23 October, 2018

Blog

Apparent Bias And Prejudice Of Prof Carlo Fonseka

By Laksiri Fernando

Dr Laksiri Fernando

I never contemplated that I may have to contradict or dispute Prof Carlo Fonseka one day whom I admired in my young days, and even thereafter, as an impressive ‘fire walker’ and an exponent of rational views on many matters, social and natural. But on many previous instances, I doubted his political views or judgements, but not on the reason of bias or prejudice. Now the things have changed. While pretending to be preaching a ‘Sermon on the Mountain’ on this Christmas eve on ‘personal bias,’ ‘prejudice’ and ‘conflict of interest,’ he has himself shown his bias and prejudice from his very first sentence in his article titled “Why I urged my friend Chief Justice to apply for leave” (Colombo Telegraph, 24 December 2012).

He says, “I believe that it was in the practice of scientific medicine that humanity perfected the technique of avoiding personal bias and prejudice in the conduct of human affairs.” Of course he is free to have his own ‘beliefs’ that are by definition closely associated with biases and he is obviously bias towards his own discipline, ‘practice of scientific medicine,’ in this instance. It is my understanding (not belief) that the ‘techniques’ of avoiding personal bias and prejudice are highly developed in jurisprudence, law and justice, although jurists might not claim that they have perfected these techniques. There are so much of debates still going on and some of the matters are to do with impeachment processes; political biases in impeachment procedures. Let me add that jurisprudence is not my academic discipline and therefore I don’t have any ‘professional biases’ in making this statement in claiming its advancements.

I cannot pretend to have any knowledge on the practice of scientific medicine either. However, what he has written is supposed to be for the ordinary laymen like me and therefore I am inclined to make the following further observations on his article.

First is that I consider it completely erroneous for him to come to the conclusion that the “practice of medicine has perfected the techniques of avoiding personal bias and prejudice” and he has tried to demonstrated this through his training as a medical practitioner or student. The experience he has related is extremely vague, sketchy and subjective to the core. He has not done any comparison with jurisprudence, psychology or sociology and jurisprudence is the most advance in my opinion on this matter.

Secondly, I don’t see any connection between the conclusion of his article finding fault with the Chief Justice not taking leave irrespective of his advice and the four sections that he has outlined as ‘pre-medical,’ ‘pre-clinical,’ ‘pharmacology,’ and ‘randomization and blinding.’ As far I can understand, avoiding bias or prejudice is more central to the application of justice whether in criminal, civil, human rights, labour, disciplinary or impeachment cases or tribunals than in the case of practicing of medicine. Then how can he assume that it is unknown? All law students are aware of or taught about these matters (whether they practice or not) not to speak of the Chief Justice and other judges.

In the Sri Lankan context, the recent presentation by CV Wigneswaran to the Judicial Services Association is most instructive to read also dealing with many other aspects of the independence of the judiciary. More theoretical as an introduction might be by David Luban, “Laws Blindfold” in Michael Davis and Andrew Stark (eds.), Conflict of Interest in the Professions. It is available on line.

Thirdly, in passing I also like to raise some doubts about what he mentions as the 10 factors affecting the application of medicine quoting a Bennett and a Brown. Although he has mentioned about 10, he has only given 6 factors. As a patient of some acute medical problems, my experience has always been that the medicine that applied to me worked perfectly well irrespective of the doctors or my attitudes under the circumstances. Here he has not talked about blindness but positive attitudes. I am not at all saying these factors are not relevant in the practice of medicine, centrally or marginally. My point is that Prof Fonseka is trying to concoct a medicine or a very rigmarole story perhaps not that relevant in medicine but in politics – politics that he is indulged in at present. If I may use a strong criticism, he is trying to prostitute his professional knowledge for the benefit of a political power scheme to destroy the independence of the judiciary. This is plain and clear.

It is in this context that his concluding paragraph is quite farcical. (My Dear Sir, sorry to say that). There is no question that some of the things that he says are ‘truths’ and ‘home truths.’ He talks about ‘blinding.’ This is rudimentary knowledge. The classical iconography of justice is a goddess, Justitia, equipped with the Sword, the Scales and the Blindfold. To ensure the blindfold, in certain jurisdictions there are direct ban rules. Then there are indirect rules. Then there is discretion that all judges should apply before being part of a bench or hearing a case. Any conflict of interest should be avoided. All these are accepted.

I also cannot completely blame Prof Fonseka for his apparent advice to his friend Chief Justice to apply for leave when her husband was charged for bribery (if this was written then) because I myself initially thought perhaps she could even resign to avoid any possible conflict of interest. The complete background was not clear at that time. But why this article and advice now? Many people also suspect that some of these friendly suggestions to the CJ then were part of a scheme to pressure her to step down or succumb. I am not saying this to Prof Fonseka without knowing the facts. Then the things changed very rapidly. The impeachment was brought in and there were 14 charges and not one. If she had resigned, it could have construed as admission of guilt. The pressure was for her to resign.

Let me ask Prof Fonseka the first question: what he thinks about the whole impeachment motion against the Chief Justice and the impeachment process? It would be useful for the readers if Prof Fonseka expresses his opinion on the whole matter without confining himself to one issue in a devious manner.

As SL Gunasekera and many others who were supporting the government before (even perhaps now) have very clearly expressed there are serious issues of independence of the judiciary and impeachment is only a part of it. I wonder whether these matters of independence of the judiciary also come under Prof Fonseka’s medical training. Whether for example there is any theory to say that the judiciary should organically be a part of the executive like pancreas and something else in biology?

Whatever that be, he should be obliged to comment on those matters of the independence of the judiciary since he has put his finger into the ongoing debate. When there are serious issues of the independence of the judiciary, in my view, the Chief Justice simply cannot step down and wash her hands. That is dereliction of duty as the Chief Justice. Justitia should wear not only the blindfold, but also should hold the sword and the scales. The blindfold also means her resistance to pressure. As she said in her key note address to the Judicial Services Association on 22 December 2012 “the worst judge is not merely one who is deaf; but one also succumbs to pressure.”

Also when there are impeachment charges, any judge should face them. The resignation is not the right way. It may be pleasing to the government, but not good for the judiciary or to the principles of accountability. We need to stop the political culture of ‘cover ups’ in Sri Lanka. Otherwise there is no democratic future. Any conflict of interest in respect of the CJ’s husband’s case should be avoided and it is still possible. The case has not yet commenced and all indications are that it is a framed up trail. In the case of the impeachment, all blindness that Prof Fonseka talks about also should have applied to the inquiry process. But it has not been done for the whole world to see.

This is my last question. The CJ has raised a conflict of interest in the case of two particular members of the PSC, Rajitha Senaratne and Wimal Weerawansa, and both are I believe friends of Prof Fonseka. Applying the same medical principles, I wonder whether Prof Fonseka ever asked them to take leave from the impeachment process?

It would be too strong for me to ask whether Prof Fonseka himself has a conflict of interest, prejudice or bias in commenting on the Chief Justice’s conflict of interest by being a government paid Chairman of the National Authority on Tobacco and Alcohol. This is not however a question.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    1

    Dear Dr Fernando

    Please answer the following questions.

    Is it pefectly alright for the CJ to:

    1. receive a Rs 15 lakh discount on an apartment for her sister?
    2. To ask justice Tilakawardenaa to step down from a bench hearing the Golden Key scandal involving h3ere husband/
    3. to have 20 or 30 bank accounts to tax cheat.

    If your bias makes you unable to see these, you are just an ‘educated fool”.

    • 0
      1

      Sanduan, you have raised three very strong and highly pertinent points and if proven, definitely, CJ should be removed.

      However, to prove them, every tribunal, including those disciplinary inquiries which one finds in organisations, should follow the principles n=of natural justice. These principles require (1) to treat an accused innocent until proven guilty (2) to give the accused adequate time to defend himself (3) to provide the accused with all the documents and evidence that are placed against him (4) to provide the accused with a list of witnesses (5) to provide an opportunity for the accused or his lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses.

      If these principles are not followed, then it becomes a mistrial and another judicial institution has the power to review the same.

      You will realise that if the principles of natural justice are not followed, you will be the next victim of such arbitrary adjudications. So, protect yourself before jumping into conclusions.

      • 1
        1

        A good reply to Sanduan.

      • 0
        1

        You are talking only about the charge sheet. You do not seem to know the principles of natural justice, though you hide behind the pseudonym “Lover of Justice”. At least pl remember those principles when the so called guardians of justice come for you some day before you quit.

    • 0
      0

      Sanduan, Pl. read S.L.Gumasekera’s article, get the bigger picture and understand the gravity of the situation.

      • 0
        0

        Sandun,
        Pl. Don’t raise silly questions and Don’t waste readers time.

    • 0
      0

      SADUN GAMAGE OR WHO EVER YOU ARE, UN EDUCATED FOOL;
      When you going to buy something LEGALY for you or your family dont you accept discounts?.
      When your spouse or close relative gets into legal battle or similar problems, do you handover that to next-door man?.
      When you want to keep or hide your money,[ even it is ill-gotten or well-gotten] what do you do?. just share with your friends or relatives?.

      SO YOU ARE HIDING YOUR MAIN THING AND GOING TO DO IT WITH your BALLS?
      In sinhela, filthy language there is a saying for that. but it is not good and nice to say in this.
      SO YOU BETTER TO GO TO GALLFACE GREEN AND FLY A KITE.

    • 0
      0

      Dear Sanduan Gamage,

      Are you asking me to judge her, you being the complainant or accuser?

      Sorry, we have legal procedures in the country based on international norms. My point has been that these are not followed for political reasons. The PSC has been a mockery of justice even the President wanted to have an independent committee. He himself has conscience problems, as expressed recently, genuine or not.

      Of course, I can see the gravity of the impeachment charges, not your ones. But she should have been given ample time to answer, opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and also a fair hearing. She should be considered innocent until proved guilty by a judicial process but not a political process. This is a cardinal principle in our constitution.

      If the charges are like your questions, those are to me quite flimsy. I think you should carefully read her answers given to the impeachment charges in her interim submission. Yet you should not judge her innocent (or guilty) because there can be counter evidence. Until those are exhausted through a proper judicial process no one can come to hasty conclusions.

      Dr Laksiri Fernando

    • 0
      0

      Sanduan Gamage,

      I give below the following points for your review and please let me have your comments.

      I think this whole CJ impeachment is based on three issues. They are….

      1)It’s CJ’s sister who bought TFC Trillium property when it was under investigation……..and if there was any restrictions to purchase the property at the time CJ’s sister bought it…….

      2) How CJ maintained 20 odd Bank Accounts with huge sums….

      3) Why CJ did not publish these assets (Bank accounts) in her year end Tax filing….

      I don’t give much attention to CJ holding high position, while her husband has a Lawsuit against him…or…… he holding a Govt, VIP Position while CJ is in the supreme court as Chief Justice……….as I think these are mere political issues.

      As to the a bove three qiestions……..CJ answered as follows..

      1-A) According to CJ…the time CJ’s sister purchased TFC property, there was no clause to restrict purchasing TFC property. Also ex CJ Sarath Silva had purchased a same property during the same period…….Moreover it was CJ’s sister who purchased the property and not CJ. CJ was only a Notary for her sister.

      I don’t worry about the Rs. 1.6 million discount as these discounts are mere common Practice in real estate business sales, and PSC should have known better.

      Therefore how could PSC bring a Lawsuit against CJ…….. for a property bought by her sister……..eventhough if there was a restricted for sale.

      2-A) CJ says these 20 accounts are generated by the banks automatically …..when they deposit the CD’s, and once they mature after the said period….and are re-depositrd same with interest with purchasing more CD’s to another bank generated account….………which the PSC could not understand properly.

      3-A) CJ says she received only her salary and the other monies were sent by her sister who lives in Australia to pay-off the mortgage of TFC property.
      IF so CJ does not have to include those monies in her annual tax filing report as they are not her money.

      Therefore I want to know why PSC cannot come to a conclution based on the information CJ has provided them with. PSC could have consulted an Accounting firm on Money and bank A/C matters,…… a Law firm on the validity of the Trillium house purchase…… and a Tax consulting firm on the CJ year end Tax filing issues.

      With reference to juustice Thilakawardene to step down on Golden Key issue….I think that since the case is more Deep, more bureaucratic and corrupt with top Govt. VVIP’s are involved,…. CJ would have thought that she will handle it herself. We will see the truth once the trial begins.

      Hope I answered your questions but still open to anybody who could answer to my above comments which I would appreciate.

    • 0
      0

      Sandun Gamage has made some accusations but he haz not given some solid proof.

      There are expats who were offered the same discounts on those apartments if they buyer paid cash. If there was a corruption govt should investigate it and should prosecute the real estate agent too. Instead, prosecuting the buyer is not the correct way.

      What do you say if the CJ was offered a discount she should run away ?

      That Judge is a LAW college graduate and I wonder how she came that far even without a degree in LAW. Besides she is part of the PSA witness too. Look like some thing else there.

      Who in the world inactive accounts are considered. In that case, politicians have SWISS bank accounts. What about those. Politicians’ cheating money is a daily event. When they cheat people are asked to provide evidence.

    • 0
      0

      Either Sanduan is married to Leela or Leela is married to Sanduan – same way of writing. For instance, if I file a case against Leela that he/she has killed my brother just because he/she happened to be there and he/she has insulted me earlier, Leela is not the killer until it is proved beyond doubts that he/she has killed my brother ofcourse with proof and witnesses who could be cross-examined by Leela’s lawyers. Just because someone has charged another person, until it is proved, he/she is innocent. Dr. Laksiri Fernando has very clearly given a detailed analysis and one should read the replies to the charges by the CJ before arriving at conclusions. It is very clear that the Impeachment is brought against the CJ purely to take dirty/bitter revenge for giving the recent verdicts not in favour of the aspirations of the Rajapakses. Until then she was very good and all of a sudden she became a “crook”!. The Regime never expected that she wouldn’t step down due to the pressure but for their surprise she faced the Impeachment very bravely. If you are innocent, why not face bogus charges. If you are guilty, then you should resign before the dirty clothes are put out.

  • 0
    0

    I think my teacher at Peradeniya, Dr Laksiri Fernando has put forward a strong point against poor Carlo.

    • 0
      0

      Oh! Is that you, very best wishes.

  • 0
    0

    Prof. Fonseka was a good human being few years back. He is simple and noncorrupt.Even in CBK time he maintained his integrity. See how Mahinda made Prof’s mind corrupt.

  • 0
    0

    Professor, a very strong article indeed!

    Saduan, why should Professor answer your questions?

    Is it not the function of a trained independent judiciary?w

    We are more worried about the procedures adopted in this impeachment process than whether the Chief Justice is guilty or not.

    We may be biased, but the judges should not be.. and that they should not come to any conclusion before the end of a judicial process.

    Let the rule of law prevails not the rule of individuals!

  • 0
    0

    Prof. Fonseka has referred to the alleged bribery case of the CJ’s husband. One wonders what is happening to this serious matter. Are the responsible authorities dragging their feet to proceed on the matter as there is fear that an inquiry will expose ‘skeletons in the cupboards’ of some people in responsible positions and will be another issue that will boomerang on them?

  • 0
    0

    Courts will decide independently on legal matters, now the judges them selves talk about the independence of the Judiciary, it is a different panel, and Chief Justice is not in the same panel to hear the said court case.

    There are so many legal matters where the relatives of Judges are connected, Judges would not resign just because there is a court case elsewhere. Then almost all the Judges will have to resign just because there are courts hearing of close relatives elsewhere.

    Problem here is the fact that some personalities are desperately trying to remove the Chief justice regardless of consequences to the government and the law and order situation in the country. They do not bother what happens to the Executive, the ruling party and the government as long as their sole objective of impeachment and removal of Judges is achieved.

    Those people initiated this type of trouble work on their own personal agenda. These selfish elements are not at all concerned and they are indifferent even if the UN imposes sections against Sri Lanka. They are not at all bothered about the damage done to the image of the executive and the nation.

    They do not come forward when the nation is in trouble. They will abandon the executive when the need arise. Some of them will go back to the opposition where they came from. They have created a rift between the religious leaders and the executive to achieve their objectives. It is not Prof. Fonseka who initiated an impeachment those who initiated have got him to write some thing. Who are the individuals benefit from removing Judges need to be identified.

    Those who propagate do not mind and they are not worried that this is the worst time to have conflicts with the Judiciary. Not that they are not aware of the fact that timing is appalling, they deliberately bring misfortune to the entire nation.

    • 0
      0

      On the Other hand, if some one asks CJ to step down because the case against her husband is in a magistrate court, that amounts the DISCRIMINATION BASED ON THE FAMILY ATTACHMENT. Even though they are husband and wife, they are two professionals. IF CJ Was forced to step down that is a discrimination that can be taken even to UN.

  • 0
    0

    Carlo Fonseka was an excellent teacher in his subject – physiology. His problem was that he liked to comment on subjects on which had only a passing acquaintance, resulting in a sort of “barging in like an ox where angels fear to tread”.
    In the past, this was accepted with amusement since he seemed sincere and was respected for what was thought to be his truly socialist beliefs. But not any more. There is little doubt that in recent years, his brief has only been to hold a candle for the powers that be. His observations have, in a clever, sophisticated and academic manner – which has not doubt impressed many – supported the deeds of the present lot. In this respect, he is very similar to Dhayan Jayatillaka.
    He has lost the credibility of being an independent and principled man and the regard that goes with it.

  • 0
    0

    Laksiri, with all due respect, may I suggest that your following statement:

    “As a patient of some acute medical problems, my experience has always been that the medicine that applied to me worked perfectly well irrespective of the doctors or my attitudes under the circumstances”

    cannot be an accurate depiction of what in fact happens. Your subconscious mind does in fact arbitrate on biases while you remain quite unaware of the existence of factors influencing them.

    That is the nature of human psychology. I do not wish to comment on the other issues with regard to Carlo Fonseka in this thread.

    Best wishes for the new year!

    • 0
      0

      Happy New Year!

      Laksiri

    • 0
      0

      LP,

      Are you also not playing the same if not a very similar game as CF and DJ in missing the woods for the tree or a branch for the twig or a leaf for the twig?

      Could it be that you don’t want to display your covert love and approval for the MARA’s in SL? If not one such you who writes in the “Pahana” about not trying to have illusions or delusions to objective writings etc is not living up to your own claims and seem to be lacking a holistic overall view of the bigger picture be it in SL or the planet at large and could it be that you too may indebted to the multiparty corrupt coalitions of powers that rule SL and are hell bent on doing what VP did to the north and east to the whole of SriLanka?

  • 0
    0

    Carlo Fonseka is past , some of his statements now are irrational and somewhat stupid . Gone is the brilliant man .
    I have watched him deteriorating over the years.

    To give the devil his due he has dementia . So must be excused .

    If he was assassinated at his prime after the Vijaya K fuenral oration . He would be remembered as a great man.
    The JVP ( wolfs in wolfs clothing ) failed as he fled overseas .

  • 0
    0

    Sandun remove your blinkers I do not know whether Rajapaks put it on.
    Think straight the nation has got up NOT TO PROTECT A PERSON.
    IF THIS PERSON IS FOUND CORRUPT BY AN EDUCATED IMPARTIAL PANEL SHE MUST GO.ANY CRIMINAL IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF.
    PEOPLE CAN SEE HOW THIS STARTED WITH THE DIVINEGUMA BILL;
    DO YOU THINK RAJAPAKSA GAVE A JOB TO THE HUSBAND OUT OFLOVE,NO THAT WAS TO SEE WHETHER THE WIFE CAN BE MANIPULATED IN THE WAY HE WANTS.
    ITS SAD THAT THERE ARE FOOLS WHO STILL CANNOT SEE THROUGH WHAT IS IN STORE AFTER GETTING ABSOLUTE POWER.PARLIAMENT AND CABINET ARE RUBBER STAMPS

  • 0
    0

    Laksiri,

    Your fire-walking prof got students burnt when he did longtime ago as Kovoor’s pupil. This was not revealed. I know it from a student who took part in it 50 or 45 years ago.

    If science is that ture then why old and sick scientists go for Ayurvedi vedamahattayas???

  • 0
    0

    Dr.Laksiri Fernando,

    I read your article and copied here an answer I prepared to Prof.Carlo Fonseka from my earlier comment.

    Dr.Carlo Fonseka,

    Your Placebo experiment is not going to work here as both CJ, her lawyers, and the General public who are behind her are much, much more mature both Mentally and Intellectually than you and your camp. Infact remember even your “Prevention of Smoking” campaign now been challenged in Western world…….as some states In USA, Canada and Europe are relaxing laws on Marijuana use on medical purpose.

    INFACT AFTER GOVERNING THE COUNTRY FOR SIXTY YEARS BOTH UNDER LEGISLATURE BACKED BY PRIME MINISTERS……..AND LEGISLATURE UNDER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY HAVE MADE CIRIZENS FRUSTRATED, FURIOUS AND DEMORALIZED.

    THEREFORE MY SELF AND ALL OTHER COUNTRY LOVING CITIZENS STRONGLY SUPPORT FOR FUTURE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COUNTRY TO BE HANDED OVER TO “JUDICIARY”…. AND THE REST OF THE PARLIAMENT MEMBERS TO GO ON EARLY RETIREMENT…… AS MINISTER MAITHRIPALA SIRISENA HAS DECIDED TO D0.

    WE COULD GIVE THEM A TRY TO JUDICIARY WHO ARE EDUCATED, CULTURED AND QUALIFIED TO RUN A COUNTRY THAN SOME PARLIAMENT MINISTERS.

    BEST OF LUCK TO ALL GOVERNING BODY.

  • 0
    0

    Laksiri Fernando is playing to the PUBLIC Gallery of VULTURE POLITICIAS CULTURE as similar as UNP since 1977 to 1994.We need more natioanl-democratic, policy-orinted politics to Protected Independance Judiciary of Democratic Society Foundation of Sri Lankan.
    Anyone who should themoving the movement of politics of vulnenrability,will harm to foundation of Judicial, Political and Economic order of our land.Not only Judiciary,also Executive and Legistative must be FREE FROM CORRUAPTION MODE OF OPERANDI.
    We cannot exempt Judiciary highest position of CJ to be exonerated from serious charges of Corruption as well as her Husband.Corruption of such poistion cannot be taken isloated Incidends as CJ point of Law.All corruation undermine the involemnt against Public Tax payers Funds.

  • 0
    0

    Dr Laksiri

    You summed up Carlo ‘s attempt very precisely.

    “he is trying to prostitute his professional knowledge for the benefit of a political power scheme to destroy the independence of the judiciary”

    Anuradha

  • 0
    0

    Carlo is the man is giving pack of words with lack of sense by using his Professor ship.
    Don’t worry Dr.

  • 0
    0

    When I learned that Dr. Carlo Fonseka is a Rationalist that explained so many things about him. Simply, in this world, try to get into a cocoon and try to limit himself then that says how his brain works and how much he has limited himself, on purpose, his thinking ability.

  • 0
    0

    As a student of Uni of Kelaniya penned, Carlo is now “Akaalochithai”. During the campaign in support of Victor Ivan at Galle by-election in 1979, he compared the 1972 and 1978 constitutions as eating “Labu” and Rice in the morning and eating Rice and “Labu” in the night considering Socialist Democratic Republic and Democratic Socialist Republic. Now he has tasted both, he should be in a better position to suggest a recipe, which is suitable for the nation. Poor akaalochitha Carlo.

  • 0
    0

    I think we are all beating about the bush , or going at a tangent!
    All that the CJ and the legal fraternity has asked for is an independent , impartial enquiry into the several charges that have been made .
    All the talk about whether the CJ is corrupt , partial etc., etc., is utterly useless !!

  • 0
    0

    Prof. Carlo Fonseka is an extremely inncocent and euridite person I have a great admration for. He locked horns with [Edited out] He is now taking the functions of Dentist,poking his figutive fingers into the mouths of other domains and often gets his fingers bitten, like what Dr. Laksiri Fernndo has done.His present appointment was objected by a fair amount of professionsal, but th President decided in his favour. May be Dr. CF is now displaying his grartitude to the regime either on voluntarily or being coerced. The truth is the entire world is aware the Impeachment is based on vindictive motives and the 117 idiots who signed a blank charge sheet and the 7 PSC memrbe are an excellent family of stark buffaloes.So how come there be any Justice.

  • 0
    0

    Sandun is a fine example to understand how silly that most people look at
    the problems in our country believing all made up stories by govt and govt biased media.

  • 0
    0

    King Barnette, you said it right.

  • 0
    0

    I believe Carlo has given the best advice a friend could offer.
    It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, at the end Shirani will lose and this process will destroy her and her family and she will end up like Sarath Fonseka. This will not change no matter how many of you shout. This is Sri Lanka country of the fools. At the end when all this is over Shirani will have no one, like Sarath Fonseka today.
    So all of you people who claim to love her are only sending her to gallows by asking her to fight. Therefore Carlo has given the best advice as friend thinking of her and not about the country belonging to fools. Live today to fight another day!! The day is too young to defeat this regime

  • 0
    1

    Gota talking Regime Change…Three years after war ended ….and without solving any Tamil minority political issues, although advised by many international community to implement LLRC as a solution, but without implementing any of them…….now GOTA talking about Regime Change…..

    Also again Gota has started to abduct students, harassing people, sudden imprisonments etc…etc..

    This is nothing but……Re born of STATE TERRORISM……trying to introduce again gun and fear culture among citizen.

    This may also be a pre-empt to impeach CJ and take over Supreme Court under Gota……

    If MARA, GOTA combination plans to kick out CJ and install a puppet CJ and take Supreme Court under their control, what we Citizens, opposition parties, Bar association and the Justice loving Clergy and trade unions plan to do?……….

    Come January 10th 2013 Parliament will go ahead with CJ impeachment debate with or without opposition parties present…….and could deliver the verdict without the opposition similar to the PSC verdict.

    If the Govt.Parliament Impeach CJ …….what is opposition parties, Supreme court, Bar association, Buddhist Preletes and other religion clergy, trade unions and we citizen plan to do………Have any opposition political partiess drawn any plans to address masses on this issue and what action to take to avoid CJ been kicked out by MARA.……if so what and when.

    We have to prepare to safeguard CJ, the Judiciary and the Supreme
    Court for our safety and for our freedom and rights…..and if we fail definitely MARA-GOTA Tyranny Dictatorship will abuse all of us citizen who oppose their Dictatorial Regime.

    Therefore I request all the opposition parties to come up with Plan A..B..and C to Safeguard our Madam CJ and the Judiciary and inform Masses in advance as to what action they take and how we could contribute to STOP MARA GOVT. TRY TO CHANGE OUR CHIEF JUSTICE…. AS WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

    WE ARE EVEN READY TO GET INTO STREETS AND WILL RALLY ROUND THE SUPREME COURT FOR SATYAGRAHA. WE WILL NEVER ALLOW MARA DICTATOR TO CHANGE CJ AND WILL FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS TO THE END.

    BOTH UNP AND JVP ALONG WITH ALL TRADE UNIONS SHOULD TAKE A STRONG PRIORITY TO ORGANISE MASS DEMONSTRACTIONS AND INFORM US CITIZENS HOW TO JOIN YOU.

    ALSO KEEP INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND UN INFORMED TO COME TO OUR RESCUE IF GOTA PLANS TO UNLEASH HIS UNDERWORLD THUGS, SIMILAR TO WELIKADA PRISON MASSACRE TO DISRUPT OUR DEMONSTRACTIONS AND HURT OUR LIVES.

    This is Very Important.

    EVERY PATRIOT SHOULD COME FOREWARD TO SAFEGURAD CJ and JUDICIARY.

    ALSO AS GOTA PREDICTS WE HOPE AND PRAY THAT NEW YEAR 2013 WILL BRING A REGIME CHANGE AND TRUE PATRIOTS WILL RULE OUR SRI LANKA.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.