CJ should face stark reality

Divergent views have been expressed over the recent impeachment motion against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake.

What is important is whether the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice is legal, constitutional and whether the correct procedure has been adopted. The charges levelled against the Chief Justice are of a serious nature. Hence, the 117 Parliamentarians who are signatories to the impeachment motion against CJ Bandaranayake have exercised their constitutional right in the best interests of the country.

It is up to the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to probe the allegations against the Chief Justice. Hence, one should not undermine the PSC's powers to conduct such investigations. Any attempt to do so would undermine the privileges of Parliament and the supreme right of its members who represent the masses.

Nobody should be allowed to undermine the supreme right of the country's legislature. The aspirations of the masses are reflected through the elected people's representatives of Parliament. They are accountable to the people who voted for them.

Members of the legislature go before masses and get a fresh mandate every six years. Hence, they make every effort to take any action deemed necessary in keeping with the wishes of the masses.

The Executive President has wide-ranging powers under the 1978 Constitution introduced by the then UNP Government. The late President J.R. Jayewardene, who was instrumental in introducing the 1978 Constitution after the UNP's landslide victory at the July 1977 general election, had once said that the only thing that the Executive President cannot do is to make a man a woman and vice versa. This sweeping statement from the horse's mouth itself is ample testimony on the power of the Executive President.

However, this powerful position is accountable to the masses and the legislature. Although the Executive is also elected by the people, once in six years, the country's legislature could bring an impeachment motion against the Executive President. This alone proves the supremacy of the country's legislature.

All previous elected Executive Presidents, though they had been Prime Ministers earlier, subsequently undermined the supremacy of Parliament. However, President Mahinda Rajapaksa stood out among all other Executive Presidents as he continued to repose implicit faith in parliamentary democracy.

Moreover, President Rajapaksa demonstrated his steadfast belief in parliamentary democracy by amending the Constitution to make it mandatory for the country's Executive President to attend Parliament at least once in three months. Earlier, Executive Presidents attended Parliament only once a year, and that too for the ceremonial opening of the new parliamentary sessions which were confined to a few minutes.

This manifests President Rajapaksa's sincere efforts to strengthen parliamentary democracy. He always believes in the people's power and goes before the masses to get fresh mandates even before the due dates of elections. Though the Jayewardene regime folded the electoral map and extended the term of the 1977 Parliament through a controversial Referendum in 1983, President Rajapaksa always respects the electoral system and gives the masses an opportunity to exercise their democratic right.

On the other hand, the Judiciary is appointed by the Government. If the Judiciary does not act in a transparent, free and fair manner, the masses do not have any means of removing them. It is only the country's Legislature that is constitutionally empowered to remove judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal through an impeachment motion, as there is provision in the Constitution to do so.

The MPs who signed the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice requested that a special parliamentary committee be appointed to examine the charges and the Speaker agreed to appoint the PSC in keeping with the Constitution and in accordance with Standing Order No. 78 (A).

The charges levelled against Chief Justice Bandaranayake include over 20 bank accounts not given in the declaration of assets and liabilities, taking over the Ceylinco case heard by another Bench, buying an apartment from the company on Ceylinco Attorney papers, undeclared foreign currency deposits to the tune of Rs. 34 million and Rs 19,362,500 in undisclosed funds, which is unbecoming of a Chief Justice.

These allegations are of a serious nature and nobody in his or her right senses could expect her to be given immunity or pardon over these charges. It is up to her to face the PSC and defend her position. Those who air tainted views against the impeachment motion, perhaps on sympathetic grounds, should bear in mind that there are contending sources of power, and that the checks and balances envisaged in the constitutional document are to ensure that the judiciary stands sentinel over the Executive and the Legislature, and vice versa.

Since there are many allegations against the Chief Justice, she should follow the right procedure and face the PSC. At a time she is complying with this procedure, those with vested interests should not hamper the process. If she is found guilty of the charges preferred against her, she will have to face the consequences.

It seems that a certain section is trying to give it a political twist and project a negative picture on the course of action taken through the PSC. There is no doubt whatsoever that the impeachment motion against Dr. Bandaranayake with 117 signatories handed over to Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa, is constitutional and conforms to the due process.

This is not the first time that a Chief Justice of the country has faced an impeachment motion and we had two other precedents. Those who were reticent when there were impeachment motions against then Chief Justices Neville Samarakoon and Sarath Nanda Silva, are now making a big hue and cry over the action against Dr. Bandaranayake.

Hence the procedure which should be followed is enshrined in Sri Lanka's Constitution. In the previous instances, those who mooted the impeachment motion went by the 1978 Constitution. Therefore, the procedure cannot be any different to what it is today.

It seems that certain INGOs, along with the sympathisers of the Chief Justice, are doing their damnedest on cyberspace, concocting stories through the web. This is purely to give a political angle and brainwash the public on the ongoing PSC proceedings.

International organisations and others who are daydreaming of a regime change in Sri Lanka are trying to move heaven and earth to realise their wild dreams. Anything that transpires even within the legal and constitutional framework is being given a different interpretation so that they could use it to lobby in the international arena.

One cannot rule out the possibility of even Tiger cohorts indulging in the web mafia to paint a dismal picture of the actual situation. This is not even remotely connected with the independence of the judiciary. People should not be misled by the INGO and Tiger cohorts' propaganda by juxtaposing the current impeachment motion against the Chief Justice with the independence of the judiciary.

The Government and the President have always upheld the independence of the judiciary and never intimidated judges, unlike during Jayewardene's UNP regime. In fact, the Government even went to the extent of establishing a Judicial Security Division to afford special protection to judges and has taken every possible step to uplift the standard of the judges. Steps are also being taken to provide Mercedes Benz cars to judges of the Supreme Court, thereby replacing the official fleet of Jaguar cars. All these steps are being taken to ensure the dignity and status of the judiciary.

However, at the same time, they too are accountable for their acts in private life. The current PSC procedure will make the judiciary more transparent and boost the confidence of the masses on accountability. Nobody for that matter is above the law and each and every citizen of the country should respect law and order and the Constitution. Any attempt to point an accusing finger at the PSC and the current impeachment motion would reflect adversely on the judiciary. Rather than providing 'ammunition' to anti-Sri Lanka elements overseas, all what the Chief Justice could do is to face reality - by appearing before the PSC and adducing evidence in her defence.