By Mudliyar –
In a display of the route the highest court is taking since the impeachment, the Supreme Court today refused to grant leave to proceed in a Fundamental Rights application challenging the misconduct of Mohan Pieris during his tenure as Attorney General. Two judges of the Supreme Court refused to consider the submissions by the petitioner, upheld the objections by the Additional Solicitor General and dismissed the Application with costs awarded to the respondents.
Sathya Hettige
The case was taken up before a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice P.A. Ratnayake and comprising Justice Eva Wanasundera and Justice Sathya Hettige at Court Room No 403.
At the outset, Justice P.A. Ratnayake declined to hear the case citing personal reasons. Counsel for the petitioner, Nagananda Kodituwakku objected to Justice Hettige hearing the case on grounds that he was biased towards Pieris.
Justice Hettige refused to consider the submissions made by the Counsel Nagananda Kodituwakku, including a submission referring to his own disqualification from hearing the case. Justice Hettige simply went on to uphold the preliminary objections raised by the Additional Solicitor General and dismissed the Application with Cost awarded to the Respondents. The awarding of cost to Respondents had never been done before by the Supreme Court, especially in the Fundamental Rights Applications filed by the Citizens of this country.
“The decision in this case, amply demonstrates to which direction the Supreme Court is heading today. It seems that the era of the independent judiciary has come to an end in this country and is now replaced with an absolutely dependent ‘Executive Judiciary’, headed by a disqualified person appointed to the Office of the Chief Justice. All this time the people of this country had faith in the Judiciary that it would exercise the ‘peoples’ judicial power’ faithfully and independently and honor the trust placed in it by the people,.” a senior lawyer told Colombo Telegraph.
After Justice Ratnayake refused to hear the case on ‘personal grounds’ and then an application was made by the Additional Solicitor General Shavindra Fernando to hear the case by the other two judges. Then the Counsel for the Petitioner, Nagananda Kodituwakku, objected ‘Hettige J taking part in the hearing’ and made an application to re-fix the case for an earlier date. The said objection was raised on the basis that Hettige J was biased towards Mohan Pieris, as he had disregarded a motion filed by the Petitioner on 04th July 2012, seeking an early date (11th 12th or 13th July 2012) to support the application and instead fixed the case for support for 06th September 2012. It was further submitted to Court that the Petitioner filed the said Motion, since the case which was due to support on 02nd July 2012 had been called in Court with no notice to the Petitioner on 21st of June 2012, and had been postponed for support on 06th Sep 2012.
It was further submitted, that Justice Hettige’s conduct was reported to the CJ Shirani Bandaranayake by the Petitioner by way of an affidavit dated 04th July 2012 and as a result CJ intervened and Hettige J was compelled to reverse his order allowing the petitioner to support the matter on 05th July 2012.
The Additional Solicitor General, Shavendra Fernando then took a preliminary objection to the hearing, on the basis that the original Petition, filed by the Petitioner dated 24th September 2010, does allege that the Supreme Court was responsible for the right violation, which is not an executive action and hence that the application dated 24th September 2010 should be dismissed and the Petitioner should not be allowed to support any amended application thereafter filed in Court.
In response to these submissions the Counsel for the Petitioner, Nagananda Kodituwakku submitted to the Court that the Petitioner does not rely on the Petition dated 24th September 2010, which was amended with the permission of the Court (comprised of Marsoof J, Imam J and Suresh Chandra J), on 05th December 2011, after the Counsel Nagananda Kodituwakku was retained by the Petitioner, in place of Upul Jayasooriya. The Petitioner had reported Counsel Upul Jayasooriya to the CJ by way of an affidavit (22nd November 2011) for his professional misconduct of withdrawing the affidavit filed by the Director General of Customs (seeking the disenrollment of Mohan Pieris for his professional misconduct) and also citing Mohan Pieris only in his official capacity and thereafter abandoning the Petitioner. It was further submitted by the Counsel Nagananda Kodituwakku that the bench chaired by Marsoof J, on 05th December 2011 had allowed the Petitioner to amend the application with ‘specific permission’ to include amendments the Petitioner wished to make, ‘reflecting the allege misconduct and dishonesty of Mohan Peiris’ as reported by the Director General of Customs. And accordingly the Petition dated 23rd December 2011 was filed in Court and the Petitioner only relied on that Petition.
Justice Hettige refused to consider the said submissions made by the Counsel Nagananda Kodituwakku, including the one referring to his disqualification from hearing the case.
Related posts;
Update – The Case Against Mohan Pieris Misconduct: Pieris Himself Chaired The Bench
Mohan Pieris’s Gross Misconduct And Dishonesty Exposed Before The SC
Aspirant CJ Mohan Pieris Exposed: Professional Misconduct As Attorney General
Rajapaksa’s Second Choice: Corrupt Justice Hettige
Mahasohon / February 1, 2013
The supreme court is now full of a den of theives that wear a goni padanguwa on their heads, just like the coolies who man-handle piti mutte in the warehouses at the Colombo harbour. That is all they are good for, and it is abuddhassa kalaya in Lanka now, when justice is dished out by coolies remotely manipulated by a thug. I was somewhat surprised that Naganantha was expecing fair play from such a bunch of foul crooks, unless he is doing it to show the world what a ridiiculous state the law and order and justice prevails in this Kingdom of politically and socially immature liliputians.
/
Piranha / February 1, 2013
It will be interesting to see the reasons of the two judges for dismissing the case. Looks like Eva Wanasundera has also joined the Rajapaksa gang. The country has gone to the Rajapaksa dogs.
/
wickrama / February 1, 2013
Were you born yesterday? Eva has always been faithful to the king.
/
Park / February 1, 2013
Shameless Judges. Sri Lankan Judiciary has gone to DOGS! I think people of Sri Lanka should take judgement to their own hands and judge the Judges who judge these cases. Its important for some organization to document all these types of wrong judgement cases. When the present government is no more, all these judges who give wrong judgments should be brought before JUSTICE and judged and punished.
/
Ronny / February 1, 2013
“Balu theendu” means verdicts given by the dogs. SB was jailed for calling a verdict “Balu Theenduwa”. What else can we call if the verdict is highl biased.
/
dp / February 1, 2013
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.For more detail see our Comment policy
https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2/
/
Lion / February 2, 2013
Any court case against ruling politicians and their cronies will not be successful in the future.Its a waist of time and money to go to courts to get justice against those thugs.” Ane Lankawata wechcha deyak”
/
Safa / February 2, 2013
These justices of the supreme court do not even want to hear a case. Justice denied in the first instance. I wonder if this can go before the court of appeal. If justice is denied in sri lanka it will be better to seek some other path such as placing the facts before the public. The sordid details of this case are not well known.
/
Piyasumana / February 2, 2013
I am a lawyer and a keen observer of the case against Mohan Peiris, whose appointment as CJ had ridiculed the Judiciary. In my view, the destiny of this case was predetermined and meticulously planned. First, this case was scheduled to come up before the Justice Marsoof at Court No 502, who had allowed the Petitioner to amend the initial Petition with all ‘specific’ material that explicitly exposed Mohan Peiris’s gross misconduct and dishonesty as the AG, which were removed by the previous Counsel appeared for the Petitioner.
Just half an hour before the Court session commences it was announced that, this case had been transferred to Court No 403,where the Presiding judge Ratnayake, who had already noted that on ‘personal grounds’ he did not wish to hear this case. Yet the AG was determined to proceed with the matter with the other two Judges, but the Petitioner objected. The objections were raised on the basis that he cannot expect justice from Hettige J, who had been already reported to the CJ Shirani Bandaranaye for his bias attitude towards Mohan Peiris. That objection was simply overruled by the Court and Hettige J himself decided to hear the the case. He heard the submissions made by the AG and allowed the clearly ‘unfounded’ preliminary objections raised by the AG and dismissed the application, denying a fair trial to the Petitioner.
Sri Lanka today is a failed state, where the rule of Law clearly is undermined and where the judges have meekly surrendered and compromised their integrity. The Counsel Nagananda Kodituwakku, may have fought a valiant fight for his client for justice, but the truth is that in this country, one should understand the ground realities, no one should expect justice from the Judiciary under this Chief Justice. The outcome of this case simply reaffirm this ground reality.
/
Weerasekara / February 2, 2013
As an independent lawyer only respect rule of law I can only blame one person for this outcome of the case, that is that is CJ Shirani Bandranayake. When this matter was taken up before her for support some where in later part of December that is just before her removal from the office, the CJ did not have courage to hear it and grant leave, instead she postponed the hearing. Counsel for the petitioner, Nagananda Kodituwakku, in fact told the CJ that by the time the next comes she would have been removed from the office. The CJ and Weliamuna then said that no such thing will ever happen. If she had heard this case on that day the outcome would have been completely different and probably that would have been effectively a bar and prevented Mohan Peiris from accepting the Office of the CJ. Anyway, now it is in the history which will never repeat, all of us are forced to live with this realities when we ourselves refused to show dissent aggresively to the govt wrongdoings, until we are personally affected by such acts. The ruling pronounced in this case is a lesson for all of us and gives clear warning. Don’t expect justice under the new administration, you will burn to ashes. That the message given with awarding of cost order against the Petitioner in this case.
/
Dahanayake / February 2, 2013
All the Judges attended the sham ceremonial sitting demonstrating their solidarity to Mohan Peiris PC, with no participation of the BASL, conveyed a unambiguous message to all citizens in this country. It is sad that these judges (except one or two attend by compulsion) have conveniently forgotten that they are the servants of the people, and that they exercise peoples’ judicial power in trust and committed to uphold the peoples’ civil liberties and fundamental rights.
The ruling pronounced by the Fundamental Rights violation application (SCFR/536/2010) supported by the Counsel Nagananda Kodituwakku yesterday, is a strong statement to all the citizens in this country. Do only expect injustice from the new Chief Justice.
This ruling also set a precedence that would be followed in all the future fundamental rights cases. It is a startling warning to all citizens, which goes on to states that no one should dare to come before the Court seeking justice when their civil liberties are infringed. The people should take notice that, already tens of millions of rupees worth of gear required to inflict physical damages on the people have been already imported and the necessary inducements have already been already provided to the Police with 100% increase of their allowances approved.
Under the new setting the people should prepare to suffer degrading or inhuman treatment in the hands of the Executive, as going before the Court seeking justice, is likely inflict further damages.
/
Uthungan / February 2, 2013
Awarding of costs to respondents by judge Sathya(pala) Hettige who for all intent and purposes refused to hear practically any of the submissions made by the counsel Mr.Nagananda Kodituwakku for the petitioner itself shows the utter bias and scorn that he had for the application.This performance signifies only an intial stage of how the SC is going to function in the future.There is no ‘sathya’ at all in his judgement.
Has the stage has been set for people to manage their affairs on their own on matters concerned with law and justice?
/
Nimal Bhareti / February 2, 2013
These are the first signs of what the judiciary is going to be.
/
Anoma / February 2, 2013
People with insight know why Rajapakse was so hurry to remove Shirani Bandaranayake. When this matter was taken up before her on 20th Dec 2012, she firmly gave assurance to Mr Kodituwakku that she would take it up for hearing on 31st of Jan 2013 and Govt was so determined to remove her before that date. If this case had been heard before her, the Cheat Mohan Pieris would have been surely behind bars. Once he is freed from the allegations of dishonesty and misconduct, in his role-played in defrauding of millions of public funds that would clear him from the ignominy. Being the head of the state Rajapakse is required to allow Judiciary function independently, which he had denied by making it executive controlled Judiciary.
The Counsel risked his life to show the people the true character of this cheat. The President should be ashamed of himself of his style of governance. He has shown the people that he would do any disgust act to remain in power. But he should not forget that, although he can deceive the locals easily, he cannot do the same with the International Community, as they are following every moment of the government with keen interest.
Fully drunk with power, Gadafi and Saddam, until their downfall, thought that they would remain in power forever. Like in Sri Lanka, all media institutions in those countries painted a totally deceptive picture to the outside world, but the history has now shown that such acts would never work.
/
Citizen / February 2, 2013
How will Sri Lanka Judges attend at the International Judicial Conferences hereafter. Will they introduce the concept of Mahinda Chintana and reiterate that the Rule of Law is an outdated doctrine at these conferences – the first to release convicted criminals found guilty by the Supreme Court and the second by avoiding to prosecute sexual offenders. Finally, avoiding to hear the essence of a case when it comes to judicial officers appointed by MR. This is the message sent to the people of Sri Lanka.
/
Piranha / February 2, 2013
A blatant display of injustice to the petitioners by these shameless and biased supreme court justices.
We can foresee how the common man or woman is going to get justice from the supreme court in Sri Lanka.
A clear sign of how the judiciary works in a failed state.
/
douglas / February 2, 2013
Sri Lanka JUDICIARY:( AT HIS DEMISE)
ANNICHA VATHA SANKARA, UPPADA VAYA DAMMINO, UPPAJITHWA NIRUJANTHI THESAM OOPA SAMO SUKO. (May HE attain NIBBANA)
MAY HE REST IN PEACE. AMEN.
/
Derick / February 12, 2013
Those who heard this case are the former Deputy Solicitor General, Hettige and the former Attorney General Wanasundara. Facts revealed in this pose a serious threat to the very survival of the AG’s Department. Information provided about the misconduct and dishonesty of the AG Mohan Peiris is shocking. It is obvious these people would not never grant permission to this case to proceed any further. Now the time is up for the people to rethink the prudence of appointing public officers from the AG’s Department, who defend all government’s action (weather they are right or wrong)when challenged before the higher Courts. In my view no one except the members of the Judiciary itself should be elevated to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
/