5 December, 2023


Sri Lanka: A Nation With A Derailed Rule Of Law

By Nagananda Kodituwakku

Nagananda Kodituwakku

I can clearly see the apprehension expressed by some concerned citizens about my untimely departure from Sri Lanka with the decision taken to abate the case filed in the Supreme Court challenging the appointment of 10 rejected candidates through the National List.

Judiciary is under intimidation of the Executive

Sri Lankan judiciary is not at all independent and has been compelled to perform under tremendous pressure and intimidation particularly in cases where interests of criminal elements occupying office in the Legislature and the Executive are contested. Challenging of the illegal appointments made to the Parliament through the National List is clearly, one such high profile case involving, all three organs of the government, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

There is no valid provision of law to appoint defeated candidates as MPs

The evidence presented to Court in this case provides irrefutable evidence that in 1988 there had been two Bills circulated in the Parliament for the purpose of amending the Constitution (14th Amendment) to introduce the National List (Article 99A). One Bill approved by the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) and another fraudulent one with a clause unlawfully inserted within brackets to the said provision by the then President JR Jayewardene permitting rejected candidates too to enter the Parliament through the National List. This act is perceived as a committing of a constitutional fraud against the people usurping their undeniable constitutional right of franchise by illegal means.

Five Judges in the Supreme Court approve the flawed clause

Investigation conducted into this constitutional fraud revealed that President Jayewardene had abused his office to intimidate the Judges of the Supreme Court adopting various bullying tactics, which included deployment of hooligans to attack their houses. As International Commission of Jurists termed ‘President Jayewardene had found the Supreme Court is a hindrance to his policies, and has made it more pliable to his needs’.  In this backdrop he had referred a Bill (14A) to amend the Constitution to the Supreme Court on 08th April 1988, with a clause unlawfully inserted within brackets to the PSC approved Article 99A in the 14th Amendment, accommodating defeated candidates as MPs through the National List. Then a Five- judge of the Supreme Court completely ignored a request made by a citizen who appeared before the Court to obtain a copy of J R Jayewardene’s typed-written document, enabling him to raise objections challenging the Bill. In the affidavit made to the Court the Petitioner had informed the Court that the J R Jayewardene’s document was neither tabled in the parliament nor published in the gazette. But the Court has certified (ruling reproduced below) that the clause inserted to PSC-approved Article 99A by J R Jayewardene was not inconsistent with the Constitution.

“We have considered the respective submissions made in regard to this matter, and our determination is that the Clause 3 and Clause 8 (Clause that permitted party Secretaries to appoint rejected candidates as MPs through the National List) of the Bill are not inconsistent with the Provisions of Article 3, read with Article 4(a) and 4(e) of the Constitution, and therefore do not require the approval of the People at a Referendum

Supreme Court refuses to release the 14A Special Determination Record

The evidence contained in the Supreme Court Special Determination Record (SC/SD/2/1988) was a clear revelation of this Constitutional fraud, which should have been averted by the Court but not inclined apparently under moral duress.  Therefore a request was made to the Registrar of the Supreme Court to obtain a certified copy of the said record, in order to challenge the National List appointments. However, 3 judges in the Court including the Chief Justice K Sripavan declined to make a any ruling on this request and finally Justice Wanasaundara made a ruling that I was not entitled to obtained a copy of the said determination record which contained confidential information, whereas there in nothing private or confidential in court records. However, after the media revealed this, the Supreme Court reversed its decision and finally released the entire record of the said Determination Record.

Prime Minister R Premadasa rejected the 14A with the flawed clause

At the committee stage of the 14A on 04th May 1988, the Prime Minister R Premadasa who presented the Bill to the Parliament on behalf of the government, vehemently rejected the 2nd Bill (4) with the flawed clause inserted to Article 99A by the President J R Jayewardene, violating the Parliamentary Standing Orders (PSO 65), and in very unambiguous terms supported only the Bill approved by the PSC headed by him (refer to the Hansard proceedings reproduced below), which was finally approved by the Parliament subject to some minimal changes.

“… Mr Speaker, what is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? I have to raise this question, because there has been a discussion of a 14th Amendment, which, as I understand later, is different from the Amendment to the Constitution that I speak of …“. (Parliamentary Hansard dated 04th May 1988)

“… The 14th Amendment Bill presented today is the result of the deliberations of the Select Committee on Franchise and Elections. Mr Speaker, the provisions of the 14th Amendment, provides for 29 National Members on the basis of the votes of the people in the entire country but without a Cut-Off Point or bonus seat. These 29 will be allocated to the different parties contesting the election, in proportion to the votes received by each such party at the National Level. The Names of these party nominees are known before hand. In fact their names are published in the Gazette immediately after the closing of nominations. Therefore, the voters are aware of the identity of the candidates of the different parties who are to be elected as National Members. Let me therefore make it very clear, that the fourteenth amendment presented today, is the result of the decisions taken by the Select Committee on Franchise and Elections, which concluded its sittings on 29th February 1988. It is based on the Report adopted by this Committee …” (Parliamentary Hansard dated 04th May 1988)

Speaker certified the 14A with a flawed clause

Yet, despite the 2nd Bill was clearly rejected and not approved by the Parliament (refer to the Hansard recording reproduced below), the Speaker certified the ‘Bill not approved by the Parliament’ which contained the foreign clause inserted within brackets by the President J R Jayewardene, allowing defeated candidates to enter Parliament through the National List. This is a serious act of crime, which amounts to commission of a constitutional fraud against the Nation.

The Parliament divided under Standing Order No 43: Ayes 128 Noes 2. Bill, as amended accordingly read the 3rd time passed

Bill as amended, accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Constitution defends the entrenched rights of the people

The Republican Constitution (1978) in very clear terms stipulates that no law that affects the sovereign rights of the people, which include the people’s sovereign rights to franchise (entrenched in Article 3) becomes a lawful amendment to the Constitution and shall not be construed or interpreted so, unless due process provided by the Constitution (Article 82) has been followed to deny such protected rights, which requires approval by the people themselves at a referendum forfeiting their sovereign rights (Article 83).

Challenging the unlawful National List appointment

The constitutional norm the ‘Representative Democracy’ means that election of people to the Legislature to represent the people who elect them and in no way recognises appointments of those who are rejected by the people as MPs, which is simply seen as a mockery of Democracy.

Therefore, presenting these irrefutable evidence to the Supreme Court all 10 appointments (listed below) made by the Election Commissioner (5), accommodating rejected candidates by the people, were challenged (SC/Writs/5/2015) after the General Election – 2015.

U J Tilanga Sumathipala – Member of Parliament (UPFA – National List nominee)

B Mahinda Samarasinghe – Member of Parliament (UPFA – National List nominee)

S B Dissanayake – Member of Parliament (UPFA – National List nominee)

Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena – Member of Parliament (UPFA – National List nominee)

Angajan  Ramanathan – Member of Parliament (UPFA – National List nominee)

A M Hisbullah M Lebbe – Member of Parliament (UPFA – National List nominee)

G Vijith Wijayamuni Zoysa – Member of Parliament (UPFA – National List nominee)

M H M Navavi – Member of Parliament (UNP – National List nominee)

Sunil Handunnnethi – Member of Parliament (JVP – National List nominee)

Bimal N R Weerakoon – Member of Parliament (JVP – National List nominee)

This case was supported by overwhelming evidence of abuse of Presidential immunity by President J R Jayewardene to usurp the people’s sovereign right to franchise in 1988, completely circumventing the due process established by the Constitution, which provides that the franchise conferred in the people cannot be usurped unless people themselves surrender it by way of a mandate given at a Referendum.

Request made for a Full Bench Hearing was rejected

However, when this constitutional fraud was challenged before the Supreme Court (SC/Writs/05/2015) the then Chief Justice, K Sripavan declined the application made on 13th Oct 2015, under the Constitution [(Article 132 (3) (iii)], seeking appointment of a Full Bench of the Supreme Court to hear this case of paramount national importance. When a second request was made on 26th Nov 2016, seeking to review of the obviously impugned ruling, on the basis that the Court was exercising the people’s judicial power on trust and the Chief Justice has no unfettered discretion and is required to exercise discretion vested in the office reasonably and fairly. The Chief Justice, K Sripavan, considered that the said application was and interference of the administration of justice and on 26th Nov 2016 called the observations of other judges to suspend me from practice.

Chief Justice charged for Judicial Corruption

However, the conduct of the Chief Justice K Sripavan, clearly showed his incapacity to defend the Constitution and the Rule of Law apparently under pressure, and hence he was charged for Judicial Corruption on 29th March 2016, for abuse of office to confer a benefit or favour to himself and/or to the Executive betraying the trust placed in the office by people. Further to being charged for Judicial Corruption a request was made again on 18 March 2016 to review his ruling and to appoint a Fuller Bench and the Chief Justice withdrew from taking part in any further proceedings in the case with the following minute made in the Record on 02nd April 2016.

“… Since the Petitioner has filed SC/Writs/03/2016 on 29th March 2016, citing me as one of the Respondents, I do not wish to here this application. Please have the matter listed before a Bench of which I am not a member… ”

Thereafter, when Chief Justice, K Sripavan was retired an application afresh was made to Chief Justice Priyasath Dep on 27th March 2017. Yet, the Chief Justice too rejected the request on 02nd June 2017 and refused to appoint a full bench to hear and determined the case with the following ruling made.

‘… Request to constitute a Bench of seven judges refused…   

Supreme Court grants Full Bench hearing for a private matter

In the meanwhile on 14th June 2017, further to a similar request made by Geetha Kumarasinghe, MP was favourably considered as a matter of National Importance and full bench was appointed to hear that case by the Chief Justice on 14th June 2017.  In the said case (SC/Appeal/2017), Geetha Kumarasinghe, MP, had challenged ruling given by the Court that her election as a MP was illegal, on the basis that she was a dual citizen. The decision given by the former CJ and the extant CJ is manifestly flawed for the simple reason that the Chief Justice do not exercise any unfettered powers under the Constitution and the discretionary power vested in the office is required to be fairly and reasonably with reasons set out for any decisions made 

Sri Lankan Judiciary functions under the control of the Executive

This act is perceived as an abuse of the office of the Chief Justice to reject a matter of paramount importance initiated purely in the National Interest, whereas there is a bounden duty cast in the court to rectify the serious constitutional fraud involving 5 judges of the Supreme Court (which cannot be overturned by 3 judges), the Legislature and the Executive.   

Incumbent Chief Justice too charged for Judicial Corruption

Under the Republican Constitution (1978), the Court System is under duty to respect the doctrine of public trust and to protect, vindicate and enforce the people’s judicial power according to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. However, it is apparent that the Judiciary in Sri Lanka is not free to exercise power vested in the office and incapable of defending the Constitution and the Rule of Law apparently under pressure. And this sorry plight of the Judiciary was presented to a distinguished gathering of concerned citizens at which the former Secretary to the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Serious Acts of Fraud and Corruption (PRECIFAC), Lacille de Silva, in the interest of protecting the sovereign rights of the people, including the judicial power, that the judiciary exercised purely on trust volunteered to defend it and on 17th July 2017, Lacille de Silva, exercising his democratic rights charged the incumbent Chief Justice Priyasath Dep too for judicial Corruption, for abuse of office public office of Chief Justice to confer a benefit or favour to himself and/or to the Executive betraying the trust placed in the office by people.

Judiciary lacks accountability and ignores its constitutional obligations

The supreme law of the land, the Constitution, very clearly dictates that any such matter affecting peoples right to franchise shall be hear and determine within a matter of two months from the day of filing such an action (Article 104H). Yet, this case that challenged the unlawful National List appointments was not even supported for the last two years and any prudent person may perceive that this conduct of the Judiciary completely inappropriate and lacks any form of accountability and amounts to betrayal of the judicial power of the people that the judiciary exercise purely on trust.

In another words this failure on the part of the judiciary justifies the citizens of Sri Lanka seeking justice elsewhere, in the United Nations Human Rights Council, demanding a hybrid justice mechanism to try human rights cases, compelling the government of Sri Lanka to concede that the there is a lack of accountability in the administration of justice in the Republic of Sri Lanka.

And in these circumstances an application was made to the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, supported by 134 lawyers, to convene a Special General Meeting to address the serious situation faced by the Judiciary that seems to be incapable of giving effect to its constitutional obligations, restoring people’s trust and confidence in the Judiciary and the Executive Committee of the Bar Association is yet to make a decision on the said request. 

Conspiracy to impose professional sanctions for exposing fraud and weaknesses of Execrative, Legislature and Judiciary

In the meanwhile, I have received a plausible and credible information that I have been targeted to face professional restrictions by the Attorney General, who has also been charged for corruption for abuse of office to confer illegal favours to accused who hold public offices in the Legislative and the Executive.

I am aware that all these hostile actions have been initiated against me, solely due to conscientiously and persistently pursuing matters concerning the protection of people’s sovereign rights in keeping with Constitutional obligations of my chosen occupation as an Attorney-at-Law, which is also a duty vested in any citizen under the Constitution (Article 28)

All Lawyers, performing public interest litigation are protected by Latimer House Principles and UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and both these instruments require the member states to protect the interest of lawyers to perform their duty free from intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference with a right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights without suffering professional restrictions and obstruction from functioning independently by reason of their lawful actions.

Intimidation and threats against upholding the Rule of Law

However, I have realised that my life was not safe in Sri Lanka due to the intimidation and threats to life directed at me, which I have already reported to the Inspector General of Police (7). Clearly there is a kind of a fear psychosis spread across the society, making people refrain from coming forward and exercising their guaranteed constitutional right to free speech without subject to any intimidation by those criminal elements holding public offices in the Legislature and the Executive.

Under the given circumstances, I had no other option but to decide not to proceed with the matter and left the country on 31st July 2017 after filing a Motion at the Supreme Court Registry seeking the Court to make an Order to abate the proceedings.

*Nagananda Kodituwakku –Attorney at Law (Sri Lanka) & Solicitor (UK)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 5

    The National List wheeze was dreamt up by our wily fox Prez JR for his altruistic use, and persists to this day because our present political leaders find it a useful tool with which to spike the wishes of the people, and reward the rejected crooks and sycophants on whom their stability depends. As long we have crooked politicians we will have misuse of this provision.

    As for judiciary these days; depends on which way the wind is blowing.

    • 5

      Thanks for the valuable information!. We know your efforts are whole hearted ! At least one good lawyer of mother lanka to make genuine efforts calling spade a spade in terms of lanken issues related to law and order :) what is wrong with other lawyers ? retired judges? why they seem to be on permanent slumber ? what is the role of university dons if they cant act supporting any kind of lethargic situations of the elected politicians ?
      Please Mr Nagananda also explain us as to why lanken law makers stay that long to even get passed tiny reforms in terms of deficiency of paragraphs in already existing laws. As you know EU parliament brings reforms to the laws within days…. Since they know perfectly if the kind of steps would not have been made, nothing goes forward .
      I heard Depty ministers stressing out lately, that almost many in every state institutions are highly corrupted. There is nothing they can do, since their senior stay stand still not focusing on the actions needed to take the processes to speed up. Lack of some provisions in prevailing lawful paragraphs make them lagged helpless.

      • 6

        You are spot on !

        There is a common saying among sinhala people. ” are you scraping coconut so long ?” – meaning what have you the ministers and authorities been doing in terms of changing long lagged situation int erms of not functioning laws in the country ?

        This is what I felt immediately I read this.

        God bless srilanka !

    • 4

      Current bond scam related commissions showed that bold actions can reveal lot more of corruption in the country.

      If any other govt had been in power, this would not have been possible.

      People will wake up today than had been in the past.

    • 3

      I think President should not wait longer than 6 months, if any minister would not do his job in compliance with the pledges made to the nation prior to 08-01-2015.

      On the top of the list LIES minister of JUSTICE – he has become a person whose inability in the line of taking actions getting things move as people expect him to, is beyond all bearing to this day.

      If not for a dramatic change, why Rajitha or other men of previous brutal administration broke away from them.

    • 1

      Time has come to name it – . be blessed the only lawyer’s who would fight for the rights and justice in the country. No life threats can block him.
      Today, that men who dug soil and made millions in Diwulapitiya have become the vocals against bond scam… horu are against other horu…. we have only horu, with various assessment levels.

      There are lawyers collection or any other associations in the country, but they just sit and heat their seats. Why cant they take the lead, in lanken law reforms and introduce proper laws filling the numerous gaps in the prevailing systems.

  • 3

    The Penal Code of Ceylon was established when there were no “Ministers.” They came much later with Independence. The sanctions provisions in the were designed to protect minions of the MP’s. Today they make the government judge in its own cause if a Minister comes under a cloud. No other democracy has it. The Supreme Court needs to maintain its duty under constitution obligations. Recently retired Chief Justice was appointed as a director of commercial bank. …Not all commissions are established for noble purposes. Retired judges have acknowledged that some they headed were politically motivated, witch-hunts aimed at harassing political rivals. Judges of the higher judiciary must not forget that their conduct even post-retirement is crucial to preserve people’s faith in the judiciary.

  • 5

    Mr Nagananda Kodituwakku,

    Now there is an excellent setup in place to investigate all the scams and murders …………………..

    The purpose of the presidential commission was to target and expedite the investigation of the bond-scam.

    Now, there is a request by some people, to make use of the same presidential commission to investigate all the scams. And force the AG to investigate all the scams with the same vigour that was shown in unravelling the CB bond scam. That will nail the AG if he shows the lackadaisical attitude he has shown so far to go after Rajapakse’s crooks.

    It’s an excellent idea. I hope all you guys will give it your full support.

    Ranil or Mahinda, crook is a crook.

    Now, this will show who really wants to catch the crooks and who just wants to play partisan politics.

    • 3

      Our politicians in general are crooks, but we know Mahinda is highly abusive than anyone else.
      Mahinda and the like men, can abuse masses spreading blatant lies to the people, but being together with country ‘s buddhist clergy. Buddhist clergy here is a the outer cover of the NOVEL only.
      Thus he would be easy to change the thoughts and minds of the very same folks irrespective vulnerable masses are still caught by all the untruths and falsehoods even about already signed agreements by his administrations.

  • 3

    Simply reappointing candidates rejected by the voters after the election is arrogance and lack of respect to the voters by the politicians. So, Maithripala is also at fault of that. MY3 is not at all a saint. Ranil is simply Mahinda Rajapakse in another suit. that is why MY3 is safe.

  • 1

    Derailed law is good for legislaters. If not see, How presidents and ministers had to quit in Brazil, Europe, Pakisthan, South Korea and australia. In Sri lanka, alost everybody is caught none is taken to the jail.

  • 5

    The COUNTRY is controlled by LAWS>
    LAWS are controlled by POLITICIANS>
    POLITICIANS are controlled by VOTERS>
    VOTERS are controlled by PUBLIC OPINION>
    PUBLIC OPINION is controlled by the MEDIA (News, Social Media Internet…) & EDUCATION

    so. whoever controls MEDIA & EDUCATION, controls the COUNTRY.”
    Seerasa has been given the mantle to destroy the PM and UNP at every given opportunity.!

    • 4


      Lanken media is the worst mafia in the country.

      They have no audacity to bring interviews with alleged high criminals such as Mahindananda. So how can average people change their thoughts ?

      You know not a single media institution in the country brought an open discussion round to talk about heaps of allegations made on to Previous President.

      Every 10 year old is becoming clear INJUSTICE made to the nation by his ZIMBABWIAN STYLE ruling.

      Alone that poor boys ‘s abduction and murder- not forgetting the harm made to his body parts following the murder, alleged to have been carried out by MAHINDA RAJAPAKSHE FAMILY…
      Media is no interested to dig in information on that..
      Lasantha and Ekanaligoda cases and the attention being paid to them are the same.


      Sirasa is doing some work, but they are also very biased to some guys.
      Only program satana is somewhat good, but they too dont go beyond their limits.
      Just bond scam only.
      No matter other allegations of higher levels made on to previous men

  • 5

    Mr Nagananda,

    Can you answer this simple question.

    The report of the investigations carried out by the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) on alleged misappropriation of funds during the construction of D.A. Rajapaksa Memorial Museum in Weeraketiya has been handed over to the Attorney General, recently.

    The FCID commenced these investigations following the expose on the two plots of lands granted for the Don Alwin Rajapaksa (D.A.Rajapaksa) Memorial Foundation by the Urban Development Authority (UDA) has been misused for personal purposes by Kurunegala District parliamentarian Mahinda Rajapaksa and his brothers.

    The FCID officials previously visited it accompanied by Government Assessors from the Valuation Department to carry out an assessment of the institution and they have found that Rajapaksa family have misused state funds amounting to Rs.110 million for setting up the D.A. Rajapaksa museum.

    FCID sources said there was evidence to show that more than Rs.110 million in state funds had been misused to put up the museum by the Rajapaksa regime to commemorate the 47th death anniversary of D.A. Rajapaksa.

    The museum contains a collection of items used by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s parents.

    On September 14, 2015, former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was questioned by the FCID over the use of funds belonging to the Urban Development Authority to construct the D.A. Rajapaksa Memorial Museum.

    Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa declared open the museum in the presence of Parliamentarians Chamal Rajapaksa, Namal Rajapaksa, former Parliamentarian Basil Rajapaksa, former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and former Uva Chief Minister Shashindra Rajapaksa.

    Why on earth is the AG taking a long period to give a simple verdict!

    • 4

      I will answer your question on behalf of Nagananda to my knowledge. The answer is simple. Remember what the stupid, idiotic Justice Minister said while ago?. I will not let anything happen to Mara, Gota, Chamal………as long as I am the JM. Why is MY3 & Ranil kick him out with the others early this year? They’ve got skeletons in their cupboards?…of course they do.
      I am really happy that you are back where you belong, with your family.

    • 1

      I will answer your question on behalf of Nagananda to my knowledge. The answer is simple. Remember what the stupid, idiotic Justice Minister said while ago?. I will not let anything happen to Mara, Gota, Chamal………as long as I am the JM. Why is MY3 & Ranil kick him out with the others early this year? They’ve got skeletons in their cupboards?…of course they do.
      I am really happy that you are back where you belong, with your family.

      • 0

        Correction with apologies……….
        # The above comment of mine was in response to Mr. Thengai’s and not Uthungan’s and it should be read as ‘Why didn’t MY3 & Ranil kick him out’ instead of (Why is MY3 & Ranil kick him out with the others early this year? ).

  • 2

    Why is the BASl yet reluctant and dragging it’s feet despite the support of 134 lawyers signing to support an application to convene a Special General Meeting to address a situation arising from the judiciary’s position to evade it’s constitutional obligations to safeguard the interest of the people when dealing with an issue of crucial importance such as their sovereign right to representation in Parliament?

  • 2

    Mr Kodituwakku, thank you for what you tried to do for this godforsaken nation. Ultimately the safety of your family must take priority. Good Luck.

  • 1

    How on earth the bloody Chief Justice say that the National list Issue is not a matter of National Importance?

  • 3

    Mr Kodituwakku

    It is indeed sad to know that you are no longer in SL, fighting for justice but I hope you will continue to fight your cause to get rid of the cancer that is destroying SL from where ever you are in exile. I always thought you were a lone voice against corruption, particularly, against the unfair privileges of politicians, namely the duty free car permit system, & not likely to succeed due to a corrupt & professionally unethical judicial system but it gave some hope that there may be other who would follow in your foot steps & give numbers to the voices against corruption & abuse of power. However, the fact that you had to flee abroad for your safety, raises concern because the situation seems to be as bad as before. I thought the days of bogey men in white vans were over but it appears that it is not so. Fear & intimidation is live & kicking in SL.

    My best wishes to you in ‘exile’ but don’t give up the fight. No doubt there will be others like you who will continue to pressure the govt., otherwise these yobs are going to walk all over us with no one protesting.

  • 2

    Nagananda Kodituwakku’s article is a bit heavy reading. Politicians never ever talk about the shortcomings of the fundamentals of governing power grab. They instead come up again and again the language/religion divide and it works.
    The eligibility to be a list MP must be revisited and equally important is the need to make it illegal to switch sides. The power centers will never address these because both sides thrive on this.
    We need just a few more activists of the caliber of Nagananda

  • 1

    It’s not in just constitutional matters that the judges are reluctant to apply the law. Depending on top political connections certain decisions are weighted in favour of the connected defendants !!! Some such cases get dragged on until the judge can safely obtain a transfer elsewhere leaving the case to be heard by his/her successor !!! Great isn’t it ???

  • 1

    Mr. Nagananda,
    Sad to hear that you had to leave the country due to safety concerns. We new you as a brave soldier fought against corruption almost single handedly on certain issues exposing corrupt practices of politicians and their cronies. According to your description the highest court of the country has continuously failed to uphold its independence and the trust placed by the people in a matter involved in the sovereignty and inalienable right of the people.
    Please do not give up. Continue to fight and expose what is considered to be wrong in the public interest. One day you are going to win. You have our full support and blessing. You are not alone. In the name of the suffering people and the future generations we have to continue to fight to clean up this corrupt system.

  • 3

    Good article Nagananda. My question to you is why you say “derailed” when the rule-of-law is non-existent in our country. To get “derailed”, it never was put on rails in the first place or given the proper infra-structure for Rule of Law to thrive. Each time we tried, we tinkered with it. That’s what I was told by my long time friend CJ Neville Samarakoon before he immigrated with scorn, anger, frustration, utter hopelessness and sadness after confronting the political chicanery of JRJ. The Rule-of-law never got a chance to pull up its pants as we watched each government, one after the other tampering with justice. At least we enjoyed a semblance of justice after independence through 1956. In other countries that I have lived, I observed first hand that the rule-of law thrives only in instances of a disciplined society. An impeccable public sector is held accountable, and that contributed to a strong judicial system with qualified and polished officials in public sector oversight, reform, internal controls and proper checks and balances placed. Administrations were transparent and law enforcement and investigative journalist were allowed to to their jobs without intimidation or fear to act or report against government waste, corruption and nepotism. That too seems to be fast fading away today in countries such as the UK, USA, Canada and Australia. Besides, did we ever have a leadership not only in politics but even in corporate governance that listened and acted to what economists, academics, intellectuals, scholars and advisors preached to bring the must needed changes?

  • 0

    The Supreme Court is the savier of Nation, when it violates the Constitution, the only hope for the people is Geneva.

  • 0

    If the Court is independent why not chased out the cheats defeated at the Election. Why it waited so long without hearing the case.

    This is clearly an insult to the people.

  • 0

    I do not see much wrong in nominating as MP someone who lost at the elections. If the system allows the nomination of people who would not even dare contest an election, what is wrong in nominating a person who failed to get elected?
    There are good lawmakers who do not have the knack to win elections (like quite a few good professionals who never had the knack to score in examinations). As long as representation is by the party that gathered the votes, it is harmless.
    But what happened in 2015 was something irregular, where a faction of the UPFA monopolized the national list, although it was not the more popular faction.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.