Pictures: Who Will Get The Rolls Royce Ghost Cars After The CHOGM ?

By Colombo Telegraph -February 3, 2013 

“Who will get the Rolls Royce Ghost cars after the Commonwealth Heads of State Meeting? Bet the Rajapaksa clan is at the head of the queue and the poor tax payer and money set aside for development of the land will be utilized to run these cars for the rest of their days” an anonymous, widely circulated email asks and predicts.

Meanwhile, the United National Party (UNP) Friday urged the government to investigate the import of a ‘Rolls Royce Ghost’ luxury vehicle.

UNP parliamentarian and economist Harsha De Silva told a news conference that the entire transaction needed to be investigated because of the discrepancy between the price listed by the Rolls Royce Company and the price stated in the Customs declaration.

“The Customs has released the car after a payment of Rs.61 million by way of taxes on the declaration made by the importer that the luxury vehicle cost only US$175 000. But the Company says otherwise. It states that the Rolls Royce Ghost car costs nearly US$350 000, which means that the tax has to be twice the amount paid. We are not complaining or saying that anyone has stolen anything, what we are asking is for a transparent investigation into the matter,” Dr. De Silva said.

 

Toronto grads invent world’s most energy-efficient light bulb

The NanoLight is made of printed circuit-board material folded into the shape of a light bulb. The three U of T grads behind the product say that if you burn the bulb for an average of three hours a day, it would last for 20 years.

By: Curtis Rush News reporter, Published on Fri Feb 01 2013

How many men does it take to design a new energy-efficient light bulb?

Three.

A team of self-described adventure-seeking Canadian “tree-huggers” have produced the NanoLight, which they call a breakthrough in LED lighting technology, touting it as the world’s most energy-efficient light bulb.

Gimmy Chu, who got his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Toronto, is co-founder of the company. He has more than seven years of experience as a technology consultant

Along with fellow U of T grads Christian Yan and Tom Rodinger, he developed the bulb, using their science and engineering backgrounds.

What is the NanoLight? It’s a light that uses only 12 watts of electricity yet generates over 1,600 Lumens, which is the equivalent output of a 100-watt incandescent bulb. Lumens measure the brightness of a bulb.

“The reception has been phenomenal,” Chu told the Star from San Diego, where he is works at his fulltime job as a technology consultant.

His two other partners are in China trying to set up an assembly line.

The products are posted on the Kickstarter website.

The three partners became acquainted at the University of Toronto, where they worked on the university’s solar car team.

After going their separate ways, they reunited about three years go.

“We wanted to take our knowledge and skills and create real-world products,” Chu said.

The NanoLight, which is designed to operate under different countries’ standards, was launched Jan. 7. Since then, the team has gained about 2,500 backers and eclipsed its $20,000 funding goal by raising $125,000 so far.

The Kickerstarter campaign concludes March 8, and the first batch of bulbs is scheduled to ship out in May.

Soon, they hope to begin selling the 85-gram NanoLight through the website.

They are reaching out to distributors and investors.

They have two main lines of NanoLight, neither of which can be dimmed.

A 10-watt bulb, which is the equivalent of a 75-watt incandescent bulb at a price of $30, including shipping.

A 12-watt bulb, which is equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent bulb at a cost of $45.

Chu likes the look of the NanoLight, but expects many consumers to be hesitant to warm up to its shape.

The bulbs are made of printed circuit-board material folded into the shape of a light bulb.

“It looks kind of funky,” Chu said. “But it’s hard to change the consumer’s mind on what a light bulb is supposed to look like. But this light bulb is a lot brighter and lasts longer.”

The company said that if you burn the bulb for an average of three hours a day, the bulb would last 20 years.

“Really the future the lighting industry is LEDs,” Chu said. “It’s a tough market. We’re just little guys.”

Asked if a light bulb went off in their heads prior to their invention, Chu laughed and said no.

The idea developed over time.

However, while their bright idea comes to fruition, Chu will continue to work full-time for clients as a technology consultant.

“I’ve still got to keep the lights on,” he quipped.

Northern Province election scheduled in the middle of August month.

Northern Province council election which was informed will be held in the month of September has been advanced by the government to hold in the middle of August month.

 

 Reliable information reveals that the government has decided to hold the northern provincial council election and western council election together.

 

International countries are insisting the government to immediately hold the northern provincial council election. 

 

President notified at the last budget proposal submission, that the northern provincial council election would be held in the forthcoming month of September.

 

In this state, due to continuous pressure from the international countries, and owning to the human rights sessions scheduled to be held in the last week of this month, government had decided to hold the northern provincial council election one month advance, that is  in August.

 

Government will hold the central and north western provincial council election in the middle of May month. The two provincial council elections are held to find the stance of people concerning the government after the reshuffle of the Cabinet and the impeachment.

 

The two provincial councils tenure concludes in year 2014, month of January, hence by dissolving the two councils seven months beforehand, government has decided to hold the election.

 

Government has also decided to hold the Uva and Southern provincial elections in year 2014. 

 

It has also decided to hold Presidential election in the year 2015 and later the parliament election.

 

On the basis of this plan, changes were introduced in the Cabinet was stated.

Sunday , 03 February 2013

China gets Colombo 7 prime land free of tax

By Chandani Kirinde-Sunday, February 03, 2013

On an order by President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the sale of 122 perches of prime land in Horton Place, Colombo 7 to the Chinese embassy has been exempted from taxes normally levied for the sale of property to foreigners.

Under the provisions of the Finance Act, when there is a transfer of ownership of property within Sri Lanka, a tax equivalent to the value of the property is charged from the transferee if more than 25 per cent of its ownership goes to a person who is not a citizen of Sri Lanka.

The Colombo 7 land transfer to the Chinese embassy has also been exempted from another provision which prohibits the sale of property below the value specified by the Chief Valuer.

The order made by President Rajapaksa in his capacity as the Minister of Finance and Planning said the relevant sections in the Finance Act would not apply to the transfer of the land and premises located at No. 112, Horton place, Colombo 7.

Kamal Haasan threatens never to step in TN

South Indian actor-filmmaker, Kamal Haasan, said he could be forced to look for a secular State overseas and even change his passport, if the final verdict on his film Vishwaroopam was not in his favour, Indian media quoted the actor as saying at a press conference.

Stating that he was “fed up,” Haasan said, “If there is no secular state in India, I would go overseas. I think Tamil Nadu wants me out. What would change is my passport; I would still be an Indian. I have pledged all my property for the film. I have lost my house because of delay in release, so I have nothing to lose, but choose now,” the 58-year-old told reporters.

He said he is likely to face bankruptcy for the third time in his life.

“I am fed up. I am an artist. I will have to seek a secular State for my stay...  secular State from Kashmir to Kerala, excluding Tamil Nadu.”

Hassan said he had pledged his entire property for the making of the film and that he had informed his creditors that they can attach all his property, if the film did not recover its Rs 100-crore budget beyond a certain given date.

The actor said he had been apolitical all his life and always encouraged minorities.

 “I have confidence in myself. My arrogance is over my straight-forwardness.”

Meanwhile, talks have begun in Chennai Friday to break the deadlock over the release of the film Vishwaroopam.

The meeting is being attended by representatives of Muslim organizations, Chandra Haasan, Haasan’s brother, and the State Home Secretary. Commissioner of Police, S. George, was also present.

The Muslim leaders representing the Federation of Muslim Organizations and political parties met the Home Secretary of Tamil Nadu and submitted a letter expressing willingness to participate in a dialogue with Rajkamal Productions. They have insisted that actor Kamal Haasan be a part of the talks.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa had said yesterday she would broker peace between Haasan and protesting Muslim groups.

Haasan has ruled out moving the Supreme Court for now, saying he would wait for the Madras High Court’s judgment next week while trying to find a solution through talks. 

Lawyer appearing in case against Mohan Peiris & PB threatened

SUNDAY, 03 FEBRUARY 2013

The lawyer who appeared for the petitioner in the fundamental rights application against former Attorney General Mohan Peiris (Now Chief Justice) and Finance and Planning Ministry Secretary P.B. Jayasundera has complained to the British High Commission in Colombo of a possible threat to his life.

The lawyer, Nagananda Kodituwakku, who is a British passport holder, appeared in the case in which the Finance and Planning Ministry Secretary P.B.Jayasundera, the Director General of Customs, the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, the Colombo Dockyard and former Attorney General G Mohan Peiris PC and the Attorney-General are respondents.

The case was in respect of an alleged Customs fraud over the disposal of 21 marine craft, constructed to be used by the Army and the Ports Authority. The complainant claims that Government had been defrauded of revenue and the enactment of the Customs Ordinance had not been effected. The petitioner claimed the Customs were prevented from obtaining Rs.619 million from a company.

A two-member Bench of the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the case with costs.  The Supreme Court Bench comprised Justices P.A.Ratnayake, Sathya Hettige and Justice Eva Wanasundera but when the case was taken up, Justice Ratnayake declined to hear the case.

Mr. Kodituwakku has lodged a complaint with the Mirihana Police after he spotted four suspicious men in a car observing his movements when he was at the Superior Court Complex at Hulftsdorf. He had taken down number plate details and given it to the police. He has also informed the British High Commission about the incident.

Mr.Kodituwakku said he will soon file revision papers in the Supreme Court in connection with the case while he would also take the issue in international forums.

An Arab Spring Or A Barack Obama?

By Dayan Jayatilleka -February 3, 2013 

Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

While I see the need for constitutional reform, I do not see a need for areplacement of the Constitution. My stance remains that which I took during the Liberal Party’s discussions contained in the volume of 1991, namely, that the Constitution of ’78 was an advance over the Constitution of ’72. The Constitution of ’72 was in some way in advance over the Soulbury Constitution in as much as we became a Republic, but in many other ways it was a retrogression, in terms of the divisive privileging of a single language and religion in a multilingual, multi religious society and the abolition of the safeguards for minorities.

So I do believe that the Constitution of ’78 should be reformed. I support the reform that took place in terms of the 13^th Amendment. I do not believe that it should be replaced at the moment and I am seriously concerned about the slogan of a constituent assembly. I say this because every attempt at constitution-making anywhere in the world reflects the dominant ethos, the prevailing ethos of that moment. If there is a constituent assembly today or in a foreseeable future, it will not lead to an enlightened constitutional reform but precisely to a neo-conservative constitutional counter reform.

Every single idea I have heard, not on this platform but from voices in Government, every single one, whether it is on the 13^th Amendment, on the separation of powers, the ambivalence –indeed retraction–on universality, the invocation and privileging of indigenous or nativist cultural specificities, all of these tell me that the dominant ideology of the day is one of constitutional counter-reformation, not of enlightened, progressive constitutional reform. If there is a new constitution, if there is a constitutional assembly, it will be a replay of the constituent assembly of 1972 in which the very moderate and modest ideas contained in the letter that the Tamil United Front wrote to Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike were completely ignored! It will be a Constitution which reflects the dominant dynamics, whether it is in the domains of ethnicity, religion or the concentration and centralization of power.

The entire discussion on separation of power, to me, is camouflage for an attempt to subordinate the judiciary to other centers of powers–and here I do not necessarily mean the Executive. I do not consider the Executive as it exists to be the main problem and I do not consider the present incumbent to be the main problem either. What I do see is a tendency of a centralization and concentration of power. The discussion on the separation of powers — is it American, it is British, it is universal, should it be adopted and so on and so forth– is a cover story. It is to deflect the discussion from what is being questioned: the fundamental notion of checks and balances; of institutional equilibrium. What is taking place in Sri Lanka, and it is not merely under this administration, is the concentration and centralization of power.

It is arguable whether this is a tendency that manifests itself at various points of time, and I will remind our audience of those points of time, or whether it is a structural tendency, if not a fact. This is debatable.  If we take our minds back to the administration of Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake of 1965 to 1970, we may recall the anxiety in society at large, that there was a power shift to the Minister of State, the authoritarian Cold war conservative, Mr. J.R. Jayewardene, and away from the conservative liberalism of Mr. Senanayake. This was encapsulated in Mr. Jayewardene’s own statement that he is the State while the Prime Minister was the Government. This was after the accidental shooting of a member of the Buddhist Clergy. The anxiety was such that the newly formed JVP of the late ‘60s thought that the general election scheduled for 1970 would not in fact be held, and girded its loins so to speak, for dictatorship.

Just as under Mr. Dudley Senanayake there was a 1000 day emergency which was not necessary, during the administration of Madam Bandaranaike, from the aftermath of the crushing of the JVP insurrection of April ’71 on, there was a continuation of that which should not have been continued: the state of emergency. It was during this period of prolonged emergency that you have the concentration and centralization of power. The parties of the left and independent-minded progressives such as Mr. T.B. Subasinghe, a Minister of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, accused the Bandaranaike administration of containing ‘an invisible government’; of extra-Constitutional centers and caucuses of power. Mr. Felix Dias Bandaranaike, nicknamed “Satan” by the Left, was seen as the chief ideologue of a project that he had himself enthusiastically termed “a little bit of totalitarianism”.

During the long tenure of President Jayewardene, progressive liberals and those on the left identified two dangerous tendencies at work. One was represented by Mr. Lalith Athulathmudali, the Minister of National Security. Journals like the Lanka Guardian run by my father Mervyn de Silva, spoke of the dangers of a National Security State, in which the functioning of the State was subordinate to the organs, the doctrine and the discourse of national security. Quoting George Kennan’s critique of the Reagan administration, Mervyn cautioned about “the militarization of thought and discourse” and the Athulathmudali doctrine of ‘Total Security’. The other negative tendency at work at that time was of course the open racism of Mr. Cyril Mathewwhich erupted in July ’83. Today we have an intertwining of all these tendencies.

When you come to the present moment, a constituent assembly with the present political balance of forces and balance of ideas cannot but produce an outcome which is profoundly retrogressive and profoundly conservative. This will be so in relation to the issue of the devolution of power. The 13^th Amendment will not be replaced by something more streamlined; it will probably be dismantled. The judiciary will be integrated in a subordinate role—or if your tastes run to Gramsci, a subaltern role.

Now, where is power been centralized and concentrated? What is happening? Constitutions are, as my old teachers of political science taught me, both mirrors and moulds. They mirror existing trends, tendencies and dynamics. They mirror existing structures. But they are also a mould which constructs or reconstructs the polity along the lines of the project of the dominant strata in society. The discussion of the constituent assembly, the discussion of the separation of power, the discussion of the 13^th Amendment and the need to abolish it, all of these are part of the same project. That project is to roll back the modernist, Universalist elements of constitution making that we have had from 1948 and to replace them with certain ideas in the dominant discourse of the day; ideas which seek legitimacy from notions of cultural specificity, but reveal the faint outlines of what both Karl Marx and Karl Wittfogel called “Asiatic Despotism”.

I will conclude with two ideas. One, the project that is under way and which the Constitution making, or unmaking, or remaking, or reform, or counter-reform process will reflect is what I would call the cartelization of power, political and economic. And cartels, whether it is in Latin America or other parts of the world, are usually clan-based.

The other idea I will leave you with is this: the fundamental question of politics– and here I think one has to acknowledge a contribution of Lenin– is ‘What is to be done?’ Well, what has been the Sri Lankan experience; the Sri Lankan answer to that question? How did we get from the Constitution of 1947, the Soulbury Constitution, to the Republican Constitution of ’72? How did we get from ’72 to ’78? Why are we at where we are at now?

I read many oppositional ideologues, commentators blaming it all on the war. I remain firmly of the view that given the fascist nature of the Tigers, the Sri Lankan State, having tried all other options, was left with no choice but to do what it did. But that is only one part of the story. There were other administrations with more enlightened ideas preceding this one, but they dropped the ball; they did not do the job. If those who have liberal democratic ideas, or progressive ideas, enlightened views, are unable to fulfill the basic responsibility of ensuring security, national reunification and the elimination of terrorism, then, by default as it were, this becomes the task of those with a different ideology, a neo-conservative populist ideology. This is what happened in Sri Lanka. It was the failure of those leaders of successive administrations to do what President Obama did to Osama Bin Laden that opened the door for a neo-conservative populist backlash. That backlash brought into office a leadership team that got the job done. Now we have the morning after, and all the ideas contained in the social coalition that supported the populist neo-conservative project are now bubbling to the surface. Ideas on culture, on women, on Muslims, on Tamils, on Christians, on devolution, on Universality–the whole ideology of the so-called home-grown– all of this is now bubbling to the surface.

Sri Lanka is not the only place where it happened. You had the administration of Georges Bush, the power shift to Cheney and Rumsfeld, and the attempts to re-tool the legal system under Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General of that time.

The way to change this, the way to roll back a retrogressive constitution if there is one; the way to reverse that reversal is simple: it’s electoral. That is what happened in 1970, leading to a new constitution in 1972. This is what happened in 1977, leading to a new constitution in 1978. If you cannot prevent a constitutional counter-reformation then you have to roll back the counter-reformation. Mercifully, despite the lurid propaganda of many, Sri Lanka is not a dictatorship. It is a democracy that has been distorted by 30 years of conflict. It is a democracy which still has reflex actions of three decades of war. It is a democracy where certain structures, certain apparatuses of power do not wish to see normalization but wish to continue to exercise the authority they had during the period of the armed conflict. Once again I add, I do not see the problem as being the concentration of powers in the hand of the elected Executive, be it J.R. Jayewardene or Mahinda Rajapaksa. I see as the problem what is called in political science, the “deep State”. This concept arose in the discussion of the role of security apparatus of Turkey, Pakistan and so on. That is where power has shifted to. The problem is not Mahinda Rajapaksa; the problem is the Matrix and that matrix has to be changed. That can only be changed electorally through a more enlightened project.

If one is to roll back neo-conservative populism, what one needs is not an Arab Spring; it’s a Lula or a Barack Obama. With 20 million people in Sri Lanka, I do not see how we can’t find one.

*Remarks delivered at the discussion on the Separation of Powers in the series “Ideas for Constitutional Reform” organized by the Liberal Party of Sri Lanka.

Power- sharing Alliance has split into two. Manmendra group gets separated.

Mano Ganeshan and Azath Saali's joint effort in pressurizing the government by  originating a movement named “share powers and unite the country” has got split into two.

 

The cause of this split is due to the controversies emerged amidst the members of this Alliance; hence New Sihala Urumaya party was disappointed towards the activities and left the movement.

 

The leader of New Sinhala Urumaya Party Sarath Manamendra along with two parties propose to originate a new movement called "genuine voice for people”

 

The new movement will be launched officially in the second week of this month and towards this activities are processed was said by Sarath Manamendra.

 

 He said, his party the New Sinhala Urumaya, left from the “share powers and unite the country” movement  with  disappointment and have merged to form a new movement with Aruna Soyza headed Ruhunu peoples party, Appu Arachchi’s headed United People Front.

 

Tamil National Alliance, Democratic People’s Front, Muslim Tamil National Front, Nawasamasamajee party, United Socialist Party, New Sinhala Urumaya and United Peoples Front  are the  seven parties are now in the “share powers and unite the country alliance”.

 

In view of the controversies cropped-up amidst the Alliance, a new movement was originated by the new movement.

 

 Concerning this he further said, I will not participate in the “share powers and unite the country movement” meetings. I will also not attend to the movement's weekly media briefing.

 

There is no use of holding conference weekly by stating by sharing powers unite the country.

 

 Tamil speaking people are daily facing many crises. Hence discussions should be done directly visiting their areas and finding their problems. Through such activities problems can be settled, which is my stance was said by him. 

 

My party, Ruhunu peoples party headed by Soyza, Appu Arachi’s United people Front have proposed to merge and to originate a new movement named "genuine voice for people”

 

 The activities of this movement will commence from the second week of this month was said by Sarath Manmendra.

Saturday , 02 February 2013

Disappointed MPs meet President

2013-02-02

Several backbench parliamentarians of the ruling United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) have expressed disappointment to the President Mahinda Rajapaksa, at not receiving ministerial portfolios in the recent Cabinet reshuffle.

Galle District UPFA parliamentarian, Nishantha Muthuhettigama, and Matara District UPFA parliamentarian, Hemal Gunasekara, have met the President and had discussions regarding not receiving minister or deputy minister posts in the reshuffle.

They have discussed their expectations with Hambantota District Parliamentarian, Namal Rajapaksa and claimed that they cannot even offer jobs to the people in their respective electorates. 

All Those Shouting About War Crimes Are Not Hypocritical

Rajiva Wijesinha -February 3, 2013 

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha

Reconciliation: Looking Forward xiv – Motivations At Geneva

Though obviously the issue of the Chief Justice’s impeachment will reverberate internationally, but it will be very sad if it is used to attack Sri Lanka in relation to very different matters. I was disappointed then that the American delegation declared that this recent development is a reason for the resolution it proposes to bring in Geneva.

There are in fact three very different issues involved. The first, and longest standing, is allegations of War Crimes, which are excessive and hypocritical. The problem is that these allegations arise from two different motivations. Neither of these relate to whether or not there were War Crimes, since the leading advocates of the charges have never cared about War Crimes perpetrated by their own favourites.

This does not mean that all those shouting about War Crimes are hypocritical and with their own agendas. There are many idealists who get carried away by emotion, and that is why we need to deal with the issue systematically, and on the basis of evidence. The blanket denials that we sometimes here do no service to anyone. I continue astonished that we have not dealt clearly with the numbers that are flung around, using statistics we possess that almost entirely support our case. But with a dysfunctional Foreign Ministry, and no coherent policy about information dissemination, we will continue to suffer – or rather the armed forces which did so much will suffer, while those reaping the fruits of their efforts will continue to swan around ineffectively, but joyfully.

The two principal proponents of the War Crimes charges are the Tiger rump, who are still pursuing their separatist dream (but using now the consequences of Tiger terrorism rather than terrorism itself) and those Western politicians who have their own agendas. Some of these want only to appease the Tigers, but we should not therefore dismiss all of them. There are some whose motives are relatively decent, though they have failed to understand that the end cannot justify the means.

I refer to those who thought that any form of pressure was acceptable so as to promote pluralism and political equity in Sri Lanka. From the relatively decent American who declared in India that they had found the perfect weapon – Sarath Fonseka – to force President Rajapaksa to move forward, to the earnest young British diplomat who said the 2009 resolution in Geneva was designed to ensure that we resettled the displaced Tamils swiftly and dealt leniently with former combatants, they have made the problem worse by being devious.

Why they cannot understand that they have only succeeded in increasing the influence in government of hardliners with very different agendas from their own is beyond me, but I have long understood there are people who are too clever by half – and they generally lurk in Foreign Ministries where they deal with relatively unimportant countries and issues, so they have a free hand (in Sri Lanka they deal with the important issues, but that is another question).

The result is that they have contributed – though it is certainly not their fault alone – to the fact that our progress towards Reconciliation has been far too slow. This is the second reason for a Resolution in Geneva, and while I sympathize with the aims of those who want us to move more swiftly, I wish they did not confuse issues. I suppose a Resolution on this subject alone would not fit within easily within the scope of the Human Rights Council, and would not rouse the emotions needed to ensure success, but I think it could be done, and I could only wish India– which in the last couple of decades always promoted pluralism in Sri Lanka whilst being tough on terrorism – would direct attention to this aspect alone. But since we have failed utterly to ensure cooperation with India in this regard, we will suffer again, and the other issues to which I have referred will continue to haunt us.

Breaking the Silence..!
(Lanka-e-News-03.Feb.2013, 4.30PM) 

Dear all;

Since the sudden “fizzling down” of the hyperactivity in Hulftsdorp I’ve been hounded with questions like “why are you now silent”, “so what will (you’ll) do next” etc from many quarters, which (for very good reason undisclosed thus far) I’ve managed to diplomatically avoid; however I must heed my conscience above all other interests and at least try to offer an answer to those that rallied around our call to protect the Rule of Law and the Independence of the Judiciary; those that risked much but stood in allegiance with the cause; those who believed and relied on the several public statements I personally made during this time. These last few weeks have often been filled with hours of silent reflection, at times wondering why we couldn’t keep quiet, why I couldn’t “say no” to requests from colleagues to be the “public spokesperson” for our several actions. Having considered all arguments that prevailed upon me I have decided to pen-down my own thoughts at whatever cost or risk of safety, criticism or political backlash; as I’ve often quoted Plato says - “the price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”!

I must thank those editors who carried the previous articles on this matter and I encourage you to do so, should you find anything that is acceptable and catering to your target audience in this one. Some (IF they are like-minded) may carry this one as well, and some may not for whatever reason. If you are possessed of the facility I'd encourage you to carry a translated version in Sinhalese and Tamil as well, and in such a situation the "name of the author" does not matter; what matters is for the message to get across; with the ultimate aim of realizing some good for some of us (at least), if not the greater good for all! . IF you are carrying it IN ENGLISH please do not edit any of the contents as it may give an inaccurate connotation in which case I will disclaim any responsibility for same.

Others - IF you are inclined to read and agree, please feel free to circulate this via our friendly (and cost-effective) medium of electronic mail. My usual yet unconditional apology precedes this unsolicited intrusion of your e-space, that you may read, forward, ignore, disagree, comment or criticize (which I would welcome) as your free-will dictates; all of which we are constitutionally entitled to do as “free citizens” of this “Democratic Republic”; at least until we have that freedom!

Please also note that these contain MY PERSONAL VIEWS ONLY and therefore, whilst I may have previously expressed opinions on behalf of several others on this issue, I cannot comment on behalf of anyone else on this matter now, they must do so as and when and in the manner deemed most appropriate to them; these PERSONAL VIEWS, COMMENTS & OPINIONS I shall always stand by.

Best's as always!

Crishmal Warnasuriya
BA(Colombo), P Dip(Hons), LLM (Hons)(London)

Villagers of Sri Lanka's High Security Zone in Sampur revisit their homes

Fri, Feb 1, 2013, 11:12 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.
Feb 01, Trincomalee: Sri Lanka Army today facilitated a group of internally displaced people of Sampur in the Trincomalee district of the Eastern Province to revisit their village.
The 224 brigade of Sri Lanka Army provided facilities to the villagers to revisit their homes in the High Security Zone and 138 families of the Navarathnapuram village visited their old houses which were in dilapidated conditions.
Sampur, located in close vicinity to the Trincomalee harbor was under the control of the Tamil Tiger terrorists Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) until the Army recaptured the area in September 2006.
Five villages of the Sampur area are still under the Army High Security Zone.

ICJ View Of Impeachment Crisis And The Misconceived Statement

By Elmore Perera -February 3, 2013

Elmore Perera

Much prominence has been given in the Island Newspaper of 2^nd February 2013 to a statement issued by Dr. A.C. Aggarwala as Chairman, All India Bar Association (purportedly as an ICJ Statement), under the title “Int’l Council of Jurists backs new CJ”

In regard to the purported impeachment of Chief Justice Ms. Shirani Bandaranayake by the Sri Lankan Government, the statement says, “The questions are (i) whether the Constitutional requirements of impeachment have been followed by Sri Lankan Government, and (ii) whether the Sri Lankan Constitutional requirements of impeachment are appropriate when comparing with other important countries.”

With due respect for the reputation for objectivity of the ICJ, and indeed of the All India Bar Association, the one and only relevant question is “whether the purported impeachment is a culmination of due process prescribed explicitly or implicitly, at that point in time, in the Sri Lankan Constitution”. The question whether the Sri Lankan Constitutional requirements of impeachment are appropriate or not when compared with other important countries would certainly have been relevant at the time the  relevant requirements were provided for in the Sri Lankan Constitution. However, at this juncture that question is nothing more than merely a ‘red herring’.

The relevant ICJ statement refers only to Article 107(2) of the Constitution which has been quoted in full. Not even an oblique reference has been made to any other provision in the Constitution, in any law, or even in any Standing Order. In particular, no reference whatsoever has been made to Art. 107(3) which states “Parliament shall by law or by Standing Orders provide for all matters relating to the presentation of such an address, including the procedure for the passing of such resolution, the investigation and proof of the alleged misbehaviour or incapacity, and the right of such judge to appear and to be heard in person or by representative”.

Relying exclusively on unspecified “news reports” Dr. Aggarwala affirms that “the Chief Justice faced an 11-member Parliamentary Committee in November 2012 which investigated 14 charges of financial and official misconduct against her. She was found guilty of professional Misconduct the following month. Charges against the Chief Justice include improper conduct, amassing wealth and property, and non-declaration of assets. As the Constitution puts it, Misconduct is a ground for impeachment. The requirement under the Sri Lankan Constitution has been fulfilled and supplemented by a report of the Parliamentary Committee. Thus it is clear that the Constitutional process of impeachment has been followed in Sri Lanka”.

Several other paragraphs are devoted to generalised references to the procedure for removal of Judges in Australia, Kenya, Singapore and Bangladesh. As stated above, these are entirely irrelevant to the one question at issue now.

Having made the seemingly authoritative assertions aforementioned, the statement concludes with a clear assertion exonerating the government of any wrong doing whatsoever in the matter of the impeachment of the Chief Justice by saying “In this situation, we take this opportunity to assure   that the Sri Lankan Government has not committed wrong in removing Chief Justice Ms. Shirani Bandaranayake as the removal proceedings were absolutely in accordance with the prevalent Sri Lankan laws. We are sorry to observe that some organisations are decrying the removal as they are, in fact, not aware of Sri Lankan laws. It is always better to know law first and then comment”. Sadly however, he himself does not seem in fact to know the relevant law, in making the said comments.

Article 125(1) states, “The Supreme Court shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to the interpretation of the Constitution”. and accordingly, whenever any question arises  such question shall forthwith be referred to the Supreme Court for determination.

Several Writ applications came up before the Court of Appeal  on 20^th November 2012 seeking to prohibit the 11-member Parliamentary Committee from continuing the purported investigation into the allegations of misbehaviour, on the  basis that doing so was a violation of Article 4(c).

The Court of Appeal in terms of Article 125(1) referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation, the following question. “Is it mandatory under Article 107(3) of the Constitution for the Parliament to provide for matters relating to the forum before which the allegations are to be proved, the mode of proof, burden of proof, standard of proof, etc. of any alleged misbehaviour or incapacity, in addition to matters relating to the investigation of the alleged misbehaviour or incapacity”.

On 22^nd November the Supreme Court recommended to the Parliamentary Committee of 11, that “out of mutual respect and trust between the Parliament and the Judiciary”, they defer the inquiry until the Supreme Court determined the question of law interpreting Art. 107(3) of the Constitution referred to it by the Court of Appeal. This request was summarily rejected by the Parliamentary Committee and proceedings of the Committee commenced because the Chief Justice had, in good faith, appeared before the Committee on 23^rdNovember.

On 29^th  November, the Speaker ‘ruled’ that “he deems Court  notices irrelevant and that notices served on him and members of the Parliamentary Committee appointed by him have no effect whatever and are not recognised in any manner”.  Notwithstanding the shabby treatment she was subjected to on 23^rd November, the Chief Justice, in good faith appeared before the Committee briefly on 4^th December and on 6^th December at 2.30 p.m. She was neither provided with authenticated documents relating to the charges nor a list of witnesses, but she was continuously subjected to verbal abuse by several government members of the Committee. Her request to summon those who had submitted purported information re her bank accounts and asset declarations was overruled. A request that she be notified of the procedure to be followed at the investigation was denied. The Chairman stated unambiguously that no oral evidence would be led in support of the allegations and therefore she would not be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses making /supporting the allegations. It was clear that the Chief Justice was required to refute allegations that had not been supported by any evidence – a wholly unacceptable procedure. At about 4.30 p.m. a bundle of about 100 documents consisting of more than 1000 pages, was delivered to her and she was informed that the inquiry would commence on the 7^th December afternoon. All the submissions made on her behalf, including a request for adequate time to peruse the voluminous documentation just received, were summarily rejected by the Chairman. Stating that it was obvious that she would not get a fair trial by this Committee, the Chief Justice withdrew from the inquiry with her lawyers at about 5.30 p.m. on 6^th December 2012, reiterating her willingness to appear before any impartial and lawful tribunal to vindicate herself, and that she would continue her efforts to safeguard the independence of the Judiciary – the heritage of the Sovereign people.

At about 5.30 p.m. on 7^th December the four Opposition members of the Committee withdrew from the proceedings of the Committee having  addressed a letter to the Speaker stating inter alia that whereas it was the duty of the Committee to maintain the highest standards of fairness in conducting this inquiry, it was regrettable that  the Committee was ignoring salient provisions of the law and requirements of natural justice, the treatment meted out to the Chief Justice was insulting and intimidatory, the remarks made were clearly indicative of preconceived findings of guilt, the inquiry was not fair, a letter  submitted by them to the Chairman was rejected summarily, and therefore they were compelled to withdraw from the Committee.

Thereafter, the 7 Government Members of the Committee summoned 18 witnesses, recorded the exparte evidence of 16 witnesses who responded to the summons, analysed the evidence and wrote a 35 – page judgment quoting relevant case law therein, holding her to be guilty of 3 of the 14 charges, and compiled a comprehensive Report of more than 1500 pages. All this was done within the space of 14 hours between 5.30 p.m. on 7^th December, 2012 and 7.30 a.m  on 8^th December, 2012. Later on 8^th December, 2012, the Speaker  announced in Parliament that the Chief Justice had been found guilty of 3 charges.

On 11^th December, 2012 Judge Weeramantry, former Senior Vice-President of the International Court of Justice, resident in Sri Lanka and presumably well aware of the events taking place, commented on the principles of separation of Powers which rested upon the bedrock concept of the rule of law and stated that where the issues involved are as grave as the misconduct of the Chief Justice, such principles need to be applied with the greatest strictness possible, ensuring basic safeguards.  He concluded that unless all those principles were observed in the inquiry, there would be profound damage to the independence of the judiciary with a resulting undermining of the Rule of Law and Democracy itself.

On 1^st January 2013,the Supreme Court answered the aforementioned question referred to them as follows: “It is mandatory under Article 107(3) of the Constitution for the Parliament to provide by law the matters relating to the forum before which the allegations are to be  proved, the mode of proof, burden of proof,  and the standard of proof of any alleged misbehaviour or incapacity and the Judge’s right to appear and to be heard in person or by representative in addition to matters relating to the investigation of the alleged misbehaviour or incapacity”.

Notwithstanding death threats received by the Judges, the Court of Appeal quashed the findings of guilt of the CJ, arrived at by the Parliamentary Committee.

However, the Chief Justice was unlawfully ousted from her residence and office and the legal adviser to the Cabinet was installed in her rightful place.

Former Chief Justice of India J.S.Verma was due to arrive in Sri Lanka on 1^st February 2013 as Head of the International Bar Association delegation consisting of distinguished Jurists including House of Lords member Baroness Usha Prashar. As reported in the Sunday Island of 3^rd February, this visit has been cancelled asChief Justice Verma has been refused a visa.

Whereas the reasons for Dr. Aggarwala’s statement are rather obvious, the irrefutable fact is that the far reaching conclusions arrived at by him are obviously based on grossly erroneous reports of what has, in fact transpired here in Sri Lanka. It is near impossible to believe that the International Commission of Jurists would have issued such a statement without some kind of fact finding mission which would have become known to us, the Sovereign People. It is significant that Dr. A has not divulged his status, if any, in the ICJ, which entitled him to publicise this statement or at the very least revealed the date on which the ICJ had issued such statement.

We Sri Lankans are reputed to be a gullible lot – but hopefully we are all not so gullible as to fall hook, line and sinker for Dr. A’s preposterous conclusions!

 *Elmore Perera, Attorney-at-Law, Founder CIMOGG, Past President OPA