{"id":76316,"date":"2013-03-07T19:11:20","date_gmt":"2013-03-07T19:11:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?p=76316"},"modified":"2013-03-16T08:57:55","modified_gmt":"2013-03-16T08:57:55","slug":"rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"Rajapaksa Samagama And The Removal Of The Chief Justice"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Nihal Jayawickrama<\/a><\/span> –<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Dr.Nihal Jayawickrama<\/p><\/div>\n

The removal from office of the Chief Justice<\/a><\/span> of Sri Lanka was an unprecedented act in the \u00a0judicial history of the country. I have been requested to examine the constitutionality of\u00a0that act. In fact, that was the single issue on which the proceedings leading to the removal\u00a0of the Chief Justice were questioned and challenged from the outset. Except in the\u00a0government-owned media, there was hardly any reference to the alleged acts of\u00a0misbehaviour. It was evident, from the beginning, that the objective of the exercise was to\u00a0remove an inconvenient Chief Justice, and replace her with one more amenable to the\u00a0government. It was candidly and authoritatively admitted by a political columnist close to\u00a0the government that the resolution for her removal was motivated \u201cfor political reasons\u201d.<\/p>\n

Even the President<\/a><\/span> reportedly complained to a former Chief Justice that \u201cshe has got too big\u00a0for her boots<\/a><\/span>\u201d. The only member of the government parliamentary group who declined to\u00a0sign the resolution for her removal publicly declared that one reason for his refusal to do so\u00a0was that he was presented with a blank sheet of paper that contained no charges.The Constitution is the \u201csupreme law\u201d<\/p>\n

In Sri Lanka, unlike in the United Kingdom, the written Constitution is the supreme law of\u00a0the Republic. It is from the Constitution that the three principal branches of government\u00a0derive their powers. Legislative power is exercised by Parliament and by the People at a\u00a0Referendum. Executive power is exercised by the President elected by the People. Judicial\u00a0power is exercised through courts, tribunals and institutions, created and established by the\u00a0Constitution or by law\u201d. The only exception is in respect of the privileges, immunities and\u00a0powers of Parliament and of its Members, where \u201cjudicial power may be exercised directly\u00a0by Parliament according to law\u201d. That law, which Parliament has enacted, is the Parliament\u00a0(Powers and Privileges) Act.<\/p>\n

Impeachment<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The term \u201cimpeachment\u201d does not appear even once in the Constitution. What the\u00a0Constitution states, in article 107, with regard to a judge of a superior court, is that:<\/p>\n

2) Every such judge shall hold office during good behaviour, and shall not be\u00a0removed except by an order of the President made after an address of\u00a0Parliament, supported by a majority of the total number of Members of\u00a0Parliament (including those not present) has been presented to the President\u00a0for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity:<\/p>\n

Provided that no resolution for the presentation of such an address shall be\u00a0entertained by the Speaker or placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, unless\u00a0notice of such resolution is signed by not less than one-third of the total\u00a0number of Members of Parliament and sets out full particulars of the alleged\u00a0misbehaviour or incapacity.<\/p>\n

There is no reference to \u201cimpeachment\u201d. That term was introduced into the Sri Lankan\u00a0political lexicon in mid-October last year, as the process to remove the Chief Justice began.\u00a0It was a term that came with the weight of history. Soon, law professors and political\u00a0columnists were being commissioned to delve into the history of \u201cimpeachment\u201d across the\u00a0globe, so that they could argue that no court could interfere with that process. Foreign\u00a0diplomats were summoned to the Ministry of External Affairs and lectured on a case from\u00a0the United States, where one Robert Nixon, a district judge and convicted perjurer in an\u00a0obscure region of Mississippi, had attempted unsuccessfully to have his impeachment by\u00a0the Senate reviewed by the Supreme Court, on the ground that he should have been tried in\u00a0the first instance, not by the House of Representatives, but by the Senate. I could not\u00a0understand how the impeachment procedure prescribed under the 1787 Constitution of the\u00a0United States of America was of any relevance to Sri Lanka? We were not even aspiring to\u00a0be the 51st state. The term \u201cimpeachment\u201d was obviously introduced into the public\u00a0domain so that the baggage that it carries from the United States, Philippines and elsewhere\u00a0could be employed to challenge the constitutional right of the Judiciary to subject to judicial\u00a0review any decision that adversely affects an individual\u2019s legal rights.<\/p>\n

The removal procedure<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Constitution, in article 107(3) provides that:<\/span>
\n(3) Parliament shall by law or by Standing Orders provide for all matters relating to\u00a0the presentation of such an address, including the procedure for the passing of\u00a0such resolution, the investigation and proof of the alleged misbehaviour or\u00a0incapacity and the right of such Judge to appear and to be heard in person or\u00a0by representative.It is on the interpretation of this provision of the Constitution that the question of the\u00a0constitutionality or otherwise of the removal from office of the Chief Justice rests. \u201cLaw\u201d is\u00a0defined in article 170 of the Constitution as:<\/p>\n

Any Act of Parliament, and any law enacted by any legislature at any time prior to the\u00a0commencement of the Constitution and includes an Order in Council.Standing Orders of Parliament are not law.<\/p>\n

The 1984 precedent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The standing order under which a select committee was appointed for the trial of the Chief\u00a0Justice was an accident of history. In 1984, six years after the Constitution had come into\u00a0force, the then President decided that the Chief Justice should be disciplined. Chief Justice\u00a0Samarakone<\/a><\/span>, who was due to retire in October of that year after five years in office, had\u00a0made an ill-advised speech at an inappropriate venue. He was the first Chief Justice to be\u00a0appointed directly from the unofficial Bar within living memory. His speech was critical of\u00a0the Government and the President, whose personal lawyer he had been prior to his\u00a0appointment to the Court. President Jayewardene<\/a><\/span>\u2019s response was immediate. He decided to bring the Chief Justice before Parliament, but then discovered that the procedure for\u00a0doing so had not been prescribed, as required by the Constitution. The Chief Justice was\u00a0due to retire within a few months. Therefore, it was necessary to adopt the swiftest\u00a0procedure in the shortest possible time. Resorting to legislation could not have been\u00a0accomplished before Chief Justice Samarakone reached his mandatory retirement age.<\/p>\n

Overnight, a new standing order was drafted and adopted by Parliament. That was Standing\u00a0Order 78A, and is to be found today under \u201cRules of Debate\u201d. Standing Order 78A\u00a0empowered the Speaker to appoint a Select Committee for the purpose of investigating and\u00a0reporting on an allegation of misbehaviour or incapacity against a Judge of a superior court.\u00a0Parliament which, under the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, could directly deal only with very trivial matters, such as disrespectful conduct within the precincts of Parliament, or\u00a0creating a disturbance when Parliament was sitting, gave itself the power, through a\u00a0standing order, to conduct what was virtually the trial of an offence. Parliament which, under the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, could only punish an outsider with\u00a0admonition or removal from its precincts, that being the maximum penalty that Parliament\u00a0could impose in the exercise of its \u201cjudicial power\u201d, now gave itself the power to remove a\u00a0Chief Justice from office. These extraordinary powers were acquired, not by law, but by\u00a0amending its own procedural rules, the standing orders.<\/p>\n

This strange procedure did not go unchallenged. At its first meeting, the three Opposition\u00a0Members, who included one who is now a Cabinet Minister and is also the Chief\u00a0Government Whip, submitted that a Select Committee could not determine \u201cproved\u00a0incapacity or misbehaviour\u201d unless it had been judicially proved. The Select Committee held\u00a014 meetings, during all of which the team of lawyers appearing for the Chief Justice argued\u00a0that the Select Committee was an unconstitutional body. Before the Select Committee\u00a0<\/span>concluded its sittings, the Chief Justice reached the mandatory retirement age. In its report\u00a0to Parliament, the Select Committee concluded that the Chief Justice was not guilty of\u00a0misbehaviour. That was 1984. In 2000, all the political parties agreed on a draft\u00a0amendment to the Constitution that provided for the appointment of judicial tribunals to\u00a0inquire into allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity against judges of superior courts. That\u00a0amendment, which was part of a larger package of amendments, was not proceeded with\u00a0for reasons unrelated to this matter. In November 2012, when a resolution for the removal\u00a0from office of the Chief Justice was submitted to the Speaker, it was Standing Order 78A\u00a0that was invoked. It was invoked by the same political party which, in 1984, had voted\u00a0against its adoption, and then arguedstrenuously that it was unconstitutional. Such is the\u00a0character of contemporary politics in Sri Lanka.<\/p>\n

Standing Order 78A reads as follows:
\n78A (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Standing Orders, where notice\u00a0of a resolution for the presentation of an address to the President for the removal of a\u00a0Judge from office is given to the Speaker in accordance with Article 107 of the\u00a0Constitution, the Speaker shall entertain such resolution and place it on the Order Paper\u00a0of Parliament, but such resolution shall not be proceeded with until after the expiration of\u00a0a period of one month from the date on which the Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order has reported to Parliament.<\/p>\n

(2)Where a resolution referred to in paragraph (1) of this Order is placed on the Order\u00a0Paper of Parliament, the Speaker shall appoint a Select Committee of Parliament\u00a0consisting of not less than seven members to investigate and report to Parliament on\u00a0the allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity set out in such resolution.<\/span><\/p>\n

(3)A Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order shall transmit to the\u00a0Judge whose alleged incapacity or misbehaviour is the subject of investigation, a copy of\u00a0the allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity made against such Judge and set out in the\u00a0resolution in pursuance of which such Select Committee was appointed, and shall require\u00a0such Judge to make a written statement of defence within such period as may be\u00a0specified by it.<\/p>\n

(4)The Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order shall have power to\u00a0send for persons, papers and records.<\/span><\/p>\n

(5)The Judge whose alleged misbehaviour or incapacity is the subject of the investigation\u00a0by a Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order shall have the right to\u00a0appear before it and to be heard by such Committee in person or by representative and\u00a0to adduce evidence, oral or documentary, in disproof of the allegations made against\u00a0him.<\/p>\n

(6)At the conclusion of the investigation made by it, a Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order shall within one month from the commencement of the\u00a0sittings of such Select Committee, report its findings together with the minutes of\u00a0evidence taken before it to Parliament ad may make a special report of any matters which\u00a0it may think fit to bring to the notice of Parliament:<\/span><\/p>\n

Provided however, if the Select Committee is unable to report its findings to Parliament\u00a0within the time limit stipulated herein the Select Committee shall seek permission of\u00a0Parliament for an extension of a further specified period of time giving reasons therefor,\u00a0and Parliament may grant such extension of time as it may consider necessary.<\/p>\n

(7)Where a resolution for the presentation of an address to the President for the removal\u00a0of a Judge from office for proved misbehaviour or incapacity is passed by Parliament, the\u00a0Speaker shall present such address to the President on behalf of Parliament.<\/span><\/p>\n

(8)All proceedings connected with the investigation by the Select Committee appointed\u00a0under paragraph (2) of this Order shall not be made public unless and until a finding of\u00a0guilt on any of the charges against such Judge is reported to Parliament by such Select\u00a0Committee.<\/p>\n

The report of the Select Committee was made public within a week of the conclusion of its\u00a0sittings. Its found the Chief Justice guilty of three of the fourteen charges contained in the\u00a0resolution. I do not propose to refer to the charges. Mr Geoffrey Robertson, Queen\u2019s\u00a0Counsel, in his brilliant report presented this evening, has examined with minute care, not\u00a0only the often incomprehensible charges laid by the 117 members of the government\u00a0parliamentary group, but also the hilarious findings of the seven Ministers who sat in the\u00a0Select Committee. I only wish to refer to the requirement in Standing Order 78A that the\u00a0judge should \u201cdisprove\u201d the allegations. The presumption of innocence is entrenched in the\u00a0Constitution, and to require a person to disprove a charge is to turn the system of justice on its head. Under article 13(3) of the Constitution, it is only by law (and not by standing order)\u00a0that Parliament may place the burden of proving particular facts on an accused person.<\/p>\n

Reference to the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/p>\n

In November 2012, shortly after the resolution containing the charges was served on the\u00a0Chief Justice, and she was summoned to appear before the Select Committee, applications\u00a0for writs of prohibition were filed in the Court of Appeal by several individuals who\u00a0challenged the constitutionality of the Standing Order under which the Select Committee\u00a0was established. Article 140 of the Constitution provides that:<\/span><\/p>\n

140. Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Court of Appeal shall have full\u00a0power and authority to inspect and examine the records of any Court of First Instance or\u00a0tribunal or other institution, and grant and issue, according to law, orders in the nature of\u00a0writs of certiorari, prohibition, procedendo, mandamus and quo warranto against the\u00a0Judge of any Court of First Instance or tribunal or other institution or any other person.\u00a0As required by the Constitution, the Court of Appeal referred the question of the\u00a0interpretation of article 107(3) of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. The question\u00a0referred made no mention of Standing Order 78A or the Select Committee. Article 125 of\u00a0 the Constitution states that:<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any\u00a0question relating to the interpretation of the Constitution, and accordingly, whenever\u00a0any such question arises in the course of any proceedings in any other court or tribunal or\u00a0other institution empowered by law to administer justice or to exercise judicial or quasi\u00a0judicial functions, such question shall forthwith be referred to the Supreme Court for\u00a0determination. The Supreme Court may direct that further proceedings be stayed\u00a0pending the determination of such question.<\/p>\n

Having heard counsel for seven petitioners, seven intervenients representing governmental interests, and the Attorney General, the Supreme Court determined that:It is mandatory under Article 107(3) of the Constitution for Parliament to provide by law the matters relating to the forum before which the allegations are to be proved, the\u00a0mode of proof, the burden of proof, and the standard of proof of any alleged\u00a0 misbehavior or incapacity, and the Judge\u2019s right to appear and to be heard in person or\u00a0by representative, in addition to matters relating to the investigation of the alleged\u00a0misbehavior or incapacity.<\/p>\n

The Court explained that matters relating to the presentation of an address and the\u00a0procedure for the passing of such resolution were matters which could be stipulated by standing orders, although there was nothing to prevent Parliament for providing for such\u00a0 matters by law as well. Parliament had so far failed to do so. It followed, therefore, that Standing Order 78A and\u00a0 the proceedings held before the Select Committee were void ab initio<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Parliament\u2019s response<\/strong><\/p>\n

From the commencement of proceedings to remove the Chief Justice from office, the\u00a0country was subjected to a virulent campaign of disinformation through the state media and\u00a0other state organs. It did not seem to matter that the exercise was both unlawful and\u00a0unconstitutional, or that it would destroy the foundations of democratic governance. The\u00a0Chief Justice had to go, and the load of gibberish gratuitously offered by state media and\u00a0cabinet ministers was intended to lull the people into complacency. Even members of the\u00a0Government began to believe the mumbo jumbo. One cabinet minister<\/a><\/span> was so swayed by\u00a0the Government\u2019s own propaganda that, in Parliament, he shouted out to the Supreme\u00a0Court to \u201cgo to hell\u201d.<\/p>\n

Parliament\u2019s response to the determination of the Supreme Court was in the same mode,\u00a0and was typical of the attitude of the authorities today to the judiciary, the rule of law, and\u00a0the protection of human rights. The argument of the government\u2019s chief spokesman against\u00a0the Supreme Court\u2019s determination was two pronged. The first was that both Chief Justice\u00a0Rehnquist and the Philippine Supreme Court had categorically stated that the judiciary\u00a0should not interfere in impeachment proceedings. It did not concern the judiciary at all.\u00a0The second was that the determination was wrong. In his view, the Supreme Court\u2019s\u00a0determination was \u201cconstitutional heresy\u201d; it was \u201creplete with errors\u201d; it was \u201cabsolutely\u00a0flawed\u201d; it was \u201cdemonstrably flawed\u201d; it was \u201cincurably flawed\u201d; and it was \u201cnot worth the\u00a0paper on which it was written\u201d. It was not that the chief spokesman was ignorant of the\u00a0law. The Minister of External Affairs, Professor Peries<\/a><\/span>, the international face of the\u00a0government, was a Rhodes Scholar who had been Professor Law, Dean of Law, Vice Chancellor, and Fellow of All Souls Oxford. I do not wish to make any comments on his\u00a0arguments because, in addition to all his qualifications, he is also my brother-in-law, and\u00a0harmony within the family is important.<\/p>\n

International standards<\/strong><\/p>\n

Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires a determination\u00a0affecting a person\u2019s rights to be made only after \u201ca fair and public hearing by a competent,\u00a0independent and impartial tribunal established by law\u201d. In its periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, submitted in 2002, the Government of Sri Lanka, referring to a Select\u00a0Committee appointed under Standing Order 78A, solemnly declared, in an assurance held\u00a0out to the international community, that \u201cnon adherence to the rules of natural justice by\u00a0the inquiring committee would attract judicial review.\u201dIndeed, nowhere, either in the relevant constitutional provisions or in the standing order,\u00a0is it sought to exclude judicial review of the decisions of the inquiring committee. Thus, it\u00a0is envisaged that if the inquiring committee were to misdirect itself in law or breach the\u00a0rules of natural justice, its decisions could be subject to judicial review.Despite this assurance, the Human Rights Committee, in its Concluding Observations (on the\u00a04th and 5th Periodic Reports of Sri Lanka, November 2003) stated that:
\nThe procedure for the removal of Judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal\u00a0set out in article 107 of the Constitution, read together with Standing Orders of\u00a0Parliament, is incompatible with article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and\u00a0Political Rights, in that it allows Parliament to exercise considerable control over the\u00a0procedure for removal of Judges\u201d.<\/p>\n

The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (which have been endorsed by the United\u00a0Nations), and which the Human Rights Committee has stated should be read as an\u00a0interpretative guide to article 14 of the Covenant, provides thus in its Implementation\u00a0Measures:<\/p>\n

(a) The power to discipline a judge should be vested in an authority or\u00a0tribunal which is independent of the legislature and executive, and which\u00a0is composed of serving or retired judges, but which may include in its\u00a0membership persons other than judges, provided that such other persons\u00a0are not members of thelegislature or executive.<\/p>\n

(b) A judge may be removed from office only for proved incapacity, conviction\u00a0of a serious crime, gross incompetence, or conduct that is manifestly\u00a0contrary to the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.<\/p>\n

(c) Where the legislature is vested with the power of removal of a judge, such\u00a0power should be exercised only after a recommendation to that effect of\u00a0the independent authority vested with power to discipline judges.This appears to be the contemporary international standard and reflects the prevailing\u00a0position in nearly all the democratic countries of the world.<\/p>\n

Sri Lanka is obliged to observe Commonwealth Principles, as a pre-condition for continuing\u00a0to be a Member State of the Commonwealth. Among these principles is the following\u00a0Latimer House Principle:
\nIn cases where a judge is at risk of removal, the judge must have the right to be fully\u00a0informed of the charges, to be represented at a hearing, to make a full defence, and to be\u00a0judged by an independent and impartial tribunal.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Latimer House Principles<\/a><\/span> have been incorporated into domestic law in many\u00a0Commonwealth countries. A judge may be removed from office, whether on a\u00a0parliamentary resolution or otherwise, only after an independent tribunal has found that\u00a0judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity. From Australia to Uganda, through Belize,\u00a0Botswana, Canada, Cyprus, Ghana, Guyana, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Singapore and South\u00a0Africa (to name only a cross section of Commonwealth countries selected at random), this is\u00a0the consistent constitutional practice.<\/p>\n

The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) has expressed the view that disciplinary\u00a0proceedings against any judge should only be determined by an independent authority (or\u00a0\u201ctribunal\u201d) operating procedures which guarantee full rights of defence. It also considers\u00a0that the body responsible for appointing such a tribunal can and should be the independent\u00a0body (with substantial judicial representation chosen democratically by other judges)\u00a0responsible for appointing judges. That does not exclude the inclusion in the membership of\u00a0a disciplinary tribunal of persons other than judges (thus averting the risk of corporatism),\u00a0provided that such other persons are not members of the legislature, government or\u00a0administration. The CCJE also considers that the arrangements regarding disciplinary\u00a0proceedings in each country should be such as to allow an appeal from the initial\u00a0disciplinary body (whether that is itself an authority, tribunal or court) to a court.<\/p>\n

The national context<\/strong><\/p>\n

Before I conclude, I would like to place the event we have been discussing in its proper\u00a0context. It is necessary to understand the national context in order to understand why the\u00a0Government asserted the right to bulldoze its way, with slogan-shouting, stick-waving,\u00a0screaming mobs, protected by armed police and the military, padlocked gates, water\u00a0cannons, and fireworks \u2013 all this and more to remove from office the lawful Chief Justice of\u00a0the Republic, the first woman, the first academic, the first product of a non-urban school\u00a0who, with her quiet dignity, grace and determination, surpassed herself as she faced what\u00a0must have been the greatest challenge of her life.<\/p>\n

A founding member of the Commonwealth, a highly politicised society that changed its\u00a0Government at every general election in the first thirty years of parliamentary governance, a\u00a0fiercely independent Judiciary before which I had the privilege to practise, and a vibrant and\u00a0fearless Press \u2013 these were the defining features of Ceylon, as Sri Lanka was known until\u00a01972. But the country changed quite dramatically thereafter, especially under presidential\u00a0rule which was introduced in 1978. Therefore, the removal from office of the Chief Justice\u00a0has to be viewed in its proper context.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Today, in many respects, Sri Lanka is a dysfunctional state. The integrity of its electoral\u00a0process is seriously questioned. The integrity of its Judiciary has been undermined by an\u00a0unduly close relationship that some senior judges enjoy with the Executive. The Chief\u00a0Justice who retired in 2011 was immediately appointed Legal Adviser to the President; a\u00a0hop, step and a jump from the Supreme Court to the presidential secretariat did not appear\u00a0to him to be an unusual acrobatic leap. Selected judges of the Supreme Court and the Court\u00a0of Appeal are granted special leave to enable them to spend several months at a time in the\u00a0islands of Fiji, a country suspended from the Commonwealth, to help a military ruler apply\u00a0and enforce his decrees. In fact, a Sri Lankan Judge was reported to have recently\u00a0sentenced the Opposition Leader of that country to prison, and thus disqualified him from\u00a0being a candidate at the general election, if and when held. Much of the print media is\u00a0either owned by the Government or by politicians of the ruling party or by members of the\u00a0President\u2019s family. The editor of the only independent<\/a><\/span>, investigative weekend newspaper\u00a0was shot dead in a high security area four years ago, and his successor was sacked when a\u00a0government supporter bought that newspaper some months ago.Constitutionalism has all but disappeared from the country. The President, who is Head of\u00a0State, Head of Government, and Chairman of the Cabinet, is the source of all power and\u00a0patronage. He appoints Ministers, Judges, Ambassadors, Secretaries, Chairpersons of state\u00a0banks and corporations, the Elections Commission, the Bribery Commission, the Human\u00a0Rights Commission, the Judicial Services Commission, the Public Services Commission, the\u00a0Auditor General \u2013 the list is endless. Of the 113 members required for an absolute majority\u00a0in Parliament, 67 are cabinet ministers, 30 are deputy ministers, 2 are project ministers, and\u00a0the remainder are either ministry monitors, presidential advisers, or coordinating\u00a0secretaries. In fact, nearly every member of the government parliamentary group is a\u00a0salaried member of the executive. Parliament is no longer a legislative body capable of holding the government to account.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Almost half the elected members of the Opposition have crossed the floor, enticed by the\u00a0offer of employment of one kind or another, and the Cabinet today includes a Minister of\u00a0Wild Life, a Minister of Botanical Gardens, a Minister of Public Relations, a Minister of State\u00a0Resources, and a Minister of Sugar, with all the perks and financial benefits that go with\u00a0such offices, but with little or no power. State power is exercised by four individuals: the President, who is also Minister of Finance, Minister of Planning, Minister of Defence,\u00a0Minister of Highways, Minister of Ports and Minister of Aviation, and is also in charge of the\u00a0Attorney General\u2019s Department and the Legal Draftsman\u2019s Department; his brother<\/a><\/span>, who is\u00a0Minister of Economic Development, an umbrella ministry that controls all infrastructure and\u00a0other development activities across the country; another brother<\/a><\/span>, who is Secretary of\u00a0Defence, and controls the armed services, police and immigration, as well as urban\u00a0development; and yet another brother<\/a><\/span>, who is Speaker of Parliament. Other immediate\u00a0family members include the chairman of Sri Lankan Airlines, head of the shipping authority,the ambassador in Washington, the ambassador in Moscow, and so on. Indeed, one of the\u00a0siblings<\/a><\/span> once reportedly exclaimed that the country was now being administered by what he\u00a0described as the Rajapakse Samagama (or Rajapakse Company).<\/p>\n

*Presentation by Dr Nihal Jayawickrama in International Seminar, \u201cThe Impeachment of the Chief Justice of Sri\u00a0Lanka\u201d organised by the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC)
\nDoughty Street Chambers, 27 February 2013.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[…]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":69624,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,8,2938],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76316","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-colombotelegraph","category-editorial","category-popular"],"yoast_head":"\nRajapaksa Samagama And The Removal Of The Chief Justice - Colombo Telegraph<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajapaksa Samagama And The Removal Of The Chief Justice - Colombo Telegraph\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"[…]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Colombo Telegraph\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2013-03-07T19:11:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2013-03-16T08:57:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/CJ-5-Leaves.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"500\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"280\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/\",\"name\":\"Rajapaksa Samagama And The Removal Of The Chief Justice - Colombo Telegraph\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/CJ-5-Leaves.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2013-03-07T19:11:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2013-03-16T08:57:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9db3d0cfcfa59e1997e3c3524d454cb3\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/CJ-5-Leaves.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/CJ-5-Leaves.jpg\",\"width\":\"500\",\"height\":\"280\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajapaksa Samagama And The Removal Of The Chief Justice\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/\",\"name\":\"Colombo Telegraph\",\"description\":\"In journalism truth is a process\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9db3d0cfcfa59e1997e3c3524d454cb3\",\"name\":\"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/920b3181b0bf86b5c339ad9f0963a89f6a8b19c4b971e629987a021ba7a663df?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/920b3181b0bf86b5c339ad9f0963a89f6a8b19c4b971e629987a021ba7a663df?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"caption\":\"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/author\/colombo_telegraph\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajapaksa Samagama And The Removal Of The Chief Justice - Colombo Telegraph","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajapaksa Samagama And The Removal Of The Chief Justice - Colombo Telegraph","og_description":"[…]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/","og_site_name":"Colombo Telegraph","article_published_time":"2013-03-07T19:11:20+00:00","article_modified_time":"2013-03-16T08:57:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":500,"height":280,"url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/CJ-5-Leaves.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/","url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/","name":"Rajapaksa Samagama And The Removal Of The Chief Justice - Colombo Telegraph","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/CJ-5-Leaves.jpg","datePublished":"2013-03-07T19:11:20+00:00","dateModified":"2013-03-16T08:57:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9db3d0cfcfa59e1997e3c3524d454cb3"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/CJ-5-Leaves.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/CJ-5-Leaves.jpg","width":"500","height":"280"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/rajapaksa-samagama-and-the-removal-of-the-chief-justice\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajapaksa Samagama And The Removal Of The Chief Justice"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/","name":"Colombo Telegraph","description":"In journalism truth is a process","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9db3d0cfcfa59e1997e3c3524d454cb3","name":"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/920b3181b0bf86b5c339ad9f0963a89f6a8b19c4b971e629987a021ba7a663df?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/920b3181b0bf86b5c339ad9f0963a89f6a8b19c4b971e629987a021ba7a663df?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","caption":"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH"},"url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/author\/colombo_telegraph\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/CJ-5-Leaves.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76316","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76316"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76316\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":76323,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76316\/revisions\/76323"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/69624"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}