25 November, 2020

Blog

Perceived Judicial Bias, Disqualification And Duplicity On The Part Of CJ Tendered To The SC

By Nihal Sri Ameresekere –

Nihal Sri Ameresekere

Written Submission as far back as February 9, 2012 on perceived judicial bias and disqualification, and duplicity on the part of Chief Justice tendered to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court declines to entertain same and returns the same being taken off the Court Record, on making the following Minute s by Justices N.G. Amaratunga, R.K.S. Sureshchandra and Sathya Hettige. 

“All papers submitted  by the Petitioner in supporting this application to assist the Bench is returned to the Petitioner and those papers shall not form a part of  record in this case.

The record consists only of the Petition and the amended petition filed by the Petitioner and no other material is to be considered as a part of the record.”

Further to the earlier Oral Submissions, with Written Submissions thereon, the Petitioner, in the national and public interest, most respectfully tenders these additional Submissions, arising from the dicta in the given facts and circumstances disclosed by the Judgments of the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords in re – Pinochet cited in the said earlier Submissions.

On the persuasive submissions by the Queens Counsel appearing for Senator Pinochet, contending that, although there was no exact precedent, the House of Lords must have jurisdiction to set aside its own Orders, where they have been improperly made, since there is no other Court, which could correct such impropriety, another Committee of the House of Lords entertained the Petition of Appeal by Senator Pinochet for review of their own Judgment, whilst unanimously holding that they have jurisdiction to rescind or vary an earlier order to correct an injustice causedviz: dicta of Lord Browne-Wilkinson, with the other Lords agreeing: (Copies of Judgments attached  marked “A”, with relevant paragraphs highlighted, with emphasis added)

Jurisdiction

As I have said, the respondents to the petition do not dispute that your Lordships have jurisdiction in appropriate cases to rescind or vary an earlier order of this House. In my judgment, that concession was rightly made both in principle and on authority.

In principle it must be that your Lordships, as the ultimate court of appeal, have power to correct any injustice caused by an earlier order of this House. There is no relevant statutory limitation on the jurisdiction of the House in this regard and therefore its inherent jurisdiction remains unfettered.

However, it should be made clear that the House will not reopen any appeal save in circumstances where, through no fault of a party, he or she has been subjected to an unfair procedure. Where an order has been made by the House in a particular case there can be no question of that decision being varied or rescinded by a later order made in the same case just because it is thought that the first order is wrong. “

1. In the public interest, the Petitioner is reluctantly compelled to most respectfully place the following, as additional grounds warranting the exercise of the inherent powers of the Supreme Court, to set aside or rescind or rectify the Determination No. 2/2011 of 24.10.2011 on the Bill titled – “An Act to provide for the vesting in the Government identified Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets” .

2. A 5 Member Committee of the House of Lords delivered Judgment on 25.11.1998 allowing an Appeal by a majority 3 to 2 verdict, against the quashing by the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court of an arrest warrant against former Head of State of Chile, Senator Pinochet, to be extradited from the UK; against whom there had been allegations of crimes against humanity, for the prosecution of which, the Spanish Supreme Court had issued international warrants for his arrest.

3. Thereafter, upon discovery, that one of the Lords, who allowed such Appeal, namely, Lord  Hoffmann and his wife, Lady Hoffmann, had links with Amnesty International, who had intervened in the Application for the arrest and extradition of Senator Pinochet, his Lawyers in such circumstances, proffered a Petition to the House of Lords to review their own Judgment.

4. The foregoing discoveries were consequent to squealing, whistleblowing and media exposures, resulting in Amnesty International’s Solicitors by Letters dated 1.12.1998 and 7.12.1998 admitting that Lady Hoffmann had been working at the International Secretariat of Amnesty International in UK, mainly in administrative positions; and further admitting that Lord Hoffmann had been Director and Chairman of Amnesty International Charity Ltd., UK, which carried out some aspects of work of Amnesty International Ltd., UK, both being functionaries of Amnesty International. Lord Hoffmann had no financial interest and had not received any remuneration from these institutions.

5. The new 5 Member Committee of the House of Lords, who entertained the Petition of Appeal by Senator Pinochet for review of the Judgment of 25.11.1998 by a 5 Member Committee of the House of Lords, delivered on 17.12.1998 the Judgment of Their Lords of Appeal, with reasons given on 15.1.1999, setting aside the previous Judgment of the House of Lords of 25.11.1998, and directing a re-hearing by a differently constituted Committee, without any of Their Lords, who had heard the matter.

6. The kind attention of the Supreme Court is very respectfully drawn to the paragraphs highlighted with emphasis added in the Judgments of the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords annexed marked “A”

7. SC Special Determination No. 2/2011 of 24.10.2011 on the Bill titled – “An Act to provide for the vesting in the Government identified Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets”,  was delivered by a 3 Judge Bench, presided by Her Ladyship the Chief Justice, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, with His Lordship Justice, P.A. Ratnayake and Ladyship Justice, Chandra Ekanayake.

8. In the Judgment delivered on 4.6.2009 in SC (FR) Application No. 158/2007 by the Supreme  Court, annulling the privatization of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd., (SLICL), as wrongful, unlawful and illegal, the Supreme Court, inter-alia, made the following Order:

“5 Since it is necessary in the interest of the public to ensure proper and efficient management of SLICL, this Court directs the Secretary to the Treasury, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to submit to this Court for its approval the appropriate number of names of persons who have recognized academic/professional qualifications and more than 10 years experience in anyone or more of the fields of business management, accountancy, law, commerce, economics, and insurance to be appointed to the Board of Directors of SLICL. The Secretary to the Treasury is directed to submit the list of names within two weeks from today. The Secretary to the Treasury is hereby authorized to make suitable arrangements to administer the affairs of SLICL until a Board of Directors is appointed. “ (Emphasis added)

9. On or about 26.6.2009 the Supreme Court approved the names of Directors submitted by the Deputy Solicitor General, having noted that the 1st Respondent, Minister of Finance had given approval therefor.

10. Consequently, in or about July 2009, Pradeep G.S. Kariyawasam, assumed Office, as Chairman, SLICL. SLICL functions under the purview of the Ministry of Finance and the post of Chairman, SLICL was a prestigious post, with lucrative perquisites.

11. The 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera was compelled to resign from the post of Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Secretary to the Treasury and other public office, in the face of the severe castigations made against him in the Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on 21.7.2008 in SC (FR) Application 209/2007, annulling the privatization of Lanka Marine Services Ltd., as wrongful, unlawful, illegal and fraudulent, and the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera tendered an Affidavit dated 16.10.2008 to the Supreme Court, inter-alia, declaring, affirming and undertaking not to hold any public office,  directly or indirectly, or purport to do so.

12. The Secretary to the President, having intimated that the 1st Respondent, Minister of Finance, as the President of Republic, had instructed the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera to resume duties, as  Secretary, Ministry of Finance  & Secretary to the Treasury, P.B. Jayasundera made Application to the Supreme Court to be relieved of the aforesaid undertaking given by the Affidavit dated 16.10.2008 to the Supreme Court.

13.

a)   Consequent to the majority Judgments, with one Justice dissenting, delivered on 13.10.2009 in SC (FR) Application No. 209/2007 by a 7 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera was re-instated, as Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Secretary to the Treasury, by the 1st Respondent, Minister of Finance. The Application of the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera was heard as a matter of general and public importance in terms of Article 132(3)(iii) of the Constitution.

b)   The majority 6-1 Judgment of the 7 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, whilst refusing the substantial 2 prayers (a) and (b) to the Amended-Petition of the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera, granted relief under the 3rd prayer  (c) i.e. “grant such other and further relief as to Your Lordships’ Court shall seem fit and meet ”, holding that the 1st Respondent, Minister of Finance, as the President of the Republic, in terms of Article 52 of the Constitution, was free to appoint the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera, as Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Secretary to the Treasury.

14. Subsequent to having been appointed as Chairman, SLICL in or about July 2009, thereafter in or about May 2010, Pradeep G.S. Kariyawasam was appointed by the 1st Respondent, Minister of Finance, as Chairman, National Savings Bank, which also comes under the purview of the Ministry of Finance, of which the Secretary was and is the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera. Chairman, National Savings Bank is also a prestigious post, with lucrative perquisites.

15. Upon the said Bill titled – “An Act to provide for the vesting in the Government identified Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets”, in terms of Article 122(1)(b) of the Constitution having been referred to Her Ladyship the Chief Justice, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake on Friday, 21.10.2011 by the President of the Republic, who is also the 1st Respondent, Minister of Finance, the Special Determination No. 2/2011 of Monday, 24.10.2011 was delivered by a Bench presided by Her Ladyship the Chief Justice, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake.

16.

a)  The 1st Respondent, Minister of Finance and 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera, Secretary, Ministry of Finance, under whose purview most of the Enterprises listed in the Schedule to the Bill came, among others, had been interested and instrumental in mooting the formulation and enactment of the Bill, with the 1st Respondent, Minister of Finance, having made public pronouncements thereon, inter-alia, vide Hansard Columns 3223/3224 of 21.12.2011.

b)   The 37 Enterprises and the 77 allotments of Land were to be vested in the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera, as the Secretary to the Treasury, to be held on behalf of the State, as per Sections 2 and 4 of the Bill titled – “An Act to provide for the vesting in the Government identified Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets”

17. Pradeep G.S. Kariyawasam, who was appointed, as aforesaid, to prestigious high profile political Offices by the 1st Respondent, Minister of Finance, at his will and pleasure, and functions under the purview of the 3rd Respondent, Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Secretary to the Treasury, P.B. Jayasundera, is the husband of Her Ladyship the Chief Justice, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake; and though the Surnames used are different, this matter has been raised in the public domain.

18. Arising from the dicta in the given facts and circumstances disclosed by the aforesaid Judgments of the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords in re Pinochet (“A”), the foregoing facts and circumstances, warrant the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the highest judiciary, to  rescind / set aside or vary or rectify SC Determination No. 2/2011 of 24.10.2011 on the Bill titled – “An Act to provide for the vesting in the Government identified Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets”, which had been determined upon by a Bench presided by Her Ladyship the Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake.

18. In the public interest, the foregoing are additional grounds to augment the grounds in the separate Submissions made earlier in respect of the dicta contained in the Determination No. 2/2011 of 24.10.2011 of the Bill titled – “An Act to provide for the vesting in the Government identified Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets”, vis-à-vis, the constitutional mandates referred to in the said separate Submissions made earlier.

20. It is most respectfully submitted that national and public interest being of paramount importance,  the Petitioner stands bound and compelled to reluctantly place before the Supreme Court the matters contained herein, citing the following ‘extracts’ from the Judgments of the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords in re – Pinochet (“A”). (Emphasis added)

LORD BROWNE-WILKINSON

#      “The matter proceeded to your Lordships’ House with great speed  …… Lord Hoffmann agreed with their speeches but did not give separate reasons”.

#      “…… there was a real danger or reasonable apprehension or suspicion that Lord Hoffmann might have been biased ….. it is alleged that there is an appearance of bias not actual bias”.

#      “The fundamental principle is that a man may not be a judge in his own cause …… or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome is sufficient to cause his automatic disqualification”.

#      “….. may give rise to a suspicion that he is not impartial, for example because of his friendship with a party …..  the judge will not normally be himself benefiting, but providing a benefit for another by failing to be impartial”.

#      “…. he is disqualified without any investigation into whether there was a likelihood or suspicion of bias”.

#      “..… that absolute prohibition was then extended to cases where, although not nominally a party, the judge had an interest in the outcome”.

#      “….. anything other than a financial or proprietary interest in the outcome is sufficient automatically to disqualify a man from sitting as judge in the cause”.

#      “….. therefore a judge is automatically disqualified if he stands to make a financial gain as a consequence of his own decision of the case. ….. the rationale disqualifying a judge applies just as much if the judge’s decision will lead to the promotion of a cause in which the judge is involved together with one of the parties” 

#      “..… whether the events in question give rise to a reasonable apprehension or suspicion on the part of a fair-minded and informed member of the public that the judge was not impartial”.

LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEY

#      “Your Lordships are concerned with a case in which a judge is closely connected with a party to the proceedings”.

#      “It follows that in this context the relevant interest need not be a financial interest. … A judge may have to disqualify himself by reason of his association with a body that institutes or defends the suit”

LORD NOLAN

#    “…..the appearance of the matter is just as important as the reality. “

LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD

#    “Lord Wensleydale stated that, as he was a shareholder in the appellant company, he proposed to retire and take no part in the judgment. The Lord Chancellor said that he regretted that this step seemed to be necessary. Although counsel stated that he had no objection, it was thought better that any difficulty that might arise should be avoided and Lord Wensleydale retired.”

#      “The importance of preserving the administration of justice from anything which can even by remote imagination infer a bias or interest in the Judge upon whom falls the solemn duty of interpreting the law is so grave that any small inconvenience experienced in its preservation may be cheerfully endured.”

#      “It is no answer for the judge to say that he is in fact impartial and that he will abide by his judicial oath. …. He must be seen to be impartial.”

#      “If he has a bias which renders him otherwise than an impartial judge he is disqualified from performing that duty. Nay, more (so jealous is the policy of our law of the purity of the administration of justice), if there are circumstances so affecting a person acting in a judicial capacity as to be calculated to create in the mind of a reasonable man a suspicion of that person’s impartiality, those circumstances are themselves sufficient to disqualify although in fact no bias exists.”

LORD HUTTON

#    “…… or his association with a person or body involved in the proceedings could shake public confidence in the administration of justice”.

#      “ ….. and now covers cases in which the judge has such an interest in the parties or the matters in dispute as to make it difficult for him to approach the trial with the impartiality and detachment which the judicial function requires”. 

#      “…… The third category is disqualification by association ……. where the apprehension of prejudgment or other bias results from some direct or indirect relationship, experience or contact with a person or persons interested in, or otherwise involved in, the proceedings.”  

#      “…. there is an overriding public interest that there should be confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice ….. it is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

#      “The nature of the interest is such that public confidence in the administration of justice requires that the decision should not stand.”     

21.The Petitioner expressly states that these Submissions are nothing personal, and are solely made in the national and public interest, in that, the Petitioner had known Pradeep G.S. Kariyawasam, as one time Marketing Manager of the Motor Division of Brown & Co. Ltd., a then Client of the Petitioner’s Company, Consultants 21 Ltd.

22. The Petitioner did not raise an issue, when in September 2009, a 7 Member Bench of the Supreme Court, including Her Ladyship the Chief Justice, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, heard the aforesaid Application of the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera to be relieved of the undertaking he had given to the Supreme Court by his Affidavit dated 16.10.2008; whereby he was to re-assume Public Office, as Secretary, Ministry of Finance  & Secretary to the Treasury, under whose purview the SLICL came, and by which time Pradeep G.S. Kariyawasam, her husband had been appointed as Chairman SLICL in July 2009.

23. The following ‘extracts’ are cited from the dissenting Judgment dated 13.10.2009 by Her Ladyship Shiranee Tilakawardene, one of the Justices of the 7 Judge Bench, that heard the aforesaid Application of the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera, referred to above (Emphasis added)

“Pursuant to a Petition filed by the 8th Respondent Petitioner (the “Petitioner”) (i.e. the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera in this Application) on 7th July 2009, and twice amended by him on 11th July 2009 (Error should read21st July 2009) and 31st July 2009 (the “Petition”), this application was listed before a bench of 7 judges of the Supreme Court …… ”

“Court …… refuses the reliefs sought in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the prayer to the amended Petition dated 31st July 2009. However the Court is inclined to grant other relief under paragraph (c) of the prayer to the amended Petition.”

“The Petitioner, (i.e. the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera in this Application) amended the Petition on 21st July 2009 without obtaining permission from Court to do so. More specifically, the supporting affidavit made in connection with the amendment lacks a signature of a Justice of the Peace/Commissioner, such omission rendering invalid and false the jurat contained therein. The amended Petition dated 21st July 2009, thus remained unsupported by a valid Affidavit, and, consequently, the said Affidavit should have been rejected in limine.

When this matter was taken up on 3rd August 2009 a fresh set of papers were filed, consisting of a second amended Petition dated 31st July 2009 and a purported Affidavit dated 31st July 2009, once again without having obtained permission of Court.

24.

a)   It was shortly thereafter, that the Petitioner filed Amended Petition dated 10.11.2009, together with a covering  Motion also dated 10.11.2009, explicitly disclosing the amendments made to his Petition filed on 25.6.2009 in SC (FR) Application No. 481/2009, an Application made in the public interest, vis-à-vis, the scandalous Hedging Deals in the perpetration of which the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera had played a pivotal role.

b)   In complete contrast to the foregoing matter of filing Amended Papers on two occasions, one with a defective Affidavit by the 3rd Respondent, P.B. Jayasundera, without the permission of the Supreme Court, Her Ladyship Justice Shirani Bandaranayake on 19.11.2009, expressly directed the Petitioner that he should support such Motion and get approval of the Supreme Court for amending his Petition in terms of the Supreme Court Rules, and for such purpose the matter was fixed for Support. Here again the Petitioner raised no issue.

25. Nevertheless, national and public interest being of paramount importance, the Petitioner in this instance is reluctantly compelled to raise this issue, since the highest judiciary being the last bastion of democracy, the instant matter in issue now before the Supreme Court is of vital importance, infringing upon the inalienable sovereignty of the people, in the exercise of the legislative power of the people, as mandated by the Constitution, which is bound to be upheld and defended, and in the exercise of the judicial power of the people, as per the dicta in the Determination by a 7 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in October 2002, vide para 9 of the Petitioner’s Petition viz: (Emphasis added)

“If there is one principle which runs through the entire fabric of the Constitution, it is the principle of the Rule of Law and under the Constitution, it is the judiciary which is entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the State within the limits of the law and thereby making the Rule of Law meaningful and effective

26. The Petitioner re-produces below paragraphs 16 and 17 of his Petition.

“16. a)    The Petitioner most respectfully submits that Your Ladyship the Chief Justice’s following Minute made on 22.11.2011 in respect of the Petitioner’s Application SC (SD) No. 2/2011 filed on 17.11.2011, with His Lordship Justice P.A. Ratnayake and Her Ladyship Chandra Ekanayake agreeing, viz:

 

“The Determination by this Court was with regard to the Bill and any party that had wanted to intervene should have done so at the time, it was taken before the Supreme Court.”

was per-incuriam

b)       When a Bill is referred to Your Ladyships’ Court, as an Urgent Bill, under Article 122(1) of the Constitution, such Bill is not gazetted in terms of Article 78(1) of the Constitution, and the aforesaid Bill was not gazetted under Article 78(1) of the Constitution at least 7 days before it was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament. The Bill itself bears the date 8.11.2011 and was passed by Parliament on 9.11.2011.

c)       With utmost respect the Petitioner submits that Your Ladyships’ Court had been under the mistaken belief, that the Bill was publicly available for anyone to have intervened, when  it was not the case.

d)       Hence, it was an impossibility for the Petitioner or any other citizen to have intervened to have been heard by Your Ladyships’ Court, as per the facts set out in paragraph 16(a) hereinbelow.

e)       If ‘any party could have intervened’, then as amply evidenced by the several Petitions filed subsequently in Your Ladyships’ Court, and the several Letters addressed by certain affected parties published in the media, then such parties most certainly would have intervened in Your Ladyships’ Court.

f)        At the said Hearing, Your Ladyships’ Court had been assisted only by the Deputy Solicitor General, representing the Attorney General. ”

17. a)  The haste and secrecy in which this Bill had been processed to be enacted into law is  revealed by the following;

i)         Certified by the Cabinet of Ministers, as an Urgent Bill under Article 122(1) of the Constitution on Wednesday, 19.10.2011 (Cabinet Meeting generally are held late evenings) and referred to Your Ladyship’s Court

ii)       As per the Minutes of the Record in Your Ladyship’s Court the said ‘Urgent Bill’ had been received on Friday, 21.10.2011.

iii)      Hearing by Your Ladyship’s Court on the matter of the said ‘Urgent Bill’ had been had on Monday, 24.10.2011 assisted only by the Attorney General.

iv)      The aforesaid Hearing numbered SC (SD) 2/2011 had not been listed in the list of Cases published in the media to be heard by Your Ladyship’s Court on Monday, 24.10.2011.

True copies of the Reports in the Daily News and Daily Mirror of Monday 24.10.2011 are annexed marked together as “X7” pleaded as part and parcel hereof

v)       Even if the matter had been listed, the public would not know that the said specific ‘Urgent Bill’ was being heard into by Your Ladyship’s Court, and the provisions thereof unknown to the public.

vi)      Speaker, 9th Respondent, tabled in Parliament the aforesaid Determination SC (SD) No. 2/2011 only on 8.11.2011

vii)    Speaker 9th Respondent, tabled in Parliament the aforesaid Bill only on 8.11.2011

viii)   On the basis of the aforesaid Determination in SC (SD) No. 2/2011, the Bill, with 15 Committee Stage Amendments,  was passed by Parliament on 9.11.2011,

ix)      Speaker, 9th Respondent had certified the Bill into law on 11.11.2011, (just two days after the Bill with 15 Committee Stage Amendments, was passed by the Parliament on 9.11.2011)

x)       Speaker, 9th Respondent’s aforesaid certification had been announced to Parliament only on 22.11.2011, as per Hansard Column 203 of that date.

b)       The Petitioner had assisted in formulating and processing the enactment of Bills into law, interacting with the Departments of the Attorney General and Legal Draftsman. Two such instances were the enactment of the Companies Act No. 7 of 2007 and the Inland Revenue (Regulation of Amnesty) Act No. 10 of 2004.

c)       The Inland Revenue (Regulation of Amnesty) Act No. 10 of 2004 on a matter of national and public importance had been processed as follows:

i)         Certified by the Cabinet of Ministers, as an Urgent Bill under Article 122(1) of the Constitution on 16.8.2004 and referred to Your Ladyships’ Court

ii)       Hearing thereinto was had by Your Ladyships’ Court on 23.8.2004 assisted only by the Attorney General.

iii)      Bill was presented to Parliament on 7.9.2004

iv)      Parliament debated and with 14 Committee Stage Amendments passed the Bill on 22.9.2004

v)       Bill was certified into law by the Speaker on 20.10.2004

27. The Petitioner filed the following Motion on 18.1.2012 making an Application under and in terms of Article 132(3)(iii) of the Constitution: (Emphasis added)

“WHEREAS when this Application came-up on 25.11.2011, Your Ladyship’s Court directed that Notices be issued on the Respondents, through the Registrar of Your Ladyship’s Court, granting permission to the Petitioner to tender an Amended Petition.

AND WHEREAS accordingly an Amended Petition, having been tendered on 16.12.2011, the Registrar of Your Ladyship’s Court issued Notices on the Respondents returnable on 26.1.2012.

AND WHEREAS the Petitioner respectfully draws the attention of Your Ladyships’ Court to the following dicta by His Lordship the former Chief Justice J.A.N. de Silva in SC (FR) Application No. 352/2007 cited in the said Amended Petition – viz:

“Fundamental Rights applications are qualitatively different from other types of appeals heard before this Court and warrant greater latitude in their consideration and to grant redress in order to encompass the equitable jurisdiction exercised in these applications.”

AND WHEREAS this being a complex matter involving questions of general and public importance, the Petitioner most respectfully states that in terms of Article 132 of the Constitution he stands entitled to make this Application to Your Ladyship the Chief Justice.

AND ACCORDINGLY the Petitioner very respectfully MOVES that Your Ladyship the Chief Justice be pleased to direct that this matter be heard by a Bench comprising 5 or more Judges of Your Ladyship’s Court, on a date convenient to Your Ladyships’ Court,  very respectfully citing that previous Applications by other Parties in relation to this matter had been directed to be heard by a 5-Judge Bench of Your Ladyship’s Court.

AND WHEREAS should the date so fixed by Your Ladyship’s Court be not 26.1.2012, then that Your Ladyship’s Court be pleased to direct the Registrar of Your Ladyship’s Court to so inform the Respondents of the new date, on which this matter is fixed.”

The Documents and matters referred to hereinabove are of record in the Supreme Court, and if need be, copies of same can be provided for the convenience of Your Ladyships, if so directed.

 

 

 

Petitioner

 

9.2.2012

Related stories;

Letter To Speaker On Expropriation Bill And The Chief Justice

CJ’s Husband’s Appointment To State Bank Grounds For Perceived Judicial Bias – New Public Interest Litigation Petition Says

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    Trying to show how smart you are? Rajapakse is impressed.

  • 0
    0

    NA happened to be a self appointed whistle blower (ignored by ther valued professionals)who is trying to vilify CJ and SC both. He has a grudge against both because SC has rejected many cases submitted by him.So he has joined MR wagon like Sarath Silva. Probably he will be nominated to the Parliament.

  • 0
    0

    NA happened to be a self appointed whistle blower (ignored by other valued professionals)who is trying to vilify CJ and SC both. He has a grudge against both because SC has rejected many cases submitted by him.So he has joined MR wagon like Sarath Silva. Probably he will be nominated to the Parliament.

  • 0
    0

    Another Rajapaksa Slipper licker. No one reads your voluminous legal sounding crap. It has bee disposed to the WPB thank you.

  • 0
    0

    Many right thinking people have reservations about certain rulings given by the Supreme Court in the not very distant past. But that is an entirely different issue. And that issue should not be brought up to confuse the current issue- the issue over the bid by the all powerful executive to bring the judiciary lock, stock and barrel under its thumb. If the Chief Justice has done wrong, let her be tried adhering to the proper procedure, not by a Kangaroo court. We all know that MR is not interested in justice and and fair play. He is making an attempt to kill two birds with one stone – take revenge from the Chief Justice for refusing to do his bidding and to reduce the judiciary to a servile arm of the executive. Let no one, please even a good man like Mr. Ameresekere throw any money wrenches into this affair at this stage!

  • 0
    0

    Sorry, a correction,please. The last sentence in my above comment should read as:Let no one,please even a good man like Mr. Ameresekere throw any monkey wrenches into this affair at this stage!

    May I also add that criticizing the CJ at this stage for any reason genuine or perceived will only lend support to the ongoing vilification campaign against her. We must remember that in a civilized society even a most brutal serial killer too deserves a fair trial and an accused is treated as innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. What wrong we do today with a malicious intent can boomerang on us tomorrow!

    • 0
      0

      I agree. Let us not complicate and cloud the issue before us at this time. That would be a great disservice to strengthen the hand of an undemocratic regime.

  • 0
    0

    Mr. Nihal Sri Ameresekere’s work in the public interest at his own cost, unlike NGOs is known. Some of his actions include the Tax Amnesty, Debt Recovery Law, Appropriation Bill 2008, Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation and Lanka Marine Services Privatizations, the Hedging deals and the recent Expropriation Law, which was approved by the CJ behind the back of affected parties, without affording any opportunity to them of being heard and thus denying natural justice to such parties and in violation of Article 123 (3) of the Constitution. On the other hand, CJ had a full month to Answer. Hilton Case is not a public interest action but his own business, as prominently displayed in the double page advertisements today in the Daily Mirror, DailyFT, Lankadeepa and Mawbima. He is entitled to be compensated, since the Government cannot enrich itself by his actions. Guarantees given in the promotion of Hilton was paid by him, contrary to what Minister G.L. Peiris being affected by the action had falsely stated. Courageous Justice Sarath Ambepitiya struck out the Answer of Minister G.L Peiris for his duplicity and gave Mr. Nihal Sri Ameresekere an ex-parte trial in a District Court Case. Mr. Weliamuna, why did you not have the courage to name Mr. Nihal Sri Ameresekere ? There is a Chapter on Transparency International and its duplicity in his Book – “United Nations Convention Against Corruption – to Combat Fraud & Corruption – a Cancerous Menace – with Mere Rhetoric Subverts UN Convention”. The Sunday Island had reported that you had opposed the appointment of CJ and that she should not hear political cases, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court presided by Justice Mark Fernando – one of the Charges. Why did you not take up such Objections when you appeared before her in political cases ?

  • 0
    0

    he thinks he knows everything, accountancy, law, management etc. a goat.

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.