By H.L.de Silva –
Here is an extract from a lecture delivered by Mr. H.L.de Silva, President Counsel, (Senior Counsel who appeared for Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike and for the Sri Lanka Freedom Party in many instances)
The “theme “of the lecture was “THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN THE PROTECTION OF CONSTITIUTIONAL RIGHT DELIVERED AT SEMINAR ORGANIZED by the Council of Liberal Democracy.
Article could found in ‘IDEAS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS” Edited by Dr.Chanaka Amaratunga -1989
Page 495-509 and paragraph could be found on pages 505 and 506,
On Removal of Judges
Having regard to these far reaching powers it appears to be in congruous for Parliament determine a procedure under Article 107(3) by framing Standing Orders that give the power to Select Committee of the House to determine whether or not a judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal has been guilty of misbehavior or incapacitated, as ground for removal from office. The determination of guilt when a judge is charged with misconduct is clearly an exercise of judicial power by Parliament directly, which is inconsistent with Article 4(c), since it does not fall within the exception therein mentioned. I my submission, what is contemplated in Article 107(3) is prescribing procedure which enables the guilt of a judge to be determined by a body competent to exercise judicial power directly, namely a court, tribunal or other institution established for the purpose. It is only after a judicial finding by such a body that Parliament is empowered under Article 107 to vote on the question of his removal. The existing procedural anomaly needs to be remedied.
(This paragraph is also can found in “IDEAS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS” , EDITED BY Dr Chanaka Amaratunga revised and abridged by Dr Rajiva Wijesinha-2007- IBH Publishers at page 239)
*Sent by Kamal Nissanka, Attorney-at-Law, Secretary General, Liberal Party of Sri Lanka
Read more about Impeachment Motion Against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake here