23 October, 2021

Blog

Impeachment Of CJ – An Unconstitutional Witch-Hunt

By JC Weliamuna

JC Weliamuna

Rajapaksha Regime, through its parliamentarians, handed over an impeachment motion to the Speaker, the elder brother of the President Rajapaksha against the first woman Chief Justice of the country. It appears that the Government of Sri Lanka is in a mighty hurry to “get rid of the Chief Justice” so that a major obstacle for government’s capricious track is removed.  With the handing over of the impeachment, the government has signaled to the entire public service and judiciary   two rules – that the Regime is superior to the Law and that Rule of Law does not exist in the country. This short article is written to bring out several vital issues that the  public should not lose sight of, in relation to  the present impeachment attempt.

Background

The events leading to the impeachment demonstrates that the move to impeach the CJ  is nothing but a political witch-hunt. The tension between judiciary and executive started with Minister Bathirdeen’s unsuccessful attempt to influence the Magistrate of Mannar, resulting in an attack on the Magistrate’s court. Then there were attempts by the Executive  to influence the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) on disciplinary matters, where the JSC stood firm. The JSC, through the Secretary, in fact issued an unprecedented statement on 12th September 2012 stating that there is interference with the functions of the JSC. Everyone knew by whom.  Soon thereafter, the JSC Secretary was brutally assaulted in a typical – state sponsored style attack.  Divineguma Bill, which takes away some of the powers of the Provincial Council and concentrated power of rural development in the hands of a Minister under an unusual legislative scheme, came up for review in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice presided over the relevant Bench. The Minister concerned was another Brother of the President.  The decision has ignited  so much of unfair criticism against the Court. Threats of impeachment emerged with this case! Discharging a constitutional function or a duty (in this case protecting the judiciary against unlawful interference and delivering a judgment) cannot be the basis for any impeachment.

Divineguma Petition not being handed over to Speaker

In   an unusual move, the Speaker of Parliament made an unprecedented statement to the effect that the authority of parliament was undermined by not submitting a petition (filed by one of the petitioners in the Divineguma Supreme Court challenge) to the Speaker and instead submitting to the Secretary General of Parliament. Article 121 of the Constitution states that once a petition is filed, it shall be delivered to the Speaker. Delivered by whom? By the petitioner and not by the Court. However, when the objection was taken on one of the three petitions, the Supreme Court overruled the objection. Even if the Supreme Court upheld the objection, still the Court would have continued with the remaining cases. Under our constitution, the Supreme Court has authority to interpret the constitution and, in my view, the Court rightly rejected the objection. This issue has blown out of proportion and the Speaker made a statement on this! In my view, by interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court has not undermined the authority of the parliament but given effect to the Constitution.  Can this be a basis of an impeachment? Certainly not, because interpretation of the constitution is an exclusive power vested with the Supreme Court.

Investigation against CJ’s Husband and not against others?

Husband of the Chief Justice had been appointed by the Government as the Chairman of National Savings Bank, a state bank and later resigned, after an attempted share scandal.  This is a statutory board consisted of all political appointees – including the President’s astrologer. Only information in the public domain is that the anti-corruption commission conducted an unusual fast track investigation into the matter and a case has been filed against him in the Magistrate’s Court. Person with proper senses know that a share scandal of that magnitude cannot take place without the participation of “higher-ups”. Who are the beneficial owners?  No investigations into those who were involved with it. No one can say that a scandal should not be investigated but when an selective investigation is done,  that raises   serious issues on the investigation itself. Every time when the Divineguam case came up in court – a dramatic event takes place on CJs’ husband’s investigation. Once he was called before this Commission and then before the CID. When the Divineguma case came up last, case was filed in the Magistrate’s Court.  Is there any doubt that this exercise was   intended to twist the arm of the CJ? We all know that the law enforcement mechanism is totally politicized in Sri Lanka today – the government can manipulate a case against any one and can clear any corrupt official, if they want. In any event, the issue of the husband cannot be a sudden wake up call for the government to clear the judiciary or to restore the lost integrity in share market.

No Charges in the Public Domain?

Motion to impeach a judge of the Supreme Court is a serious matter that is permissible on limited grounds. Analysis of any impeachments of any judge of any country will show that the public are generally aware of the allegations – before those allegations are formally brought up. For example, allegations against former CJ Sarath N Silva were known and public discussed about them. However, until today, the public are not aware of the allegations against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayaka. Such situation  is possible,  in my view,  only if the impeachment is totally politically motivated with impunity.

Political Motive

There is overwhelming evidence (or reasonable and logical inferences) to establish that the government was involved in  the attack on JSC (and physical attack on its Secretary) and political mudslinging on the CJ. Take the example of the recent adjournment debate in Parliament on JSC. The Minister of Foreign Affairs Prof. G.L. Peiris virtually justified the attack on the JSC  on the basis that its Secretary was appointed contrary to the constitution. He said that in terms of the Constitution, only the senior most member of the minor judiciary can be appointed as the Secretary of the JSC and the present Secretary was 29th in the seniority list; and therefore should not have been appointed as Secretary. This is absolutely incorrect and false. There are no such provisions in the Constitution. On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Majula Tilakaratne was brought in as a Deputy Secretary by the previous Chief Justice Asoka Silva, who had appointed his own brother as the Secretary, though he was not the most senior.  The then Chief Justice, soon after retirement, became an advisor the President! Many others previously were appointed as Secretary to the JSC, though they were not senior at all.  At this Parliamentary Session, an attempt was also made to table a mudslinging and derogatory “manufactured document” on CJ. Such conduct is unheard of in Commonwealth parliamentary traditions. The Government’s propaganda machine is the other indicator to judge who was behind these attacks.   Several political programmes in State media were designed to criticize the judiciary. All this moves reveals Government’s mala fides.

Unconstitutional Exercise of Judicial Power by Parliament

There is a vital Constitutional issue on whether the Parliament can “hear” the charges against the Chief Justice. Can the Parliament be converted into a court to try an accused? As we know, it is the judiciary that can hear cases and not the parliament – whether it is against the President, judge of a court or any other. Please read carefully the following paragraph in the Constitution (Article 4(c) of the Constitution):

“the judicial power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament through Courts, tribunals, and institutions created and established, or recognized by the Constitution, or created and established by law, except in regard to matters relating to the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of its Members, wherein judicial power of the People may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law.”

It is clear that the cases are to be decided by courts and institutions that have been established to adjudicate judicially. However, parliament can also do it in respect of ONE type of cases; i.e. matters relating to breach of Parliamentary privileges and Nothing Else. Impeachment inquiry  of a judge is not one of them. And therefore, the Parliament cannot hear and determine on whether a judge is guilty of misconduct or not.

Let us also examine the other relevant provision in the Constitution in relation to the impeachment of a judge. Article 107(2) ensures that a judge shall hold office during good behavior and shall not be removed, except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity. Article 107(3) states as follows:

“Parliament shall by law or by Standing Orders provide for all matters relating to the presentation of such an address, including the procedure for the passing of such a resolution, the investigation and proof of the alleged misbehavior or incapacity and the right of such judge to appear and to be heard in person or by representative.”

The Parliament has not passed a law in that regard but by Standing Order 78A, a procedure has been introduced.  The following features are important for this debate:

(i) Once a resolution is tabled in the Order paper, the Speaker shall appoint a select committee of parliament, consisting not less than 7 MPs to investigate and report to parliament on the allegations of misbehavior or incapacity set out in such resolution;

(ii) the judges is entitled to legal representation before the Select Committee

(iii) the select committee shall within one month conclude the inquiry and if not seek further time to complete it from Parliament

(iv) Proceedings are held in camera until a finding of guilt is reported to Parliament by the select committee.

The procedure laid down in the Standing Order seems to suggest that the Select Committee is serving as a judicial body to find a person guilty! This is therefore contrary to the Constitution – Article 4(c) and in my view ultra vires the Constitution.

Different to Two Previous Impeachment Attempts

Unlike previous impeachment motions, present one is unique. Motion to impeach Hon. Neville Samarakone CJ took years as the Select Commission did not want to rush through and parliament readily extended the period. Samarakone CJ had the best representation in the form of S. Nadeson QC. The Opposition fully supported him against the impeachment. Media was not under the government control in the same way we experience today. The Bar was united and strong. Then came the two impeachment moves against Sarath N. Silva CJ. In my view, there were enough and serious allegations against him but the President Chandrika Bandarayaike  protected him by proroguing the Parliament once and then dissolving it second time. With so much of allegations against him, Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse was among those who openly protected him. Part of the Opposition UNP also supported Silva CJ, based on personnel relationships. The Bar was indirectly controlled by Silva CJ through his connections and intimidatory tactics. However, present Chief Justice does not have such open support from politicians as she only discharged official functions with a different approach. She is quiet and secluded. The Bar is presently divided and Bar Association lacks its excellence and leadership. Even lawyers found it difficult to meet her, except on strictly official matter. There are no issues of her integrity.  On the other hand, the state media and part of the Bar is fully controlled by the regime.

Conclusion

Impeachment is not a remedy for private wrongs; it’s a method of removing someone whose continued presence in office would cause grave danger to the nation (Charles Ruff). But proposed impeachment of CJ Bandaranayake is not a danger to the nation but only to a few in  the regime, which believes that  her presence is a stumbling block for their arbitrary rule. The nation cannot do away with the basic principles of justice in impeachment proceedings.  Will Chief Justice of Sri Lanka have a fair hearing in her own country? From LLRC to UPR proceedings and from international conventions to the basic human rights, every one urges the Government of Sri Lanka to uphold Rule of Law. The Government responds to international community with one statement;  “Justice and fair play is guaranteed in Sri Lanka and therefore there is no need for independent investigations into alleged human rights violations externally”. The way how the Chief Justice is treated by the government (and its highly political state mechanism) will tell to the world that Sri Lanka cannot guarantee basic human rights even to its own Chief Justice.

* LLM, Constitutional Lawyer, Eisenhower Fellow, Senior Ashoka Fellow, Former Director Transparency International Sri Lanka, Convener – Lawyers for Democracy

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    Our people are so self-centered. Poor fellow, worried with no PC title was awarded by the President Rajapakse. Had he been awarded him with a President Counsel title ,Waliamuna would have come out with a completely different story and Rajapakse would have been the best leader ever produced in Sri Lanka.

    • 0
      0

      Vishvamithra, you are sadly mistaken. A PC title would have demeaned his position obtained from this BUGGER MR. See the Qualificaions he possess which are far superior to being a PC. When ever I come across a PC I never fail to ask under which President, to asses the value of the title. If it is under RP, CBK and MR, it has no value at all.

      • 0
        0

        When Faizer Mustapha too has become a PC..????????

        • 0
          0

          faizer like any muslim politician puts power and privileges before principles. in strong language it could men a back stabber. what does this guy know about 13 amendment or power of devolution. faizer is a halal goat slaughterer in an abattoir and he too is allowed to speak on rights of minorities .
          what a shame.

    • 0
      0

      Many thanks for this excellent article Mr. Weliamuna. Three points:
      1. As noted here, the Judiciary is above the legislature and the executive in any democracy and should not be harassed or intimidated by the later. Indeed impeachment of the CJ on secret charges is an insult to the citizens of Lanka and People must go on the streets to protest this insult to the people and the justice system of the country!
      2. The Sri Lankan public has the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to know the secret charges being made against the CJ by the corrupt and murderous crook Mahinda Rajapass and his venal brothers and cronies.
      The citizens of Lanka have the MORAL Right to Information and want to know the charges being brought against the CJ by the single most corrupt and venal regime and family in Sri Lanka’s post independence history.
      3. Time has come to impeach Rajapassa brothers and their crooked crony Nivard Cabraal at the Central Bank (whose only qualification is that he can speak grammatical English, which Rajapassa cannot). Cabraal has lost the Sri Lanka people and State billions of rupees, much of which siphoned off to Rajapassa’s Swiss bank accounts! It is he and not the CJ that must be impeached.
      4. The UNP dictator Ranil Wickramasinghe, instead of playing internal politics and dividing his own party, should stop collaborating with the Rajapassa dictatorship and the UNP should join with the joint opposition in a massive demonstration demanding regime change — for the harassment of the CJ and the violation of the highest institution in the land.
      5. Rajapakse has overplayed his hand and regime change is now inevitable. The people of Lanka are insulted and outraged by Rajapassa and his family of crooked goons. This will be the end of the Rajapakse dictatorship – the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

    • 0
      0

      That is what happens when you get in the way of FAMILY’S FUNDS.

      • 0
        0

        And by the way, what are those bloody women’s NGOs who are payed big bucks by donors to globe trot and conference-hop doing?

        They should be protesting the attack on Lanka’s first woman CJ!

    • 0
      0

      Well, I know for sure, Weliamuna does not need these PC attachments to his name. He is accepted as he is. A senior lawyer, a consistent human rights activist and campaigner and a decent human being. What more does he want than that social acceptance?
      Now to my own comments.
      I personally don’t agree on Weli’s recognition of the present CJ, Shiranee Bandaranayake. I stress on that as it counts very much when we conclude as to what this conflict is. She presided over the petitions on the 18 A in August, 2010. Knew quite well the R regime had by then secured the 2/3 majority and she agrees to a 2/3 majority approval without asking for a referendum when that 18 Amendment was taking off the 17 A and removing the two term barrier on any President. It was after that she was made the CJ in May, 2011. It was 06 months later she threw all traditions, morals and personal integrity out of the window and with a beaming smile posed for a family photograph with the Rajapaksa family in Dec 2011 when Namal R was sworn in as a lawyer. It wasn’t just for nothing her husband was made the Chairman of the SL Insurance Corp first and after he messed it up and had to leave, was made the Chairman of the NSB. SHE WAS DEFINITELY A STOOGE, A LOYALIST OF THIS RAJAPAKSA REGIME and was never an independent judge as Weliamuna paints her.
      That is why when the SC determined the PC consent has to be obtained for the Town & Country Planning Ordn Amendment Bill sought by this regime in April this year, there were no fights between the Executive and the Judiciary.
      The President sent the Bill to all PCs and the Eastern Provincial Council had reservations over land powers vested with the Buddhasasana Minister. The govt. decided to withdraw the Bill in May this year, without any conflicts with the Judiciary and this CJ. Meanwhile this same judiciary gave very anti people verdicts for the benefit of the R regime, against Trade Union protests.
      This conflict that has now come about, within just 3 months after May, can not be on her stance and independence, for SHE HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENT. They have their own untold infighting that they have not been able to sort out, behind the backs of the people. It is into this conflict that we as citizens have to intervene, because that gives us an unexpected chance to raise the issue of “independence of the judiciary”. Lets not forget that this is just an interval. Personal conflicts that gives us these chances don’t always work right, unless we intervene with a thorough understanding of its politics. They can always compromise for their own benefit, even while the PSC process on the impeachment is on.
      I therefore feel we should use this interval not merely to save this CJ from the impeachment, but to raise the issue of independence of judiciary within Constitutional Reforms. We have to now put forward a demand for such reform that could help create a new social dialogue, that within its discourse, can expose the limitations and biases, in the present system after the 17 A was repealed.
      Or else we would turn out as mere bodyguards of another stooge who fell foul with the regime for her own personal reasons.
      Kusal Perera

    • 0
      0

      I think you are sadly mistaken. As far as we know Weliamuna is not a man who changes his stand or views for titles such as President’s Councel or any other thing. He will never even ask for it from the Rajapakshe regime or from any other regime. He will stand for what is right. He will stand for the protection of the Human rights, against corruption and here he is for the independence of the judiciary.

    • 0
      0

      Vishvamithra, I think you are sadly mistaken. As far as we know Weliamuna is not a man who changes his stand or views for titles such as President’s Councel or any other thing. He will never even ask for it from the Rajapakshe regime or from any other regime. He will stand for what is right. He will stand for the protection of the Human rights, against corruption and here he is for the independence of the judiciary.

  • 0
    0

    It is indeed very, very sad that this impeachement motion against the CJ has come about and provided further fuel to the national and international forces inimical to Sri Lanka’s interests, of which there is no shortage

    However it must be remembered that when Dr. Shiranee Bandaranayake was appointed CJ, the prophets of gloom of Sri Lanka alleged that she was a political appointee, a Rajapakse favourite who could not be expected to rule agint the govt and the appoitment was furthering the slide to loss of independence of the judiciary and eroding democracy.

    However, what the actions of the CJ has demonstrated is that these prophets of gloom were patently wrong by ruling against the very heart of the rajapakse regime, to the extent of provoking an impeachement motion by the Rajapaks’s themselves, so demonstrating fearcely no loss of her independence or the independence of the Judiciary.

    So if any thing, the slide has been towards more rather than less independence in the actions of judiciary.

    Due process , with the appointment of a 4 person parliamentery subcommmitte consisting of one govt and three opposition member sub committe is under way, examining the justification for th impeachement. Perhaps, we shgould await the outcome of their deliberations.The leader of the opposition has already announced that he would be a part of this sub committee.

    And this is by no means the first impeachement of a CJ in SL.

    Perhaps, there is still room something better than only doom and gloom for independence of judiciary & democracy in Sri Lanka.

    To put things in perspective, democracy was thought have been laid to rest in SL in 1972 with the nationalisation of Lake House wth the obituray notice surreptitiously appearing in the Daily News next day which went something like: “O’cracy – Dem, father of Freedom and Press laid to rest at Lake House on…. “

    Since then SL has had peaceful transfer of power by the ballot in multiple ocasions and Democracy has thrivesd better than in many similar nations.

    Even in the US, politicisation of judicial Decisions are not unknown. Eg. George Bush’s first election as President over Al Gore was detrmined by a majority in the Florida Supreme court which consisted of a majority of judges appointed by his brother Jef Bush! So, at worst we are in good company!

  • 0
    0

    Grater debat has been an open on Imperchemnt against CJ’s on Husband alligation of Inside Trading of NSB share trancation had been halted by Preisdent of Sri lanka.The very root caue of Imperchment goes back her husband suspection on such corrupation charges.
    Sri lankan judiciary system and legal frame work still runing colonial remnats of Roman-Duch law as mixed with British legal process.
    Any person who are in HIGHER position in Sri Lankan,who has involment of such charges,many thinking tanks have thier own reservation for INTERPARTION.
    Are there anyone who is Higher postion OR any PERSONS involed with corrupation charges are ABOVE THE EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW OF OUR LAND.
    Why is that? The path of indepandence since 1948 and modernization of democracy new political leaders, has deeply conscious of colonoial humiliation of being forced by British colonial mentality.eliazing how far Sri Lankan lagged behind moderan democracy.
    Judiciary not having only system of democracy goverance,it has attached great importance of privilage few of Colonial order in our society.The result of such move,needless to say Judges, lawyers and other legal profecession are seems to be not come under commom law.
    The elecated government is or ought to be instituted for the people benfit,protection and security of the commner,nation and society.
    The governmant most effectually secured against the danger of corrupation and maladiministaion.
    When elected govenment shall be found inadequate or contrary to these objecative a majority of elecated members of Parlimaent of the country has an INDUBITABLE,UNALIENABLE and INDEFAENCEBLE RIGHT TO REFOM OR CHANGE OR ALTER OR ABLOISH OR IMPERACHED it in such good manner as be judge most conducative to public will and interest.
    What I have to say is ‘that no man/women or set of men/women are entital to exclusive privileges form the State,but consider of PUBLIC SERVICES..which not BEING descendible,neither ought the officer Judge Magistrate ,legislator or Superem court Judges to be hereditary.
    Ongoing case against CJ, we have approch by differant angle differant soulation.
    The charges aginst CJ’S husband need to address without dealy.
    The way to seek soluation is confined to REMOVE or REPLACE of CJ position toseek FAIR JUDGEMNT against her husband.
    Even if we are going to protected CJ and withdraw her imperchment,we are indireacly suppot and promoated privileges postion are be exonerated corrupation charges against her husband.Really we are promoating heap of corrupation in our society.
    Beside political belives or political affiliation we have support for this proposed imperchmant to clean up democracy order of Island.
    This has nothing to do with President or His team couurpation.
    We should not mixed differant cases in one soluation.Diffreant problem handle by democraic society, deal with differant ways and means.

    • 0
      0

      With deep regret it is announced that the Queen has died reading the above. Funeral Arrangements will be notified later.
      Informant – Mrs. Malaprop.

    • 0
      0

      Please, please express your thoughts in a language you are more comfortable with! Thank you.

  • 0
    0

    I think JC has pointed out the valid point that whether the parliament has jurisdiction on the matter against a supreme court judge.

    • 0
      0

      Weliamuda is wrong on this issue. It is completely constitutional to impeach a judge. UNP did that twice. Chandrika was going to do that. I know the law. Mr Weliamuda is an NGO fellow.

  • 0
    0

    is there any chance of impeaching rajapaksa for abuse of power.

    • 0
      0

      No way, unless a guy like “Somarama” comes to Sri Lanka’s rescue!!

      • 0
        0

        Absolutely Mike, unless we hire that Elle Gunawansaya.

  • 0
    0

    It is a Question of “Justification”..Public & moral perceptions are important-not Standing Orders & arbitary rules.Is it so serious & outrageous, as to warrant-‘removal”.What does the BAR & the Public think??
    Parliamentary majority is Political & partisan.Has any opposition party members-signed the resolution??If not ,Why?-Viva

  • 0
    0

    It is nice to watch when theives fight. She got a position to her husband, gave photo oppotunity to Namal. Husband gave illegal money to Dunida’s brother on the Instructionsof Gota. How much himslf out of it no body knows. She was getting all the instructions for supreme court decicons from Mainda via astrologer – co-board member of hisband’s NSB. Why she is against Mahinda. Is it because husband did what Mahinda/Gota wanted on teh The Finance deal and he was sacked after he obediently carried out their INstructions. Is it because of that she started to give decisions against Mahinda. She is know saint to protected by People.
    Of course as far as teh Tamisl are concerned more and more Mahinda should punish the SInhala race for they supported him in the war crime of Slaughtering Tamils

  • 0
    0

    Rama – In civilised countries functioning under the Rule of Law, the answer to your question is in the affirmative. A few weeks ago an Italian Court sentenced for 6 years in jail 5 scientists – Members of the Group of Major Risks Committee – of the City of L’Aquila for failing to evacuate the citizens of the city in the Earthquake of March 2009 that destroyed L’Aquila. The relationship between the Governing and the governed calls for accountability and responsibility. But here, where established druff-traffickers are in Parliament as Ministers hobknobbing with the Hight and Mighty – where criminal gun slinging drug lords are Ministry “Advisors” anything goes????

    Senguttuvan

  • 0
    0

    Yes, peoples power could not only impeach the president, but could bring down the regeime with collective participation and protests.

  • 0
    0

    Sugathe your English is terrible, please learn basic spelling and grammer before you write to forums like this.Kaduwa dala regina saha raja meruwa.

  • 0
    0

    According to Mr.J.C Weliamunu’s didactic and elucidated article meant cheifly to novics in law, the impeachment is essentially a politically and basely motivated,unconstitutional and vengence motivated action. Legally if the Parliament can’t interprit the Constitution, how can it sit in judgement on a CJ? .People must be very careful, as Buddha warned, not to be misled by those who proefess great knowledge or learning .Prof.G.L.Peris is an excellent example.His interpretation of the law is one sided to suit the Regime. If it is in the name of People every charge is framed why does the Government hide from the People what are the Charges against the CJ. May be the People wold rise against the unfair impeachment against a CJ that won the respect of People for not induging in politics, trying to rough shouldes with VIPs and is maintaining her decency and decorum. The Rajapaksha family and his”Yes Sir” MP’s must realise 90% among he People are against this unfair impeachment done in theri name. Lest the number cursing this govenment, increase, it is wel to withdraw the impeachment.

  • 0
    0

    My sentiments are the same just for the post (its tyranny at its best by famalia) and the Divi bill as the poorest of the poor may end up as in Brazil vanished for development. Anyway, the eleven charges against the Chief Justice in the impeachment motion look up on [Edited out]

  • 0
    0

    Dr Gamini English language will died, TRUTH will reamin for ever as long as Human Civilization exist.Huaman being subject to made mistake due his or her igroance.

    • 0
      0

      Sugathey why bluff? You have perfect command of the language seeing your vocabulary. I am no Literary Scholar, nor my forefathers English.

  • 0
    0

    This is an absurdly inaccurate and distorted view of the legality of the impeachment motion, typical of [Edited out]

    Is Weliamuna suggesting that standing orders are illegal?

    Well, he should not be claiming to be a qualified lawyer with this level of legal knowledge.

    Obviously, [Edited out] through Weliamuna. He is not transparent!

    P.Fernando

  • 0
    0

    There are two substantial issues here. One – the sanctity of the office of the CJ that should not be violated by the State.

  • 0
    0

    In essence, there are two issues here. One – the sanctity of the office of the CJ. Society must resist any effort by the Executive to tamper with this high office. My sympathies here lie with the holder of the office.

    Second – the holder of the office should observe maximum care he/she steer clear from the likely controvery of Conflict of Interest. Usually such conflicts are opaque and difficult to maintain. But in this case CJ Bandaranaike knew, on more than one occasion, her husband waa securing hugh benefits by way of his office – to all of which he was totally unqualified. She should have remembered the traditions of Caesar’s wife here. But this husband of hers did not stop at that. The stained businessman he is he continued to dabble in questionable business deals going into the multi-millions – all calculated to defraud State (People’s) funds. There can be little respite here.
    She may get out on grounds that she herself is not guilty of impropriety. But in the matter of Conflict of Interest, where her paramount concern should have been to uphold the dignity and honour of her office, I am afraid she is remiss.

    Senguttuvan

  • 0
    0

    I cannot aggred with Mr J.C Weliamuna of (Esinerhower Fellow of Lawyers For Democorcy…..There is no challange against our Democracti order BY Mahind Rajapakasa Regime time being in fundamtally.In his t case is concern he has protected Sovergnity, Terrorial Intergrity and Independance of are the pillares of Democratic order of Modern Legal Order. He did that.That is a part play by MR regime of Upheld of Sovergnity of Law of Our tiny Island.
    Of cause MR governmant is not PERFECT ruling class,it has so many mistaks,but also it has inhearted by privious regiams as well.
    Need to be address by ruling party and urgent need to be overall rectify by DEMOCRACY METHODES, WAYS and MEANS.
    As ‘Democratic For Lawyers’ you may be aware of Legal struggle between KIng Or Queen and Parlimeantary in English history of Legal battle.
    It gradully came into being about struggle between Regime of Tyranny and Democarcy socail classes had been that grant TANGIBLE legal RIGHTS according upon social forces upon demand by emerging classes in History of England.
    The our present sources of LEGAL AND JUDICIARY SYSTEM WAS ORIGIN AND DEVELEPOEMT HAD PROGRESS ROOTS HAS GONE TO GRATER PART OF ENGLISH LAW .
    First charater granted by King Jhon in 1215 called ‘Magna Carta’ or ‘Greater Chater’.Is the very cornorstone of English Freedom and accpect by legal order of ongoing Democracy and Supermacy of sovergnity of Law.
    The Right of Petition 1628 is most important “…no man hereafter be complled to make or yelid any gift,loan benevoleance,tax or such like charges without COMMON CONSENT BY ACT OF PARLIAMENT.”
    These are principle has to follow by CJ as highest position in COURT OF LAW and Judiciary In our Island legal system. Husband of CJ follow by such good faith or good manner? I dont think so.
    What I think is RIGHTS, LIBERTIES AND POSITION her capacity such according to laws and statues cannot misused by higher layers of democratic society and legal profession.
    Repercussion of such move will harm to entire leagl proceeding effect into DISORDER IN SOCIAL DISCIPLINE OF DEMOCRATIC FOUNDATION and its NORMAS.
    Look at Terroism as politiacl phonomena had done dagmage to our basic foundation of Democracy society by JVP and LTTE terrorist; since 1965 JVP, LTTE since 1976 had been undermine entire VALUES OF DEMOCRATIC Law AND ORDER of two generation lost and disapper our daily life; how long it will take to won RELIANCE our SOCIETY and REINTEGRATE into our system?
    These are pratical problems we have been challaning anti-people forces of Democracy since last 45 yeras!
    Democracy is not only system of govermnent or goverance, but also a WAY OF LIFE.Sri Lanka has to attached most important to democray set up of people’s livelihood and incremental of FAIR JUSTICE SYSTEM IN JUDICIARY MORE REFOM PURSUED INNOVATED DEMOCRACY SUITED OUR HISTROCAIL DEVELOPMENT EQULITY BEFORE THE LAW IN OUR SOIL.
    WE MUST HAVE NATIOANL CONDITIONS OF JUSTICE KEEP IN MIND PARGAMATIC MANNER TO SEEK SOLUATION OF CJ’s Impercament is essantial to claen up Justice system in outdated remmants for our sovergnity and supermacy of Law.

  • 0
    0

    Yes its nothing but a digracful wich hunt by a group of vote riggers and political scum who got into p[arliament by intimidation aare the wich hunters damn them

    • 0
      0

      correct witch

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.