Less than 50 out of 5000 attended Jaffna University on Tuesday

[TamilNet, Tuesday, 08 January 2013, 23:52 GMT]
In a meeting held on Monday at the Jaffna University by the Vice Chancellor Prof Vasanthi Arasaratnam, it was decided to resume classes on Tuesday, after much persuasion by the Rajapaksa-appointed Tamil VC that she would resign if the students were not agreeing for an immediate reopening. The SL Education Secretary has come out with an open threat that the government would close down the university for one year if it were not resuming. The student representatives under pressure agreed for the resumption, but students didn’t come on Tuesday. Only less than 50 students out of a 5000-strong student population were seen at the university. Most of them were emotionally unprepared while their activists are in detention and they were also scared about security in and around the campus, news sources in Jaffna said. 

At the meeting on Monday, the student representatives while insisting on the release of the detained students, wanted to discuss the matter of reopening after Pongkal in mid January. But for some unknown reasons, the SL government and the VC were adamant on immediate resumption. 

Students are also opposed to conducting the university exams from 16 January. They want their detained comrades to be released to take part in the exams. Otherwise, even if they were released they would automatically lose one year for voicing for the rights of the students and of the people, student circles said.

The final year students of the university would meet on the 10 to discuss about boycotting their exams if the detained comrades are not released, student circles said. 

Psychological preparedness of students is the most important requisite in education. Therefore, release of the detained students is the demand of the students and teachers of the university. But the occupying government has something else in its agenda, the university academics were commenting.

The university campus in now surrounded by the SL troops and by its intelligence personnel. Some of them are present inside the campus itself. The situation is another reason for the unwillingness of the students to return.

There is also a fear that if the detained students were not released now they would not be released for years.

The government says open the university, but could we do if the students are not coming. The government only wants to score a point and show it to the international community, commented a teachers’ union representative.

The US embassy and the visiting Canadian minister came out with lip service of adding a sentence in their statements. But practically none in the so-called international community succeeded in driving sense in the minds of the genocidal regime they patronize, commented academic circles in Jaffna.

Did Jaffna university academy activities turned to normal?

Wednesday , 09 January 2013
Even though Jaffna university academic activities have commenced from yesterday, the university was isolated because students did not turn up.

It was notified that the Jaffna university academic sessions after 40 days will commence from today Tuesday. However this decision was taken on Monday, hence students from outside districts due to inadequate time period, failed to report to university, hence the students turn up was less was stated by university information.

According to the current atmosphere prevailing in the university only some students’ presence was able to observe.  Check points around the university still exists but the police forces had been withdrawn.

 Meanwhile students informed the check points are creating much alarm to them. It was also pointed out about the arrested university students still facing detention.

Sri Lanka’s LLRC Timeline: Update 1

Sri Lanka’s LLRC Timeline: Update 1

  Groundviews ‏    -9 Jan, 2013

In August 2012, Groundviews published a sui generis visual timeline tracing key events and developments around the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), from its inception to the implementation of its action plan, over the next three years. Since its first release around four months ago, we have continued to curate the timeline with relevant information.

Just a cursory glance at the LLRC timeline suggests that the Government is falling very short on actually implementing and delivering the recommendations of the Action Plan based on the LLRC’s Final Report.

The colour-coded categorisation of the timeline covers,

• Foreign Government statements
• INGO / NGO reports
• LLRC implementation (waypoints from LLRC Action Plan)
• LLRC submissions
• Media reports
• Official / Government statement
• UN system statements

In the spirit of open and data driven journalism, Groundviews is making the source material for this timeline available in JSON and CSV formats. JSON enables the material to be easily reused by anyone in other compelling web visualisations or apps. The CSV file can be used as an offline record of the material published in the timeline, and can be opened in any spreadsheet programme like Microsoft Excel on the desktop or via Google Docs online.

Download the JSON file here and the CSV file here.

Groundviews also maintains a unique archive of media reportage around the LLRC when it was active, and a comprehensive database of submissions to the Commission. Access both here.

Click here for larger version of the timeline.

Mahapola funds used for leadership training

2013-01-08 

So called leadership training devours students welfare funds ?Po-SB

The Inter University Students' Federation (IUSF) alleged yesterday the last two Mahapola instalments of the first year university students are to be withdrawn by the government, to allocate funds to pay off the military personnel involved in the Leadership Training Programme.

 

Addressing the media in Colombo, IUSF Convener, Sanjeewa Bandara alleged, "The government cannot bear the financial pressure they are under, thus have decided to withdraw from the students' Mahapola funds, to pay off the military personnel conducting the leadership training programmes."

He also charged, the government has reduced the number of government schools in the country, from over 9,000 to less than 4,000.

"The map indicating the distribution of schools in Sri Lanka shows that out of the 9,700 schools that were previously present in the country, there are now a mere 3,777. The government has taken away the dignity of education in the country, which is one of the reasons for the problems at examinations in the country. If these plots weren't being hatched by the government itself, none of these irregularities would be happening right now," he charged.

He added, financially secure developed schools had been given the task of 'watching over' rural schools, a 'scheme thought up by the government to use the money of the parents to pay for the maintenance of these schools.'

"Minister of Education, Bandula Gunawardane, or the President himself can take the credit for a new wing or a library at such a rural school, while the parents actually paid for it," Bandara claimed.

Canadian minister cuts double image in Colombo

[TamilNet, Tuesday, 08 January 2013, 19:57 GMT]
Beginning a ministerial visit to Colombo since the Vanni War, the Canadian government once again prepares itself for climbing on the geostrategic bandwagon that detracts or deviates from delivering righteous solutions to genocide-afflicted Eezham Tamils, political observers in the island commented. They cited the double image cut by the visiting Canadian Minister portrayed in two separate news releases of the Canadian government: one denying the right to flee to the people subjected to genocide and the other showing concern to ‘human rights’ situation in the island, but both upholding integrity of the genocidal State. A different set of citations of the minister appeared in the SL government news release. The minister also cut a double image when media quoted him referring to “Sri Lankan immigrants” and “Tamil Canadians.” 



The Canadian Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney’s visit to Colombo, Saturday to Monday, follows Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr’s visit in mid December.

Attending a Joint Woking Group on People Smuggling and Transnational Crime, chaired by SL Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, the Australian FM announced a four-point programme of collaboration with Sri Lanka in this regard: 1.Intelligence sharing including provision of equipment and training to enhance Sri Lankan intelligence expertise; 2.Strengthening Sri Lankan Navy by training including in maritime air surveillance and direct supply of equipment; 3.Campaign in concern coastal areas, and 4.Economic ‘development’ to prevent refugees leaving [as though that is the reason for people fleeing an internationally abetted genocidal war and structural genocide].
* * * The visiting Canadian Minister was primarily taking up the same issue in Colombo.

Jason Kenney

“Canada boosted its international efforts to prevent human smuggling after the arrival of two smuggling ships in 2009 and 2010 [carrying Eezham Tamils]. Since then, no planned smuggling voyages have succeeded in getting to Canada,” The Canadian government news (CNC) said on Monday in its official news release on the minister’s deliberations in Colombo. 

The CNC, reminding the action the government took on fleeing Tamils and citing the minister in Colombo came out with a strongest possible warning against anyone trying to flee from the island into Canada in any organized way.

The Canadian minister visiting Colombo encouraged the use of Canada’s ‘generous and open legal immigration system,’ but the minister may have to answer the double standard – why the unreasonably continued ‘terrorism’ tag goes against the ‘generosity’ he is referring to, while he is prepared to shake the criminal hands of genocidal Colombo in seeking cooperation.

Media reports said that the Canadian Minister was referring to the LTTE as a challenge to Tamil Canadians: “One of the challenges the community had, particularly the Tamil Canadians, during the period of the conflict here, was that many of them felt that they were living under pressure from the LTTE. The Tigers were running extortion operations,” he was saying.

The SL government news that also appeared in its External Affairs Ministry news cited the minister in the following words: “Minister Kenney pointed out that the Canadian Government's proscription of the LTTE in 2006 had a direct impact in his view in curbing the flow of funds for terrorism in Sri Lanka. He said the Canadian Government has continued to take stringent action against LTTE activists operating on their soil and assured of their continued cooperation in this regard.”

In his own words, Mr Kenney was saying: “Canada regards itself as a friend of Sri Lanka. The government of Prime Minister Harper, we believe, helped to hasten the end of the war by banning the Tamil Tigers as a illegal terrorist entity and the World Tamil Movement by cracking down on their fund raising and political operations in Canada. We are opposed to all forms of terrorism and extremism, but we are also champions of human rights and dignity.”

The hundreds of thousands of Eezham Tamils in Canada, who took to streets during the war, may have to ask for an explanation from the minister for the statements he has made in Colombo, activists in the island said.

Jumping on the US-led bandwagon and aligning with the EU's wrongly-placed ban, Canada proscribed the LTTE in 2006, affecting the diplomatic balance of power in the talks between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE that finally led to the genocidal end of the war and to the on-going genocidal solution. 
* *  The Canadian Minister claimed in Colombo that Canada has the largest “Sri Lankan diaspora” community, insulting the identity of the people even after they got into a “generous” country.

But he was conscious of the image he had to portray to the diaspora. So there was a second news release that concentrated on his observations on ‘human rights’ situation in the island:

The minister was concerned about the lack of progress towards ‘reconciliation’, recent impeachment of the Chief Justice, harassment of members of the media and non-governmental organizations as well as the recent and on-going detention of students in Jaffna. 

On Canada’s participation in the CHOGM, he said, “[..] As host of the event, Sri Lanka is under close scrutiny for its adherence to Commonwealth values and principles.”

Canada’s “level” of representation [not total boycott] at this meet depends of progress in ‘reconciliation’ and accountability including an independent investigation [not necessarily international], the minister said.

Sri Lanka showing tangible progress on a process of “national political reconciliation,” was the minister’s concern.

According to SL government news, the SL External Affairs Minister G L Peiris briefed the Canadian Minister regarding the arrangements for the Commonwealth Summit in Sri Lanka in November this year.

As usual GL Peiris was harping on time and space.
* * * As the structural genocide of Eezham Tamils and ultimate annihilation of their nation in the island became streamlined and accelerated only after the LLRC-based ‘reconciliation’ (tabled by the US and its allies) adopted by the UNHRC, what everyone means ‘progress’ in it needs careful perusal, commented Tamil political activists in the island.

Writing on the Australian stand on refugees from the island, the World Socialist Web Site said on 14 December that the stand was motivated by elections in Australia and was abetted by media. It cited an editorial in Murdock’s newspaper ‘Australian’ that praised the FM’s visit to Sri Lanka.

“Australia’s collaboration in these operations is a blatant breach of the international Refugee Convention, which recognises a right to flee persecution,” the website said, adding that the media editorial “underlines the readiness of the political establishment to tear up the most fundamental legal and democratic rights of working people in order to pursue its program.”

But, what Australia and Canada are doing particularly on the question of Eezham Tamils is more than a refugee issue or an electioneering exercise, Tamil political observers in the island said.

It is once again a West-led mobilisation to compromise on Sri Lanka for geostrategic interests, saving and bargaining with the State and regime, ignoring whatever genocidal they are, the observers said.

The provisions of the Australian cooperation would show that it is not merely refugee-related but militaristic, they said.
* * * Writing in December, a Harvard researcher and a US Naval War College professor were aiming at an opinion mobilization in India, by citing China, in order to either make India to once again climb on the bandwagon that led to the genocidal paradigm in the island or to ‘save’ it from the worse course it had adopted in the post-war times.

Tamils living in India, motivated by continuing animosities over ‘Sri Lankan Tamil rights’, are complicating New Delhi’s policies towards Colombo, they wrote.

The US writers were concerned that this would prevent India from competing with China in wooing Sri Lanka.

“Hence the domestic political complications imposed on New Delhi by the Tamil Nadu political faction is heightening the likelihood that Chinese warships will be visiting or based in southern Sri Lanka in the near future,” the US writers said.

It is not difficult to understand that the interest is actually the US interest, Tamil political observers said.

If the opinion takes the line that Tamils in Tamil Nadu ‘complicate’ India’s policies, so will be the Tamils in the diaspora to the West, in the eyes of such opinion makers.

The signals that come from Australia and Canada, and the confidence with which Gotabhaya Rajapaksa carries out militarization of the country of Eezham Tamils have to be carefully understood by Tamils in the island, in the diaspora and in Tamil Nadu, the political observers in the island cautioned. 

A politician on the Tamil side, whom the visiting Canadian Minister met in Colombo, was TNA’s nominated parliamentarian, Mr. M.A. Sumanthiran.

Meanwhile, news sources in Tamil Nadu said that Mr. C. Mahendran of the Communist Party of India, known for his views supporting the self-determination of Eezham Tamils, was denied of Canadian visa a few days ago when he applied to attend a conference convened by Tamil Canadians.

No Committee to study PSC report – Pres. Spokesperson

Sri Lanka Mirror

Tuesday, 08 January 2013 

(Mirror) – Media reports that the President had appointed a Committee to study the Parliamentary Select Committee Report pertaining to the Impeachment motion brought against the Chief Justice, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake  were incorrect, the President’s media spokesman, Mr. Mohan Samaranayake told the ‘ Mirror. 

Yesterday various websites, including thegovt. ones, had stated that such a Committee had been appointed to study  the PSC report and submit a report to the President, and had even quoted Mr. Samaranayake.   

Accordingly, there was speculation and rumours  circulating  that a four member committee comprising former Secretary General of Parliament, Mr. Dhammika Kitulgoda,  Chairman Hatton National Bank, Ms. Ranee Jayamaha,  CHA chief Mr. Jeevan Thiagarajah and Chartered Accountant Mr. Nihal Amrasekera  had been appointed to the afore mentioned  Committee andhad even met the President. 

In response to a query from ‘Mirror’ , Mr. Nihal Amaraskera  stated that he was not a member of any such committee. Since he already had a clear position on the impeachment, he was thus not in an independent position, Mr. Amarasekera explained. 

Customs Officer accused of accepting 1m bribe was framed: Counsel

By Chris Kamalendran-Sunday, January 06, 2013
The arrest of a senior Customs officer over allegations of bribe-taking has triggered a controversy.Chief Preventive Officer Ranjan Kanagasabey has been remanded till January 17 on allegations of accepting a bribe of Rs 1 million from Harsha Prabath de Silva, a vehicle body parts importer.

However, Mr C.R. de Silva, P.C. appearing for the Customs Officer, told courts that the money reported to have given as a bribe was found on the floor of the Customs officers room and that there was an eyewitness who had seen what had transpired.

He said that the eyewitness Duminda Subasinghe, had seen the money which was in the hands of the complaint Prabath de Silva dropped by him on the floor and later picked up by the Bribery Commission officials.
The complainant had informed the Bribery Commission that the Customs officer had demand a bribe and arrived with them.

The Counsel told courts that , rewards due to Mr Kanagasabey for making various detections, was over Rs 40 million, and therefore, there was no necessity to take a bribe of Rs 1 million.Meanwhile the eyewitness Subasinghe , has claimed in an affidavit, that a white packet which contained the money, was dropped on the floor inside the Customs Officer’s room, before the Bribery Commission officials stormed into his office at the Customs Headquarters in Fort.

The affidavit is to be given to Mr Kanagasabey.’s Senior Counsel C.R. de Silva P.C., to be submitted to Courts.However, Police Sgt G. Chandrasiri of the Bribery Commission, told courts that the money was recovered from a drawer.
Customs officials angered by the incident, which they claim is a frame-up, have demanded an impartial investigation into the arrest.

Assistant Superintendent of Customs, Sanath Fernando told the Sunday Times, “We have strong reason to believe that this was set up, because Mr. Kanagasabey dealt firmly with vehicle body part importers who evaded paying tax.”
Mr. Kanagasabey who was arrested on Thursday, had his statement recorded by detectives of the Bribery Commission. Thereafter, he was handed over to the Cinnamon Gardens Police.

Mr Fernando said there was an ugly scene played out outside the Police station. “Some interested parties had arranged for a papare band to play in the vicinity, in what seemed a celebration over the arrest of Mr Kanagasabey. We will bring out the fuller details when an inquiry is held”, he said. He said Mr Kanagasabey was due to receive a promotion next week.

The Additional Magistrate directed that issues raised by the Defence lawyers could be submitted in an affidavit to courts, while ordering the Bribery Commission to submit a further report of the findings.

Aspirant CJ Mohan Pieris Exposed: Professional Misconduct As Attorney General

By Colombo Telegraph -January 9, 2013

The former Attorney General, Mohan Pieris, PC widely considered an aspirant to the job of Chief Justice if Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake is removed, has engaged in serious professional misconduct in relation to a case filed against Sri Lanka Customs, the Colombo Telegraph can reveal today.

Mohan Peiris, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal

A fundamental rights application (SC FR 360/2008) was filed on behalf of Royal Fernwood Porcelain Ltd by Mohan Pieris prior to his appointment as Attorney General. Pieris’ name was marked as appearing for the Petitioner (Royal Fernwood Porcelain Ltd) on 06.10.2008 and the case was refixed at his request for 10.11.2008.

On 10.11.2008, Pieris himself has made submissions to the Supreme Court, to the effect that ‘representations have been made to the Director General of Customs and there is a likelihood of administrative relief’. On this basis, a further postponement has been sought without supporting the case for leave to proceed. The court, presided over by (then) Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva has directed ‘that this matter be finalized by the Department of Customs’ and had the case listed for mention on 03.12.2008.

On 03.12.2008, Pieris has appeared before the Supreme Court presided over again by (then) Chief JusticeSarath N. Silva, and the Supreme Court has amongst other things, directed that the basis of the mitigation of the sum imposed on the Petitioner as a forfeiture be disclosed to court on the next date. Pieris ceased to appear for the Petitioner in the case after this date. Pieris was appointed Attorney General by PresidentMahinda Rajapaksa without the required sanction of the Constitutional Council with the failure to implement the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, in a move heavily criticized and unpopular with many officers of the Attorney General’s Department.

However, up to that point, he was the senior counsel in the case, who appeared for Royal Fernwood Porcelain Ltd and fought against Customs, a revenue collection agency of the State to obtain relief for that company. It is well known that big companies pay very high fees to Counsel for high value cases involving multi-millions of Rupees at stake. This case involved a mitigated forfeiture of Rs.75,462,012/- as borne out by the case journal records.

After Pieris was controversially catapulted into the top slot of the Attorney General’s Department, he ceased to appear in the case before the Supreme Court. However, Colombo Telegraph has come into possession of a document which reveals that Pieris held consultations with Customs and wrote a letter dated 31st March 2009 under his own hand on the letterhead of the Chambers of the Hon. Attorney General advising the Director General of Customs to settle the case on terms put forward by the Petitioner Company as acceptable. Accordingly, Pieris writing under his own hand has directed the Director General of Customs that a sum of Rs.2,616,219/- only be recovered as duty and other levies, citing a view taken by the Supreme Court. Whatever the case may be with regard to the factual merits of the opposing positions taken by the Petitioner Company and Customs, the said revelation is suggestive of serious professional misconduct and could be deemed corruption at the highest level.

It is a fundamental tenet of the legal profession that an Attorney-at-Law should not act for two opposing or conflicting sides to a legal dispute. Quite apart from the fact that it is moral commonsense, the prohibition is expressly laid down in the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules of 1988. Rule 2 makes clear that “These Rules shall apply to every Attorney-at-Law admitted and enrolled by the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka”. This includes Pieris.

The most apparent improper conflict of interest evidently also involves serious beaches of several Supreme Court Rules.

Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules of 1988, Rule 6 requires that:

An Attorney-at-Law shall not act for any party or person in professional matters in which the said Attorney-at-Law has a personal interest unless after making full disclosure of the said interest to the client and after obtaining a declaration in writing that the client has no objection to the Attorney-at-Law acting for him.

Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules of 1988, Rule 7 mandates that:

An Attorney-at-Law shall not appear or advise in any professional matter which in his opinion would be in conflict with the interest of any other client in such or connected professional matter.

Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules of 1988, Rule 18 mandates that:

An Attorney-at-Law shall act with complete frankness and honesty in advice to and all dealings with his client.

In fact, the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules clearly outlines the high degree of integrity required of a practicing lawyer, by providing that a lawyer ought to withdraw altogether from any professional matter, even in the following situation:

Where a conflict arises between the interests of two or more clients for whom the Attorney-at-Law is acting, the Attorney-at-Law shall cease to act for all of the said clients unless he decides that he can without any professional impropriety or embarrassment to himself appear for any one of more of such clientsprovided other such client or clients agree that he might so appear. (Rule 8 )

The matters now revealed raise serious issues of professional impropriety and it is most apparent that the above mentioned Supreme Court Rules have been breached.

In the past, many lawyers have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and even struck off the list of Attorneys-at-Law after the issuance of a Rule by the Supreme Court for having appeared for opposing parties in the same case. The impropriety is even more shocking and scandalous when it is perpetrated by the Chief Law Officer of the State, handpicked and appointed over the heads of the senior officers in the ranks of the Attorney General’s Department without an independent mechanism for the making of high appointments.

Mohan Pieris has been appointed as the Chairman, Seylan Bank after the collapse of the Ceylinco Group, of which the bank was a part. The question arises as to whether a person who has acted in such an inappropriate manner is fit to hold the reins of a banking institution, and what impact such appointments have on the credibility of the banking and financial sector under the present political dispensation.

It remains to be seen whether the forces that hold sway will also seek to catapult Pieris to the highest position of the judiciary, especially after the Bar Association of Sri Lanka has resolved not to respect any person appointed to replace Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake as Chief Justice without giving her a proper, independent inquiry provided for by law.

Several analysts expressed the view to Colombo Telegraph that with rumours abounding that former Attorney General, C. R. De Silva, PC and several respected sitting judges of the Supreme Court refusing to replace her in such circumstances, any step to appoint the controversial Mohan Pieris to the hallowed position of Chief Justice would signal another significant milestone in a rapidly increasing erosion of the Rule of Law – in more ways than one, as this ‘expose’ reveals!

The Colombo Telegraph has been unable to reach C. R. De Silva  for comment.

Related stories;

Rs 619 Million Public Funds Fraud Case Against Mohan Peiris And PB Jayasundara: The Lawyer Was Threatened

Mohan Pieris: The Best Fitting CJ For A Lawless Regime

Gota orders Mervyn’s arrest

Wednesday, 09 January 2013

Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa it is learnt has issued orders to arrest Public Relations and Public Affairs Minister Mervyn Silva following statements given by the suspects arrested in connection to Kelaniya Pradeshiya Sabha member Hasitha Madawela’s murder.

One of Mervyn Silva’s coordinating secretaries, Sarath Edirisinghe alias “Singapore Sarath” alias “Bar Sarath” has in his statement to the police said that the contract to assassinate Madawela was given to him by Silva.

The suspects who were arrested are being interrogates in Senior DIG Anura Senanayake’s office. The Defence Secretary had ordered Mervsyn Silva’s arrest when Senanayake had informed him of the progress in the investigation.

Sources said that Mervyn Silva had many attempts to contact Senanayake over the telephone, but the Senior DIG had avoided taking the calls.

Kelaniya killing: Mervyn’s secy, two aides among five arrested

 By Dasun Edirisinghe and Hemantha Randunu-January 8, 2013

The Criminal Investigation Department (CID), probing last Saturday night’s killing of Kelaniya Pradeshiya Sabha member Hasitha Madawela, arrested five suspects, including the alleged assassin, yesterday. The police identified the gunman as an aide to Public Relations Minister Mervyn Silva

According to sources, among the suspects arrested were Minister Silva’s parliamentary affairs secretary and a coordinating officer.

Sources said that the alleged assassin and the parliamentary affairs secretary were close relatives.

Police Spokesman SSP Prishantha Jayakody told The Island that the chief suspect had been arrested at the Bandaranaike International Airport when he was about to leave the country.

The investigators have recovered an Italian made 9 mm pistol which was used in the killing. They also recovered the motorcycle used by the killer and his accomplice.

According to SSP Jayakody, the police had recovered a T-81 assault rifle along with 46 rounds of ammunition.

The Island made several attempts to contact Minister Mervyn Silva, but he was not available.

Hasitha Madawala was shot dead, outside his residence at Waragoda, on Saturday night by an unidentified gunman, who arrived on a motor cycle.

He succumbed to his injuries before admission to the National Hospital.

The Scene of Crime Officers (SOCO), who visited the scene soon after the killing, recovered five empty bullet casings fired from a 9mm pistol. It had been established that three of the bullets had hit Madawala.

Sources said that the assassin had vowed to finish off Madawela following a dispute between his mother and the Pradeshiya Sabha member. Sources said that Madawela had chased the assassin’s mother from his office after she sought his intervention to settle a dispute with the Chairman of the Kelaniya Pradeshiya Sabha. The assassin said that Kelaniya Pradeshiya Sabha Chairman had assaulted his mother and Madawela did nothing to protect her.

‘Heisenbergian-Interpretation’ Of The Historical Court Order

By Hema Senanayake -January 9, 2013

Hema Senanayake

On January 01, 2013 the Supreme Court determined that Parliamentary Select Committee appointed to investigate the misbehavior or incapacity ofChief Justice, was exercising judicial powers and such powers cannot be conferred on it by Standing Orders which are not law. It seems for many people this subject is complicated.

Physicist Werner S. Heisenberg won the Noble prize for his uncertainty principle in physics in 1933. His view was that any profound subject can be simplified so as to understand by any average person. Yet simplification does not devalue the profoundness of the subject instead does the opposite.

Usually many people find it difficult to read a Court Order of the Supreme Court and it is a subject left to lawyers and intellectuals. But the Court Order given by the Supreme Court on January 01, 2013 in regard to the question referred to it by Court of Appeal is a historical one and I think must be understood even by general citizenry of the country. In this regard “Heisenbergian-interpretation” or simplification of the Court Order would be appropriate and that is the goal of this essay.

Any citizen of the country has legal and constitutional rights. The government must protect these rights of individuals. Parliament become “supreme” if the parliament upholds those rights of people. It cannot become “supreme” if it violates constitutional rights of any person. Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake is a citizen and also the Chief Justice. Her legal and constitutional rights must be respected and uphold by the parliament.

Now the Supreme Court says that “In a State ruled by a Constitution based on the rule of Law, no court, tribunal or other body (by whatever name it is called) has authority to make a finding or a decision affecting the rights of a person unless such court, tribunal or body has the power conferred on it by law to make such finding or decision” (Page 23 of the Court Order).

The point is very clear. If there is an investigation against you and the findings of that investigation is going to affect your legal/ constitutional rights then the investigation must be done by a body that has powers conferred on it by law. Can anybody disagree with this observation? I do not think so. Therefore, now, our question narrows down as to how such powers conferred on any court, tribunal or “other body.”

Read More

In To A Dark Land We March

By Ravi Perera -January 9, 2013 

Ravi Perera

The Voluble Mr. Wimal Weerawansa, a Minister of this government and also a member of the Parliamentary Select Committee which investigated the allegations against the Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, is a man never at a loss for a pithy argument. Only the other day, referring to the then pending hearing in the Court of Appeal of the writ application by the Chief Justice ,Minister Weerawansa  compared it to a situation where a victim of a theft was seeking  oracular  guidance from the mother of a thief ; implication being that she would of course exonerate her guilty son.

Now, those who have an idea of the principles of judicial functions know that this is arrant nonsense. No judge worth his salt would take guidance from the Chief Justice, or any other person for that matter, in his judicial functions. Her role as the Chief Justice is strictly administrative where the other judges are concerned.  Originating   from more individualistic cultures, the judicial role as defined today is a deeply personal endeavour where the judge attempts to do justice according to the law and evidence before him, as his conscience dictates. Leave alone a judge of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Justice cannot even tell a junior magistrate how he should judge.

That a person could even in a hierarchical arrangement, yet act according to his conscience maybe too difficult a concept for some cultures to understand.  It may be that in the society that Wimal Weerawansa is familiar with, a person who is subordinate in any manner, has no sense of autonomy vis-à-vis his superior. If we take that as the general rule, and knowing as we do that the President and then the government (of which he is a somewhat undistinguished  Minister) wants the Chief Justice out, in what framework of mind did Minister Wimal Weerawansa participate in the proceedings of the Select Committee? If we were to follow the logic of Minister Weerawansa, when the Parliament sits to debate the impeachment, are they meeting only   to finish the deed? Can we consider such a process a legitimate judicial proceeding?

The answer is so obvious that no further elucidation is required on the impeachment proceedings with a predictable and   so palpably unfair end.

Then the other day, our Leader of the Opposition just back from Venice, always tasteful in his selection of holiday destinations, enlightened the house (the Parliament) that the judicial powers are vested in the Parliament, but will be exercised through the courts except for matters concerning privileges etc of Parliament. This is plainly stated in Chapter 01 (Clause 4) of the Constitution and is no revelation.

Leafing through the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka we come across Clause 13 which may be a matter of relief for our beleaguered Chief Justice. It says that any person charged with an offence shall be entitled to be heard in person or by an attorney –at-law at a fair trial by a competent court.  Chapter 15 (Clause 105) of the Constitution which describes the Judiciary reads “Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the institutions for the administration of justice which protect, vindicate and enforce the rights of the people shall be ….” and goes on to list the courts established in the country from the Supreme Court to various tribunals. The Parliament of course is not listed as a judicial body. As the leader of the Opposition pointed out, the people’s judicial powers are to be exercised by the Courts save for those concerning the privileges etc of the Parliament, which is reserved expressly for the Parliament.

Then, we are left wondering how the Chief Justice or any other judge, maybe inquired into and dealt with (including impeached) by the Parliament. There appears to be a lacuna in the law here.

Without addressing this issue, the government has chosen to wage war on all fronts. It brazenly alleges that the judicial pronouncements are an attempt to topple the government. It organizes “protests” by motley groups against “misdeeds “of judges. There are some protestors even conducting a sit-in protest near the residence of the Chief Justice, and no action has been taken by the Police to remove them. Media organizations under the control of the government are conducting a relentless campaign of slander and abuse against any one perceived to be opposed to the impeachment motion, which includes the lawyers. As is the case now in political matters, intimidation and violence are never too far. The house of the President of the Lawyers association was fired at in the night. Some of the lawyers actively protesting the impeachment motion have been intimidated. It is even reported that judges of the Court of Appeal hearing the writ application of the Chief Justice were threatened.

There will be very few followers for the argument that the Chief Justice is in serious breach of her judicial duties on account of the so called   infirmities in reporting certain personal details and the placing of herself in an alleged conflict of interest situation, which prima facie appears far-fetched. Besides, as it is we have not heard her explanation on these allegations. Most people, aware of the style of governance now, will find it ridiculous that such technical issues are held against a person when the order of the day is the violation of all such rules. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that had the Chief Justice danced according to the tune of the government, there would have been no impeachment.

On the other hand, the government’s position seems to be that as long as they command the majority in the House, they can remove a judge for good reason, bad reason or even for no reason.

Even in the darkest hour there are glimmers of courage and hope. The highest court in this land has held that the proceedings of the Standing Committee are a nullity. Accordingly the Court of Appeal squashed those proceedings. In all civilized countries the power to interpret the law (including the Constitution) rests with the courts. The legislature cannot be both the maker as well as the interpreter of the law.

If the parliament were to decide to ignore the interpretation of the Constitution by its Supreme Court, surely we are now going down an untrodden path into a dark and sinister land. As somebody observed, political legitimacy is a slippery concept, and in a situation where a legislature chooses to ignore its own courts, it can become particularly hazardous.