Traitors back in action - 3:
Unravel the conspiracy associated with conduct of Dr. (Mrs.)
Bandaranayake
Remember the traitor who attempted to sell his country and danced to
the tune of disgruntled forces both here and abroad in his lust for
power during the 2010 Presidential election?
Fortunately, masses rallied round the patriotic forces to ensure a
landslide victory for President Mahinda Rajapaksa. If the traitors had
captured power by any chance, we cannot imagine the pathetic situation
the country would have been pushed to.
Now those very same sinister elements and traitors have teamed up in
inviting Dr. Mrs. Shirani Bandaranayake to take to politics. She has
neither accepted nor rejected a call from a defeated presidential
election candidate.
Working to a political agenda, Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake appears to have
joined hands with a group of traitors. Public Relations and Public
Affairs Minister Mervyn Silva and several intellectuals were quoted as
expressing such views in yesterday’s issue of our sister paper.
Minister Silva said the Chief Justice was acting a political role
though she has been found guilty by the Parliamentary Select Committee
in its investigation on the impeachment motion signed by 117
parliamentarians. He said the “cat was out of the bag” with Sarath
Fonseka’s invitation to the Chief Justice to join politics. Minister
Silva said there were a number of contradictions in the statement on the
alleged shooting incident at UNP parliamentarian President’s Counsel
Wijedasa Rajapakshe’s residence.
Bar Association of Sri Lanka vice president and senior
attorney-at-law Anoma Goonathilaka said, a few were attempting to create
chaos in the country at a time when peace was achieved after defeating
terrorism.
Meanwhile, Dr Nihal Sri Amarasekara said the process of the
impeachment motion is in accordance with the provisions of the
constitution adding that it cannot be challenged.
Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake created history when she filed a case in the
Court of Appeal against the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) which
investigated the impeachment motion against her. Isn’t that a move to
evade the PSC and its punishment rather than trying to prove her
innocence, if so, in a legitimate manner?
The charges levelled against Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake, who holds the
important post of the Chief Justice, are of an extremely serious nature.
Such conduct is unbecoming for the person who holds the senior most
position in the Judiciary.
While we maintain our utmost respect and honour to the Judiciary and
the Supreme Court at all times, we have the right to question why
disciplinary action should not be taken against a person who has been
found guilty by the PSC. Just because the accused person holds the post
of Chief Justice, he or she could not enjoy immunity against these
charges.
If Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake is not pleading guilty and is honest, she
had an enough and more opportunity to do so in a respectful manner
before the PSC. But when the charges were read and the investigation
process began, she ran away from the proceedings giving lame excuses
that she has no faith in the committee.
Isn’t that a bad precedence? Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake has no right to
challenge the PSC appointed by the Parliament which holds the supreme
most power of the masses. What if an accused takes Dr. Mrs.
Bandaranayake’s conduct as an example and attempts to walk out of a
court proceeding saying he or she has no faith in the bench? If such
unruly and ugly incident takes place in future, who had set a bad
example and insulted the judiciary system?
Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake is now attempting unethical and
unconstitutional means to challenge the Parliament. What she should bear
in mind that she could never ever challenge the supreme most body of
Parliament which reflects the power of the people. That is the ultimate
decider and not the Judiciary, or even the Executive for that matter as
the Parliament has the power to impeach both those top slots.
Even the country’s main Opposition, the United National Party (UNP)
has accepted the fact that the Parliament is supreme.
Even schoolchildren would know that those serious charges against Dr.
Mrs. Bandaranayake are good enough to charge her even under the Bribery
or Corruption Act and the Inland Revenue Act. Since she holds the post
of Chief Justice, even a more appropriate constitutional method of
impeachment had been tried.
If she can’t prove her innocence before the PSC, she should step down
gracefully, rather than seeking cover under the position she holds and
making use of that mechanism to discredit Parliament.
The order given by Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa stands on the impeachment
motion of Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayake. Deputy Speaker
Chandima Weerakkody has said no Court of Law shall issue notices on the
Speaker of the Parliament or members of the Parliamentary Select
Committee (PSC). Hence, such notices are a nullity.
Deputy Speaker Weerakkody, on being asked about the Court of Appeal
issuing notice on the respondents in the case filed by Dr Bandaranayake
against the PSC report, said as in Section Nine of the Parliamentary
Powers and Privileges Act, all Courts in Sri Lanka should take notice of
Parliamentary decisions.
Former Speaker, the late Anura Bandaranaike gave a similar order in a
similar situation that the Supreme Court is in no position to issue
injunction orders against Parliament. “This became a historic ruling.
This was accepted by former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva,” he said and
added “the Courts have followed this as a precedent.”
Present Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa gave a similar order regarding
similar notices issued by the Supreme Court. Speaker in his ruling said:
“I wish to make it clear that this ruling of mine as Speaker of
Parliament will apply to any similar purported notice, order or
determination in respect of the proceedings of the committee which will
continue solely and exclusively under the authority of Parliament,”
“The order stands in relation to the case of the impeachment trial of
Chief Justice Dr Bandaranayake,” he added. Meanwhile, legal experts said
that the Court of Appeal is in no position to summon the PSC members
under Constitutional provisions.
The Court of Appeal consisting of three Judges last week issued
notice returnable on January 3, 2013 on the respondents in respect of
the petition filed by Chief Justice Dr Shirani A Bandaranayake
requesting a Writ of Certiorari to invalidate the three charges she was
found guilty by the PSC.
It appears that the interested parties are attempting to give a
political twist to the impeachment motion and the subsequent PSC
findings. Some Opposition politicians who have been rejected by people
in toto and those who have links to LTTE cohorts seems to be attempting
to give it an international facelift, in the hope that the international
community may try to meddle with the process.
No Commonwealth country has adopted the Latimer House principles on
judges, as they are. Britain has also adopted these principles as
applicable only to North Ireland, a British Colony. Britain has not
adopted these rules though certain segments that the country is bound to
adhere to the Latimer House principles.
Any country will be in jeopardy if it tries to adopt the Latimer
House principles as they are.
Sri Lanka is an independent and sovereign state governed by a
Constitution adopted in 1978. The current Constitution clearly outlines
the procedure to be followed to investigate the charges against judges
in the Supreme Court and in the Court of Appeal, including the Chief
justice, Chairman of Court of Appeal and the Executive President.
The country’s Constitution clearly outlines that charges against the
Chief Justice be investigated by a Parliamentary Select Committee.
Supreme Court judges in the US can be impeached under its
Constitution though appointment to the Supreme Court is a lifetime
appointment. The US Constituion states “The Judges, both of the supreme
and inferior courts shall hold their office during good Behaviour” High
officials in the judiciary of the US can be removed on impeachment for
treason, bribery, high crime , conviction and misdemeanour.
The Royal Charter of Justice by King George II was replaced by the
Republican Constitution in 1972.
As the President of the Patriotic National Movement Dr Gunadasa
Amarasekera has said, Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake has played a political role
in deciding to sit in judgment over the Divi Neguma Bill.
He said this was in defiance of a ruling by Justice Mark Fernando
that she should not be a part of Benches hearing political cases on
devolution. Dr. Amarasekera said Dr. Mrs. Banadranayake had made
political comments on the subject of devolution of power.
The Jathika Hela Urumaya filed two cases in the Supreme Court
challenging her appointment as a Supreme Court Judge as she had made
political comments on the subject of devolution of power. Dr.
Amarasekera said Justice Fernando while dismissing these cases against
her appointment to the Bench, had stressed that she should not hear
cases of that nature in the future.
He said Justice Fernando made a special note defining her judicial
role, and the type of cases she can hear. As Dr Amarasekera has quite
rightly said, Government should unravel the massive conspiracy
associated with the conduct of Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake who apparently has
allowed herself to be a pawn in the hands of the NGO mafia and the LTTE
proxies.
It is clear that the forces who were conspiring against the country
during the height of the war on terrorism are behind Dr. Mrs.
Bandaranayake. The political campaign based on the impeachment motion
against Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake is the latest episode of their
conspiracy. Unfortunately, these conspirators have used some lawyers to
achieve their ulterior motives.
People should understand that the political campaign based on the
impeachment motion is part of a conspiracy which is being hatched by the
NGO mafia in connivance with the LTTE proxies to create confusion and
discord in the country. The LTTE proxies and NGOs used various tactics
and persons to achieve what Prabahakaran could not.
Prabhakaran and his goons, along with a section of the international
community, did their level best to experience a regime change in Sri
Lanka during the height of the battle against terrorism so that the
military operation would be halted. They wanted a weak leader who would
dance to the tune of the West. This same agenda is being tried once
again.
They are trying to create discord within the country by inciting
people for an Arab Spring style uprising to force the government out of
office which is to the liking of Western countries.
What these sinister elements should bear in mind that unlike in those
Arab countries, leaders in Sri Lanka have won successive elections and
the masses have reposed faith in the President in no uncertain terms.
BASL vice president Anoma Gunathilake scoffed at the accusations by
certain quarters that complainants themselves are investigating the
impeachment charges against the Chief Justice.
She said the impeachment motion was signed by a group of
parliamentarians and these signatories have not been appointed to the
Parliamentary Select Committee investigating into the impeachment
charges.
Gunathilake said the people have been left with no option other than
to protect the present government if they want to keep the country and
the nation intact. She added that it appears that Dr, Mrs. Bandaranayake
is trying to lead her case against the Constitution.
“We have reasons to believe that she is trying to complicate a normal
constitutional process that impeached her on charges of misbehavior,
with her current actions,” she said. Other lawyers echoed Mrs
Goonetilleke’s sentiments. “She is trying to rouse international
interest with a view to wielding an undue advantage over her impeachment
trial,” she added.
The extreme conduct of certain lawyers is a clear example what these
sinister forces plan to achieve by using Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake’s
impeachment case as an effective political tool. She is mature enough
not to get into that trap. If she work with these forces in future, then
she is doing so unwillingly.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) rejected two proposals
presented to it by the anti-impeachment lobby among the law fraternity.
BASL president Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe rejected two resolutions forwarded
by the anti-impeachment factions at the BASL special general meeting, to
call on UN organisations, the Commonwealth and the International Lawyers
Associations to exert pressure on the government over its move to
impeach Dr, Mrs. Bandaranayake from the post of the Chief Justice.
These factions proposed to the BASL not to accept a new Chief Justice
in the event the present Chief Justice is removed from office after the
impeachment process.
They proposed that no attorney should appear before a new Chief
Justice who will be appointed under such circumstances. However, BASL
chief Rajapakshe rejected these proposals at the meeting. BASL’s
anti-impeachment faction submitted their proposals against the
impeachment proceedings only 18 hours before the meeting was held,
whereas they were supposed to present them to the BASL seven days prior
to the meeting on December 15.
Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake should neither seek cover of her high office
nor let the Supreme Court premises be used for demonstrations that would
give undue advantage for her.
Those who put on a circus around Hulftsdorp recently bringing down
the estimations of the law courts in the eyes of the people, used state
money to do so, observed some legal experts and independent observers of
events, who advisedly chose to remain anonymous.
They said that those who put on a veritable ‘circus’ around the
Supreme Court premises and said they were doing so on behalf of the
‘judiciary’, were conducting all of these activities that to a great
extent brought down the estimations of the judiciary in people’s eyes -
and also disrupted court work - on the public purse.
They were driven to the scene in state maintained vehicles, by state
paid chauffeurs, and they used state fuel allocations, and sometimes
operated from state offices using state telephone facilities etc., in
organising these ‘protests’ which were mostly aimed at the PSC, which
was legitimate instrument of the elected legislature.
Hence, to bring the people’s representatives to ridicule, they used
state money and state facilities, these independent observers added.
They further stated that this raises further issues about the conduct
of these protests funded by the taxpayers’ money, by those who however
were claiming to be ‘independent’ but were subverting the elected
Lelgistlature’s functions, and holding it ridicule, all the while using
taxpayers’ money.
This splurge on state facilities however was to create an atmosphere
of chaos around the Hulftsdorp courts prior to recent PSC hearings,
prior to which some of these persons consorted with accused who have
come before courts, and also some respondents in cases in courts of law
over which these persons themselves presided. However, these
‘protestors’ had the audacity to say, when these shenanigans and more of
their ‘exploits’ were exposed in the media - as the media was obliged
to, in the cause of public interest - that sections of the media are
‘misusing public funds’(!), the sources said. It is high time Dr. Mrs.
Bandaranayake step down gracefully without bringing further disrepute to
the post of the Chief Justice. People still repose faith on the
judiciary and its impartiality. But if Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake continues
to behave in a manner which in unbecoming of the Chief Justice, that
would only bring a blackmark to that highly respected position.
It is up to her to clear her name in a constitutional manner or face
charges. She could not and should not evade the process by giving lame
excuses or use other means to get away tactically. No one is above the
law and she should follow that and set an example in a dignified manner.
|