Nagananda Kodituwakku
On 07th July 2016, the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe launched a calculated attack on the INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY, in the Parliament, requesting the Speaker to overrule a judgment (Singarasa vs Attorney General – SC/SPL/LA/182/99) pronounced by the Supreme Court. Any right thinking person would perceive this action as an encroachment of people’s judicial power only vested in the judiciary. Referring to the Supreme Court and claiming supremacy over the judiciary Ranil Wickremesinghe said, “…the Court does not even have to exercise the judicial power of the people. The Parliament has it and the Court does it on its behalf…’
It is quite apparent that this utterly irresponsible statement has been made for a purpose; that is to keep the judiciary under the firm grip of utterly self-centred people holding office in the Executive and the legislature, who habitually violate inalienable sovereign rights of the people for their private benefit.
They have already achieved their desire by reserving right to appoint 7 MPs to the 10-member Constitutional Council, whilst appointing only three members with integrity and eminence to it, a process whereby the MPs retains the veto power over the judicial appointments, effectively denying the people of their right to an independent judiciary.
This appalling conduct of the so-called people’s representatives also violates the pledge they have made to the people at the adoption of the Constitution ‘to respect the immutable republican principles, which include the FREEDOM, JUSTICE and the INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY’.
Therefore, people shall demand that the judicial power of the people shall only be exercised by the Judiciary with no strings attached (not through the parliament) and there shall be no place at all for any MP in the Constitutional Council, which shall only be consisted with people of eminence and integrity, without which people will have no hope from the judiciary to act fearlessly with no fear or favour in the face of blatant injustice.
How the democracy prevails in the mother of democracy
In the Great Britain, the epitome of democracy, the independence and the integrity of the judiciary are always respected. The Executive and Legislature do not attempt to undermine the authority and the independence of the judiciary.
The best example is the Brexit judgement pronounced by the High Court in November 2016, which ruled that the Executive has no authority to give notice of withdrawal from the EU, after people opted to be out from the EU.
UK parliament (the House of Commons) never rushed in to take advantage and to make an announcement under Article 50 of the TEU, to withdraw from the EU. Instead allowed the people to contest the High Court ruling in the Supreme Court, and now the Supreme Court order is due in January, which will be respected by all organs of the government.
Sven Le Grande / December 26, 2016
….”UK parliament (the House of Commons) never rushed in to take advantage and to make an announcement under Article 50 of the TEU, to withdraw from the EU. Instead allowed the people to contest the High Court ruling in the Supreme Court, and now the Supreme Court order is due in January, which will be respected by all organs of the government”….
The Supreme Court judgement will make little difference to whether or not the UK leaves the EU, but hopefully will curtail the power of the Executive to exit under the terms of their own chosing, without reference to Parliament. Unfortunately the rule of law is under the attack in the ‘mother of democracy’ too…..
/
nandasena / December 26, 2016
please define ‘people of eminence and integrity’! what makes you qualified to define this? who gets to judge which persons are of sufficieng eminence and integrity?
/
Sarath / December 26, 2016
Don’t mislead the public Nagananda! What the PM was commenting on was Sarath Silva’s mockery in the Singarasa case which civil society and numerous academics both local and foreign have criticised as erroneous and perverse… what the PM said was spot on… you have misleadingly just quoted portions of what he said… in fact when some challenged the PM’s statement in the Supreme Court, even the SC threw out the cases… you know very well that singarasa was wrongly decided… do not mislead the people like this…
/
Spring Koha / December 26, 2016
…..violates the pledge they have made to the people…….
So nothing has changed then! Whenever have we had pledges respected except when it suits our political leaders? Ranil is the master of ‘twist and turn’ and the clue is watch the face and the lips when you get close enough.
/
Adrian / December 26, 2016
” Referring to the Supreme Court and claiming supremacy over the judiciary Ranil Wickremesinghe said, “…the Court does not even have to exercise the judicial power of the people. The Parliament has it and the Court does it on its behalf…’”
RW thinks parliament is above Judiciary or executive. Empower judiciary in such a manner to revise wrong judgements instead of empowering parliament. Today most of the MP’s are regarded as idiots. Do we need their advise?
/
samanthika / December 27, 2016
Sarath,
If the Singarasa ruling is wrong, there is a due process established by law to follow to rectify it.
Ranil Wickramaisinghe, a man who has failed to win a mandate from the people since the day he entered into politics and not given a mandate at all, has no power or authority to ridicule the Supreme Court. He has no authority to ask ask the speaker to overrule the judgement.
If he is a politically matured person,what he should have done was to ask the AG to make a revision application to the Supreme Court, seeking the Court to invoke its inherent power of revisionary jurisdiction to quash the Sinharasa order, without the insulting the judiciary that exercise people’s judicial power not Wickramasinghe’s.
i believe as writer says, in Sri Lanka corrupt politicians do not want judiciary to enjoy judicial independence as that would probably pave way for all corrupt cheats to go jail.
/
Plato. / December 27, 2016
The High Court ruling was that the Executive cannot trigger Article 50 for Brexit; It should be debated in Parliament.It is against this ruling that the Govt:of Therese May had appealed to the Supreme Court.A full bench consisting of all 11 Judges have heard the submissions made by the Attorney General and other Counsel and the verdict is to be delivered somewhere in Jan:2017.
I watched and heard the Arguments of Counsel and the intense questioning by the Judges.Interestingly,neither Judges or the different Counsel were in the traditional dress of Wigs,Gowns and Bands!
I clicked BBC News on my Tab and listened to the proceedings a few weeks ago.
However,I confess I did not understand the content of the proceedings,but the manner,language and presentation of the AG WAS SIMPLY CLASSIC.
There is speculation in the British Media that all 11 Judges will uphold the ruling of the High Court!
/
Native Vedda / December 27, 2016
Plato.
“However,I confess I did not understand the content of the proceedings,but the manner,language and presentation of the AG WAS SIMPLY CLASSIC.”
Is it because you are not an upper class old Estonian who didn’t go to Oxbridge to be trained as a good showman?
/