Is The Anura Bandaranaike Ruling Relevant Today?

By Nihal Jayawickrama -December 30, 2012

Dr.Nihal Jayawickrama

The current debate on the parliamentary resolution to impeach the Chief Justice appears to be clouded, and sometimes distorted, by several misconceptions.

Is Parliament above the law?

It is believed in some quarters that Members of Parliament are above the law and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts. This belief is entirely misconceived. It is probably due to a provision that was included in the 1972 Constitution which read as follows:

“30. No court or other institution administering justice shall have power or jurisdiction in respect of the proceedings of the National State Assembly or of anything done, purported to be done, or omitted to be done by or in the National State Assembly.”

That provision was included in the context of the National State Assembly being “the supreme instrument of state power” under the 1972 Constitution. There is no provision similar to Article 30 in the present Constitution. Under the present Constitution, Parliament does not enjoy that status.

Is the Anura Bandaranaike ruling relevant today?

The ruling given by the late Speaker Anura Bandaranaike on 20 June 2001 is now being recited, almost like a mantra that would shield Members of Parliament from any intrusion by the Judiciary. On that occasion, the Speaker had received notice of a resolution signed by the requisite number of Members of Parliament from the ranks of the Opposition. They sought the appointment of a Select Committee of Parliament to inquire into a complaint of misbehaviour against the then Chief Justice Sarath Silva. The Supreme Court made an interim order that sought to prevent the Speaker from dealing with that resolution until the Court had heard and determined a fundamental rights application filed before it. Speaker Bandaranaike ruled that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to issue the interim order, and therefore he had no legal obligation to comply with it. He relied on section 3 of the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act of 1953 which stated that:

“There shall be freedom of speech, debate and proceeding in Parliament and such freedom of speech, debate or proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”.

It was Anura Bandaranaike’s view that the Speaker was obliged to appoint a Select Committee upon receiving a duly signed resolution, and that that was a “proceeding” of Parliament which could not be questioned in any court. In fact, section 3 protects only the “freedom” of speech, debate and proceeding. He was probably correct in reaching that conclusion, since the regulation of parliamentary business is a matter within the Speaker’s legitimate province. A tribunal with power to give a binding and authoritative decision had not yet been established. The interim order of the Supreme Court was, therefore, perhaps premature.

The issue today is one that is completely different to that dealt with by Speaker Anura Bandaranaike. There is now before the Court of Appeal an application by the Chief Justice for a writ of certiorari to quash the “decision” of the Select Committee. These findings affect her legal rights. The Constitution has vested the Court of Appeal with “full power and authority” to inspect and examine the records of any institution or person, and to grant and issue an order in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing any decision that is contrary to law. A decision may be contrary to law for a variety of reasons: the decision-making body may have suffered from bias; the principles of natural justice may not have been observed, the decision-making body may have misdirected itself on the law or on the facts. Every individual living in Sri Lanka has the right to seek judicial review of any decision that adversely affects, or is detrimental to, him or her.

Is the Select Committee report subject to judicial review?                     Read More

Ensure principle of Natural justice adhered to -SLMC

December 28, 2012,

The Sri Lanka Medical Council says the government should ensure that citizens are entitled to be judged in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

President of the SLMC, Prof Carlo Fonseka, in a letter addressed to President Mahinda Rajapaksa says: "At its monthly statutory meeting held on 21st December 2012, the Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC) noted with appreciation Your Excellency’s reported intention to appoint a panel to review the procedure and report of the Parliamentary Select Committee which inquired into the impeachment notion against the Chief Justice.

The SLMC resolved to communicate to Your Excellency its consensual view that the composition, integrity and competence of the proposed panel should be unquestionable. We believe that in our society, which is committed to the rule of law, we must ensure that citizens are entitled to be judged in accordance with the principles of natural justice."

‘It’s The Government That Destabilizes The Country’ – LfD

By Colombo Telegraph -December 30, 2012

“Responding to the statement of the Defence Secretary that some  local and foreign elements are trying to destabilize the country through the Judiciary, Lawyers for Democracy asks how a Secretary to a Ministry, being a public official, makes such an  irresponsible political statement.” says Lawyers for Democracy.

Issuing a statement Lawyers for Democracy (LfD) reminds the public that it is  the Executive, through selected Members of Parliament in the legislature, that has taken a series of major steps, including an unwarranted politically  motivated impeachment of the Chief Justice, to undermine the democratic values of the country. These actions have exposed Sri Lanka for further scrutiny by the international community, who are under international legal obligations to ensure that the member states follow these international obligations. The manner in which the Executive and the state media behave establishes that the Government has destabilized Sri Lanka and its constitutional values. The Lawyers for Democracy states in no uncertain terms that  it is the Government and not some of the national or international elements, that are trying to destabilize the country.

“Further, the Lawyers for Democracy reminds the public that the State of Sri Lanka  is different from the ruling political party and the Government, who are expected to protect the constitution, without intentionally violating the values guaranteed in the constitution.” LfD further says.

If the Parliament is supreme then there is no constitution. Speaker’s certification does not cure the defect or the resolution as a act of parliament

(Lanka-e-News-29.Dec.2012, 11.00PM) Impeachment of Chief justice is not an act of parliament. PSC proceedings violated the due process and fair hearing under the constitution and deem null and void. Speaker’s certification does not cure the defect or the resolution as a act of parliament.

The Speaker and the members of parliament already setup the schedule to pass the resolution in the Parliament. They made statements that the proceedings will be legally valid after passing the parliament.

The members of Parliament believe that the Speaker’s certification is sufficient and the president may remove the Chief Justice. 

As the Impeachment proceedings are unconstitutional and violated the due process and fair hearing as guaranteed by the constitution further proceeding by the Parliament will not be an act of Parliament. 

There are two types of due process of law.

Procedural due process of law. The Parliament must use fair proceedings.
Substantive due process of law. The laws under which the Parliament acts must be constitutional.

These rights had come to life in the form of fundamental right in the Sri Lankan constitution.

All three institutions, the President, Parliament and Judiciary must obey and respect these legal rights when they perform their duties.

Any act that violates of fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution by any of the three branches, that act will become null and void.

However the Supreme Court is the only institution out of the three branched to declare the invalidity of such act committed by the three branches.

When a sovereign Parliament has purported to enact a bill and it has received the Royal assent, is it a valid Act in the course of whose passing there was a procedural defect or is it an invalid Act which Parliament had no power to pass in that manner?

In The Bribery Commissioner v. Ranasinghe 1964 Privy Council held” When a legislative power is given subject to certain manner or form, the power does not exist unless and until the manner and form is complied with”.

In Thambiayah v. Kalasingham (50 N.L.R. 25 at 37)” This lord ship therefore are in accent with the view so clearly expressed by the Supreme Court that the orders made against the respondent are null and void inoperative on the ground that the persons composing the Bribery Commission Tribunal which tried him were not lawfully appointed to the 
tribunal ”                  Full story >>

A Rejoinder To Suren Raghavan On Independence Of The Judiciary

By Laksiri Fernando -December 30, 2012 

Dr Laksiri Fernando

I have just read the article by Dr Suren Raghavan titled “Independent Judiciary in a Dependent (ill) Democracy” (Colombo Telegraph, 29 December 2012) with mixed feelings, but mostly disagreeing with his prognosis and some of the conclusions. There is a single short paragraph (only two sentences) which says all.

“Politically speaking the concept of law and the independence of judiciary is very infant and alien concept in Lanka. Like to the entire commonwealth, it is a British colonial legacy and a postcolonial continuation.”

According to him, not only the concepts of independence of the judiciary but also law or rule of law are very ‘infant and alien’ to Sri Lanka. Even if I temporarily agree with the ‘infancy’ of the system, I cannot understand or agree that these two concepts are alien for the basic reason that there is no indigenous alternative left for the people or the country except ‘arbitrary rule and authoritarianism.’ It is this ‘arbitrary rule and authoritarianism’ that looms large at present instead of ‘rule of law and independence of judiciary’ through imposition on the people while he mistakenly criticizes instead the imposition of ‘rule of law and independence of the judiciary.’ What I can see mainly is mistaken priorities in his critique of Sri Lanka’s present predicament.

What Legacy?

He also adds that ‘rule of law and independence of the judiciary’ are British colonial legacies and postcolonial arbitrary continuations by the elite. Although as a person from the same academic field as Raghavan, Political Science, I usually tend to judge political changes or maturity within single generations, but not in epochs or millennia. But to him it seems that the British period added with the post-independence phase is not good enough time for the country to adept the two concepts, rule of law and independence of the judiciary.

In my opinion, it is not merely because of the British legacy that Sri Lanka or any other Commonwealth country should follow the two concepts under discussion, the rule of law and independence of the judiciary, but because of the UN and the international law and the proven superiority of these two in contrast to any other alternative in modern circumstances. The Commonwealth itself has absorbed these principles (Latimer House Principles) in its policies and statutes however imperfect they are put into practice in their respective countries. They are also the most preferred principles by the people if you allow the chance and the choice but not ‘arbitrary rule and authoritarianism.’ Yes, we should oppose any adverse legacy of colonialism, but people are not living in pre-colonial times although some politicians wanted to take the country back into those bygone times.

Second point is that the ordinary people in general should not be ‘blamed’ in any manner directly or indirectly for the breach of rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in Sri Lanka at present. The main blame should go to the politicians and their power schemes including some within the judicial system itself. This does not mean that one should not discuss social or historical roots if there is any. But I am not sure the social roots that Raghavan tries to trace are completely correct. Let me give you some examples or different viewpoint.

There is no dispute that “the colonial rule did not work on the Montesquieu framework.” But it did introduce slowly a new and a modern system of rule of law at least since 1833. This is a good byproduct of bad colonialism! I am not sure whether the Silindu example from Baddegama is a correct one to show how the ordinary ‘subjects’ felt about the ‘colonial law and its rules.’ It would be worse if we try to apply the same imagery to the contemporary circumstances. I have conducted some field research in areas such as Mahiyangana, Moneragala, Kalutara and Bulathsinhala in the past and my experience show the people’s close adaptation to the judicial system at times with too much of optimism. In areas that I became slightly familiar with, many ordinary people seemed to believe that they could get many things done through a ‘Mosama’ in the courts, to mean a Motion and not monsoon! Of course these are predominantly Sinhala areas and there is a possibility that people in the North or the East must be feeling differently. If I may make a quick flash back, with the introduction of the universal franchise in 1931, the people’s awareness became enhanced on rule of law and democracy, reinforced at least in some areas by the left movement. The Bracegirdle Incident in 1937 was a landmark in this development.

Duality of Independence                              Read More

Acting contrary to the greater good of Sri Lanka

Sunday, December 30, 2012

This week, newspaper reports quoted Sri Lanka’s Defence Secretary and President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s brother accusing foreign elements of ‘using the judiciary to destabilise Sri Lanka’ (Daily Mirror, December 29th 2012). This is a classic instance of doublespeak. It is abundantly clear that, rather than so-called foreign interests, it is the Government itself which is destabilising the country.

Its sheer brute force in ramming an arbitrary impeachment of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice through Parliament against the express injunctions of judges and lawyers, professional bodies and religious leader across all major faiths speaks for itself. Are all these individuals and bodies supposed to be part of this convenient foreign conspiracy? Have we not played these childish games long enough?

Rule of Law replaced by Rule of Politics�

These games are symptomatic not of benevolent authoritarianism but a ruthless quasi-dictatorship which acts contrary to the greater good of the country, contrary to the Rule of Law and contrary to the interests of the Sri Lankan people. The genial mask has now been stripped away to expose an insatiable thirst for power that would sacrifice all before it.

As much as a worthless gift may be wrapped in appealingly bright paper, the gilt only hides the rotten core of a regime which has abandoned the Rule of Law for the Rule of Politics.

Doubtless (barring a miracle in this season of miracles) this impeachment will go ahead. President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s rejection of a sensible compromise to prorogue Parliament thereby allowing the impeachment to lapse, as suggested by the leftist parties of his coalition, was unsurprising.

If Sri Lanka had been put first, over and above the arrogance of its political rulers, this compromise would have been the best solution. But the fury of the administration in being challenged by a Chief Justice that it once thought was fully amenable to its own will, sweeps all before it. Its leftist partners are only likely to grumble at being thus ignored, much like the uncaringly sheep-like members of the ruling party who will follow their leader blindfolded over a cliff if that is so demanded. The only concession to emerge from the regime is a ludicrous proposal that even though this impeachment will go ahead, a better procedure may be laid down for subsequent cases.

Justifying the unjustifiable

Government propagandists meanwhile furiously work overtime to justify the clearly unjustifiable. For example, the allegation of conflict of interest on the part of the Chief Justice in hearing particular matters has been loudly trumpeted. On her own part, the Chief Justice has publicly stated that no specific objection was raised to her hearing any case by any party or their lawyers. These matters will not be discussed further given that they are presently before the Court of Appeal. However some general reflections may well be appropriate at this point.

Earlier, tradition and good sense dictated that when a party to an action objected to a judge hearing a case, that judge was obliged to recuse himself or herself from the matter. In fact, even in the absence of an objection being raised, a judge is supposed to abstain from sitting on the matter in the first instance if a conflict of interest is apparent to his or her mind. This was the old tradition of the Sri Lankan judiciary.
But significant departure from this principle was evidenced not in the current Chief Justice’s time but during the Sarath Silva Court when objections arising from express conflict of interest were summarily dismissed as a matter of course throughout that ten year period.

Among the plethora of such cases is the Tony Fernando case where in defiance of all norms of propriety, Fernando’s petition citing the Chief Justice as a respondent was heard before a Bench presided over by the Chief Justice himself who dismissed all objections to his hearing the case without further ado. Fernando himself, a lay litigant and middle aged teacher of English, was then sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for contempt of court. As may be recalled, the United Nations Human Rights Committee quoted this case as an excellent example of judicial abuse of power when a plea by Fernando was brought before the Committee.

Those who protest now at the incumbent Chief Justice’s alleged conflict of interest may well be asked as to where their outrage was when far more serious conflicts of interest were evidenced in far greater measure during that period, when the rot actually set in so as to speak? Are these matters that become relevant only when a Government is determined to crucify a Chief Justice? In any event and given the specific allegation leveled against the incumbent Chief Justice to which a full answer has been forthcoming from her, is this really an impeachable offence?

A range of weapons being�used by the government

Another canard being floated by propagandists is that the Chief Justice is manipulating the benches of the appellate court in regard to matters connected to the impeachment.

On the contrary, it must be said that the Chief Justice has no authority whatsoever in the listing of judges to hear particular matters in the Court of Appeal. This is exclusively the prerogative of the President of the Court of Appeal. It is therefore absurd to contend that the Chief Justice is somehow capable of influencing the judicial response to the writ petition filed by her. What other recourse does she have, when subjected to a parliamentary process devoid of natural justice? The Court of Appeal’s initial response to this petition was, in fact, carefully guarded and entirely proper. It is hard to imagine as to what other order could have been handed down in the circumstances.

But to return to the larger issue of the quasi-dictatorship that we are inflicted with, it is simplistic to point to a newspaper on any given day and contend that the prevalence of opposing views indicates that democracy is yet present. Contrary views would be tolerated so long as they are marginalized and do not pose any real threat to the regime’s political stability.

Mere irritants would be dealt with through persistently crude and vulgar attacks which we see now while a range of weapons including targeted killings may be applied against more serious threats. The cacophony of hysterical voices using the state media to damn all those who advise a calmer rethink of the impeachment process amply bear this out.

A Government devoid of respect for the law

Now more than ever, public opinion is needed to support a braver and stronger institution of the judiciary that would grapple with the terrible challenges of the present as well as the profound failures of the past. What is at stake is not the fate of a single Chief Justice but the judicial institution itself. Some may argue quite justifiably that, in the past decade, the very concept of the independence of the judiciary has become worthless in this country. True, the integrity of the judicial branch may have become tarnished as a result of actions of former Chief Justices, as dwelt on in past columns. Further, the legal process itself may be deeply flawed in terms of its archaic rules, laws delays and general insensitivity to the litigant.

However, these entirely valid points of critique cannot be stretched so as to say that Sri Lanka’s judicial institution itself is not worth fighting for. Spruced up cities, the profusion of luxury hotels and gleaming new roads snaking throughout the country cannot disguise the fact that this is a Government devoid of any respect for law. Strategic wisdom is needed therefore for the long struggles ahead.

From A Springer To His Excellency Rajapaksa

By A Member of the Sri Lankan Spring-December 29, 2012

28 Dec 2012
His Excellency
Mahinda Rajapaksa
President of Sri Lanka

Your Excellency,

YOU CAN STILL BE GREAT IN A LITTLE HOUSE CALLED SRI LANKA

All Sri Lankans hailed you as the greatest leader that citizens had witnessed when you brought a certain era of our land to a close in May 2009. When I say a certain era, it was no doubt an era of unnecessary violence and great unhappiness, a great period of stress and uncertainty, which was brought upon the people of this country especially those in the North and East who bore the brunt of a long drawn civil war.

This war had many architects on both sides of the fence. Mr Prabakaran and his men brought this war to a head. I hesitate to call them terrorists as this gives an idea that a certain group of young men unleashed terror upon their fellow citizens without a cause. If history is read and read with understanding and analysis, a group of Sri Lankans who happened to be Tamil had their back against the wall and reacted. Both sides far from being reasonable and honest about reaching a compromise labored on shedding blood. You were really not responsible, Your Excellency. You just dealt with the result. While we are happy that war has ended, a settlement could have been accomplished if previous leaders were more prudent and less blood thirsty and their subordinates were not committed to prolonging the war in order to make hay while the sun shines, or in this case when there was gloom and doom and lots of money could be made in the process. The was also could have been less bloody and lots of unnecessary killing could have been reduced.

You were assisted in this historical endeavour by none other than a great man called Sarath Fonseka and his team. Let us not dwell on his abilities which are beyond the scope and objectives of this letter, but his contribution is well known here and abroad.

Let me, without going into all the details, which are well espoused by people more learned than I say that WE HAVE NOT AS CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY ENJOYED MUCH BENEFITS OF THE END OF THE WAR AND ARE IN FACT SEEING BAD GOVERNANCE AT ITS PEAK, OF WHICH ONE OF THE SPILL OFFS IS ABJECT VIOLENCE REACHING ALL PARTS OF THE COUNTRY AT ALL LEVELS AND SPARING NO ONE. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT MILITARISATION AND VIOLENCE ONCE STARTED HAS NO END.

One of the indicators of an unresolved conflict, is increasing incidents of Domestic Violence (DV) and Child Abuse. We do see a rampant increase in both, even though nowadays there seems to be a clampdown on publicity of such incidents. In 2010 alone DV reached 94,000 reported incidents. So say the Police. Let us say these were 2 repeat incidents each in the same household? This scourge has still reached 47,000 households, maybe over a 100,000 children. Evidence around the globe says that DV increases after a war. In 2011, DV has reached over 100,000 incidents. Please do not say as a learned lawyer that the increase is owing only to a law on DV. It may be increasingly reported as there is a law and people have got the courage to report. This is just one indicator. Much has been reported and written about Child abuse, murders are just a daily occurrence, especially of women in one area – Kahawatte, with clearly a common motive and maybe happening with the support of those in your Cabinet, Sir.

I need not elaborate, but would like to mention the parameters of not so good governance and rights violations. The recent most unprofessionally hatched witch hunt of the Chief Justice, by those persons of dubious character and persuasion appointed to the PSC and 117 not so clean hands signing the initial blank paper, not implementing the recommendations of the LLRC, the suppression of the people of the North and East still by the military and no real attempts at reconciliation, the suppression of the media by different means which are really creative – for instance crushing the Sunday Leader and scaring into submission most of the other newspapers and journalists, not developing education in a way that would facilitate the achievement of the Miracle of Asia. In fact where is the safeguarding of children’s right to education when the system is turning out to be a “debacle” in Asia. Our University rankings are sliding down the global index by the day, a simple examination cannot be held without leaks or corrections of paper corrections.

The Z Score is another story gone to ZZERO. Both your Ministers of Education are clowns messing up the circus of education.

Your Ministers of which there are two handling the Geneva issues are falling over each other and making a poor show of Sri Lanka. The Sri Lanka Administrative Service and the Sri Lanka Foreign Service is in total chaos, messed up in style by buffoons – mainly your friends and relations including retired Generals.

People’s Right to Health is in name only as the health system is just saved by a majority of health professionals who are committed, especially in preventive health. But is there real access to free health? Is the coverage of Sri Lanka with a Health System adequate? What about quality of care? Are we as citizens receiving quality care? What has happened to the Drugs Policy?

The root cause of many of your problems is Nepotism and Corruption as never before and a lack of real Vision. In fact Nepotism and Corruption have reached the younger generations of your family. In reality they have no future as they too are soiled beyond redemption.

Your family members, the closest ones, do not like participatory development. A classic example is the Divi Neguma Bill. Has this Bill and its benefits been explained systematically to the people? How different is it to Samurdhi and Janasaviya? What is your defense to the argument that the Divineguma Bill violates the constitution well over 10 times?

Yet, Sir we feel that once upon a time your heart was in the right place and your mind was clearer. Can you restore both your heart and mind to their original situation as when you were fighting for the rights of the Palestinians? After all your own people – WE, too deserve to have our rights restored fully.

A humble citizen wishes to propose the following 10 priorities to you for 2013.

1.Bring down the crime rate in a structured manner. Enforce laws and free the law enforcement officers to act without favour or force. Expedite cases.

2.Start really meaningful reconciliation in the North and East. Do not go into ill advised action if people are mourning those they want to mourn for “terrorist” or otherwise. The recent drama in Jaffna University is shameful and ill advised by your brother the military person who only knows one way of governing.

3.Really set targets and act on the LLRC. Mean what you say and say what you mean. Don’t give us hog wash on this.
4.If you have a meaningful economic development plan unfurl this to the public of this country who are tax payers. If you don’t have, let us formulate one with expert assistance. Malaysia did very well to unfurl such a plan for 10 years with facts, figures, responsibility and concrete action in 2010. Make the private sector a meaningful partner.

5.Clean up your Cabinet without delay after doing a Performance Evaluation. Really evaluate how they have performed. Sack those who have not performed and give a chance to others especially educated ones like Prof Rajiva Wijesinha. Make the Cabinet slim.

6.Do a 5S on your MPs. Earmark the crap and do not nominate them next time. Give them warnings and performance targets. Do not worry too much about making up the numbers in parliament with useless coalitions. If you perform, you will get the numbers anyway.

7.Do a similar 5S of the Foreign and Administrative Service. Never too late to clean up or the rot will be too much to clear. Be lean and mean in the good sense.

8.Contain your family and friends in high positions to a reasonable number. Come on, we are not telling you to cut off every one instantly. Have a Family and Friend’s Conference in Medamulana. Maybe the Catholic Church which is very good at organizing retreats can help you structure this. Let everyone go into introspection, then confession, then you can pardon the worthwhile and ex communicate the rest. BishopMalcolm Ranjith would be very good at helping you with this. Get a little counseling.

9.Rein in your younger brothers and next generation and advise them that too many cars, wine, women and cash at too young an age is not a good thing. Maybe it is time for Carlton, the Talent Factory and Red Cherry to be quiet for a little bit, invest their monies and lie low, because frankly your reputation is in shreds with these younger ones. Make sure you have only a few cars in your garage. You may keep one Aston Martin for occasional fun.(Your younger brother Gotabaya is quite talented, but has to be softened round the edges not to be so military in his approach. Basil really needs to learn the “science” of development)
10.MOST OF ALL GET RID OF THE EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY. Be the next PM for all we care, but not an Exec PM. We are tired of the EXECUTIVE. Free the JUDICIARY and RESTORE Parliament. These are the root causes of all evils and we are really tired, dear Sir.

YOU will be GREA…..T in the little house of Sri Lanka and it will be truly Asia’s Miracle

Happy New Year!
Sincerely,
Springer

‘It’s The Government That Destabilizes The Country’ – LfD

By Colombo Telegraph -December 30, 2012

“Responding to the statement of the Defence Secretary that some local and foreign elements are trying to destabilize the country through the Judiciary, Lawyers for Democracy asks how a Secretary to a Ministry, being a public official, makes such an irresponsible political statement.” says Lawyers for Democracy.

Issuing a statement Lawyers for Democracy (LfD) reminds the public that it is the Executive, through selected Members of Parliament in the legislature, that has taken a series of major steps, including an unwarranted politically motivated impeachment of the Chief Justice, to undermine the democratic values of the country. These actions have exposed Sri Lanka for further scrutiny by the international community, who are under international legal obligations to ensure that the member states follow these international obligations. The manner in which the Executive and the state media behave establishes that the Government has destabilized Sri Lanka and its constitutional values. The Lawyers for Democracy states in no uncertain terms that it is the Government and not some of the national or international elements, that are trying to destabilize the country.

“Further, the Lawyers for Democracy reminds the public that the State of Sri Lanka is different from the ruling political party and the Government, who are expected to protect the constitution, without intentionally violating the values guaranteed in the constitution.” LfD further says.

White van riders abduct Tamil businessman in Gampola in central Province

Saturday, 29 December 2012 12

Tamil businessman Govindasamy Arunachalam Prabakaran was abducted by persons came in a reported white van last night in Gampola, Kandy district in Central province.

The victims family members today informed Civil Monitoring Commission convener and Democratic People’s Front leader Mano Ganesan.

Victim was returning home at Malabar street from his business center at Kandy Rd Gampola town. The incident had occurred at 9.40pm. The waiting abductors had forced Govindasamy Arunachalam Prabakaran who was entering through the gates of his residence into the van and fled.

Victim, aged 56 is a father of two sons and a daughter. The family had lodged the complaints at Gampola police.

Jaffna students deny “supporting the cause”

SATURDAY, 29 DECEMBER 2012

A special meeting will be held between Faculty Deans and Jaffna University Lecturers, sequent to a meeting with the four students detained at the Welikanda rehabilitation camp before deciding on the future course of action.

The Jaffna University has come to a standstill after the students began boycotting lectures urging that the four students still under detention since the time they were arrested after the alleged ‘heroes’ day’ celebration held at the University on November 27.

Earlier Defense Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa had met the Faculty Deans and requested them to find a way out of the impasse and ensure that the students attended the lectures.

Meanwhile the students had denied making any statements to the Army to the effect that they would “continue to fight for the cause”.

The Deans met the students still in custody after they were requested by the Jaffna Security Forces Commander Mahinda Hathurusinghe to advise the students to disengage from activities relating to the LTTE.

The security forces commander is reported to have told the Deans and the parents that the students had been campaigning for the LTTE and that they had reiterated their determination to “fight for the cause”.

A source said the students were being detained in an isolated place away from other inmates.

“It must be because they are students but they have been kept away from the other detainees and spend time reading books. They have not been asked to engage in any sort of training or other activity” the source said.

He said the Camp OIC had been advising the students about their duty towards their parents and the need to educate them before engaging in politics.
 “They are being told about the value of education and have always been advised to stay away from politics,” the source said. (Menaka Mookandi)

Bankrupt MaRa regime despots readying for a bloody solution : free yet another underworld criminal

(Lanka-e-News-28.Dec.2012, 9.00PM) The brutal and Barbaric despots MaRa and his brothers have freed yet another murderer from the prison. On the 16th of December, Dolpin Chandhana alias Watthe Chandana had been sent home after he was released by the Attorney general (AG) following withdrawal of the charges against him on the ground that there are no evidence, in spite of the fact that he was in the Welikade remand prison on most heinous indictments of 14 murders, 9 cases of illegal possession of firearms and two rape charges . 

The architect of this release is Sajin Vaas Gunawardena a powerful bigwig of the Rajapakse regime . This release was done with hectic speed by the defense ministry by treating this ‘criminal release’ as a matter of most urgent importance. This criminal was released on the 16th of December from the Welikade prison with its chief superintendent , Emil Ranjan Lamahewa and the chief of the intelligence division of the Jailors , Indika dancing attendance on this notorious criminal. 

Indika is an underworld murderer very close to the Rajapakse regime ( birds of a feather flock together) and addressed by Namal Rajapakse as ‘ Indika aiyya’. During the recent genocide in Welikade prison when a sudden illegal raid was conducted by ‘Gotabaya’s henchmen, it was Emil Ranjan and Indika who protected and made sure that no harm befalls this underworld criminal Dolpin Chandana by having him seated within the Jeep vehicle.

Dolpin Indika alias Watthe Indika owns two houses which have been identified. . One is at Madiwela , Kotte , and the other is at Battaramulla. 
Lanka e news had already revealed that the convict R. Devage Somaratne Rajapakse who was sentenced to death in the Krishanthi Kumaraswamy rape and murder is going to be freed.

Another three underworld murderers were abducted by the regime officials during the recent Welikade clash. Lanka e news reported on this too.

It is the consensus among the intelligence sources, that continued unlawful release of underworld criminals by the MaRa regime is by design and not by accident . That is with the objective of using them in its criminal conspiracies aimed at committing murders at some future date.