Chief Justice K. Sripavan accused one of the lawyers fighting the National List abuse in the Supreme Court for obstruction of justice and called the Bar Association to make its observations on the Motion filed in Court by the lawyer, Colombo Telegraph learns.
On the National List abuse challenged in the Supreme Court by the Counsel Nagananda Kodituwakku with a request made for appointment of a full bench, considering the national importance of the issue, the Chief Justice has ruled that the National List abuse is not a nation issue and therefore refused the request made for a hearing before the full bench of the Supreme Court.
Further to the Chief Justice’s said ruling the Counsel had filed a further Motion informing the Chief Justice that from the said ruling the Chief Justice has displayed abuse of discretion vested in the office of the Chief Justice, and his bias towards the Executive, despite credible evidence produced in the case that the rejected candidates through the National List (Article 99A) has been enacted by fraudulent means, bypassing the process established by law (affording people an opportunity to challenge the bill which has never been published in the gazette before it was referred to the Supreme Court for determination of constitutionality of the bill), and that in the said fraud all there organs of the government (Legislature, Executive and Judiciary) were involved. Therefore the said clause (Article 99A) shall not be construed as a valid law in terms of the Article 82 (6) of the Constitution.
Therefore, the Counsel Nagananda Kodituwakku had informed the Court that Chief Justice’s impugned ruling is obviously per incuriam and it has effectively disqualified the Chief Justice K. Sripavan from hearing the case and hense requested that the case be fixed for support before a fuller bench of the Supreme Court sans the Chief Justice
The Chief Justice has considered the stand taken by the Counsel Nagananda Kodituwakku amounts to obstruction of justice and had fixed the case for 26th Jan 2016 with direction given to the Bar Association to attend the hearing to make its observations on the content on the Motion filed in Court by the Counsel.
It is important to note that Supreme Court had already violated the law concerning this ase as it has failed to hear and determine the case, filed on 13th Oct 2015, within the stipulated time frame of two months from filing the case as provided in Article 104 of the Constitution.
On the other hand, failure to dispense justice as required by law, has permitted those rejected by the people but elected to the Parliament through the National list, firmly establish their roots in the governance with some appointed to the office of Cabinet of Ministers and to hold many other key profiles in the government.