We did the right thing – PSC Chairman

By Uditha Kumarasinghe

Environment Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa who served as Chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) appointed to probe the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake said that those who walked out of the PSC proceedings now talk about its impartiality and other issues.

The Minister in an interview with the Sunday Observer said that when they began investigations on a few charges against the Chief Justice - charges one and two - the Chief Justice and her lawyers walked out from the proceedings. On the following day the two UNP members, the DNA and the TNA members also withdrew from the proceedings. Therefore, the only option available for the Government members was to proceed with the inquiry.

The Minister said that when certain main charges were proved, they felt that they should not proceed with other minor charges. Its perfectly right. Of the first five charges, the Chief Justice was found guilty of three.

We exonerated her from two charges as we didn’t have sufficient evidence. We have completed the task entrusted to us. We acted on the information received by us.

The methodology adopted may differ from country to country. In Sri Lanka when an impeachment motion is moved, we have to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and Standing Orders of Parliament. Therefore, there is no need no to talk about methodologies adopted by various other countries without effecting changes to the laws of the country.

Commenting on Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe’s remarks that the PSC presented its report after a hasty trial, Minister Yapa said if the Opposition Leader so desired he should have asked the four Opposition members of the PSC to submit a dissenting report. After the Opposition members withdrew from the PSC, they were not considered members. The UNP has no moral right to talk about this issue.

If what the Government members did was wrong, the Opposition members should have taken it up with the PSC without merely withdrawing from it. The PSC had completed its task according to its timeframe.

Excerpts of the interview:

Q:As the Chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to probe the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice, how could you ensure the integrity, credibility and fairness of the committee proceedings?

A: We as members of the PSC, gave the Chief Justice and her lawyers almost 22 days to answer the charges. Most of the documents were with them. They gave brief answers and did not wish to answer properly.

They always sought more time. Then we got all the documents and handed them over. When we told them that we want to commence investigations on a few charges such as charges one and two, the Chief Justice and her lawyers walked out.

On the following day two UNP members and the DNA and TNA members also withdrew from the PSC. So what could we do? Those who have walked out in the middle of the PSC proceedings cannot now talk about its impartiality and similar issues, as they have already left the Committee.

The only option available was to proceed with the inquiry. That is exactly what we did.

Q:The Chief Justice was found guilty of only three charges.

Why weren’t the other charges proceeded with?

A: When we found that several of the main charges had been proved, we did not go into other minor charges, since some of them were more administrative in nature while others were minor issues. Hence we thought of the time constraint as well. We felt we should not go into the other charges. It’s perfectly in order.

Of the first five charges, the Chief Justice was found guilty of three of the main charges. We have exonerated her from two charges as we didn’t have adequate evidence. We had completed the task entrusted to us. We acted on the information received by us. The methodology adopted to deal with this issue may differ from country to country. In Sri Lanka when an impeachment motion is moved, we have to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and Standing Orders of Parliament. Therefore, there is no point of talking about other methodologies adopted in various countries without changing the laws.

Q:One can form the opinion that the Chief Justice and her senior lawyers and the four Opposition members withdrew prematurely from the committee proceedings causing a dent in the inquiry. Could you explain this in detail?

A: Actually, if I am to represent someone I should do so till the last moment. During the inquiry on the impeachment motion against former Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon, lawyer S. Nadesan argued his case for a number of days. It is quite natural, when you don’t have the other party with you, then you have two alternatives, either to abandon it or proceed with. Even in Courts, if the other party is not present they go ahead with the proceedings with the available evidence. We did this in the PSC as well. It is correct.

I categorically deny the Opposition’s allegation that the Government was both the prosecutor and the judge in the impeachment inquiry against the Chief Justice, because no Government members of the PSC had signed the impeachment motion. As PSC members, we only probed the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice.

Therefore, this is not a judicial process at all. What we did was to submit a report after investigating the information received by us.

Q:Senior lawyers, Opposition politicians and other responsible persons have criticised the Parliamentary Select Committee for ignoring the salient provisions of law and the principles of natural justice during this inquiry. What is your stand on this?

A: This is a Parliamentary inquiry. Parliamentary inquiries are conducted in keeping with the Parliamentary procedures.

We conducted the inquiry accordingly. From the day of presenting the impeachment motion in Parliament, we gave 22 days to the Chief Justice and her lawyers to answer the charges. Before that they had another eight days as well.

Altogether they had 30 days to reply. I don’t know why they didn’t reply, when most of the documents were in their domain. I don’t know how this natural justice issue comes in. It’s rather strange for me, because we had adhered to such principles.

Q:A Certain section of the media had reported that some UPFA constituent party leaders had expressed their disillusionment with the PSC inquiry procedure. Your comments?

A: No. Actually they have not mentioned about the inquiry procedure. I saw that they had made that statement to newspapers on December 03 before the PSC proceedings concluded. So it has nothing to do with our order and it was something previously happened.

Q:Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe at a recent seminar had signalled the danger of losing Commonwealth membership in view of the move to oust the Chief Justice. Is this a valid argument or is there any such danger?

A: I really can’t understand him, since this issue has nothing to do with the Commonwealth. This is a domestic issue. I am rather surprised that Opposition Leader has made this comment. I don’t think he has a right to make such a comment. If we go through history, the impeachment issue was first brought up by them in Parliament and not by us. Circumstances have changed.

Our MPs have presented this impeachment motion. Both the Opposition Leader and the UNP have really forgotten this within a short period of time. It is not correct to make this kind of remarks. Their main aim is to come to power but nothing else. I really don’t know what is meant by the Opposition Leader.

Q:The critics allege that had this not been a hasty trial much of the public criticism could have been avoided and ensured justice. What have you got to say about this?

A: No. We have not done it in haste. We have done it according to our timetable. We had been given only one month. We had to conclude the proceedings within that time frame. There was no other option and as such we concluded the inquiry within that period.

Q:Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe has remarked that the hastily concluded PSC report deserves the Guiness Book record. Would you like to comment on this?

A: I categorically refute that remark by the Opposition Leader. If the Opposition Leader was really interested in, he should have asked the Opposition members of the PSC to submit a dissenting report.

After four Opposition members withdrew from the PSC, they are not considered its members. Now the UNP has no right to talk about this issue. If what the Government did was wrong, the UNP, DNA and TNA members should have taken it up with the PSC without merely withdrawing from the proceedings.

Q: The Opposition has alleged that the impeachment motion against former Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon did not create a political furore as in the present case. Could not this situation be avoided?

A: That was different. Chief Justice Samarakoon came before the committee and admitted the charges against him. Then the matter ended there. He was a dignified person.

He came to Parliament from its first gate. He got into a bus and like an ordinary person came to Parliament. He said “You have omitted two sentences of what I have said” and read it over. The situation is completely different. Former Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon was a different kind of personality.

Q: Will this impeachment of Chief Justice have international implications in fora such as Human Rights Council or United Nations?

A: Why should they worry about that? Let them read the report of the PSC.

Q: The whole impeachment drama is suspected to be orchestrated by the NGOs, INGOs and other vested interests. Would you like to comment on this?

A: These are all politically motivated things. But this is not a political issue. I don’t like to call this a political issue. To those who had agitated, this is political. They don’t see anything beyond that. We have to ensure that the people are with us. As long as they are with us, we are not prepared to bow down before them.

There are certtain elements with political connections going behind various NGOs to gain undue advantages. We see certain sections of the people conducting media shows, dashing coconut and chanting Pirith. But the majority of the people are intelligent and reasonable. This is not the first ever impeachment motion against a Chief Justice in Sri Lanka.

Q: It has been reported by the media that the UNP, DNA and TNA have decided to reject the PSC report to be presented in Parliament. How do you look at this scenario?

A: Since the Opposition members had withdrawn from the PSC proceedings, how can they reject its report? They should have stayed in the PSC and presented a dissenting report. How can they refuse it now? As responsible party members, they should have remained.

Q:It appears that some political parties attempt to interpret the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice as a standoff between the judiciary and legislature. Your comments?

A: That was not our intention at all, because Parliament has certain rights and the members have aired their views on the Chief Justice. It had nothing to do with the judiciary. We regard those in the judiciary as honourable men and women. We respect them.

Actually it is not a rift between the judiciary and the legislature, though some people want to create such a rift.

Q:The Opposition claims that intimidatory remarks clearly indicative of preconceived findings of guilt were made by certain PSC members. What do you say about this?

A: I totally deny that. No such thing happened. If you go through the PSC proceedings you could observe that everything has been recorded in verbatim. Ask them to read it.

Q:The Government desires to evolve a more representative system in place of Provincial Councils while there is strong opposition even from some of the constituent parties of the UPFA Government for the abolition of the 13th amendment. Where does the final solution lie?

A: I have no answer to this, because there are different opinions from political parties.

I don’t think I should comment on it. What I have to say is that at present the 13th Amendment is an integral part of the Constitution, until it is changed, it remains operative. The Provincial Council system is also in operation and I don’t want to comment on it. Any change has to be done by the Parliament after a thorough consideration.