Today saw the third day of argument on the 11 cases regarding the dissolution of Parliament. A judgment was scheduled for tomorrow 7 Dec.
The first two days were most interesting as the lawyers for the Petitioners made their arguments. Their arguments were principally that Article 33(2)(c) gave the President the right to dissolve Parliament and Article 70 listed the conditions for such dissolution. These conditions were not fulfilled. There was no contradiction between the two articles – just like the law that one must possess a driving licence to drive a car, being circumscribed by other laws which stated the conditions, such as driving on the left hand side of the road. So also the whole constitution had to be read as a whole, all parts working harmoniously together and not section by section in isolation. Elections must follow the rules of the constitution and cannot be held at any time. The people had exercised their franchise and given the present Parliament 5 years to govern and the constitution did not allow dismissal of Parliament within 4.5 years. Even the mother of Parliaments in the UK has recently changed over to a fixed term.
Sirisena
This was followed by lawyers for the Respondents who gave their objections. Returning to the driving licence analogy, in an emergency an ambulance may drive on the wrong side of the road, and what was facing Sri Lanka was an emergency where Parliament was behaving irresponsibly and the President had to exercise his job function of saving the nation by dismissing Parliament. Ultimate responsibility is through the people’s franchise and that is what the President was upolding in dismissing Parliament and calling for elections. What is wrong with going to the people when their franchise is their fundamental right?
The objections by the respondents began yesterday and dragged on. Without coordination, almost all of them repeated the same arguments, except, to his credit, Gamini Marapana PC who cut it shot by saying he associated with what the AG and others said (His brother Tilak Marapana also appeared but for the UNP).
As boredom set in on the third day as the Respondents’ lawyers began repeating themselves, two events set some spark into the hearings. Attorney Sanjeeva Jayawardena, PC, for one of the Respondents claimed that Article 70 of the Sinhalese version of the Constitution had an extra sentence and that the Sinhalese version should prevail and it made all the difference. He said that it imbued Article 62 with a new meaning allowing the president to dissolve Parliament any time. This shook up many who were listening. [However, although there really is an extra sentence in the Sinhalese version of Article 62 which most were unaware of, there is really nothing about any time in that extra sentence, so it became a mere restatement of Article 33(2)(c) saying the president could dissolve and prorogue Parliament].
There was a lot of back and forth and Sanjeeva’s brother on the bench, Justice Prasanna Jayawardena, questioned his brother the most from the bench and even clarified that Sanjeeva’s comments on repercussions at home through filing the case did not refer to Prasanna’s home but to Sanjeeva’s. Laughter followed. When Sanjeeva spoke of repercussions at home and until this clarification almost everyone assumed that brother Prasanna had found fault with Sanjeeva at home for getting involved.
A Petitioner commented “It is this casual attitude to propriety, ethics and the law where the Supreme Court sees no problem in a judge sitting on the bench to hear his own brother’s case that has brought Sri Lanka to its knees like this. If they [the Justices] cannot understand the simple ethics underlying the inherent conflict of interest which requires justice Jayawardena to recuse himself, can they understand the intricacies of this very complex case?”
Sparks flew when lawyer Manohara de Silva representing Pivithuru Hela Urumaya’s Udaya Gamanpilla spoke picking up the points of Sanjeeva Jayawardena. The law cannot be read by this Court as a rigid formula but must be interpreted keeping in mind the consequences of their decision. If the judges find for the Petitioners there can be violence. To many in court it was spine chilling and a threat to violence for going against the President, but the court was still, seemingly impervious to any emotion. Many who were sure of a right decision until then were no longer sure after this interjection of political threat wondering if the justices would rule for the President fearing repercussions.
Then de Silva restated Sanjeeva Jaywardena’s position that Section 62 had an extra sentence in Sinhalese which takes precedence over the Tamil, and that the English version has no standing. Opposition Leader Rajavarothayam Sampanthan’s lawyer was K. Kanag-Isvaran (of even temper and probably the most senior and most respected lawyer in court whom no justice on the bench would chide for anything according to a lawyer who had worked with him). Kanag-Isvaran who had been listening quietly stood up and intervened calmly: “That is true only for enactments and not for the constitution where one language version is not of higher status.”
Something seemed to snap in Manohara de Silva a he reacted to the interruption. He angrily said “If you want to be aggressive, we too can be aggressive. Not in this court where some order is required but in a forum outside.” That from the Urumaya to the Tamil Sampanthan’s Tamil lawyer! Again chilling but the justices, all Sinhalese, seemed not to notice. An unnecessary blot on an otherwise well-conducted case.
Two more Respondents will present tomorrow seventh and the Petitioners will make their oral Counter Objections. The judges then need to write out their judgment. Will there be time for the judgment tomorrow?
Being uncertain of a judgment tomorrow, the stay order on the President’s gazette was extended by a day from the seventh. (by Special Correspondent)
Sinhala_Man / December 7, 2018
Thanks, Colombo Telegraph for relating all this in a clear and non-controversial tone. Let’s hope that this also authentically reflects the atmosphere in the Courts.
.
This must surely be one of the most important cases we’ve ever had in our Law Courts, and it is good to hear that the ambiance was very different from what prevailed in Parliament on those days when both sides were present at plenary strength.
.
Obviously, each of us has a strongly (perhaps passionately held) view. I don’t think that the involvement of the two brothers is of such consequences. It is the less obvious undercurrents that we usually find worrying.
/
Dodo / December 7, 2018
Is this yet another attempt to ethnicize, divide and distract from the need to stick to the SPIRIT rather than the FORM of Democracy in adjudication of this case? The 19th amendment was put in place to keep Bondscam Ranil (who was looting and selling off Lanka to his Trumpland backers with fake Xperts from Millennium Challenge Corporation ), for 4.5 years as PM, and denies the people, or DEMOS the right to seek a general election for 4.5 years. This clause is a violation of the SPIRIT of DEMOCRACY.
Very poor reporting CT – the ethnic divide and rule policies of the Raj are now followed by the media and politicians to obfuscate issues further and not to seek solutions???
/
Moham / December 7, 2018
Dodo – do you now what 19th amendment is, and who tabled it in the parliament ?
/
Champa / December 7, 2018
Dodo
19th Amendment was passed by 2/3 majority in the Parliament. As far as I could remember only Sarath Weerasekera voted against it, Ironically, he was defeated at the election in August 2015.
Those who talk about it as a violation of the spirit of democracy never took any effort to amend it for the last 4 years.
I don’t see any fault in CT’s reporting. People have a right to know the situation as it is.
/
Champa / December 7, 2018
Somethings are funny. The talk about the Sinhala version and the English version.
As I see, the so called extra sentence added to the Sinhala version has no impact on the fixed term of the Parliament. I don’t know what emergency situation everyone is talking about. There was no emergency at all until October 26 or even after. Both the former and the current Presidents stated many times the country is functioning as usual.
An emergency could arise due to an uncontrollable riot or something on account of an assassination of a high profile in the Parliament or something like that. Otherwise, the situation in the country is normal. Only the Executive seems to be hyperactive like a kid. That’s all.
/
Champa / December 7, 2018
Thank you for your reporting CT.
Did Manohara de Silva really say “The law cannot be read by this Court as a rigid formula but must be interpreted keeping in mind the consequences of their decision. If the judges find for the Petitioners there can be violence???”
Violence? This may have sent chills up some people’s spines and given them goosebumps. Mine too. I can’t even bear the thought.
CT, it is ok for the Judges to not to show any emotion.
If they have maintained a stoical appearance, that means they were not perturbed by the “threat” at all.
Under the present circumstances, going for elections will be encouraging violence as President’s + MR’s side and UNP’s side both will resort to violence.
Our politicians are addicted to violence, a notion of which is even endorsed by a lawyer like Manohara de Silva.
Giving a second chance should not be like giving a second bullet.
If the consequences are to be taken into consideration, the best option is to go by the Constitution and nullify President’s decision to dissolve the Parliament.
The need of the hour is to maintain peace and harmony in the country, not igniting the fire with a match.
Irrespective of party politics, what the general public want is peace and stability in the country and balance in the current volatile political climate.
Elections should be held only in a peaceful and orderly environment. Thanks to our politicians, we are far from it right now.
The entire world is waiting to see tomorrow’s decision. Needless to say, the decision of the Supreme Court will have a profound effect on country’s future.
/
Champa / December 7, 2018
When I posted my first comment, I wasn’t aware of Manohara’s threat as I didn’t see it anywhere else.
Though we think the situation is normal, Manohara’s statement warrants caution as it implies that they have the ability and desire to convert the situation into violence any time.
/
Ajay / December 7, 2018
Those who are familiar with Manohara de Silva’s retarded views need no convincing that he is an ass. He is an inveterate racist moron. He has a real attitude problem. You can’t straighten a dog’s tail.
/
Manel Fonseka / December 7, 2018
I’m not familiar with them, and I am shocked.
Thank you CT for giving us info about the hearing.
/
K.Anaga / December 7, 2018
It may be necessary to include a another clause in the constitution thus; “If and when the parties are unable convince the Judges by their verbal arguments, they may resort to physical violence or at least threaten to do so”.
There appears to be some veiled threats already.?
/
Mallaiyuran / December 7, 2018
There are many branches of development can followed on Manohara de Silva’s bickering of “ If you want to be aggressive, we too can be aggressive. Not in this court where some order is required but in a forum outside. ” Justices kept quite in that personal fight of lawyers was flaring in the court room. News is telling the Justices are all Sinhalese.
When Appe Aanduwa wants to trash a case of Tamils’ against it, Aanduwa go with Sinhala Jury Only Verdict. This is not Tamil-Sinhala case. Tamil TNA is just one party in 11 others. UNP, SLMC, JVP, NGOs and others are in this. Other side is one single entity UPFA.
We can look at the incident without Tamil-Sinhala differences. Manohara de Silva quoting the Sinhala Version seems to be that he is considering it as a serious defense. Kanaga Isvaran denying that was hurting him a lot. He angrily retaliated. Justices did not censure it as “Lawyers may have to negotiate any outside programs only outside, not inside the Court”. One reason can be, seeing Manohara de Silva’s nervousness and other lawyer’s composition, justices may not want to comment. Other lawyer appeared to be not hurt. But censuring Manohara de Silva would have created a feeling that Justices were taking other Lawyer’s point but not Manohara de Silva. An unannounced feeling of siding with petitioners may arise there. It seem as long as the matter was minor, Justices by passed it. We have no info if Kanaga Isvaran requested permission to talk. If not it has to objected with justices, not personal exchanges.
/
K.Anaga / December 7, 2018
When Manohara (There was a famous Tamil Picture by the Name of Manohara and the Fiery Dialogues were written by Late chief Minister of Tamil Nadu) is ‘shot’ at verbally, Manohara had developed ‘epileptic fits’ it appears, due to lack of counter points. When arguments fail the Sinhalese resort to thuggery due to lack of vocabulary- particularly so when the opponent is a Tamil’ I had this experience while working in a corporation, between Trade unions in the work place .The usual way the they threaten is ‘VARENG CO ELIYATA” and when you go eliyata after office, they are not to be seen.
In fact some of the Tamils are worried that when this “hala bloo” ends it may end up with Sihala/Tamil riots.
/
Mallaiyuran / December 7, 2018
Many times Tamils are threatened to come outside when Sinhala counterparts couldn’t match them inside the ring. This outside is a synonym of pogrom on Tamils. The writer suggests Kanaga Isvaran is not subjected by Justices for chiding, but they were just watching when Manohara De Silva hit below the belt. Writer is not sure if it was because the respected lawyer is Tamil and Manohara De Silva Sinhalese and the Justices are Sinhalese too. But we see what Manohara warned justices about too: “If the judges find for the Petitioners there can be violence.” He is saying that they (UPFA) as they behaved in the parliament will take the Law in their hand and would not leave it to Court. News reports say the Court was surrendered with more than 100 armed polices, because there were rumors let to fly around that the Court would be attacked. This is what happened in Mannar under Old Royals’ government. Apparently Justices ignored it too. What we can say here is either Justices didn’t wanted to stir up the proceeding or they are accustomed to Manohara De Silva that who he is.
Here is his logic: “The law cannot be read by this Court as a rigid formula but must be interpreted keeping in mind the consequences of their decision.” If so then why was he insisting the Justices must be considering only Sinhala version? After all, constitution gets written in English and then gets translated into other two, unlike other documents, where Sinhala is the original. This is suggesting it is the English version tells the intention of the writers.
/
Dual Citzen / December 7, 2018
Excellent reporting. Thanks.
Please continue and let’s know what’s happening- couldn’t find it anywhere else.
Also please provide links to facilitate reading the full texts of the two Judgements when they are made both at the SC and the CA.
/
Ahfzll / December 7, 2018
Simple arithmetic would augur that if the English and Tamil version(s) do not have that additional statement that is in the Sinhala version ……. the benefit of the doubt should not be with the Sinhala version …… 2 of the official languages concur while the Sinhala version does not.
I am sure that, Our, THIS-HONOURABLE PRESIDENT and his merry men would argue that Algebra,
Calculus and Sacred Geometry gives a different perspective!
/
Manel Fonseka / December 7, 2018
It is interesting to me that neither the judges nor the commentators above seem shocked by Manohara De Silva’s threatening remarks. Perhaps they didn’t hear what he said to Kanag-Isvaran or perhaps it is not court etiquette to respond to what was perhaps a sotto voce remark.
But I find it very disturbing that a lawyer should use the threat of violence as part of his argument. It can mean both retaliatory violence against the judges should they find for the Petitioners (as happened years ago) and on the part of angry politicians and their supporters in the country at large.
I also find it disturbing that a judge has not recused himself when learning — as he surely must have done — that his brother would be acting for one of the Respondents.
/
shankar / December 7, 2018
the problem is manel,it is difficult or should i say impossible to change the DNA of some.Once a thug always a thug though they might obtain some qualifications.
ps.The late Dr.narendran explained to me in one of his comments that education is knowledge+wisdom+culture.Srilankans think it is only knowledge.If you get a qualification they respect you as an educated person.Without culture or wisdom you are only a semi educated person.After gettig your knowledge through a qualification,you must strive to obtain the other two. Manohara has no culture in him.he and the mariakade thug have similar culture.So he is a semi educated man.
/
Pon Kulendiren / December 7, 2018
GIf the President lawyer is harping in Singhal interpretation. how did the extra sentence in Singhala get into the constitution? Who is responsible for it? Legal draftsman comes under AG. Hence he is answerable to this. discrepancy If the singhala interpretation is going to decide the fate of the country then it is ridiculous It is the interpretation of two languages against one and hence should accept the version of English and Tamil
/
Amarasiri / December 7, 2018
Dear Supreme Court
RE: argument on the 11 cases regarding the dissolution of Parliament.
Each party must have their day in court. Each party is going to present their case based on their self-interest. The self-interest of some parties, may overlap with the self-interest of the constitution and the people. However, the Supreme Court must interpret the Constitution, based on what the Legislatures INTENDED , when the constitution was drafted and APPROVED, and AMENDED AND APPROVED ( 19A), to correct the flaws of the Constitution.
Therefore , both the Constitution and the Amendment 19A must be taken together. The constitution by itself, was like a unicycle, with one-wheel, unstable, and only acrobats could ride The 19A introduced a second wheel, a bicycle, was more stable, and allowed for more stability to the constitution. Additional wheels, 3rd wheel and a fourth wheel, will certainly give more stability, but we do not have it yet.
So, this case must be interpreted as a bicycle, with two wheels, the original constitution and the Amendment, 19A. As such, common sense and what the legislature intended for parliament dissolution, was:
1) . 4 1/2 years after election of the parliament by the presideny
2. ) 2/3 Majority of the parliament
3.) After 5 years.
So, the president dissolved the parliament unconstitutionally.
/
will / December 7, 2018
First to I am not legal man at all, but to me in 33(2)c -In addition to power given in the Constitution and other written law ,Prez has power to submission,prorogue and dissolve the parliament- does this not given him extraordinary power , out side of constitution to dissolve the parliament
/
Amarasiri / December 7, 2018
Why,
What was the intention of the legislature BEFORE the 19A, with JR who had resignation letters of the UNP legislators? To give extraordinary powers to the president, as JR as president, for TWO terms, as he recognized that he was old and will soon die.
Mahinda Rajapaksa, by bribing and by threat got legislators to make it unlimited terms for the president with 18A. These legislative errors were recognized, and 19A corrected for some of these errors. Still, many errors remain.
The late Dr N M Perera said that, if a Madman becomes president, the country is in peril, as it is now.
So, the Supreme Court should interpret this case as a bicycle, what the legislature intended with 19A. They need 20A or a New Constitution to correct for the many errors and grievances.
/
Doyglas / December 7, 2018
CT: Thanks for even being LATE in reporting the SC proceedings on one single day events. The entire case proceedings should have been reported in a NUTSHELL for the benefit of the YOUNG & ADULT population of the country, who did have an opportunity to attend courts. Let that YOUNG & ADULT population learn at PRESENT and DESIGN the FUTURE learning from the ACTIONS of those in “Authority”. That “DICTUM” should have pushed the “MEDIA WORLD” to give the proceedings of this case even in “Shorten” form. Unfortunately, it did not happen. We saw several of the “OBSERVERS” from around the world watching the proceeding, while the TV shows in S/L “Assembling” Legal Luminaries to discuss issues , but only to throw mud at each other. The latest I saw was “Aluth Parlimenthuwa”. It was nothing but a “DOG FIGHT” among “Lawyers”. What a shame. No wonder the YOUNG & ADULTS are still DENIED the “FREEDOM” to “FREE THEMSELVES”. That fact, I learned from the types of “Questions” raised by the “Young & Adult” audience present at that TV “SHOW”. Whither Sri Lanka?
/
Amarasiri / December 7, 2018
Douglas,
Mean IQ of 79 makes it harder. That is the cause. You are seeing the effect. It was made worse by the politicians, the many lawyers and many journalists. So, they have a hard time asking the tight questions. They all passed exams by memorizing notes. WimslBuruwamsa says 2/2 is 0 and only a few pick up. Sad situation in the education system and thinking in the country,
/
Master of Jurisprudence / December 7, 2018
In 1990 late Laskhman Kadirgamar was impressed with a young aspiring lawyer for carrying a book on Jurisprudence at Hulftsdorp and asked him to be a junior.
In 2018, the same lawyer labeled another legal luminary in front of SC judges as “Tamil Sampanthan’s Tamil lawyer!”
The joke is on the late Laskhman Kadirgamar or his one time junior?
/
Agnos / December 8, 2018
Actually, that reference to ‘Tamil Sampanthan’s Tamil lawyer’ was from the author of this article, not from Gamanpilla’s lawyer.
/
Jay / December 7, 2018
The whole lot, the constitution, the parliament and the parliamentarian seems to inside a “no mans land”. Frustratingly unable to see a clear way. Mass in the proposition of tsunami must wipe clean the whole lot and start again.
/
Shrikharan / December 7, 2018
“The law cannot be read by this Court as a rigid formula but must be interpreted keeping in mind the consequences of their decision. If the judges find for the Petitioners there can be violence.”
I thought ‘justice’ is spelt irrespective of the consequence. This must be clearly clarified. If it is accepted to consider consequence by the ‘legal profession’ it must be clearly stated to the ordinary citizens of this country.
This is a serious point. If it is right of justice to consider consequence then that places the old adage ‘might is right’
That bring justice tilt the scales in favour of the rich. Because their lawyers will rightfully argue to give extra points for the rich.
For example a case against a rich business man and a poor man rich man’s lawyer will argue if the (rich) business man is found guilty then he will be forced to close his industry where many are employed and they would lose employment. Then judge will accept this argument and tell bearing in mind the consequence I have to find the accused (rich) businessman ‘not guilty’.
Majority community will always have a better advantage than minority community quoting race superiority and threat the courts of communal violence. Then Judge will agree because now “it is an acceptable to consider the consequence and I have to deliver judgement in favour of the majority community.
Then when (rich) USA (or China and any rich country) invades Sri Lanka, and Sri Lanka goes to international; courts then the rich state will argue if we are found guilty the consequence is many countries will lose aid from them so therefore they should not be touched. Then will the Sri Lanka Government accept ‘serious consequence, and therefore Sri Lanka the victim has to pay because the predator if punished consequence is serious for ‘many’.
/
rajinda silva / December 7, 2018
Don’t worry, justice will be served, The herings are only symbolic. They already know what to is to be said.
/
sarath de alwis / December 7, 2018
Thank god, we have the internet and Colombo Telegraph.
/
sarath de alwis / December 7, 2018
“A Petitioner commented “It is this casual attitude to propriety, ethics and the law where the Supreme Court sees no problem in a judge sitting on the bench to hear his own brother’s case that has brought Sri Lanka to its knees like this. If they [the Justices] cannot understand the simple ethics underlying the inherent conflict of interest which requires justice Jayawardena to recuse himself, can they understand the intricacies of this very complex case?””
Why should the judge recuse himself? Should not the lawyer brother exercise propriety and discretion by not accepting the brief ? What has the judge got to do with the bother’s impropriety?
/
srilal / December 7, 2018
‘Why should the judge recuse himself? Should not the lawyer brother exercise propriety and discretion by not accepting the brief ? What has the judge got to do with the bother’s impropriety?’
Generally speaking Lawyers are sharks , bottom line is , they want to make a quick buck at any cost , so it’s quite childish to assume that a lawyer would voluntarily rescue himself/herself just because it’s against his/her ethics . In an ideal world , yes the lawyer should have recused , but in SL it’s only a distant dream.
Problem in SL is , no body dare to discuss /challenge the judiciary or how it’s being functioned as it’s a taboo and an offence .
/
whywhy / December 7, 2018
Member of Parliament in Sinhala is Manthreethuma and not Parlimenthu
Samajikaya ! Sinhala version of Divorce is Dik- kasada meaning Extending of
the marriage !
/
R. Varathan / December 7, 2018
Manohara de Silva is a leading voice of the Sinhala extreme. I have heard him in public. Compared to our greats of the recent past and the seniors of the present he is as mediocre as Wijedasa. He can’t hold a candle to Romesh de S, Faiz M or Kanags.
A Lawyer using threatening language in Courts and against judges should have been
dealt with severely. The innuendo against the safety of the judges should not have been tolerated. What has our quality of the process of justice and Courts come to.
No wonder Tamils do not have much faith in our justice system nowadays.
The gentle and learned Manel Fonseka, fortunately a regular reader and commentator here, asks a pertinent question. Isn’t there some conflict of interest when a judge hears a sensitive case before his own brother. BTW, on a personal note both are children of friends of mine – a distinguished father high up in the mercantile sector and a popular mother high up in the social scene and in the front ranks of the Arts..
R. Varathan
/
K. C. John / December 7, 2018
If justice is truly meted out, hasn’t Manohara de Silva cooked the goose for his side?
/
Burt / December 7, 2018
Why is every picture of Gammanpila is with his mouth open? The guy looks like a retard.
This is SL so don’t keep high hopes until you hear the verdict most or all of them hearing this case were appointed by MR or My3.
/
JD / December 7, 2018
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2
/
Rwkd / December 7, 2018
Thank you CT for providing us with info reg the case of all cases. My concern is that can a judge sit on the bench to listen and pass verdit on a case where his own brother represents? Is it allowed? Why wont the petitioners object? In sinhala this is called ‘hosrage anmmagen pena ahanawa wage’!
/
chiv / December 7, 2018
No surprises here. These Lawyers are the ones who arranged and lead thugs to see their colleague Shirani off. When GLP, Namal, MR, Wijedasa, Eva,Sarath, Mohan are the face of Lankan Law and Order/Judiciary these are considered to be the norms. Now lets wait for the outcome. Doctors are worse than these criminals. Recently I heard the students from private medical college were asked to complete their clinical postings in periphery hospitals like in Horana to qualify for their final exams. The government doctors are not only giving them the step motherly treatment by neglecting,ignoring and not teaching, as well verbally abusing them. As a courtesy at the end when students tried handing over a small memento as token of appreciation, they were sarcastic and insulted the students in presence of public stating “THERE MUST BE MILLIONS OF RUPEE ” . Mind you these guys are no saints. These doctors are known for grabbing money from poor, running private practices during duty hours, gets cuts for ordering unwanted investigations and medications.They cheat the government by not paying tax and under estimate incomes. If a doctor or lawyer is so pervert minded and biased towards colleagues , how will he be treating public without it???
/
Suranga Gunasekera / December 7, 2018
Arguments are part of the drama but eventually they will settle on where they agreed before the case.
The verdict will be a political deal eventually. Both parties know how many votes they lost.
MS,RW and MR are still good friends.
All they wanted was to clear their friends names.
By next year they will get together and continue to do the same corrupt game, with your blessing.
Until as a nation we actively seek the truth, keeping our political views and emotions aside, and think of our nation and value humanity before casting our vote, we will continue to dig deep into the mess.
/
Plato. / December 7, 2018
The report is a good synopsis of what happened in Court yesterday.
Manohara De.Silva P.C.counsel for Pivithuru Hela Urumaya [ Gommanpila ] is asking Court to rule against the Petitioners so as to avoid violence in the country.This is a stupid argument; in the same vein as the political speeches of his Racist client.
The Supreme Court is not there to judge in favour or against anticipating consequences and events after judgement.
Anyway, he is attempting to twist the arms of the Judges; In essence a Political argument!
/
n.ethirveerasingam / December 7, 2018
If Manohara de Silva (I have not followed his career.) had said words to the effect that if the judgement goes against his clients there will be violence (Not sure by who and against whom.), he in effect wants the judges to consider such an out come in there decision. Does he really thinks that the judges will consider that?
Whatever decisions the judges arrives at, I like to see the judges, unanimously, censure Manohara de Silva for contempt of court. Also for addressing an attorney arguing for his clients. I thought Attorneys are to address the court only.
I am glad Kanags, my friend, school classmate and athletics teammate, as usual, kept his cool. And let the judges deal with the incidents.
/
gamini / December 7, 2018
The supposedly learned Scum in society the Judges and Lawyers both. These are the people who bum sucked MR to get perks and positions in society and paraded as Paragons of virtue. They have no self respect nor integrity, so how can they profess to deliver Justice to a Nation. It is for this reason that I have been advocating to get Foreign Judges from the beginning, without depending on these Pseudo Pundits. Getting foreign Judges also one should be mindful to get a Full Bench for the possibility that ifit is one or two they will corrupt them as well by bribing them. But if a number is appointed then the chances of influencing are that remote. Remember how the two Reports of the two Foreign Judges for the Commonwealth on the removal of former CJ Shirani Bandaranayake was hidden without presenting them by KamaleshSharma the Sec. Gen. of the Commonwelath during MR’s rule?
/
K.Pillai / December 7, 2018
The lawyers are discussing cars while the country is on fire!
Few words about vehicles:
One wheeled is possible but only clowns ride it. May carry additional clown after extensive practice.
We are familiar with the two wheeled bicycle. The wheels may differ in size but they are usually in the same plane. Tilt the plane of one wheel, it will go in circles. Apart from the rider, bicycles often carry one or more.
Three wheelers are safer, carry more people. Even if the wheels are of different sizes, they will touch the ground at the same time.
Because we see cars everyday, we take them for granted. Four wheelers are a different cup of tea.
.
The lawyers obviously do not know what they are arguing about. They do not see the ominous cloud encircling. They must demand the dispersal of the cloud.
/
Emil van der Poorten / December 7, 2018
The entirety of this report, while lacking some clarity, certainly brings to the public’s attention the fact that some interpretation of “LAW” as interpreted by some character(s) who went to Law College or the University will prevail rather than JUSTICE.
The disease that ails this country cannot be cured in the courts, supreme or otherwise. It is far deeper, more insidious and devastating.
Despite living in eternal hope, I’m afraid that Sri Lanka is headed for chaos and violence and we have to blame, than anyone, Yankee Dick – J.R. Jayewardene – for this. However, if at least a few Sri Lankans who claim adherence to religious tenets of various kinds TRY to live up to them, there might still be some hope.
/
PARAMANATHAN K / December 7, 2018
It is sad to note the offensive utterances of Lawyer Manohara De Silva against the senior most lawyer Kanag-eswaran. If such abusive verbal warnings happening inside a courtroom where else people seek justice. De Silva’s statement of “Tamil Sampanthan’s Tamil lawyer!” is ugly and uncultured. By now the entire proceedings had already reached the world media organizations.
/