5 December, 2020

Blog

Impeaching A Chief Justice, Sri Lankan Style

By Marawaan Macan-Markar – 

Chief Justice

There are questions whether the parliamentary select committee observed due process in its inquiry of the charges against Shirani Bandaranayake

There has been an air of inevitability in the current showdown between the administration of President Mahinda Rajapaksa and its latest bête noire, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. Her fall from grace shows that the Rajapaksa juggernaut does not warm up to dissent easily, even if, as in this case, it measures up to the expected norms of checks and balances in a self-described democracy.

The Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC), inquiring into the 14 charges of professional and financial impropriety listed the impeachment motion against her, rushed to bring its proceedings to an end last Saturday. Undeterred by the walkout by four Opposition parliamentarians, the PSC ruled that Bandaranayake was guilty of three charges of misconduct. Parliament, where President Rajapaksa’s party has more than two-thirds majority, is expected to vote on the committee’s findings in January.

Just 19 months after Bandaranayake was appointed with much fanfare as the first female to head Sri Lanka’s judiciary, the fate of the 43rd Chief Justice appeared to have been sealed following a ruling a she gave to a Bill introduced in Parliament by the Economic Development Minister, Basil Rajapaksa, one of the many presidential siblings controlling the levers of power. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bill, which wanted to empower the Central government to control a $614-million development budget, violated the constitution. The court added that it had to be first approved by nine provincial councils.

In early November, when 117 government parliamentarians handed over an impeachment motion against the Chief Justice to the Speaker of the legislature (Chamal Rajapaksa, another sibling), the process that followed affirmed how heavy the odds were stacked against Bandaranayake. The Sri Lankan constitution has ensured that the President and his ruling party hold all the cards in filing an impeachment motion, conducting a parliamentary inquiry and voting in the House to unseat the holder of such a hallowed seat as the Chief Justice.

An inquiry or inquisition?

But last Thursday, a dramatic twist was added to a predictable plot. After four hours of its third sitting, the Chief Justice and her legal team walked out of the government-dominated, 11-member PSC. Her lawyers said their client had “no faith” in the PSC and that it violated the rules of natural justice.

The walkout underscored the question on many minds: was the PSC an inquiry or an inquisition? The question stemmed from what Bandaranayake was subjected to that day. Not only was a procedure for the inquiry still to be spelled out, but the accused was given close to 1,000 pages of documents to respond to in a day, no witnesses were listed, no oral evidence would be permitted, cross-examinations would be denied and two government parliamentarians on the PSC heckled the beleaguered Chief Justice during the proceedings, calling her a pissu geni (“a mad woman,” in Sinhala).

Making bank accounts public

Such has been the haste to get rid of Bandaranayake that due process and legal consistency have both been given the go-by. In a now familiar political tactic of the regime, the government-controlled media held its own trial to vilify the latest enemy of the state. The state’s media have, for instance, repeatedly made public Ms Bandaranayake’s private bank accounts — a brazen violation of banking secrecy protected by law.

The state-run Daily News has been in the vanguard. Commentaries and reports in its pages have carried details of the alleged accounts Bandaranayake had and supposed amounts and transactions in each. Her private finances feature in two of the 14 charges in the impeachment motion (which implies that the 117 legislators who signed it have seen the bank accounts).

Such a display of impunity on a vital feature of the economy was not used even in the 30 years that Sri Lanka fought the Tamil Tigers. When government investigators wanted to follow the financial trail of Tamil Tiger operatives, a court order was often sought to access bank accounts, despite the Emergency laws in operation then and the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Pakistan parallel

Given such political mud she has been dragged through, it is no surprise that Bandaranayake has won support from a broad constituency of jurists, lawyers, academics, activists and religious leaders. Some have now begun to draw parallels between her quest to defend the independence of the judiciary against an all-powerful President and the epic struggle between the Pakistan Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and the country’s then military President, General Pervez Musharraf.

Chaudhary’s sacking triggered a protest led by lawyers that fast drew in others; he was eventually reinstated, and the movement was one of the factors that saw off Musharraf.

Unfortunately for Bandaranayake, such parallels are only in the realm of ideas. The number of supporters on her side is still very few and far from the required critical mass for a movement to defend the independence of the judiciary. Muscle and power on the streets are still controlled by the well-oiled Rajapaksa political machine.

If the inevitable occurs, and she is impeached early next year, Bandaranayake’s plight would affirm who the real winners are in a post-war country trying to promote itself internationally as a “Wonder of Asia.” It would clearly not be those who think that the judiciary has a legitimate role in reining in unbridled political power through a system of prescribed checks and balances. Bandaranayake’s successor is sure to be acutely aware of the political sword dangling over his head.

*Marwaan Macan-Markar is a Sri Lankan journalist covering South Asia and Southeast Asia for an international news agency.This article is first published as Hindu op-ed today.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    I think the time has come for the following actions:
    1. Since the 116 member of the Parliament signed the document at the President’s office, all of them should be taken to courts for falsely accusing the CJ.
    2. The members of the PSC who used un-parliamentary words at the investigation should be taken to court.
    3. All the Government news papers and officials and members of the parliament who accused CJ outside the parliament should be taken to courts.
    When these things are done, then each one of them will tell the truth how they got involved in this process and who or what instigated them to do it. This would bring the truth out to the people of the country.

  • 0
    0

    I think within parliment they are protected by parlimentary privilege but if the make statements outside proceedings they are liable to legal action. It is time to take action against these foul mouths at least to put an end to their vile actions.

    1. People like Koparage Vermin consistently break the law yet there is no one to challenge and bring him to book.
    2. MP’s who have not declared their assets should be taken to task by filing action against the commisioner of elections?

    “Oct 30, Colombo: Elections Commissioner of Sri Lanka Mahinda Deshapriya has decided to make candidates contesting future elections to hand over their assets and liabilities declarations before receiving nominations to contest.

    Deshapriya has decided to get the assets and liabilities declarations from all candidates before any general, provincial council or local government elections.

    The Commissioner has also said that firm action and even legal action would be taken against the candidates who fail to submit their assets and liabilities declaration.

    The power to make such a decision by the Elections Commissioner has been outlined in the 18th Amendment to the Constitution.

    According to the election laws in the country, the Elections Commissioner has the mandate to file legal action against the candidates who fail to submit their assets and liabilities declarations.

    The latest move by the Elections Commissioner is expected to help build a good political culture in the country. “

    • 0
      0

      President’s office is not Parliament so the MPs who signed the notice can be taken to courts and charged.

      Also the lawyers should file cases against all the MPs who have taken bribe and wrong things. This is the time to clean the mess.

      Also if the Election Commissioner cannot do his job, then he too has to be taken to courts.

      Since lawyers are today up in arms against the Govt, they themselves can file the case so that no outside expenses have to be borne by any one else.

  • 0
    0

    pls send me all ditail sri lanka cj problam / (italy) perpavore vostro srilanka cappo di jugichi problema me manda tutto storiya grazie

  • 0
    0

    I believe that there have been mistakes on the part of many parties to this conflict. The teams involved, do not necessarily play ball without fouls.

    None of the parties can claim to be complete victims or claim moral superiority to the exclusion of the other, although many readers are quick to become partisan and hit out at their opponents.

    Given the fallout and its inherent feature of unpalatability, what options remain, for the future directions of the judiciary and its divided membership?

  • 0
    0

    Adei good time to work against this government. I know this lady is better than Pribharan.Shame on him! He could not do this much of damage.
    What an ideal time to enter into the scene.That bugger Sarath Fonseka is useless.In vain we spent so much of money on his campaigns. Shiranee and Wijedasa are the real guys to do the job.When her husband tried his best to play out some money from the banks and when this lady got some benefits from Lalith I thought they are simply crooks. They are really the best henchman for our work within Srilanka.They are the Maveerar of our times and our eelam!

  • 0
    0

    people say CJ is falsely accused. CJ was first accused by UNP and JVP
    They wanted her to resign from the post when her husband was found guilty of corruption charges. That alone enough her to resign from her post. When She sworn before the president as CJ why did not she pint out that the provision in the constitution regarding removal of CJ in case of impeachment allegations is wrong. She should have not accepted the post.
    The procedure of removal of a CJ is the same for other countries too.
    She needs to try and change constitutions in other countries too.
    UNP, JVP and all these foreigners who oppose this impeachment should first change the constitutions of their own countries.
    What about the Golden Key victims ? C.J. is influential enough to get the best lawyers and capable of spending for them.
    CJ has got money from responsible parties to cover up dirty work of Ceylinco.
    Which journal or which magazine or which NGO is making a voice against golden key offenders.
    offenders?

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.