Friday, January 11, 2013

Kurdish women activists, including PKK co-founder, assassinated in Paris

பரிசில் நடந்தேறிய அரசியல் படுகொலைகள் – குர்திஸ் மக்களின் அஞ்சலிகள்

[TamilNet, Thursday, 10 January 2013, 15:26 GMT]

Sakine Cansiz, a founding member of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), was found shot dead along with two other Kurdish women activists in an execution style murder inside the Information Centre of Kurdistan, Paris in the early hours of Thursday. Sakine Cansiz, a senior female member and a former commander of the PKK, was a close ally of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan who is in jail in Turkey. The killers have targeted Ms Cansiz at a time when negotiations were taking place between Turkey and PKK. Sources close to PKK leadership have ruled out allegations of internal dispute and said the execution style killings and the use of silenced weapons indicated that the killers were professional assassins. A similar assassination had been carried out on a key Eezham Tamil activist in Paris in November last year and the matter is yet to be resolved.

Paris becoming a location for such political assassinations of activists working for national liberation struggles raises concern in human rights circles.

The other two Kurdish women who have been slain were identified as Fidan Dogan, Paris Representative of the Kurdish National Congress, and Leyla Soylemez, political activist working as women’s representative on behalf of the PKK.

The murders elicited immediate protests from Kurds in Paris, who gathered at the spot of the crime. Further mass demonstrations have been planned in London on Friday and Sunday and in Paris on Saturday.

While some in the French and Turkish governments have condemned the killings, others have tried to use the tragic event to pick fault with the PKK. These include Huseyin Celik spokesperson of Turkey's ruling party the AKP, who claimed that "it seems like an internal settling of scores within the PKK" and Hugh Pope, senior Turkey analyst for the International Crisis Group who said that the PKK "has a long history of killing its own people, too. So there's no way anybody can jump to conclusions," from CNN reports.

CNN reports also cited the Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) which demanded the French authorities to conduct a proper probe of the executions, as well as Roj Welat, a spokesperson for the PKK in northern Iraq, who had said that the PKK had not seen any claims of responsibility and was waiting for the results of the French investigation into the murders, as well as its own probe.

"It is an assassination, it is terror, it is ideological and political assassination, (a) terror attack against the Kurdish people," CNN reports quoted Roj Welat, who added that "Sakine Cansiz has been actively involved in the peace and democracy struggle, freedom struggle, of the Kurdish people for a long time. She was one of the women who participated in the formation of the PKK."

In a release following the assassinations, the Kurdish Federation in Britain called for an immediate “International Solidarity” for Kurdistan’s people. We appeal to the “International Communities” with our hearts and pain and urge them to take actions and put pressure on Turkey and French Government in order to solve those ruthless murders and bring peaceful solutions to the Kurdish question by dialogue and implementing democracy for Kurds not only in Turkey but in the Middle East too.”

Likewise, a release of the EU Turkey Civic Commission said “The reason of the killings and the forces behind are still to be unveiled – and they will be. These people should know that such killings or whatever provocation they might conduct in the future will not stop the ongoing peace process,” further appealing to France to stop the criminalization of Kurdish activists working for a peaceful solution to the Kurdish question.

I Address You In A Black Coat And Black Tie Because This Is A Black day

By M.A. Sumanthiran -January 11, 2013

M.A. Sumanthiran MP

Mr. Deputy Speaker, are you able to control the proceedings?

Thank you sir. Before I commence my speech I need to deal with two preliminaries, both relating to certain customs. The first one is that I must make a disclosure to this House of my involvement in my professional capacity in many matters relating to the matter under discussion and that is the proper thing to do. Even in this purported Report the first witness has referred to my name as seen in the proceedings of myself having appeared in the Ceylinco Shriram case. I have appeared for Hon. Vasudeva Nanayakkara, the Hon. Minister, as his counsel in the case in which Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation was privatized and the privatization was reversed consequent to which the Hon. Chief Justice’s husbandwas appointed as Chairman of that institution. That’s the first disclosure. Secondly, also a matter of custom, I have come to know that in yesteryears when lawyers came to this House as Members of this House they changed their attire. They did not come with a black tie and a black coat. Hon. Dr. Colvin R. De Silva was the prime example of that. He always came into the chamber in a grey or beige or white suit. I have so far striven to uphold that tradition and today I am breaking with that tradition deliberately and I address you in a black coat and black tie because this is a black day.

[Interruption]…if the House continues like this that only demonstrates…now somebody whose office has been raided and arms discovered is trying to interrupt me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was quietly listening to Hon. Minister of External Affairs

[interruption]…not the Deputy Minister for External Affairs, I won’t refer to you…

I’m referring to the Hon. Minister for External Affairs who referred to the Supreme Court ruling. He sought to expound it and surmised it for a long time and he was permitted to do so by the Chair. Yourself was present in the House. Therefore all that he has said and got put on record cannot be allowed to stand. Even though I am much junior to him in the field of law yet I have practised as an Attorney-at-law for twenty one years which he has not been able to do even for a single day. Today I seek to draw from that professional experience in order to lay before this House the true position.

[interruption]…Now the Member who is shouting is giving a demonstration of what he did at the Select Committee – how he abused the Chief Justice. This is what he did there. That also. Your Honourable External Affairs Minister is the one who claimed credit for that appointment. I am not saying it, the Honourable Minister of Fisheries said so in the Parliamentary Select Committee proceedings that it was Prof. Pieris who got her appointed and therefore you objected to him as well. It is there in these proceedings. [interruption]…Mr. Deputy Speaker, I’m asking you most humbly, and I’ll ask you just for one time now to please maintain the decorum of this House. I will not ask you again.

In this Constitution…

[Hon. Deputy Speaker intercepts] Is the Hon. Deputy Speaker saying I am not presenting my speech? I am presenting my speech, but there is disturbance and you as the Chair have the responsibility to maintain discipline in this House. You as the Chair have the responsibility to maintain discipline…that is why I said I will say it once and I will say it no more.

The Hon. Prof. G.L. Pieris looked at the judgment, the interpretation given by the Supreme Court. The Hon. Leader of the House also as he opened the debate referred to that. He attacked the interpretation of the Supreme Court based on one word in Article 107(3). The word ‘or’. Both of them spoke at length about Court having entered the arena of legislation making, because according to both of them, Court has somehow misread; Court has not looked at the word ‘or’. The Court has not done any such thing. If one cares to look at the determination of the Supreme Court…

[interruption]…this is what I’m saying, sit and listen. You also haven’t practiced in any Court…the Supreme Court has very carefully dealt with that issue. [interruption]…No, the Supreme Court did not take one and a half hours, it took much more time. If you don’t know, don’t show your ignorance. It took several days.

Now, the Supreme Court says, the reason why the word ‘or’ is there and not ‘and’ is that with regard to procedural matters in the Select Committee, Parliament has a choice. Parliament can either do it by Standing Orders or it can incorporate it in the Act of Parliament that it can enact. I see Hon. Susil Premajayantha, a man who knows the law, agreeing with me. Thank you. Now, you have to use the word ‘or’. You can’t say ‘and’. You can’t say ‘provide it in the Act and provide it in the Standing Order’. No, you can’t do that. But there are certain matters with regard to standard of proof, burden of proof, mode of proof, that cannot be provided for by Standing Order. There is reason for that. Article 4(c) says that.

[interruption]…Hon. Minister, you did well when you retained me as your Counsel. Now you’re faltering. In many matters you retained me as your Counsel. I must remind you of an incident you will remember. On one occasion when I stood up for you in the Supreme Court, then Chief Justice Sarath Silva asked me, and you know that…’You’re appearing for this Petitioner too many times’. I said ‘So long as he has confidence in me as Counsel, he will continue to retain me.’ And I appeared and I obtained judgment for you.

Article 4(c) says ‘the judicial power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament through courts, tribunals and institutions created and established, or recognized, by the Constitution, or created and established by law.’ Created and established by law. Only by law. Not written law. Article 170 gives a definition of what a law is and what a written law is. A Standing Order is not law. Any person who can read and understand has to concede to that. Now, that is the reason why in the interpretation of the Supreme Court they have very carefully dealt with that word ‘or’ and I don’t know whether it’s ignorance or convenience, Hon. Ministers, including learned Professor of law are seeking to mislead the country by saying Supreme Court has not read the word ‘or’.

Now, as I said the Chair permitted the Hon. Professor to make his surmise on this judgment. Before I get to that, the Constitution, which is the Supreme law, and all of us agree with that, there is no dissent on that. It says so, that it shall be the Supreme Law. It gives to the three different organs of government, three separate areas of competence. If anyone is violating the Constitution, it is those who transgress into the area that has been given to the other institution. Accusations are being made that the judiciary has gone into the province of legislation making. I have just explained that the judiciary has done no such thing. They have only interpreted the law. The Hon. Professor will know, he cited English authorities, there are several judgments, not only from here but even in India, in England, in every civilized jurisdiction, where the Courts, in interpreting, sometimes supply a word, supply a comma, or a dot or a full stop, and that is common. But in this case, our Supreme Court hasn’t done even that. They have very clearly explained why that word ‘or’ is there and they have gone on to say that it’s a presumption that Parliament will not use words without a reason. And the reason why Parliament used the word ‘law; the reason why Parliament used the word ‘or’; the reason why Parliament used the phrase ‘Standing Orders’ is very clearly laid down in the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Even if the Supreme Court is wrong, even if the interpretation of the Supreme Court is wrong, that is the interpretation that must stand and so our Speaker said that on the 9^th of October. Your Speaker in a ruling given on the 9^th of October 2012 very clearly said it is the interpretation of the Supreme Court that must stand. On that occasion also he did not agree, and he asked the Supreme Court to revisit that interpretation and that is the correct course of action.

[interruption]…even if you don’t agree, there is no warrant for the Parliament not to agree. Article 125 of the Constitution…one of the three organs of government, you say is a democratic institution, you go and say that this a democratic country, you go and say that there is an independent judiciary, and today, Hon. Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara in this House is saying that ‘ we have told the judiciary to go to hell’. We won’t allow you to do that. We won’t allow you to do that. That is a sure way of sending this country down the slope and that is what you are doing. We will not allow you to do that. This country is a country that has democratic institutions. There must be Rule of Law. If there is to be Rule of Law there must be an independent judiciary. We can’t allow you to send the judiciary to hell. Who are you? I am a citizen of this country. I am entitled to say that this country must have every democratic institution. Who are you to say ‘Send the judiciary to hell?’ You are the conspirator against the country’s interests. If you say ‘Send the judiciary to hell’ you are the one conspiring against this country; against this government. That must be what you must be trying to do. Because you announce to the country that you will vote against this. Two days ago you got scared that your Ministry will be taken away from you and therefore you have changed your stance. This is exactly what you did for the Eighteenth amendment also. You said you don’t agree with it in principle, but you will nevertheless vote. Some principled man this is. I feel ashamed that I have ever appeared for you. I’ll tell you one more thing. You were one of my boyhood heroes. You were one of my boyhood heroes of this country. You can ask my family. Each time you came to my chambers, I was proud. I told my children, ‘This is a man I respect. I count it an honour to appear for this man.’ I told my children that. Today I have to take those words back. Because of your shameful conduct. Because of your shameful conduct. All for just a ministry post. For just a ministry post you have turned the tables on all the hallowed principles which you were saying you abided by for all these years. Why did you do this in the last few years of your life? Why did you do this in the last few years of your life?

Article 125 is very clear. Parliament itself when enacting this Constitution was conscious that there might be people like this here. It could have said it’s the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or it could have said it’s the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. No, they said it’s the sole AND exclusive jurisdiction, just in case like some people here, they miss that word, they said it twice over. But, there are people here who miss both words. They miss both words. What more can it mean when the Constitution says ‘it is the sole and exclusive jurisdiction’? Does this Parliament have jurisdiction?

There you are. The one man who answered. I will deal with you in a moment. You sit down. This is not like taking a tooth out of somebody’s mouth. This is law. There are legal principles involved in this. This involves law.

Now, if the Constitution says that it is the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, what more can there be? And if after Supreme Court has done just that…I’m thankful to Hon. Professor, he tabled it in this House. Thank you so much. There are instructions given at the gate not to let those judgments come in, but you have tabled it. I must thank you most profusely for your act today. That judgment has been tabled and it is on record. You also must be a conspirator then. Against the government; against what the Speaker has ordered; against what the Deputy Speaker has been saying to the media. Nevertheless, that has now been tabled. Parliament must take notice of it. Is this Parliament to say, ‘We can read the Constitution. Article 125 says it is the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, but we don’t agree with that. Because we don’t agree with that, we don’t accept that.’

[interruption]…not what we want, but the way the Supreme Court interpreted it…the Speaker said in his ruling, ‘It is the interpretation of the Supreme Court that must stand’…

This is the reason why we are participating in this debate without prejudice to our stand that there is no report before this House. There is no report.

[interruption]…I charged fees and I was paid by Janaka Ratnayake for appearing in that case. For every case that I appear I am entitled to charge as a professional and receive it. If you don’t know that, I don’t blame you if you don’t know that. But there are other lawyers there ask them and learn from them. I am entitled to my fees for the work that I do. Only for Hon. Minister there I did not charge any fees because that was in the public interest.

Since I have a short time to conclude, I want to read from this purported report. The Rule of Natural Justice that all institutions must apply when they have a hearing….

[interruption]…ah the new President’s Counsel. What do you want to know? He’s a true President’s Counsel….that’s not a point of Order. Sit down…

I want to read, sir, before I conclude from this Report. From the Report that was submitted, volume II, page 1482: Mr. Romesh De Silva is addressing the Chairman:

- ‘Mr. Chairman, there must be some decorum in this. I do not like to be shouted at by members of the Select Committee. We have come here to do a job of work. We are making submissions and we must be treated with some kind of decorum. Otherwise, this does not become any kind of process that we can possibly accept. We cannot accept this process. If we have to be shouted at; if we are not being allowed to make submissions. When I’m making submissions to you Mr. Chairman, I’m being interrupted’

Then Mr. Sampanthan, who was a member of the Select Committee has this to say and I want to read it to this House:

- ‘Mr. Chairman if I might intervene. I think that you, as the Chairman of this Select Committee has to safeguard the dignity and decorum of Parliament. Because we are functioning as a Select Committee on behalf of Parliament. The Hon. Chief Justice of the country is before us and we are conducting an investigation in regard to certain matters. These are Counsel appearing on her behalf. I think we should conduct ourselves with a sense of decorum and dignity so as to ensure that the prestige of Parliament is preserved. It will be unfortunate if we cannot do that. Let us not forget that the whole world is watching what is going on here, not only the people in this country. The whole world is watching what is going on here and if this is the way that we are going to conduct our proceedings it will be a very very bad reflection on the institution of Parliament and on these proceedings itself.

Now, when Mr. Romesh De Silva and Mr. Sampanthan said this, none of the other members said ‘What are you talking about? Who pointed fingers? Who is shouting? We didn’t do that. Why are you saying this?’ Nothing of that sort. Nothing of that sort. They’ve agreed that there was shouting. They’ve agreed that there was abuse of the Chief Justice in that chamber there. It is not audi alterem partem to invite a person and to abuse that person. There was abuse in that Select Committee proceedings and your own proceedings bear that out. How can you say, having abused the Chief Justice of this country and chased her out, how can you say that you adhered to principles of natural justice, of audi alterem partem. Your own proceedings betray you. Aren’t you ashamed? The Chairman is here. Aren’t you ashamed? You were addressed and you were asked that question. Several times you are telling them ‘You address me. You address me.’ What does that mean? ‘Don’t listen to the comments of these others, you address me’. You have conceded in print here that there was abuse going on in that place and you come here and you present this report with these proceedings. You did not utter one word. You did not challenge. When they complained you did not say ‘No such thing is happening here’. It is not recorded. That is clear proof as to what you did to a lady; to a Chief Justice of this country; what more will you not do? If that is the kind of justice that you mete out to even the Chief Justice of this country, what chance do others have? What chance do we have? You have been complaining that we are not coming to another Parliamentary Select Committee. If the Chief Justice cannot get justice in this Parliamentary Select Committee with what faith do you invite us to come to the other Parliamentary Select Committee? If this is the justice that you can do to your own appointee; to the Chief Justice of this country, what will you not do to us? Why do you invite us to the Parliamentary Select Committee? If you abuse and chase even the Chief Justice, how do you treat us? The Hon. Minister wanted to talk about the Tamils. After illegally taking 109 young Tamil women, saying they are being recruited to the army without any process, abusing them in those camps and keeping them, this is no surprise.

[interruption]…if anything is to be deleted from the Hansard on the basis that it is untrue, first you must delete this entire report because this entire report is a false report. This report is a ‘no report’ because the Court of Appeal has quashed it.

I want to add that. In proceedings no. CA 411/2013 the Court of Appeal has quashed this already. It was the undertaking of the Sri Lankan Government to the UN Human Rights Council in 2003…in the UN Human Rights Council sessions in 2003 at the UPR Sri Lanka gave an undertaking. After having given an undertaking to the UN Human Rights Council that judicial review is available after the impeachment process of a judge under Article 107(3), this House, I say with utmost necessity, adhered to that because otherwise, again, like you have already put the country at peril, you are putting this country at peril once more because all the undertakings you are giving to the UN Human Rights Council you are willing to wily-nily move away from. That will put this country at peril, and it is our responsible reminder to you, don’t put our country at peril; don’t violate the Constitution; don’t put the country at peril. If you do that, it will be regarded as a failed state. You are the ones who are doing that, not anybody else. If you give undertakings and you violate them; if you do not listen to the Supreme Court Order; if you violate the Constitution; you are making this country a failed state.

Thank you very much.

*SUMANTHIRAN’S PARLIAMENT SPEECH ON 10^TH JANUARY 2013

MERVYN RESIGNS AS KELANIYA ORGANIZER

January 11, 2013

President Mahinda Rajapaksa has accepted the resignation letter tendered by Minister Mervyn Silva from the post of chief organizer of Kelaniya electorate, the Government Information Department reported today.

“Don’t take Mervyn until the impeachment is over” – Presidential order

Thursday, 10 January 2013

The President has directed Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa to delay taking Public Relations and Public Affairs Minister Mervyn Silva into custody for allegedly aiding an abetting the killing of Kelaniya Pradeshiya Sabha member Hasitha Madawela. The President has asked to delay the move until the vote on the Chief Justice’s impeachment motion is taken.

The Defence Secretary has ordered the investigating officer, ASP Shani Abeysekera from the CID to delay taking the Minister into custody.

However, one of the President’s key advisors, Minister Dullas Alahapperuma has told the President that Mervyn Silva must be taken into custody immediately in order to overcome the growing public dissention over the impeachment of the Chief Justice. Alahapperuma has explained that Mervyn Silva could be released later in the same manner he was released from a disciplinary inquiry that was held after he had tied a public servant to a tree.

Alahapperuma has further explained that Shani Abeysekera could be asked to somehow free Mervyn Silva from the investigation in the same manner Duminda Silva, who is the main accused in Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra’s murder, has now been shown as a victim. He has added that Mervyn Silva will have to be taken into custody in order to protect him in future.

Sources from Temple Trees said that the President was seriously considering Alahepperuma’s proposal.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Take A Stand For Injustice: Mervyn’s Goon’s March Going On Right Now

iBy Visakha Tillekeratne -

Mervyn Silva

In order to show our solidarity as right thinking citizens of Sri Lanka (not anti Rajapaksa but pro good governance citizens by the way) and to protect the tragic situation that the judiciary is in today, a friend and I took to the streets of Hultsdorpf around 10.40 am to join in with the lawyers at the People’s March, to take a stand for Justice. We were dressed in black and white to show our solidarity that this is indeed, a black and white issue. Of course as a result we were easily identifiable as those supporting the cause. Could not get near the meeting organized by lawyers, but got first hand experience of government goon squads.

As we attempted to get past the roundabout opposite the Supreme Court, a group of thugs who could be identified as drug addicts and drunkards, lured to the area with a bottle of arrack and packet of lunch, intimated us with poles and stepped threateningly towards both of us and the persons standing by who were also intimated. The language used wasmild at first and obscene to the extreme towards the end of the dialogue. These loyalists of the government shouted saying we are Sri Lankans and who are you? It was a good opportunity to stand our ground and to say we too are Sri Lankans, but for a righteous Sri Lanka. Looking at their faces, these men would stop at nothing, and the violence that one sees is real and horrendous.

Later on several of these violent demonstrators were identified as residents of Kelaniya and Mervyn loyalists, who are released all over the country when the state requires intimidation of its citizens. These incidents are quite frequent today, as is well known.

We moved on near the Bo Tree outside the courts and were standing by near some kiosks to ask a lawyer to accompany us into the demonstration, when all hell broke loose and the intimidators started running towards a group of supporters of the lawyers, using filth and brandishing their instruments of terror. The building we stepped into was also attacked and the glass broken. All this happened while the Police were standing by, passively.

It was extremely heartening to be part of this experience and to realize the dangers and vulnerabilities of being Sri Lankan. It also strengthens one’s resolve to bring about what is right, through peaceful and intelligent actions that are strategic and long lasting.

One cannot help but think of the prudent and timely direction, given by Dr Deepika Udugama, academic of repute and human rights activist, at a seminar, on the 8^th of January – Sanvada, organized to make the youth of Sri Lanka aware of the current crisis with regard to the impeachment. Dr Udugama was quick to point out that people’s sovereignty reigns supreme, and to give vent to that power of sovereignty, it is the middle class and professionals who should and can give leadership to positive and peaceful change, as the poor and marginalized have too many problems of their own to be concerned about such matters and are deliberately denied the right kind of information to act. This is true for Sri Lanka, unlike India where the poor do come out on the streets against injustice and have vibrant protests. Of course the Indian government does not intimidate its people and it is a healthy democracy.

So fellow citizens of the middle class, you will have to come out of your introspection and comfortable existence to make a change. Save the country for the next generation, to say our forefathers have safeguarded not only the land and assets, but values, principles and the rule of law.

See the pictures here;

Pictures Of ‘Hulftsdorf Coup’ Today: Government Thugs At Work

Ranil’s Silly Statements And Dismissing The CJ By Hook Or By Crook

By S.L. Gunasekara -January 10, 2013

S.L.Gunasekara

A Requiem For The Rule Of Law

The Court of Appeal, following the interpretation of the Constitution given by the Supreme Court has quashed by way of Certiorari the findings of the Parliamentary Select Committee.

Many are the statements made by members of the Government as well as by the leader of the purported Opposition, Ranil Wickremesinghe who are possessed of over-inflated egos instead of intelligence, to the effect that Parliament being supreme, no finding or verdict of a Court would apply to it. I have little doubt that Parliament will now proceed to go ahead with the purported resolution for the impeachment of the Chief Justice and dismiss her from office.

That would be a sad day for Sri Lanka for it would herald the murder of the Rule of Law by the Government which is bound and obliged to maintain, sustain and nourish it. It would indeed be comparable to a mother murdering an infant child.

The pronouncements of Members of Parliament that Parliament is supreme are not based on any provision of the Constitution – for there is no provision of the Constitution which provides for the alleged supremacy of Parliament. While the Constitution provides that sovereignty resides in the people there is no comparable provision which vests supremacy in Parliament. In these circumstances it is evident from the Constitution itself that the framers thereof did not for a moment conceive of Parliament being supreme or vest such supremacy in Parliament. So important a concept as the ‘supremacy in parliament could not, in my view, be vested by implication and/or inference but only by an explicit statement to the effect that Parliament is sovereign or supreme. Indeed, such a concept could not exist side by side with the explicit statement that sovereignty resides in the people.

It is also pertinent to consider Article 12 of the Constitution in terms of which all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. This provision applies equally to all citizens whether they are Members of Parliament or not.

It is trite law that where the Court of Appeal quashes a finding or determination by any Court or other body (which includes a purported Select Committee) such quashing renders such finding and/or determination null and void and of no effect in law for all purposes unless it is set aside by the Supreme Court. Thus, the only lawful means of seeking to nullify the effect of the said finding of the Court of Appeal is to appeal there from to the Supreme Court in terms of the Constitution. However, judging from the aforesaid nonsensical and totally idiotic statements made by various Members of Parliament, it is evident that no such appeal will be made.

The attitude of the Government, abetted as I have mentioned earlier, by the silly statements made by the purported leader of the purported Opposition Ranil Wickremesinghe, will be to press on with their stupid and anti-national endeavour to dismiss the Chief Justice by hook or by crook, and that can only result in a state of anarchy setting into the country because it follows that if Parliament which is not vested with any kind of immunity from the decisions of any Court, can proceed to ignore a finding of the Court of Appeal, so also can the people ignore the orders and findings of all Courts.

One can well visualize the absolute chaos and disorder that would result if the people of this country follow the putrid example that will probably be set by Parliament by disobeying the orders of Court on the ground that in their view those findings were erroneous in law. The only institutions that are vested by law with jurisdiction to determine whether a finding of a Court of law is erroneous, whether in Law or otherwise, are the superior courts and not any individual be he/she Member of Parliament or not. In these circumstances one does hope and pray (if one believes in prayer) in the National Interest, that wiser counsel will prevail and that Parliament will refrain from proceeding with the purported resolution for the impeachment of the Chief Justice.

Rajapaksa’s Second Choice: Corrupt Justice Hettige As Acting CJ ?

By Uvindu Kurukulasuriya -January 11, 2013

Uvindu Kurukulasuriya

“The independence of the Judge is dependent on and is linked to the question of his moral integrity. His knowledge of the law and his skills in legal reasoning and analysis in the process of adjudication, though very desirable, are in a sense secondary and of less importance. An honest mediocrity is to be preferred to a clever crook when it comes to the act of judging. Intellectual dishonesty in adjudicating though often hard to demonstrate is to be deplored, while moral depravity and corruption of any sort are wholly outside the pale and must be condemned without equivocation,” - President’s Counsel H. L. de Silva addressing the Conference of the Independence of the Judiciary, August 25, 1999 –BMICH

There is currently a prevalent sense of grave concern and apprehension, one may even say an angst among a section of the legal community that the deeply cherished values of judicial independence and moral integrity among judges are under serious threat and in a state of crisis. Over the years the foreshadowed dangers have increased in intensity and have now reached a critical point.

Sometime back, we raised serious issues affecting the integrity of the Sri Lankan judiciary. We raised the issue of the appointment of retired Chief Justice Asoka de Silva as Senior Legal Advisor to the President. Today the Chief Justice, tomorrow an advisor to a controversial head of the state. What does this imply? Where is the integrity of Sri Lanka’s judiciary?

We raised the serious conflict of interest issues relating to the present Chief Justice. We wanted the Chief Justice to answer how her husband was appointed Chairman of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation, and to the Lanka Hospitals Corporation PLC as a member of its Board of Directors. How was he also appointed as Chairman of the National Savings Bank? Had he applied for the job? Was he interviewed? Who were the other applicants? Were there qualified applicants other than her husband?

At the end, Chief Justice Shirani Bnadaranayaka is impeached unlawfully, without giving her a fair trial. Tonight or soon she will be removed by force. Rajapaksa’s first choice is to appoint corrupt former AG Mohan Pieris as CJ. To do this he is going to appoint his second choice CJ as acting CJ. The plan is to appointSathya Kada Hettige as acting CJ, then Mohan Pieris as the Chief Justice. The Colombo Telegraph hasalready exposed Mohan Pieris’s misconduct.

Sathya Hettige, who had changed his name after leaving the university, was nominated for an appointment of a Court of Appeal, but on both occasions, the Constitutional Council rejected it on the basis of inefficiency. However when the Constitutional Council was abolished, he was directly appointed as the President of Court of Appeal by the President. Then to the Supreme Court.

He invited President Rajapaksa to his daughter’s wedding, where the President signed as a witness and stayed more than one hour at the wedding ceremony. When Sarath Fonseka challenged his Court Martial in the Court of Appeal, this matter came to light, and Fonseka’s counsel Romesh De Silva P.C., objected to Hettige sitting in the case, since the President appointed the Courts Martial against Sarath Fonseka. But the objection was overruled and Sarath Fonseka’s writ applications were also rejected.

The International Bar Association’s minimum standards on judicial independence, at clause 44 says, “A judge shall not sit in a case where there is a reasonable suspicion of bias or potential bias.”

Hettige has also been the subject of serious criticism over accepting ruling party nomination papers despite alleged procedural errors, and rejecting opposition nomination papers for local government elections.

I also drew attention to the new tradition of judges inviting politicians to parties. Justice Sathya Hettige invited President Mahinda Rajapaksa, his brother Minister Basil Rajapaksa, and the Prime Minister D. M. Jayaratne and some other politicians to celebrate his promotion to the Supreme Court.

Hettige is also a Judge of the Supreme Court of Fiji, which is under a military dictatorship. The main issue here is the impact his Fijian job has on Justice Hettige when he is sitting in the Supreme Court at Hulftsdorp. Can we expect justice and independence from servants of military dictators? What is their judicial mentality? What is their ethical compass in relation to the judicial function? What principles of judicial independence do they adhere to? Do they make a distinction between their Sri Lankan and Fijian judicial roles? Can someone serving under a foreign military dictatorship, legitimately and credibly, sit at the same time on the bench of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka? What can be expected of judges in Sri Lanka who serve a military dictatorship elsewhere?

Some would say there is no difference between a military dictatorship in Fiji and an elected dictatorship in Sri Lanka. But others still have a hope about Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court and the judiciary, because there are still judges who have been forthright and dispense justice without fear or favour.

Justice Sathya Hettige must explain why he invited President Rajapaksa to his daughter’s wedding to sign on behalf of their family, it being unlikely that Rajapaksa imposed himself as a witness. What is his relationship with the President? Is it appropriate that a Supreme Court judge should continue to have personal and social relations with the executive branch, especially of a government whose behaviour is extremely questionable from the viewpoint of democracy and the Rule of Law? Why is he going to work under the Fiji military dictatorship? How does his Fijian experience influence his high judicial role in Sri Lanka? Did he not compromise his integrity and independence with the President when he got permission to go to Fiji?

If President Rajapaksa is going to appoint Hettige as the acting Chief Justice he and his government must answer the above questions.

I hope those who criticised Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayaka will do the same about Sathya Hettige’s misconducts!!

Canada Must Hold Sri Lankan Government Accountable

POSTED ON JANUARY 10, 2013

TORONTO– Liberal Leader Bob Rae made the following statement today on the Sri Lankan government’s impeachment proceedings against the country’s Supreme Court Chief Justice:

“We are gravely concerned by the Sri Lankan government’s highly controversial and unconstitutional impeachment proceedings against the country’s Chief Justice, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake.

As recently raised by the Canadian Bar Association, the lack of due process and open attack on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law are deeply troubling. They are part of a continuing deterioration of democracy in Sri Lanka and directly violate the Commonwealth’s fundamental values.

The Liberal Party of Canada calls on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to immediately raise this issue with the Commonwealth Secretary-General and the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, whose mandate includes disciplining violations of the association’s basic principles.

As a member of the Commonwealth and the designated host of the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Sri Lanka has a duty to uphold democracy and the rule of law. As they have failed to do so, Canada has has an obligation to hold its government to account at the highest level.”

Lets Peep Into Sri Lanka’s Tomorrow After Impeachment

By Kusal Perera -January 11, 2013

Kusal Perera

There is little or no purpose now in discussing and arguing about the legality and constitutionality or otherwise of the impeachment motion. There is little purpose now in discussing and agitating, asking this government to withdraw the impeachment motion and the Speaker to respect the Constitution. Everything has been already decided to show Chief Justice Bandaranayakethe exit door. Today, Friday 11^th January, 2013, while this is written, Ranil Wickramasinghe‘s unconditionally argued supremacy of this parliament would decide on a majority vote at 06.30 pm to remove the incumbent CJ and request President Rajapaksa to appoint another. Tomorrow, Ranil would be left without his “supreme” parliament and the people, without an independent judiciary.

I remain a hard critic of Wickramasinghe in how he played and still plays with the Rajapaksa regime in legitimising all things unconstitutional. He did it with the Budget 2013 and does the same with this impeachment motion right now. His super ego on a self acclaimed status as the most knowledgeable in parliamentary procedures and traditions was simply trashed with all his preliminary objections thrown out and the debate on the impeachment motion report begun at 01.10 pm on Thursday 10 January, as decided by the Rajapaksa regime. His political bankruptcy does not allow him to accept that 144 MPs from the UPFA, plus his own UNP Members who crossed over to the government, will have no choice but to vote on the impeachment motion report as required by the Executive Presidency. He does not want to accept that would seal the fate of CJ Bandaranayake and drop the curtain down on this tragi-comedy. He also does not want to accept, he too “ordered” his party MPs to participate in a debate and vote on the impeachment determined as illegal by the SC and quashed by the Appeal Court. A parliament that has a collection of about 200 MPs out of the 225, who have been simply “ordered” to obey the Executive President and the UNP leader, two big and small dictators in their own terms, can not represent the sovereignty of the people. Can not be supreme in any way. It is that parliament that would end up today on 11^th January, as one that leaves the Constitution violated and the judiciary made invalid. A country with no valid Constitution, with no legitimate parliament and a judiciary tamed to suit the regime.

Today the judiciary stands abstained, not willing to accept the decision of the parliament. The Bar Association of SL, with 78 branch associations all island and well over 7,000 practising members, made a public call to its members to keep away from professional work as a protest against the parliamentary debate on the impeachment motion they called illegal and unconstitutional. For the first time in Sri Lanka almost all Courts went defunct in a protest campaign with most Magistrates and Judges too not getting on the bench. But that would not be the same situation from next Tuesday, when life begins after a 03 day long weekend. When life begins in a country where the Constitution has no validity and the judiciary remains in chaos.

The controversy over the appointment of a new Chief Justice would bring another double barrelled conflict next week. Most probable appointee for now seems Justice Shiranee Thilakawardane. She would have been most probably the first woman CJ, if Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was not parachuted to the Supreme Court bench by President Kumaratunge on the request of Minister Pieris. With CJ Bandaranayake removed on a majority vote in parliament, Justice Thilakawardne becomes the most senior judge to be appointed CJ and that in a way could pacify certain quarters within the judicial system than having one from the private bar. Yet, the Rajapaksa regime don’t seem to be comfortable appointing Justice Thilakawardne. She is thought of as an unpredictable judge and more independent than even the incumbent CJ when tasked to do a job. Those who raise doubts about her from the side of the regime cite the assignment given to her by President Rajapaksa himself, to investigate military procurements during the war period. President has shelved her report on military procurements permanently on that flat phrase “security reasons” as told in parliament by Minister Dinesh Gunawardena.

What this regime wants is a permanent answer with a totally subservient CJ. Not one who takes the responsibility in doing a straight job. Due to lack of acceptable names, the regime may settle with Justice Thilakawardane as a stop gap. But for how long ? Can the President appoint an Acting CJ ? And will she accept an Acting posting ? If not what ? All riddles the Rajapaksa regime would have to finda answers for, during the next few days and would make more contradictions and conflicts in the process.

On the flip side, any appointment as CJ will not be accepted by the Lawyers’ Collective leading the protests. Not even by moderate Sinhala campaigners who stood by this Rajapaksa regime. The whole parliamentary process of impeaching and removing CJ Bandaranayake is considered illegal and unconstitutional by them and they would not compromise on that for sure. Thus the probable conclusion would be, the Courts will not settle to normal day to day responsibilities during the week ahead. Nor would the lawyers, during next week.

Yet the issue is not just that. The issue is what that would be for this Sinhala society. To begin with, this regime now proves it would no more respect the Constitution and the Judiciary the way the Sinhala middle class expected it should, after the elimination of the LTTE. This regime decides on its own selfish agenda and not on how this country could benefit. Such an agenda that stands on unprecedented mega corruption with political patronage, can not be so easily pursued by any regime any where in the world, giving the people an opportunity to challenge the regime on democratic rights. NO, that can never happen anywhere and NOT HERE either !

This is the political context that makes the presence of the military and the defence establishment quite important to this regime after the judiciary is tamed. Lets not forget, this Rajapaksa regime has a gazette notification dated 29 August 2011 in its hands to establish STF camps in every district. It has brought all regulatory bodies required for control of land, the UDA, the Coast Conservation Department and the Land Development and Reclamation Corporation under the defence and urban development ministry. It also has the Department of Registration of Persons and the NGO Secretariat under it. So is the Police Department that for decades have been used more as an auxiliary agency in security, than as a civil department for law and order.

Four years after the war this ministry, lately tagged as “Ministry of Defence and Urban Development”, is allocated 290 billion rupees for 2013, an increase of 60 billion over 2012 and 75 billion over 2011. This year, the projection is only 05 per cent of the allocated budget for “urban development” with everything else set aside for defence. Lets keep this in mind. Every year there had been supplementary budget estimates too brought to parliament, asking for extra money.

This is quite an important issue when taken together in a Sinhala society that accepts militarisation of society as a Sinhala patriotic need. This Sinhala society has never opposed the appointment of security personnel to any civil administrative position. From Provincial Governors to Ministry Secretaries to District Secretaries, Board Chairmen, Commissioners of Departments and worst, even as teachers now in Northern schools where in the South, Principals have been trained and inducted as Brevet Colonels of the volunteer force, but within the preserve of the military Commandant. Where university entrants are given a supposed “leadership training” under the military in military camps. Where universities are provided with security guards from a public firm, run by the defence establishment.

This may not be where the whole story would end. The defence establishment is now into big and small business with their own investments, raised from where and how, not queried about. The “Eagle’s Golf Link” claimed as one of Asia’s best once its 18 holes are completed, is owned by the SL Air force. So is “Helitours” back again in business. “The Air Travel Services (Pvt) Ltd” sells air-tickets and foreign package holidays. The military owns the controversial “Lake’s Edge” hotel in Mullaitivu. 02 holiday resorts one in Kukulegama and the other in Wadduwa for a long time. It was into local vegetable business too and now operates a fair priced “Kottu cafe” in Diyawannawa. Most restaurants and cafes along the A-9 road beyond Omanthai have military affiliations and the “Thal Sevana” guest house in KKS as well. There is serious discussions and plans afoot to build a 5 Star hotel in Colombo and also establish a separate directorate within the military to invest in businesses as emphasised by the army Commander himself (check link – http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/14575-army-to-build-a-five-star-hotel-in-colombo.html) Taking off from there, Navy is operating its “JetLiner” cruiser ship as a profit earning utility, renting it for weddings. There are also boat rides in Colombo and suburban waterways. There could be more businesses that could be added, if one does some nosing into seemingly innocent looking projects that has State patronage.

What makes all these extremely important in the period to come after the impeachment concludes with a replacement of the CJ is, we would be heading into the future with this growing defence establishment, minus a judiciary with any potency and parliamentarians running behind two Pied Pipers going the same way. Any chance of creating checks and balances to such dangerous political evolution would be on the strength of the working class and the urban middle class. Again, they lack political leadership and a programme for the future. This leaves us to discuss what our options could be, for a “Left democratic” future.