commander, from Lasantha Wickremetunga to the weekly-dead at unprotected railway-crossings, from the CJ to the pregnant leopard and the baby elephant killed by speedo-maniacs on Yala’s ‘Death Road’.

To complete their absolutist agenda, the Rajapaksas need the judiciary to commit hara-kiri and be reborn as a Familial tool, as the military and the bureaucracy have done; and the parliament is doing.

As the impeachment travesty raced towards its prearranged conclusion, many a UPFA legislator hurled verbal thunderbolts at the judiciary and proclaimed their readiness to uphold parliamentary supremacy at any cost. But these same ministers and parliamentarians unanimously approved a bill which would erode a key power conceded to the legislature by Sri Lanka’s presidential system – that of financial control. Denying the all-powerful executive president the control over finances was one of the few balancing acts contained in the lopsided constitution of 1978. This is why a three-judge Supreme Court bench (headed not by Shirani Bandaranayake but by Shiranee Tilakawardana) “expressed reservations over allowing the Minister of Finance to withdraw funds allocated for specific purposes”; the bill which facilitates such a power-transfer “presents a direct challenge to the onus of parliament to have full control over public finances” (The Sunday Times – 9.12.2012). Instead of embracing this judicial decision reinforcing legislative supremacy in financial matters, the UPFA majority in parliament decided to the opposite. These self-proclaimed defenders of parliamentary supremacy voted for a bill which undermines parliamentary supremacy by allowing the executive to poach on legislative control of finances.

The UPFA legislators can contort themselves into veritable corkscrews to suit Rajapaksas purposes, in the hope of safeguarding their powerless-positions; but the Siblings are fickle towards all but their own kin. For instance, while ordering UPFA legislators to attack the CJ and accuse the judiciary of plotting a pro-Tiger coup, the Rajapaksas are taking pains to publicly distance themselves from the impeachment travesty – obviously in an attempt to evade international opprobrium. Mahinda Rajapaksa says he did not see the impeachment motion until it became a done deal. Basil Rajapaksa says he too did not see the impeachment motion until it was tabled in parliament. Namal Rajapaksa says he is not happy with the impeachment. If the Rajapaksas are to be believed, the impeachment was done without their knowledge, let alone approval.

The Rajapaksas’ ‘Chinese Monkey’ act regarding the impeachment demonstrates yet again their essential untrustworthiness. They will not hesitate to sacrifice anyone and anything, from the SLFP to the Sinhalese to maintain themselves in power. Any bureaucrat, military officer, judge or lawyer who succumbs to the Rajapaksas today can face betrayal and abandonment tomorrow. They do not even have to oppose the Rajapaksas a la Sarath Fonseka or Shirani Bandaranayake. Like the serfs who signed and investigated the impeachment, they can be turned into scapegoats and thrown to the wolves of national/international public opinion, whenever necessary.

(Interestingly, this inherent Rajapaksa unreliability and untrustworthiness seems to have been grasped accurately byBeijing. A new Chinese loan of Rs 8.9billion for the power sector will not be released until and unless Colombo pays a fee of Rs 627million to a Chinese insurance company).

When will we understand that the Rajapaksas, left to their own devices, will do to Sinhalese in particular and Lankans in general what the Tigers did to the Tamils? What will make us shed our mantle of apathy and open our eyes and our mouths? White-vans pursuing judges and lawyers? Yala denuded of wildlife? A manmade earthquake which kills? A devastating financial crisis, surpassing the ongoing (modern-day) Greek tragedy?

India assisted to originate military investigators.

Thursday , 20 December 2012

India assisted Sri Lanka to originate military investigators was a news published by Indian media NDTV.

 

India helped Sri Lanka open its Military Intelligence School in Kandy in February 2009. A 10-strong Indian Army Training Team has a mandate to be stationed in Sri Lanka.

 

Even though Sri Lanka maintains strong military relationship with China, Sri Lanka desire its military should get trained in Indian military Training Colleges.

 

870 military officials from Sri Lanka obtained training from Indian military training College, only this year. This figure is more compared to past years.

 

Although India has steadfastly maintained its policy about not supplying offensive military hardware to Sri Lanka, it has quietly decided to extend a 100 million dollars credit line to Colombo for purchase of non-lethal weapons.

 

Ever since the military defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, India  and Sri Lanka have tried to reset their defense relationship is further quoted in the news media.

6 Members of same family reported missing in the earth slip [ Thursday, 20 December 2012, 08:10.19 AM GMT +05:30 ] Six members of same family unaccounted for following an earth slip at an estate in Rattota today. Rattota police conduct further investigations this regard. Victims are Shanmugal Latchumi (52),Shanmugam Saroja (52), Shanmugam Sathasivam (50), Wairaperumal Preyadharshini (24),Wairaperumal Sawani (21)and Wairaperumal Sarmila(18) were reported missing this regard.

No To Laugh, Not To Lament, Not To Detest, But To Understand: CJ Must Go But After Setting Up Standards

By Uvindu Kurukulasuriya -December 19, 2012

Uvindu Kurukulasuriya

Rajapaksa regime is using one of my articles on the independence of the judiciary to justify their witch hunt against the Chief Justice.  As Spinoza said this is not to laugh, not to lament, not to detest, but to understand.

The government has created a television advertisement with my article and an opposition MP’s speech and broadcasting it repeatedly. Regime-support journalists like my friend C. A. Chandraprema has been quoting the samearticle for weeks. This article was also highlighted this week at the Diplomatic Briefing by External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris.

They used my article in talk shows. Last week, in the state-run television programme, Wedikawa (Platform) Parliamentary Select Committee MemberRajitha Senaratne also highlighted this article. Senaratne said: “This is what my friend Uvindu Kurukulasuriya wrote earlier although he now writes against this.”

Rajitha was wrong. I never wrote anything against my stance. What is this article? I wrote an article when the NSB scandal occurred. It was titled “Not Only The Chairman Husband; Chief Justice Wife Must Also Resign!” I wrote;

“The Chief Justice is automatically the Chairperson of the Sri Lankan Judicial Service Commission. This means that, effectively, she is the boss. While much of the work is delegated to others, it is the Chairperson who is ultimately responsible for the ‘corporate culture’ in the operation of any organization. This is how organizations operate on a psychological level. The leader sets the tone. The relationship between the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka and her spouse cannot be private. Not when that spouse holds key positions in government institutions leading to a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is also corruption. It is worthwhile quoting Dr. Colvin R. De Silva when he said, while participating in a no-confidence motion against the then Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike, “the service exacts from itself a higher standard because it recognizes that the state is entitled to demand that its servants shall not only be honest in fact but beyond the reach of suspicion of dishonesty”.

I said;

“We do not need to go for India or to the west for best practices. Sri Lanka already has a good example. When the husband of the head of the Bribery Commission Nelum Gamage was allegedly involved in corruption, she resigned.”

But people who quote this particular article forget other articles which I wrote as soon as Shirani Bandaranayake was appointed as Chief Justice. One was “Chief Justice Or Her Husband Must Resign”

I wrote;

“Within the Asian region, the sixth Conference of Chief justices of Asia and the Pacific in Beijing in August 1995 adopted the statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. Sri Lanka was represented by the Supreme Court Judge P.R.P. Perera voluntarily who agreed to the Principles on behalf of the then Chief Justice G.P.S. De Silva.

Principle 39 of the Beijing statement says, “ Inducements or benefits should not be offered to or accepted by judges if they affect, or might affect, the performance of their judicial functions.”

The Chief Justice must explain how her husband was appointed as the Chairman of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation, and to the Lanka Hospitals Corporation PLC as a member of its Board of Directors along with Defence Secretary and Presidential sibling Gotabhaya Rajapakse, who was Board Chairman. How was he also appointed as Chairman of the National Savings Bank?  Has he applied for the job? Was he interviewed?  Who were the other applicants?  Weren’t there any qualified applicants other than her husband? She must also explain how these things are consistent with international standards concerning judicial independence. If she cannot, she or her husband must resign. After all, “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”

I wrote;

“Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was sworn in as the new Chief Justice of Sri Lanka on 18 May 2011. While some remained silent most local media outlets published news items and features supporting her appointment. Certainly none were willing to do their jobs as journalists. I phoned a couple of editors and inquired of them, “are you forgetting the past? Why do you ignore the blatant conflict of interest issue here because of her husband’s position in a government job? Why do you not focus on the wider issues of rule of law and independence of the judiciary?”

“It was easy for the local media to gloss over the real issues as Shirani Bandaranayake would, on May 18, become the first woman Chief Justice of Sri Lanka. And it was convenient for the media to focus on this positive aspect rather than grapple with the more uncomfortable and more dangerous issue of a country descending into democratic failure.”

Week after week I raised serious issues related to the misconduct of judges, but none of the Sri Lankan journalists, academics or Civil Society leaders raised the issues I raised until the impeachment motion against Shirani B. was handed over to the Speaker.

In another article titled “Wither Independence When Judges Host Parties For Politicians?”  I wrote;

“There were editors who fought for the independence of the judiciary. Ravaya Editor Victor Ivan, Sunday Times editor Sinha Rathnathunga, then Deputy editor now Lakbima News editor Rajpal Abenayake and the late Lasantha Wickrematunge. Sadly, since Rajapaksa came to power, we can’t see any of these acts of misconduct discussed in the Sri Lankan media. The editors who fought for the independence of the judiciary are sleeping, or converted to the Mahinda Chinthana or they can’t write because of media suppression. But what is sad is that these editors say there is no media suppression in Sri Lanka or they are not fighting against media suppression. How did these journalists and activists who stood for democracy get into this blind alley?  Especially Victor Ivan, the one who wrote hundreds of article about such issue and he later published a book called “ An Unfinished Struggle”. When Sarath Silva was appointed as CJ Ravaya printed a black front page with the picture of the oath ceremony upside down. When Shirani Bandaranayaka was  appointed to the supreme court Ravaya attacked her appointment week after week, and headline after headline.   When Victor Ivan and Ravaya exposed corruption in the judiciary he was criticized by some others saying he had personal problems with Sarath N Silva and Chandrika Kumaratunge. He is proving that allegation now criticizing only the former Chief justice.”

But sadly, instead of raising the issue of independence of the judiciary, Victor Ivan started a printed debate with me in Ravaya. He criticised me for writing while living in exile. The debate went for four weeks. You can read Ivan’s responses here and  my replies to Ivan here and  here. It was not even about independence of the judiciary; his intention was to protect Rajapaksa and attack me (Rajapaksa’s critics). But one can find an interesting untold stories behind the struggle of the independence of the judiciary.

If the media had done their job most probably we could have got her husband to resign, Then the CJ may not have had to face this sad situation.

Last month, Dr Laksiri Fernando analysed my last article as follows;

“When the bribery charges were raised against her husband, whether he is innocent or not, the Chief Justice could have gracefully resigned, because the first mistake was already committed. That was unfortunately not done. These and related matters were raised impartially by Uvindu Kurukulasuriya before. Holding onto positions some way or the other whether politicians, government officials, academics or judicial officers is not a good practice for democracy and transparency or as a personal principle. It is my personal impression that the bribery charges are vindictively framed up.”

Laksiri is correct but as he also wrote several times now the issue is giving her a fair trial. I have to agree with even my friends like Chandraprema when he says; “We Have Reached A Situation Where The CJ Refuses To Acknowledge That There Is A Conflict Of Interest.” It is sad, she does not acknowledge it, not only her, none of our CJs at least Sarath Silva to Asoka De Silva acknowledged it.

But now the issue has shot up to politics since the case against her husband was fixed. Her husband is the Non Executive Chairman of the NSB. Charitha Ratwatte raised this issue clearly.

I quote Charitha Ratwatte;

“Now it is strange that only the Non Executive Chairman is the accused in this case. The bank being referred to, a statutory organisation, in which it is presumed, its officers and servants follow due process. When the board of a statutory organisation, approves a purchase, when the executive officers, especially the accounting staff and other executive officers sign off on checks, for any purchase, we have to presume that the process has been followed, authorisation, approval and certification.

Then why is the Non Executive Chairman the only accused? At least the other board members of the bank and its executive officers and the other financial sector employees must be charged with dereliction of duty, at the very least? Whether this has been done is not in the public domain. A newspaper reports that Chairman of the Bribery Commission has refused to comment on why this particular case against the Non Executive Chairman is being fast tracked.”

We all know how  Rajapaksa is fixing cases against his opponents. The President angrily banging his palm on the table and told me, “We can fix cases and we can free people.” That is my experience. I wrote this last year. He told me this in front of Minster Anura Priyadarshana Yapa (Chairmen of the PSC against CJ) and SLFP General Secretary, Minister Maithripala Sirisena,

Having a 2/3 majority in the parliament, Rajapaksa is determined to remove her now. So she has to go and she must go, in my opinion she is dishonest, I have no question about it, but it should be after setting up an international standard relating to judicial removal.  Her fight will, at least, create the standards. The whole charge sheet against her is based on violating standards. So give her a fair trial according to the standards.

Meantime I urge columnists like Chandraprema and those who only attack Shirani to raise the misconduct/conflict of interest issues related to other judges! How many other Supreme Court judges are corrupt? Why do thiese spin doctors only want to attack Shirani?

Related posts;

Not Only The Chairman Husband; Chief Justice Wife Must Also Resign! by Uvindu Kurukulasuriya

Chief Justice Or Her Husband Must Resign by Uvindu Kurukalsuriya 

One Retired Chief Justice Turns To Monkhood While Another Returns To Advice A Kleptocracy  by Uvindu Kurukalsuriya

Wither Independence When Judges Host Parties For Politicians? by Uvindu Kurukalsuriya

Can We Expect Justice And Independence From Servants Of Military Dictators? by Uvindu Kurukalsuriya

We can fix cases and we can free people - Rajapaksa by Uvindu Kurukalsuriya

Sarath Nanda Silva: Corruption Vs CORRUPTION by Uvindu Kurukalsuriya

Wijedasa Vs Tirantha Vs Independence Of The Judiciary by Uvindu Kurukalsuriya

MP fears a cover-up after Red Cross worker murdered

 Husband Was Our Man, We Quietly Covered It Up, But UNP Wanted Impeach CJ – MR

....................................................................................
(1)`-Tangalle: Paradise lost--------(2) Russian girl raped by8 persons –eye witnesses say

(3)A Murderer Turned Politician Let loose to kill again ( 4)The murder of the British 

    

MP fears a cover-up after Red Cross worker murdered

Granada News

Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk has expressed fears of a cover-up by the Sri Lankan Government after Red Cross worker Khuram Shaikh was murdered last Christmas.

Speaking as the first anniversary of Khuram’s death approaches, he said he was worried the Government was trying to “quietly drop the case to protect a local politician”.

Khuram was shot and stabbed on Christmas day in the resort of Tangelle after he tried to act as peacemaker to rescue a local restaurant owner who was being harassed by a group of drunks.

But now, almost a year on, the eight have been released on bail, no charges brought and there is no trial in sight. The politician has been accepted back into the ruling party and there are growing concerns that the investigation is being dogged by “political interference”.

Khuram Shaikh Credit: ITV Granada

“The deputy high commissioner has told me he fears that ‘political interference’ is stopping justice taking its course where Khuram’s killing is concerned.”

“Despite assurances from the Government that there would be a swift and straight forward trial this is going nowhere and ministers and police are sitting on their hands.”

– SIMON DANCZUK MP

Adding that the eyes of the world would be on Sri Lanka next year, as they host the Commonwealth heads of Government summit, he said the Prime Minister should consider boycotting the meeting.

“David Cameron should think twice about attending this meeting while British nationals are being brutally murdered in Sri Lanka with local politicians implicated and their Government is not even prepared to investigate properly,” he said.

Calling on Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt to make more robust representations to the Sri Lankan Government at a lack of progress in the case, he said their counterparts needed to be reminded of how valuable British tourism is.

“Every year thousands of British tourists visit Sri Lanka,” he said, “and what happened to Khuram could happen to anyone. It’s not enough to keep building tourist resorts if there is no rule of law and tourists can be brutally killed for no reason.”

Full report by Clare Fallon from Granada Reports on Vimeo.

Key Issue Is To Defend The Judiciary Now

By Laksiri Fernando -December 20, 2012 

Dr Laksiri Fernando

Karl Marx said “the task is not just to understand the world but to change it.” Of course the implication of this is that “if you want to change the world you would better understand it first.”  One doesn’t need to be a Marxist to agree upon the above two propositions.

In the case of Sri Lanka, we have a situation where there is a clear attempt on the part of the executive to subjugate the judiciary using the legislature as its cat’s paw. Legislature has lost or losing its proper representative character. This was not the case before although some inroads had already been made. This is in a background of a mammoth military build-up. The executive has a preeminent advantage in this scenario given the present form of presidential constitution and the subsequent 18^th Amendment and the parliament has become a mere appendage of the executive both through politics and other measures of corrupt practices. There is a considerable apathy among the masses mainly due to the absence of a strong opposition although both economic and social disparities have been increasing creating vast contradictions between the rulers and the ruled; the rich and the poor. Instead of promised reconciliation, tensions in the North are simmering and a major strategy of the ruling elite or the family has been to propagate Sinhala chauvinism in the guise of patriotism.

No one would argue that the judiciary has been a perfect institution in the past. Its independence has been compromised many a time, not by one but by many. Particularly during the war, many improvements or reforms to the judiciary had been postponed or neglected. However, the judiciary is the only institution that has come forward to challenge the arbitrary rule of the executive and the supine character of the legislature. It is a matter of survival I believe. This effort has to be unequivocally supported whatever were our criticisms in the past about this or that action of certain individuals. There is no need to repeat them and some of the matters could be raised and discussed further, in my opinion, after the impeachment matter is concluded. There are three matters in respect of the impeachment that are almost beyond doubt.

First is the fact that the impeachment against the Chief Justice is the central issue of the independence of the judiciary at present. If the CJ is removed or forced to step down, it would be easy for the executive to appoint a complete stooge and coerce the other judges. Are we going to allow that?

Second is the fact that the impeachment is a political move and has nothing to do with any of the charges that have been levelled against the CJ. The sequence of events testifies to this fact completely coinciding with the Divineguma verdict of the Supreme Court.

Third is the fact that the impeachment procedure of the PSC has been completely faulty both by local and international standards and the CJ has not been given a fair hearing that has to be denounced by all sections unequivocally. In addition, the vilification campaign has completely damaged the dignity of the judiciary.

There has been a mighty hurry for the PSC to complete the proceedings. In the event, both the CJ and the opposition members had left the PSC leaving no credibility. Only three charges are supposed to have been proved out of 14 and nine charges have been dropped whatever the reason. The report of the PSC is still not published or given even to the opposition members of the PSC creating doubts that the text is still being manipulated.

In addition to the independence of the judiciary, there is the question of personal injustice to the Chief Justice. No one could deny that or should ignore. She was blatantly abused.

Among the three charges supposed to have proved, two are to deal with the complicated issue of ‘conflict of interest’ and there are no standard rules that have been formulated in Sri Lanka on the ‘judicial conflict of interest.’ Partly, the judiciary is responsible for this matter. ‘Conflict of interest’ is an easy accusation to make but a complicated one to substantiate unless there is proof. If the conflict of interest is raised in its loose form against all judges, they all may have to go and there is no reason why only Dr Shirani Bandaranayake should be punished. There are more acute conflicts of interest on the part of the executive, particularly the Ministers.

Let me make some preliminary observations on the so-called proved charges. In the case of charge 5, the conflict of interest is quite hypothetical and not something that has objectively happened. If at all it is not a conflict of interest that the CJ has created; but something purposely created by the government. This is about the bribery case against her husband. In the case of charge 1, there is no clear connection between the outcome of the case that she was hearing and the interest that she was supposed to have had with a party to the case. No one has raised the issue during the case. As she has pointed out, the former Chief Justice also was in the same position, perhaps quite inadvertently in both cases. Then why only she should be punished?

The charge 4 is about some supposed to be undeclared bank accounts and she has given plausible explanations. The question is whether any lacuna due to misunderstanding or misinformation, if there was any, could be considered an impeachable offense unless wilful non-declaration is proved. Non declaration should have been raised by the Inland Revenue Department first. If complete accuracy in asset declaration is a criterion for impeachment or removal, then perhaps 90 per cent of the government officers and politicians might come under that category.

When impeachment or conflict of interest issues are raised, they look bad whether the charges are correct or not. That is why an impeachment has to be a carefully thought out business unless it in itself is a fraud. Judges normally shy away from impeachments. But our CJ has not done so. Why? Whatever the misgivings I have had about her past, I believe that she was feeling a strong injustice perpetrated against her to fight back so firmly. Of course this is not to deny that she made a terrible blunder by allowing her husband to accept a government position. But the government is more responsible than her for that muddle.

Normally the impeachments are not backed by political campaigns on the part of the proposers i.e. governments. But the campaigns that the government has launched and still continue give the impression that the impeachment is fraud. Therefore the impeachment against the CJ doesn’t look that bad. Instead, it has given much courage for the legal profession and even the community of judges to stay put. It is more than staying put; it is like another replica of a FUTA struggle.

After the convictions of the former Army Commander, Sarath Fonseka, this is the most vicious political trial conducted in Sri Lanka, ironically this time against the Chief Justice. The present trial is equally or more vicious than the former. The question arises why two key people in the establishment were convicted in such a manner within a pace of two years. Whatever the answer you get, it may speak volumes about what kind of future at stake in Sri Lanka, if the trends continue and if not halted.

The issue at stake is not only about setting standards for a perfect or a better judiciary. It is about its institutional independence from the coercive power of the executive. It is about its independent existence from the ‘whims and fancies’ of the politicians. There is nothing wrong for anyone to raise issues of functional independence of the judiciary even at this ‘fatal stage,’ if they wish to, about class or ethnic biases of the judiciary. There is no question that they do exist and there had also been series of issues of conflict of interest visible and not so visible; advertently or inadvertently. However we should not allow the enemies of democracy, if I may use that term, to use our constructive criticisms to destruct the independence of judiciary.

Whether we believe in a socialist, mixed or a capitalist future, democracy is important and thus the independence of the judiciary is important. We may need to distinguish between the institutional independence from the functional independence of the judiciary and if there is no institutional independence demarcated through proper constitutional and political means, then the functional independence also will fail.