27 June, 2022


End Of Constitutional Governance In Sri Lanka

By Nihal Jayawickrama

Dr.Nihal Jayawickrama

In Libya, at the height of the 2011 revolution, it was said that Colonel Gadaffi did not believe rebel claims of captured territory. And, as Tripoli was being encircled, Gadaffi famously exclaimed to a BBC interviewer that “the people love me”. The disinformation practised by the Libyan Government through the state controlled media was institutionalized to such an extent that even those in power, who concocted the lies, had begun to believe their own concoctions. When they saw the truth, it was too late for them. The rampaging mobs had ravaged their cities, and turned their palaces into rubble. I saw all of this both before and after.

In the past two months, we too, have experienced a virulent campaign of disinformation through the state media and other state organs in the effort to remove an inconvenient Chief Justice and replace her with one more amenable to the Government. It did not seem to matter that the exercise was both unlawful and unconstitutional, or that it would destroy the foundations of democratic governance. The Chief Justice had to go, and the load of gibberish gratuitously offered by state media and cabinet ministers was intended to lull the people into complacency. Even members of the Government had begun to believe the mumbo jumbo. One cabinet minister was so swayed by the Government’s own propaganda that he shouted out to the Supreme Court to “go to hell”.

The obsolete impeachment

“Impeach” was a word that was introduced into our political lexicon in mid-October, as the process to remove the Chief Justice began. It was a term that came with the weight of history. Soon, law professors and political columnists were delving into the history of “impeachment” across the globe, and arguing that no court could interfere with the process of impeachment. We were given an example from the United States, where one Robert Nixon, a district judge and convicted perjurer in an obscure region of Mississippi, had attempted unsuccessfully to have his impeachment by the Senate reviewed by the Supreme Court, on the ground that he should have been tried in the first instance, not by the House of Representatives, but by the Senate. But how relevant to us is the impeachment procedure prescribed under the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America? We are surely not aspiring to be the 51st state.

We were told that in the United Kingdom, judges are impeached by Parliament. But we were not told that in that country, where “impeachment” was once a process resorted to when a “peer” or “commoner” was accused of “high crimes and misdemeanours beyond the reach of the law”, it is now obsolete, its last use having been in 1802. In any event, the United Kingdom is governed, not under a written constitution, but by statute law and convention.

We have our own Constitution, and that Constitution does not provide for any form or kind of “impeachment”. The term “impeachment” does not appear even once in our Constitution. What article 107 states, with regard to a judge of a superior court, is that such judge “shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”. There is no reference to “impeachment”. That term was obviously introduced into the public domain so that the baggage that it carries from the United States and elsewhere could be employed to challenge the constitutional right of the Judiciary to be subject to judicial review any decision that adversely affects an individual’s legal rights.

The fake supremacy

It was asserted, without any basis whatsoever, that Parliament is supreme. Apart from references to the Supreme Court, the only place in the Constitution where the word “supreme” appears is in the preamble where it is stated that the Constitution is the law” of Sri Lanka. The 1978 Constitution, unlike its 1972 predecessor, is firmly entrenched on a separation of powers. Parliament exercises legislative power. The President exercises executive power. Courts, tribunals and other institutions established by the constitution or by law exercise judicial power. In fact, not only is one power not regarded as supreme in relation to the others, there is an inter-locking process, or a system of fine checks and balances, which is the essence of democratic governance in the civilized world.

For example, the President summons, prorogues and dissolves Parliament, but he cannot make law. It is Parliament alone that can make law (except in a state of emergency that is approved by Parliament). Parliament, however, cannot proceed to enact a law until the Supreme Court has examined and certified that the Bill for that law is in accordance with the Constitution. Neither the Speaker, nor a select committee, can perform that function.

The President alone may exercise executive power, but he is “responsible to Parliament” for the due exercise of his powers and duties, and it is Parliament that provides him the funds necessary to perform his legitimate functions. If he is faced with a question of law of public importance, he is required to refer it to the Supreme Court (and not to Parliament) for its opinion on that question. The President may be removed from office by resolution of Parliament for bribery, misconduct, corruption, abuse of power or intentional violation of the Constitution, but only if the Supreme Court, after due inquiry reports to Parliament that he is guilty of one of more of the allegations. The President may address Parliament, but he may not appear and be heard in the Supreme Court, except when that court is investigating his conduct on a reference by the Speaker. The President may pardon a person convicted by a Court, or remit or commute a sentence imposed by a Court, but he may not set aside or overrule an order or judgment of a Court.

The Judiciary alone may exercise judicial power, but Judges of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeal, though appointed by the President, may be removed by the President only on a resolution of Parliament, and only on the ground of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity”. The Supreme Court alone may interpret the Constitution, but Parliament may amend or repeal the Constitution. Parliament may summon a judge to appear before a select committee conducting an inquiry relevant to its legislative or oversight functions, while a judge may summon a Member of Parliament to appear before him as a witness, party to a proceeding, or an accused.

A delicate balance of power

The respective roles of Parliament and the Supreme Court are best exemplified in the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act. In respect of any alleged breach of privilege which cannot be punished with “admonition at the Bar of Parliament” or “removal from the precincts of Parliament” (the only two punishments that the law allows Parliament to impose on anyone), Parliament is required to refer to the Supreme Court every other alleged breach of privilege that warrants a penalty more severe than these. In fact, if a person summoned by a select committee to give evidence or to produce a document, disobeys that order and fails to appear or produce the document, the select committee has to refer that matter to the Supreme Court if it desires to punish that person.

The constitutional relationship between the three organs of government, this delicate balance of power, therefore, requires mutual respect. For one branch to tell the other “to go to hell”, or that its judgment is “not worth the paper on which it is written”, is to demonstrate an unfortunate lack of understanding of the processes of government, or an incredible arrogance based on ignorance. If it is neither of these, then, it is a classic example of disinformation designed to mislead the public. It also demonstrates a lack of institutional memory.

For example, when in 1958, Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike wanted to persuade a Judge to head a commission of inquiry, he visited Hulftsdorp on a Saturday morning and met the Judges in the Supreme Court Library; he did not summon them to his residence or to his office. In 1973, Chief Justice H.N.G. Fernando sought an appointment with the Prime Minister to discuss certain administrative difficulties that had arisen in the Criminal Justice Commission (1971 Insurgency) over which he was presiding. Mrs Bandaranaike considered it improper that the person who was presiding over a trial in which the accused were charged with attempting to overthrow her Government, should meet her at her residence at Temple Trees. She requested me to meet him, in my capacity as Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice. Mrs Bandaranaike did not personally speak with any potential Chief Justice or Judge of a superior court. Instead, she left that task to the Minister or Secretary of Justice. Such was the scrupulous manner in which conventions that underpinned the separation of powers were understood and observed in the past.

Of course, there were conflicts from time to time. In 1973, when I attended, on invitation, a ceremonial sitting of the Supreme Court and, on the instructions of the Minister, sat next to him at the Bar Table, the response of Chief Justice Tennekoon was peremptory. I was asked to sit in the row behind, which I did. It was not that we had nowhere else to sit. I usually stood at the back of the crowded courtroom on such occasions. It was the Minister’s view that, by sitting at the Bar Table, we would convey the message to the Judiciary that the Legislature and the Executive, too, had roles to play in the administration of justice. As it turned out, the Judiciary carried the day!

Falsifying the past

The removal of the Chief Justice after a flawed “investigation” under standing order 78A, which the Supreme Court determined to be void ab initio, has been sought to be covered up by the assertion that several judges had been “impeached” in the past by employing this same standing order. This is factually incorrect, and is yet another attempt at disinformation. The one single occasion when a select committee was appointed under this hastily drawn up standing order was in 1984. An allegation of misbehaviour was made against Chief Justice Samarakone barely one month before he was due to retire from office. His counsel, Mr S. Nadesan QC, did not dispute the facts, but challenged the constitutionality of the standing order. He made submissions on 14 days over a period of two months. The select committee reported, after the Chief Justice had reached his mandatory age of retirement, that the charge of misbehaviour had not been established.

The two other select committees that were appointed to inquire into the conduct of judges were fact-finding exercises, at a time when standing order 78A was not in existence. The first was In 1983, to inquire into a complaint made to President Jayewardene by Mr K.C.E. de Alwis, a former Judge of the Court of Appeal and a Member of a Special Presidential Commission, against Justice Wimalaratne and Justice Colin Thome who, together with Chief Justice Samarakone, had issued a writ of prohibition restraining De Alwis from continuing to be a member of that Commission. The second was in April 1984, to inquire into and report on whether Chief Justice Samarakone had made a certain speech on a certain occasion.

When, in June 2001, the Opposition attempted to present a resolution seeking the removal of Chief Justice Sarath Silva, President Kumaratunge prorogued Parliament and aborted the process.

When, in 2004, the UNP Government was making arrangements to establish a tribunal consisting of three Commonwealth Judges to inquire into charges against the same Chief Justice, President Kumaratunge again aborted the process by dissolving Parliament.

Misinforming the present

The disinformation campaign also sought to make out that, even in other countries, Judges are “tried” by Parliament. Reference was made to the United States and Philippine Constitutions where the Senate is vested with the sole power to “impeach” a Judge. The Senate in each of these two countries is not even remotely comparable to our Parliament for the simple reason that it does not have among its members anyone who holds executive office. The Cabinet, in both these countries is drawn from outside the legislature.

What the disinformation campaign cleverly attempted was to misrepresent the position in the United Kingdom. Under the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, an appellate judge may be removed from office by the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor if, after an investigation by an Investigating judge, they both agree to uphold a report that finds the complaint against the judge to be justified. In the case of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, a resolution for his removal may be introduced only by the Lord Chancellor, and only after a three-member tribunal has reported that grounds exist for such removal. No provision yet exists for the investigation of an allegation of misbehaviour against the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (the Head of the Judiciary), or of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (which replaced the House of Lords). However, it has been suggested that should the need ever arise to do so, the procedure prescribed for Northern Ireland will be followed. Judicial ethics are so widely respected in that country, the democratic fabric is so secure, parliamentary and judicial proceedings are so transparent, and constitutional conventions so strong, that it is almost inconceivable that an occasion would arise for the removal of the Lord Chief Justice of that country.

The disinformation campaign also hides the fact that in practically every Commonwealth country, the Latimer House Guidelines have been incorporated into domestic law. A judge may be removed from office, whether on a parliamentary resolution or otherwise, only after an independent tribunal has found that judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity. From Australia to Uganda, through Belize, Botswana, Canada, Cyprus, Ghana, Guyana, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Singapore and South Africa (to name only a cross section of Commonwealth countries selected at random), this is the consistent constitutional practice.

Sri Lanka stands outside the fold, an outlaw as it were, claiming the right to bulldoze its way, with slogan-shouting, stick-waving, screaming mobs, protected by armed police and the military, padlocked gates, water cannons, and fireworks – all this and more to remove from office the lawful Chief Justice of the Republic, the first woman, the first academic, the first product of a non-urban school who, with her quiet dignity, grace and determination, surpassed herself as she faced what must have been the greatest challenge of her life.

End of constitutional governance

The purported removal of a serving Chief Justice, and the purported appointment of a new Chief Justice, marks the end of constitutional governance in Sri Lanka. These were the final acts in a series of bizarre events orchestrated by the Government in the past six weeks. These events were accompanied by an unprecedented campaign of disinformation, at a level and of a kind we have not been subjected to in recent years. Parliament is no longer a legislative body that can hold the government accountable. With two-third of its members serving as salaried officers of the Executive, it has been transformed into a mere legislative arm of the Executive. With the judgment of its highest court incapable of being enforced, and the head of that court pushed out of office by brute force, the once proud, independent and internationally acclaimed Judiciary of our country has been dealt a body blow of unimaginable magnitude. We have begun an era of unbridled, authoritarian presidential rule.

Read the Sinhala translation of this article here – Translated by Yahapalanaya Lanka

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0

    Mr Nihal Jayawickrema is an educated cultured man who is not only conversant with the law he is also a civilised individual while his brother in law GL boot licker Peiris also a man of education and a background where his ancestors must be now rolling in their graves,for a PORTFOLIO has sacrificed self respect and opted to boot lick the Medamulana Thug.The way this lady was treated cannot be condoned by anyone who values selfrespect
    For a moment we will leave the constituitional aspects aside and examine the shocking conduct of this vindictive villain.Without resorting to established norms if there had been any impropriety he USED THE STATE MEDIA BOTH PRINT AND ELECTRONIC AND HIS GOON LEADER KUDU RAJA MERVIN TO ABUSE AND INSULT HER THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COUNTRY. THEN TWO OTHER NONDESCRIPTS ABUSED HER IN FOUL LANGUAGE.The SC was turned into a garrison something never known before.
    The time is right for the Commonwealth to teach this rascal a lesson buy shifting the venue por the next CHOGM to a country that has a civilised leader and works within democratic principles where there is space for dissent. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY MUST ALSO CAUSE SANCTIONS SO THE PEOPLE WILL GET TO KNOW WHY

  • 0

    The shamed CJ also said something like that when she left her official residence last week. Most people think like that when their end is near. However only the people will decide for themselves when the time comes.In the end, it is not how many people like you but what you did or didnt do to earn their respect that matters.

  • 0

    We must devise a law where impeached justices could be tied to a post at Galle Face and shot by the military.

    Hope GL Peiris will look into this.

    • 0

      No, no. Sharia law better. Beheading in public at Galle Face. More exciting.

      • 0

        No, no, cant be. This is sinhala country. Must have Bodhu bala law. Lets call it Nariya law.

    • 0


  • 0

    These dudes are still hoping for an “Arab Spring” on Lankan soil. Aren’t they?.

    Did Gaddafi face Prez and General Elections every 5 years with the West appointed Polls Police watching over him?.

    In contrast,don’t our inhabitants get their fingers painted every 5 years or less with our caring Western Mates sending full battalions of these Police to guard us .as well as every polling booth and every ballot box, .

    Don’t their advance parties of INGOS and NGOs engage in organising the voters well in advance.

    Why are these Elite angels so agitated and impatient?.

    Isn’t is only another two years to get our peasants to roll Rajapaksha at the Ballot Box rather than giving them AK 47s and Shoulder fired RPGs?.

    Aren’t the Injustices to the Chief Justice and the Judiciary, as listed by the writer, injustices to the TNA ,and the corruption of Raja Brothers going to be lethal election material in the hands of these Elite Angels?.

    With all this armour at their disposal, why do they want us peasants to risk our poor lives?.

  • 0

    We witness an inactive impotent,supine and backstabbing opposition during the horrendous impeachment time which clamped down the rule of law by government sponsored street urchin marauding thugs.This situation is the opening for making entire country into a garrison without any notice.Already it is visible in the north. Plight of the Sri Lanka people has fallen into helpless position. It is in the hands of the International Community mainly US, Britain,EU Canada and Australia to rescues Sri Lanka from disastrous calamity. Especially our neighbor India should put down his foot and say enough is enough and support the International Community action what ever to rescue the country from dire situation.

  • 0

    It may be true that constitutional governance is over and I appreciate the detailed analysis. What is more important to me, however, is that very few of those who accuse the government now of unconstitutional behaviour, remained calm and silent when hundreds of thousands (the government admitted that 290 000 exit the war theatre) were bombed and massacred. To me that was the lowest point, after that we are discussing the gender of angels.
    And if then the masses weren’t particularly interested, I don’t see why now they should be bother to react. Gaddafi was over, president Rajapaksa doesn’t seem to be in similar difficulties.

  • 0

    Gaddafi came to power by overthrowing a despot King Idris and liberating his people. The Green revolutiona followed and Gaddafi released his green book. Thus he ruled until power corrupted him and he turned against his own people. Libya became a repressive police state with the Colonel Gaddafi and military in power.

    Sri Lanka is following a similiar pattern with the chintana and military rule. Rulers are becoming more corrupt by the day. Sooner rather than later the worm will turn and the despots and dictators will have to face the music.

    • 0

      Well we hope and pray that the 3 brain celled, kiribath eating, cracker lighting and jayaway waaa shouting worms will turn sooner rather than later. It took 42 years before the Libyan worms turned. Maybe that was because Gadaffi used oil money to keep them fed, clothed and comfortable. Thankfully Sri RajaPakistan has no oil, but the recent 80 billion that came under the control of Basil under the Divi Neguma Bill will be spread amongst the worms to buy their loyalty and votes come election time. We all know that all it takes to buy over most worms is 500 rupees, a buriyani packet and a soft drink bottle. So we are still back at square one.

  • 0

    Jayawicrama said….’essance of democracy governance of civilized world’..unlawful and unconstitutional…that would destroy the foundation of democratic Goveranace..’
    Mr J..the univeral vaules of civilized world nothing else synonymous with western hegemony.Is just like concept of civilization.The Roman Empire overran by barbarians,the modern era civilized world is nothing else of Europen have equated modernity and universlity.The torch of ‘Civilzed World’ of Western civilization was passed to US, universal values have been used frequently to enrich and ensure US and Europen hegemony.
    Ours political economic social and Judicial progress and development is UNSTAINABLE because it does NOT have core VAULES that Europen and US OWNS.
    Your ‘unlawful and unconstitutional ..that would destroy the foundation of democratic Goverenance. your version threat Sri Lanka has its own core values which are not universal or civilized and denied the existence of civilized values ,it has become an arch enemy of civilized world( western) vaules.
    All your logic and arguments are base on past-colonial era of Civilized values of OLD ORDER PAST -WORLD. Sri Lankan nation does not mean reverting to OLD WAYS which cannot help to slove today’s problems and globle challenges.It does not mean coping western system either.
    There was histrocial era West and US play vital role on democratic Governance.
    Reading of The Virgina Bill of Rights,in 1776. Local convention which 12 June 1776 produce above Bill of Rights.This is a document which inspired parts of the Declaration of Independence and certain clauses in US Federal Constitution.It was inserted without change in the Virgina state Constitutioan of 1830,1850,1864 and slighty modified in that 1870.This was not is it typical of defiant SPRITE of the Amrican Revolutionay ERA,but times as the Magna Carta,the Habeas Corpus Act,and the Bill of Right.
    Mr J..clause (2) That all power is vested in,and consequently derive from,the people;that MAGISTRATES are thier TRUSTEES AND SERVANTS and at all times amenable to them.This is ‘Civilized wrold’ version of Judiciacl governance has been viloated by ex-CJ while on duty in higheist postion in as Supereme Court Judge.
    Unfortunatly,even genuine follow by ex-CJ of RULE OF LAW and creator of Indepedence Judiciary are not satisfied with wealth that thier innovation. Of course not all the inequlity of Justice in our society is a result of rent seeking Judicial tilting the rule of the game in favour of those at the top of Judiciary.

  • 0

    Nihal Jayawickrama in his learned article has pointed out that the manner in which the Chief Justice was removed is the beginning of the end of constitutional governance in Sri Lanka.

    There is also talk of a 19th Amendment and the appointment of a former Chief Justice to the Parliament. Is there any hope that the 19th Amendment will restore some semblance of constitutional governance in Sri Lanka, to restore the confidence of this country among the foreign investors and lenders? If not forget about rapid economic growth!

    • 0

      The 19th is to be born by shifting the 13th through a sieve and adding
      (a plus) to ensure that the Regime wins at all “Elections”, strictly at
      the discretion of the President only. The EC will be part of the
      Presidents Office too.

  • 0

    Mr. J… the univeral values of a civilised world…essence of democracy and governance……. were these something alien during your days as secretary under Late FDB ?

    How many Tamil youth were held under your orders without trial and released prior to the 19977 election as a favour to them and sent to the North to work for the SLFP at the General Elections..
    Yes.. they did work by gunning down the Mayor……

    Was this your style of civility & democracy ?

    Constitutional Governance ended then under your watch.

  • 0

    I REQUEST Both UN, CW, USA and the world community to come down hard on President Rajapakse for him to think serious what the International community means Business and not to take them for granted.

    All this time President Rajapakse not only hoodwinked the International community , but also humiliated and made them looking fools.

    From hoodwinking UN, CW on LLRC and human right issue upto fooling India on false implementing 13 + Rajapakse think he can keep on humiliating them and making them a laughing stock and get away from the promises he gave.

    Please see the following web. what Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN Dr. Palitha Kohona has questioned the value of the Commonwealth when he was asked to comment on the criticism of the impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake by the Commonwealth.

    MARA is questioning on the validity of UN, CW, USA and other countries who helped him to win the terrorist war.

    Therefore it is time for International community to come down hard on Rajapakse Regime until it RE-instate CJ Dr.Shirani Bandaranayake.
    Some of the Measures could be.

    1)Total travel Ban on President ,Govt.Ministers and their Families….as most of their official Meetings are mere Pleasure trips wasting people’s money.

    2) Freeze all aid given to Govt. and direct them through INGO’s.

    3)Either freeze All IMF, WB Lonas to GOSL or be given only on condition and supervision that GOVT. should use them only on people’s needs and should stop importing duty free vehicles for Ministers and Govt.Goons and on fake and wasteful development projects.

    4)Restriction on Tourists visiting Sri Lanka while totally Freeze Govt.Ministers and officials travelling to those countries.

    5) Cancel CHOGM and ban Sri Lanka participating from CW,UN and international conferances, functions and meetings.

    6) Trade restrictions and freeze concessions given to GOSL.

    7)Direct International Projects and help given to Minority communities and people in need, such as building houses, community centers and Childrens and adult homeless shelters etc without giving a penny to Sri Lankan Government. (Remember Tsunami Donation Scandal Involving President Rakapakse and Ex.CJ Sarath N. Silva).

    8)Direct nutrition programmes, health care and education on needy people only be given through International supervision By-passing GOSL.

    9)Freeze all Foreign Personal bank accounts, fund accounts, assets, real estate,Businesses,Farms,Land, Black money and shares invested by all Govt. Ministers and their family members.

    10) Re-do Constitition taking out all the draconian clauses that make the President or the Prime minister absolute Tyranny, Dictator and a Family Monopoly Dynasty.

    11)Remove all Convicted Thugs, Criminals, Bribary Takers, Murderers, Drug Dealers, Sex perverts, Illicit contract gainers, Casino Owners, sex offenders, Money and property stealers and others from presidency, Prime Minister and parliament Ministerial and MP’s positions.


    • 0

      Kohona questions value of Commonwealth
      January 17, 2013

      Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN Dr. Palitha Kohona has questioned the value of the Commonwealth when he was asked to comment on the criticism of the impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake by the Commonwealth.

      When Inner City Press asked about the criticism of the impeachment by the Commonwealth, Kohona answered rhetorically, “What is the value of the Commonwealth?”

      Meanwhile speaking at the UN Security Council, Kohona has said that the organization must grapple with terrorism and aim to end or dramatically lessen the human suffering and misery it caused.

      A victim of terrorism for almost three decades, Sri Lanka learned early the value of confronting terrorism’s links to international trafficking, money-laundering, weapons smuggling and cyber crime networks, he said.

      He said that the LTTE had received ready funding from sympathizers abroad and coerced terrified civilians to contribute to their cause.

      “Even during Sri Lanka’s post-conflict phase, pre-existing networks in transit and developing countries continued to exploit human misery. Prosecution of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam fundraisers and arms procurers continued. Since the conflict ended, Sri Lanka had focused on rehabilitation, reconstruction, reintegration and reconciliation. It had re-established democratic processes and held local Government elections in former conflict areas, as well as set up a Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission. More than 11,000 former combatants had been rehabilitated and allowed to return home,” he said.

  • 0

    Oh Gadapi !, Oh Ben Ali !, Oh Al Asad ! , Oh Hitler ! , Oh Stalin ! ,, Oh Bokasa, Oh Idi Amin , I never thought that I was voting for one of your clan, A ROGUE, A Pseudo Patriot, when I voted IN 2005. But, I am sorry , have done exactly that in 2005. I am Quite sorry for that. But JVP is responsible for bringing this clan of rogues into power.


  • 0

    Oh Gadapi ! Oh Ben Ali ! Oh Sadam Hussain ! Oh Stalin Oh Hitlar ! Oh Idi Amin ! Oh Bokasa ! I never thought that I voted for one of your clan. But I have done exactly that in 2005. I am not worried about the fate of Sri Lankan Gadapi who is sure to taste the fate of his above counterparts, but really worried about the fate of the ordinary sons and daughters of sri lanka whose destiny will have been jeopardized by the time this crazy cat faces due fate.


  • 0

    Oh Portugal | Oh Netherland | Oh British |….. When our Forefathers fought for our Independence…..they would have never dremt that our country is going to be Occupied by Our Own Power Hungry, Power Crazy, Greedy, selfish,Pervert, Thug, Murderers, Drug dealers, Thieves, Uneducated , Uncultured, Uncivilised OUR OWN SINHALA PAK…….YA PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS AND THE PARLIAMENT WHO SCREWED THEIR OWN SINHALA RACE AND THE MINORITY RACES, USING THEIR POWER AND PRIVILEGES TO SATISFY THEIR OWN SELFISH, SADISTIC DESIRES AT THE EXPENSE OF IT’S OWN CITIZENS AND THE COUNTRY.

    Our Children will curse us if we allow these sadistic crooks to stay in power any more.

    it is our obligation to chase these Blood sucking Leeches crooks who live on POOR RIZANAS BLOOD MONEY ever sucking people’s blood and country for their own pleasure.

    It is time to Bur…n the parliament for good and give the Country to Supreme court and to qualified, honest and professionals to Govern.



  • 0

    Mr Mahale.. your demands Just and Fair are similar to Charitsist Movemnent in 19th century IN Engalnd.I really appriciate in reality within democracy framewrok we can achive.
    it.So-called democracy changes had been taken PLACE in Ceylon and Sri Lanka,but our democracy and Develepment had been totally undermine by Parties were in POWER last 64 years.
    1956 SWRD made certain social change or laid foundation for change of Society.He was Assasination by evil forces of local and foreign power.
    Then 1960 March UNP-Dudly Senanayake
    1960 July SLFP Sirimavo Babadarake until 1965.Coliation Govt Dr N.M Perea of LSSP.
    1965 to 1970 UNP Dudly Senanayke clan- Philiph Gunawareda Thirchulim-Dhanyake C.P de Silve were form a national Govt..
    1970-1977 SLFP Sirimovo B Clane ( Sunethra,Chandrike and Anura -family was Ruled with Satan of Feliex R.D.Banakarake-house of Banadarake) LSSP of Dr N.M Perera, Dr Colvin R.De Silva and Lesslie Gunawaradena- Communist Party of Moscow wing Peter Kennmun & Dr S.A Wicramasinghe were main coliation partnes of that Govt.(Sirimavo dismissed LSSP leader by Govt Gazed notification in 1975 due misbehaviour LSSP leader by influance of her great SON ANURA B and Cousin of Satan F.R,D Dias Banadarake)
    1977- 1988 JRJ- (clan of Wijewaradaene affliated) Premadasa, Dissnayake, Atulathlmudali, and Wickramasinghe Ring leaders of UNP-JRJ. With two fifth majority in Parliment.
    1988 Lumpan Persident of R.Premadasa until 1993 May had been assianated by terrorist,is still unknown?
    1994-2004 Chandrika Banadarake Kumarnatunga ( House of Banadarake Family) (mother Sirimovo was remain in power until totally disable)
    2002 to 2004 Dr Ranil Wickramsinghe of UNP christain fundamantalist became power.
    2004 Mahinda Rajapakese familywas installed power in Sri Lankan.Still reamin in our nation GOVERNEANCE.

  • 0

    While today Nihal J pretends to be a highly conforming gentleman, it was an altogether different story when he was a favoured man in the
    Justice Ministry to the arrogant and ambitious FDB. The latter turned the legal fraternity topsy turvy to suit his personal idiocyncracies
    is all too well known. The once respected Counsel (Advocate) and Solicitor (Proctor) distinction was done away with – despite popular protest of the legal profession. In retrospect one can form one’s own impression if the change did the process of law well or ill.
    NJ was then considered a novice intruder of sorts, influenced by a Minister drunk with power, who it is said, felt slighted the giant QCs of the time were not giving him the undue recognition he expected of them. There was then another character at that time, also a favourite of FDB, who, the media reported, sometimes wore pink pants and even carried a pistol to his office in the Justice Ministry. The 1973 incident NJ mentions here is structured to show him in good light whereas there is a totally different version. On remembers the
    contemptuous remark of a senior Puisne Judge at that time of a senior official of the Justice Ministry moving hither and tither like a Crab.

    The ill-effects of the judicial process now dividing the system could well be the flowering of the seeds broadcast during the 1970/73 period.


  • 0

    GL Peiris – former Professor of Law – Rhodes scholar and all that …. and yet he saw fit to say that what the Supreme Court had to say was not worth the paper it was written on !

    What hope is there if so called educated men like him can be so foolish!

    Thanks NJ for an excellent article.

  • 0

    Srilankan Polpot – by Mahinda Rajapakshe has even the able candidates in his cabinet blind as comparable to experimental mice ready for the laboratory experiements. Best example is most qualified law educated GLP – current foreign minister of his cabinet. He himself dares to repeat that all the people of the country were compelled to see last week was constitutional, while his own colleague – Rajiva Weerasinge also equally or more educated and seems to be competent in the debates loudly criticised the handling with the IMPEACHMENT PROCESS against the legitimately appointed CJ – SB:

    • 0

      it should be- MR has even made able candidates blind.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.