5 December, 2020

Blog

What Happens When The Person Facing Impeachment Walks Out?

By C. A. Chandraprema –

C. A. Chandraprema

It was Dr Jayampathy Wickremaratne who gave us in the audience the breaking news that the Chief Justice had just walked out of the Parliamentary Select Committee. This was at a well-attended seminar last Thursday evening on the ‘Politics and Law behind the Impeachment’ organised by the Socialist Study Circle at the N.M.Perera Centre in Borella.  Wickremaratne was in the chair and Prof. Deepika Udagama of the Peradeniya University was the main speaker. Now the question arises, what happens when the person facing impeachment walks out of the proceedings? The parliamentary standing orders have not specifically provided for a walkout by the defendant. What standing order 78A(5) says in regard to this is that:

“The Judge whose alleged misbehaviour or incapacity is the subject of the investigation by a Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order shall have the right to appear before it and to be heard by, such Committee, in person or by representative and to adduce evidence, oral or documentary, in disproof of the allegations made against him.”

The wording of this section makes it clear that the attendance of the person being subject to impeachment, before the parliamentary select committee is his or her right which he may or may not avail of. The impeachment process is not a criminal proceeding where every effort will be made to capture and incarcerate or in other ways compel the attendance of a suspect before commencing the trial. An impeachment proceeding is more like a disciplinary inquiry entailing only removal from a position and not conviction and imprisonment. This is consistent with the law and practice of impeachment in the USA from where we have borrowed our impeachment procedure. The first time that a Federal Judge was impeached in the USA (the impeachment trial of Judge John Pickering in 1803) the US Senate observed:

“no power is constitutionally vested in the Senate to take into custody, or hold the body of the person impeached for trial; but that a notification to the party of the impeachment, with a copy of the articles exhibited, is all the process requisite in the case; and that it is optional with the party to appear in propria persona, by attorney, or not at all; and that after the notice given as aforesaid, it is competent for the Senate to proceed to a trial and judgment on said impeachment, whether the party shall appear by himself, his attorney, or not at all.”

In fact summons were served on John Pickering on the 25th of January, 1804, but he did not appear in person nor was he represented and he did not file an answer to the allegations against him either. Later his son appeared before the Senate pleading that his father was insane and asking for time to prove that he was in fact insane! The Senate Trial opened on 2 March 1804 and he had been declared guilty on all charges by the 12 March 1804.

Provision for continuing trial

The US Senate “PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE” formulated/revised by the 99th Congress and dated  August 15, 1986, says the following about the presence or otherwise of the individual being impeached at the trail in the Senate:

“If the person impeached, after service, shall fail to appear, either in person or by attorney, on the day so fixed thereof as aforesaid, or, appearing, shall fail to file his answer to such articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed, nevertheless, as upon a plea of not guilty.”

So when we take the Sri Lankan standing orders and the US Senate guidelines for impeachment trials together, we see that there is no impediment to proceeding with the inquiry in the Parliamentary Select Committee. Ideally the defendant should be given an opportunity to present her side of the case. In this case, she has been given an opportunity to present her side of the case but has voluntarily withdrawn from it saying that she has no faith in the process. In just walking out, she has probably committed another impeachable offence because she as the Chief Justice of the country has walked out of a constitutionally mandated process. The same constitution that provides for the present impeachment procedure, also gives legitimacy to the Judiciary that she presides over. Hence the fact that she, the chief justice of the country walked out of a constitutionally mandated procedure does constitute ‘misbehaviour’ of the highest order.

In a way, the walkout by the chief justice was hardly unexpected.  There were some charges in the impeachment that could not even be argued. For example, the one question that the present writer asked Dr Udugama at the seminar mentioned above was whether she does not see a conflict of interest in that the husband of the CJ is a suspect in a case before the magistrates court, while the CJ continues to remain in her post and be the chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission which has complete control over the magistrate trying her husband? Before Prof. Udugama could speak it was Dr Wickremaratne who answered saying that the conflict of interest could be eliminated by the CJ not sitting in on any session of the JSC which discusses matters relating to that magistrate and allowing the other two judges to make such decisions. The present writer pointed out that that was not the issue and that the issue was that the entire trial in the magistrate’s court will be completely skewed to begin with, by the power that the CJ wields over the life of the magistrate. There was no answer to that from anybody. The fact is that no reasonable person will deny that there is a gross conflict of interest here.  This alone is good reason for impeachment.

When the CJ walked out of the PSC hearing, one of the reasons adduced was that she was not given enough time to respond to the evidence presented. This is the first time,  that Sri Lanka is going the whole hog with an impeachment motion but the USA has had a long history of impeachments and one thing that they got clear very early on was what an impeachment was about. The American constitution (Article 1 Section 3) itself says that judgment in case of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold office under the state. As such it was never meant to anything more than a high level disciplinary procedure. Impeachment is not a criminal trial whereby you can be convicted and jailed or deprived of civic rights. Lakshman Kiriella one of the opposition members on the PSC came on TV and said that even cattle thieves are given a minimum of three months to prepare their defence. The difference of course is that cattle thieves face criminal charges which can result in a fine or in imprisonment. An impeachment entails no such thing.

Misconceptions about procedure

The impeachment has become like a rugby match, with opponents of the government cheering the CJ and proponents of the government cheering the PSC. For the fans on the grandstand, anything that his side does is right, even if it is wrong. At the aforementioned seminar, one gentleman in the audience wanted to know how the US Senate goes about impeaching judges. Elmore Perera, the doughty opponent of governments offered an explanation of the procedure and in his eagerness to show that the Sri Lankan impeachment procedure was flawed said that when the US Senate carries out an impeachment trial, the president of the senate does not chair it and that the impeachment hearing in the senate is chaired by the chief justice. This led to consternation in the audience towards the end of the seminar with one participant asking what happens if the chief justice himself is subject to impeachment proceedings in the USA?

To this, both Dr Jayampathy Wickremaratne and Prof.Deepika Udugama admitted that they have no answer. We did not get a reply to that query from Mr Elmore Perera either. The fact of the matter is that in the USA, the Chief Justice presides over a Senate impeachment trial only if the president of the United States or the Vice President is being impeached. When it comes to a judge whether he be the CJ or otherwise, it is always an ordinary Senator who will head the committee that carries out the impeachment trial on behalf of the entire Senate.  The last time that a Federal Judge was impeached in the USA, was just two years ago in December 2010 – Judge Thomas Porteous. The person who presided over his impeachment trial was most certainly not the Chief Justice –it was Senator Claire McCaskill. Here too, the Senate committee wanted to conclude sittings expeditiously. The trial was to begin in early August 2010, with the vote being taken in late September, but it began only in mid-September, and the vote was taken on December 8.

The Senate Committee in the impeachment trial of Judge Porteous made certain observations that are very relevant to the debate on the impeachment motion against Shirani Bandaranayake. One of the main arguments of those opposing the impeachment motion against Bandaranayake is that the PSC is not a judicial body. In fact in this last impeachment trial in the USA Judge Porteous strenuously argued that he cannot be tried by the Senate and that he can be tried only by the Department of Justice. To this, the House of Representatives made the categorical statement that “the decision as to whether a Judge’s conduct warrants his removal from office is the Constitutional prerogative of the Senate—not the Department of Justice”.  In fact the footnotes to the Amended replication of the House of Representatives in the Porteous case, they drew attention to the landmark case of United States v. Nixon which dealt with this question of impeachment trials being conducted by the Senate and not by the Judiciary.

United States v. Nixon was a 1993 case where Federal Judge Walter J. Nixon was impeached for giving false testimony before a grand jury, and bringing disrepute on the Federal Judiciary. Nixon raised objections to the legislature exercising judicial power. In delivering the judgement of the court, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated the following about why the framers of the American constitution accorded the power to carry out impeachment trials to the Senate and not to the Judiciary:

“The Framers laboured over the question of where the impeachment power should lie… Indeed, (James) Madison and the Committee of Detail proposed that the Supreme Court should have the power to determine impeachments. .. Despite these proposals, the Convention ultimately decided that the Senate would have “the sole power to try all impeachments.” … According to Alexander Hamilton, the Senate was the “most fit depositary of this important trust” because its members are representatives of the people… The Supreme Court was not the proper body, because the Framers “doubted whether the members of that tribunal would, at all times, be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task” or whether the Court “would possess the degree of credit and authority” to carry out its judgment if it conflicted with the accusation brought by the Legislature – the people’s representative.  In addition, the Framers believed the Court was too small in number: “The awful discretion, which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honour or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.”

“There are two additional reasons why the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments. First, the Framers recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceedings for individuals who commit impeachable offences – the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. In fact, the Constitution explicitly provides for two separate proceedings. The Framers deliberately separated the two forums to avoid raising the spectre of bias and to ensure independent judgments:”

“Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial should, in another trial, for the same offence, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend that error in the first sentence would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights, which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision?”

Why not the Judiciary?

Thus the US Supreme court held in United States v. Nixon decided that the Senate and not the judiciary has been accorded the power to try impeachments because:

a)  Firstly, the Senate was made up of representatives of the people.

b) Secondly, The judiciary may not always have the fortitude for the execution of a difficult task like this (even the president of the United States would be tried by the Senate)

c) Thirdly, the court may not have the clout to give down a verdict which conflicts with the accusation brought by the legislature.

d) Fourthly, a small number of persons on a supreme court bench should not be entrusted with such a momentous task.

e)  Fifthly, the impeachment trial may be followed by a further trial on the same or similar charges in the normal courts and the Judiciary therefore cannot be judge in two trials on the same charges.

Chief Justice Rehnquist in United States v. Nixon further considered the question why the Judiciary should be prohibited from even reviewing a verdict arrived at by a Senate Committee in an impeachment trial. He observed:

“Judicial review of the Senate’s “trial” would introduce the same risk of bias as would participation in the trial itself. Second, judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers’ insistence that our system be one of checks and balances. In our constitutional system, impeachment was designed to be the only check on the Judicial Branch by the Legislature…Judicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if only for purposes of judicial review, is counterintuitive, because it would eviscerate the “important constitutional check” placed on the Judiciary by the Framers. Nixon’s argument would place final reviewing authority with respect to impeachments in the hands of the same body that the impeachment process is meant to regulate.”

This final sentence should be taken cognisance of by Drs Nihal Jayawickrama and Jayampathy Wickremaratne, Prof. Deepika Udugama, Elmore Perera and other anti-impeachment warriors who say that the judiciary or a judicial body should carry out impeachment trials. We have pointed out in this column that the Sri Lankan judiciary is already too accustomed to hearing cases against itself. When the present columnist asked Prof. Udugama at last Thursday’s seminar what she has to say about Vasudeva Nanayakkara’s point that when a petition goes to the supreme court against PSC inquiry against the CJ, the person who assigns benches to hear those cases is the CJ herself. This was not answered by Prof. Udugama but by Elmore Perera who said that the CJ never assigns benches to hear cases and that that is done by the ‘listing judge’. However he did say that Sarath N.Silva did assign benches himself. Dr Wickremaratne agreed with this view.

However, a top lawyer who regularly appears before the supreme court categorically told the present writer that while there is a listing judge who is often the junior-most judge of the supreme court, he assigns only dates for the trail. The lawyers suggest three dates and he chooses one of them for the trial. But it is always the CJ who assigns the benches to hear the trial. This in fact is one of the important ways in which the CJ exercises control over the other Supreme Court judges. And anyway, since the CJ appoints the listing judge, she still has control through him. It is inconceivable to think that the listing judge, even if he did assign benches, would dare assign a bench that the CJ does not approve of. It appears that almost all those who oppose the present impeachment motion against Shirani Bandaranayake, are labouring under misconceptions. Would their attitude change if the proper facts are brought before them?

What Nihal J says

We have seen some strange arguments over the past few weeks from some of Sri Lanka’s best legal minds. Take for instance the argument put forward by Dr Nihal Jayawickrema in this newspaper a couple of weeks ago, saying that “The Bangalore Principles are not intended to form the basis for disciplinary sanctions, and certainly not for the removal of a judge from judicial office.” Dr Jayawickrema played a prominent role in the group that formulated the Banglore Principles of Judicial Conduct.  As we pointed out earlier, the present impeachment process in Sri Lanka is not a criminal proceeding. It only seeks to impeach Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake on the grounds of ‘misbehaviour’.  What better way to prove misbehaviour than to examine her conduct against the kind of conduct universally expected of a judge? You can of course use for this purpose the codes of conduct for judges of the USA or the UK instead of the Bangalore principles because the standards of conduct expected of a judge are basically the same everywhere in the democratic world.

But given the fact that a Sri Lankan C.G.Weeramantry and of course Jayawickrema himself was involved in the drafting of the Bangalore Principles, this is the closest we have come to having a code of judicial conduct of our own. So why should it not be used as an expected standard of behaviour? Mr Jayawickrema seems to be very keen to see that the Banglore Principles of Judicial Conduct should not be utilised in any way in the present impeachment process and has said that “Under our Constitution, a Judge of the Supreme Court may be removed from office only for “proved misbehaviour”, and not for non-compliance with the Bangalore Principles.” The fact is that when misbehaviour is being probed, a code of conduct is the first thing that the alleged wrongful conduct will be judged against.

In a previous article to this newspaper, Dr Nihal J has claimed that the present impeachment procedure violates Article 4 of our constitution. Even a cursory look at article 4 will show that there is no such contradiction.  Article 4(c) of the constitution says that the judicial power of the people shall be exercised by parliament through courts tribunals and institutions created by law except with regard to matters relating to the “privileges, immunities AND POWERS of parliament and of its members wherein the judicial power of the people may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law.” It should be noted that the power of impeachment is a power that the constitution has reserved for parliament according to Article 107 of the constitution and Article 107(3) says that parliament may at its discretion formulate laws or standing orders to enable it to carry out this function. The present standing orders of parliament were formulated accordingly, nearly three decades ago and both the two main political parties have brought impeachment motions against chief justices under these standing orders.

Courtesy Sunday Island

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    This Rakapakasha Bath-Gotta and a dubious charactor is trying to whitewash the Rajapakshas and it is a shame that the ISLAND which had scribes of Vijitha Welikala/Ajith Samaranayake etc had to go for these kind of cheap bastards for the Sunday political column.

  • 0
    0

    Mr.Chandra prema could you tell your opinion about followings also

    1.What is idea about this hurried evidences
    2,the behaviour of Dilan and Wimal
    3.Why the matters have not discussed with the committee. Especially the Rajitha and Wimal issiue
    4.Do you think 1000 pages of details could read and forward a written explanation within 24 hours.
    However I am eager to see in the future those people are suffering like JR suffers lot
    These men have to suffer lot since JR had not stollen money of poor like your boss

  • 0
    0

    Dont beat around the bush, try to address why there seems to be no law in action against one who behave in the sessions – abusively

    If you can bring this kind of articles, you should also be able to answer the basics of the environment. Putting aside of the charges against her, but as a Chief Justice, she desserves high respect from the nation. I thought Parliament is a respectable place as as been taught to us in our schools, but today´s paliament is not second to any uncivilised body – all these should be given the hightest attention by top leadership. If he cant handle it safeguarding laws – not CJ, but he is the one who should resign the presidency ans pave the environment to ones who are capable of being able to get on with RULE OF LAW.

  • 0
    0

    As usual Mr PremaRaja is beating about the bush. He quotes

    “shall have the right to appear before it and to be heard by, such Committee, in person or by representative and to adduce evidence, oral or documentary, in disproof of the allegations made against him.”

    Then he states

    The wording of this section makes it clear that the attendance of the person being subject to impeachment, before the parliamentary select committee is his or her right which he may or may not avail of.

    Very conveniently ignoring the latter part

    “and to adduce evidence, oral or documentary, in disproof of the allegations made against him”

    which was not permitted or allowed by the PSC. A flagrant violation of standing order 78A(5). Half truths to cover the ilegality of the netire process.

  • 0
    0

    I would say no point of comparing USA and Sl constitutions. As both countries with people of difference mentality. ex, Mr Obama was president and his counterparts became secretary to states. Mr. Mahinda was selected as president and SF went to jail….some of so call Drs, Profs. Same as Dr. Kudu Silva who Tring to take credit.
    I don’t believe that US senate had their members who pass grade 9. or lawyer who produce fraudulent educational certificate.Correct me if I’m wrong!

    • 0
      0

      Ruwan,

      what matters is the percentage. I really dont think that US or UK have MPs of lower levels that we have currently in the parliament. Ours proved day before yesterday – that they dont even know how to behave before a lady who is currently the CJ of the nation. Putting aside all the charges – have they learnt to behave well. What happened to the rule of law ? The current speaker himself proves his uncivilized manner not once often.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaD6s3BEOM0

    • 0
      0

      Most people in the US senate are IVY league graduates . Nothing even remotely looking and behaving like moda wansa ,would sit in the senate in that country. Grade 9 unqualified? Plus I have questions about the Sri Lankan Law college. No offence but is it the same as someone going to university and learning Law? Please forgive me for asking this , but the president is a layer who came out of LC. You can clearly see that he does not see this fiasco , as a fiasco. Which means does he really know his law? His son supposedly got a professional qualification within a couple of months. The seven attorneys who are in this select committee and its chairman ,are they qualified from this Law college?
      One guy is nothing and garbage so one can understand him using filth. But the other supposedly is a lawyer? How,? From where?
      The Chairman is a lawyer but, he did not even use his common sense to ,make this investigation look authentic, some say he was a lawyer defending kassippu kings. He did not stop these two , jokers as the hon. President called them ,from abusing a lady.
      What kind of law college is this ?

      • 0
        0

        The colombo Law college like the other academia in the country have gone to the dogs in the recent years and the rot started in the 80s and all these highups in the country will send their children to uni’s in North America or Auz.

        There is enough drama around how MA-RA got his qualifications or his eldest son got his qualifications too.

        Most of the lawyers in the PSC was pity lawyers in the bars like Kuliyapitiya or Badulla and just take care of pity cases like Kasippu cases etc.

        The most regreteable here is this so called impeachment was handled by non-other than the Prof GLP who was intrumental in getting the present CJ from the Academia into the Judiciary and a student and colleague of GLP.

        This man GLP is another educated moron and survice for another day.

    • 0
      0

      Just read the following qualifications of the cabinet of Ministers of Singapore.

      See how many minorities are there and the collective educational qualifications of them.

      a Singapore cabinet Minister can get like USD850,000 annually and the only thing that our learned mininsters like Panikkiyalage Weerasena or Hewa Coparage Mervyn Silva or Johnston Fernando all 9th graders is definitely earn few times of USD850,000 /annually.

  • 0
    0

    each administration when the end is near uses all sorts of excuses to defend the regime. you have become one of the defenders of the rajapakses just like mahindapala and anurudha thilakasiri a.k.a dayan jayatilake (who is also shamelessly a rajapakse lackey now) that defended premadasa during his final phase in power!

    please don’t play with the intellect of the opinion makers of this country by trivializing this issue. madamulana gamata kiyanna that sri lanka has followed american standards for this impeachment. its more like the iranian, venezuelan, chinese, or russian model that is the norm in of the rajapakse banana republic now.

    how ever you try to cut, it stinks and this administration has made Sri Lanka a pariah state in the world!

    shame on you c.a. chandraprema your days are numbered!

  • 0
    0

    Every institution derives power from the people and People are not allowed to hear what these people do. Hooligans like DIlan and Wimal can do anything with it. Sinhaleese shoudl realize that these are the people who mudered the Tamil Civilians. Yo uhav ebeen supporting these kind of people from 1956. That is what has brough the country to this. Tamils are thankful to you because they are living happily abroad better off economically and politcally. For fore fathers sins and your sins you living in this doomed nation with the Rajapakses and his arse lickers like this author

    • 0
      0

      You are right . There are people who support these fellows but there are lots who do not. It is a shame that these Sinhala Buddhists do not even understand what The Lord Buddha preached. They can not understand that, Tamils burghers, Muslims ,Chinese and Malays make our culture and our society so much richer.
      You are correct in saying that they are probably economically better off. But some of them were very well off here. I often think, if not for what happened they probably would have been happier with us( I talk for our friends specially the older crowd)
      The sad thing is people actually follow these extreamists

  • 0
    0

    How can one compare U.S. Congressional Committees with Sri Lankan Parliament’s PSCs. Congressmen (House members) and Senators act independently. Although they get elected as party candidates, parties don’t (and cannot) control them in the Congress. They act according to their consciences and not by what the Party dictates them to do. (Political Parties don’t ask Congressmen/Senators to act or vote this way or that way unlike in Sri Lanka.) They act in the Congress according to what their constituents ask or expects them to do. The House members have to face elections every two years, and have to be conscious of what the electors expect. So the members who serve the Congressional Committees are not puppets who act according to what the Whip ask them to do. That is how and why their Democracy works even when the majority in the Congress is not with the party that represents the President. (Right now and even the past two years the majority in the House is with the Republican Party.) So in the U.S. it is not Steam Roller Majority in their business. Even in Committees, members act with responsibility. So anybody can expect a fair investigation. If they act like our PSC members they may not get elected next time (For House Members with-in two years and Senators with-in six years). Those are the good things we should learn from them.
    If anybody compares U.S. Congress or it’s Committees with our Parliament and it’s Committees that shows his/her ignorance of the U.S. political system.

  • 0
    0

    The process was normal and CJ was backing to corrupted gov. train unfortunately de-railed. we should ignored this as a normal and it will be railed and corrupted train commence soon….I don’t know y? Mehema wenne ei? Lokka thamai ewa danne… I….DON’T……KNOW. I DON’T KNOW WHY…..!

  • 0
    0

    I am an out and out government supporter but I do not have blood on my hands like you Mr Chandraprema.

    • 0
      0

      Go night classes and learn a bit of English comprehension to be a credible imposter.
      Leela

  • 0
    0

    Mr C.A.Chandraprema – All your “citations” and “quotations” from writings, statutes etc. can be relevant and only good for a student or a person interested in all that matters to his/her well being.

    But, if the persons who administer and execute these rules of law are not acting in a regulated manner of behaviour displaying responsibility and decorum, what is the use of all these “citations” “quotations” you have taken great pain in collecting and publishing above?

    That is the one and only question the people want to put to you. That is also a question you must ask yourself before embarking on an exercise you have described above. Whata can you expect from a “bunch of lunatics” who try to handle the rules of law?

    The outcome has been made public. So please do not try to colour-wash that outward display of “misbehaviour”, “arrogance” and “stupidity”.

    • 0
      0

      Well douglas, I think CA Chandrprema has done a great job. Indeed, I believe he has put forward arguably one of the best of the papers on this subject. His arguments that were backed by historical facts to validate the impeachment of the CJ and its hearing at PSC were so effective, no intelligent and a reasonable person could put them aside as worthless or nonsense.

      MPs are corrupt, no doubt; but at least people can reject them in every six years. ‘Haultsdorf sharks’ who swindle money (tax free) from people at court houses on various pretext and judges, their team mates stay on for life. So, who are “bunch of lunatics”? It all depends on where you place your pedestal to stand on and observe it. I don’t think people are with ‘Haultsdorf sharks’.

      Editorial of ‘Divaina’, today says that its only the other day that a 63 year old woman died of a heart attack on a bench of a court room in Haultsdorf waiting for her ‘land’ case to be taken up that has been going on for some 30 years. Imagine the amount of money that black coats must have grabbed from her and others involved in that court case during that period. All litigants know that black coats swindle them left right and centre. If black coats think public likes them they are sadly mistaken.
      Leela

  • 0
    0

    The role of these people is to camouflage with words the naked abuse of power, the bullying, the cowardice and sheer egoism of this regime.

    The more we bandy ‘words’ with people like these we give them life and legitimacy

    silence….

  • 0
    0

    Mr,A.C.Chandrapema,
    I respect your right to sing for your supper. The convoluted arguments and the contrived reasoning do not succeed in convincing any one that this impeachment can be justified in a society that respects the norms of basic human decency. Perhaps Montesquieu may be of help.

    “The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. it is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists.”
    Sarath

  • 0
    0

    In the USA the Senate members have no personal interest in the outcome of the impeachment motion unlike in Sri Lanka and hence the precedent Mr Chandraprema had quoted are irrelevant in this case.

    There is something called natural justice irrespective of the provisions in the US or Sri Lankan constitution.

    Just study how this impeachment came out.

    There were a couple of constitutional cases with Dr Shirani Bandaranaike heading the panel of judges where the verdict went against the government and naturally the government was annoyed and as a consequence the President himself wanted to remove the Chief justice,

    The verdict was foregone.

    The President has a hold on all the Ministers and the Government party members who are ready to do anything to please the President.

    117 members of the ruling party signed the impeachment motion even without knowing the contents because everyone of them knew very well that it was the wish of the President.

    And the 07 government’s members of the Select Committee are not impartial members.

    They are all biased and they made their decisions on party lines and being guided from outside.

    If they are really honest all 07 of them should have opted out of the select committee because of inherent bias.

    In fact none of the parliamentarian could be in the select committee since every one of them is biased.

    Why only 05 charges what about the balance 09 charges.

    An impartial international panel of judges go through all the 19 charges and produce their verdict., That is the only prudent alternative!

  • 0
    0

    What Happens When The Person Facing Impeachment Walks Out?

    Makes us suffer fools like you !

  • 0
    0

    The answer to Chandraprema’s open question is quite simple.

    A team of examiners, 11 in all, has been given a question paper involving 14 questions and their test material walks away from the lab. After that, in the absence of a test material, 4 other examiners too give up the examination and walk out of the examination hall. The remaining 7 examiners start answering the paper and find that 9 questions are very difficult for them to answer and leave the paper unattended as far as those 9 questions are concerned. They try the remaining 5 questions with totally irrelevant test materials hurriedly acquired and find that they can successfully answer only 3 and the balance 2 only halfway through. Having answered only 3 out of 14 questions by using wrong test materials, they declare that they have passed the exam.

    Ignorant people like Chandraprema also certify that incomplete examination paper as if it is the best paper they have so far found in this world.

  • 0
    0

    Dr.Narendran,
    You were arguing against the PSC inquiring in to impeachment of the CJ all along. I’d like to hear your opinion on this arguably a very well written article on the controversy in general and the US Chief Justice Rehnquist’s observations on his rejection of the judiciary hearing of the United States v. Nixon in particular. Thanks
    Leela

    • 0
      0

      Leela:

      Why ask Dr..N.R who is another joker when it comes to muddying the waters.

      Are you expecting him to spout out his usual anti-Tamil venom?

      The point is that the persons in high office in the country now are all brothers or cronies of the Rajapakse’s.

      Chandraprema is trying to hide this big “Poosanikai”(big melon) in the rice!

      When people like Gota can publicly abuse in the most filthiest language the rights of journalists and commit all kinds of human rights violations with impunity and not be impeached for misbehaviour…Dragging this poor woman who has even served M.R through the mud for not sucking all the way is a disgrace… to every Sri Lankan.

      Leela ofcourse is hoping that the socalled Dr. might save her fascistic stand…

  • 0
    0

    Leela just get lost without talking nonsense. how come american embassy including the state dept gave statements on the impeachment been anti democratic. this must be coming from weerawansa who loves all things american to use as justification.

    what your president is doing is exactly what happened with sadam hussain, mubarak, gaddafi, etc and also currently the rajapakse best friends Ahmadinejad, putin, chevez!

    remember sri lankans are not fools they will wake up at the right time.

    pack your bags as the end for people like you is around the corner.

  • 0
    0

    In a way I like commentators like Chandraprema and Leela. Because at times it is welcome relief to vent your spleen on someone at close quarters!

  • 0
    0

    There were enough news paper reports which said that the judgement or the verdict had been given by G. L. Peiris well before the PSC meeting. PSA was just there so that people could see the drama.

    All these questions by journalists who are aligned with the govt are to to white wash what the govt is doing.

  • 0
    0

    Mr. Chandraprema,

    What about the charge against the 117 MPs who signed the impeachment? According to Commissioner of Elections only one out of 225 MPs had submitted Forms Declaring Assets along with their nominations and none of them had submitted thereafter. However the SG of parliament had collected all info pertaining tp bank accounts of CJ. Horu samaga heluwen.

  • 0
    0

    Mr. Chandraprema,

    What about the charge against the 117 MPs who signed the impeachment? According to Commissioner of Elections only one out of 225 MPs had submitted Forms Declaring Assets along with their nominations and none of them had submitted thereafter. However the SG of parliament had collected all info pertaining to bank accounts of CJ. We are Horu samaga heluwen.

  • 0
    0

    THOUGH THEY WALKED OUT, THEY WILL RETURN TO SING “GLORY BE TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST”, WHEN THE PSC RETURN FROM THEIR MUD HUTS IN JANUARY 2013. ONLY IF THE ISLAND IS STILL AROUND, WHAT WITH THE MAYAN PREDICTIONS. GOD ONLY KNOWS.

  • 0
    0

    Mr Chandraprem Ary you in correct senses Or have you gone mad. Ary talking wearing cloths or being naked Come open and say that “I have been licking the back of Rajapaks and my tongue is now torn and worn out there fore I cannot feel any taste but still I want to lick his backand front because i feel I have in heaven by doing that” Because of you slaves this country has gone to mad dogs

  • 0
    0

    I suppose the intellectuals or any person with a rational mind should not take note of the articles written by this hooligan who is serving the regime. He must be getting something for what he is doing. He is an expert ass lick.r

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.