Uphold Constitution, come what may – Minister Keheliya Rambukwella

By Uditha Kumarasinghe

Mass Media and Information Minister Keheliya Rambukwella said the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake is being viewed from different perspectives. The Minister in an interview with the Sunday Observer said when one looks at the behaviour of certain people right from the beginning of the impeachment motion, it is evident that such behaviour has never been seen before.

The Minister said the present Chief Justice willingly or unwillingly manifests the characteristics of a serious politician which has warranted other interested parties including the Government to react to it. The Chief Justice was talking to the public and waving at them. It was witnessed that some people were dashing coconuts and the Chief Justice was surrounded by priests. This behaviour has added more colour to the scenario which the country had never experienced in the past. Ultimately people who are dormant also get activated. At times the Government Parliamentary group was also obliged to comment as the defendants did not behave in a fitting manner. The Minister feels that it was not spontaneous but a well orchestrated strategy.

Minister Rambukwella asked whether former Chief Justices Neville Samarakoon or Sarath N Silva resorted to this type of behaviour when impeachment motions were brought against them? They did not go to temples or public parlours waving at people.

What is happening right now is in this particular case, it is obvious that it has gone beyond the Constitution. It has taken a completely coloured view, basically a political outlook which is harmful to the entire legal system.

Excerpts of the interview:

Q: A sizable section of the people including civil organisations, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and Opposition politicians has alleged that the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) appointed to probe the allegations against the Chief Justice in the impeachment motion is fundamentally flawed. Has anything gone wrong?

A: I subscribe to your view that there are certain allegations. But you have to view the whole thing in the perspective of the existing laws. The basic law in the country is the Constitution. So you have to respect the Constitution.

What are the other provisions to deal with this? You don’t want to debate for hours and hours. You can bring in lots of arguments.

My good friend Senior Minister Prof. Tissa Vitharana has said that the Select Committee should have comprised legal luminaries. These are different views. If we are a law-abiding people and respect the rule of law, we have to uphold the Constitution as it is the basic law of the country.

Of course, there are certain issues that need to be looked into. Otherwise, you cannot make a particular case and then look at it.

That is how certain sections just look at this particular case. But they look at the next case in a different manner. If the existing law in the country deals with some financial issue, fundamental rights or human rights, can we say that law should be applied only to ‘A’ or ‘B’ and not to ‘C’ as he or she is a nice person or an academic. I don’t think this is the right way to look at. What is happening right now is that when it comes to a particular case, obviously it appears to me that it has gone beyond the Constitution. It has taken a completely coloured view, basically a political outlook. I think this is harmful to the entire legal system.

Q: Unlike in the impeachment motion against former Chief Justice Nevil Samarakoon, there is a political furore in the impeachment motion against the present CJ. Could you explain this?

A: As I said earlier this impeachment motion is being viewed with different shades of colour. If we look at the behaviour of the people concerned right from the beginning, it is evident that such behaviour has never been seen in the past. The Chief Justice was talking to the public and waving to them. We saw some people dashing coconut and the Chief Justice being surrounded by priests. Actually the country has never experienced such behaviour.

This itself has added more colour to this scenario. Of course when that happens the others who are perhaps dormant would get activated. I think it was evident in this situation. Sometimes the Government Parliamentary group was also obliged to comment as the defendants did not behave in a fitting manner.

Did former Chief Justices Nevil Samarakoon or Sarath N Silva resort to this kind of behaviour when impeachment motions were brought against them? They didn’t go to temples or public parlours waving hands at the people. I felt that it was not spontaneous but a well-orchestrated strategy. That is why I said at a public meeting that former Chief Justice Sarath N Silva retired and engaged in politics.

Here you find the present Chief Justice willingly or unwillingly manifesting characteristics of a serious politician which has warranted interested parties including the Government to react. Therefore, there were no peaceful activities from the day the impeachment was moved upto the time of its results through the Select Committee. It had aggravated the situation.

Q: There is an allegation that international reactionary forces who once used the former Army Commander as a tool and now Hulftsdorp are active to destabilise the country. Is there any truth in this?

A: I cannot straight away say, yes. But as an unbiased observer I find these things happening in the political arena. We also have some experience when they are talking of Pakistani Summer, Gulf Summer or regime change. Various other unwarranted activities that should not be associated with an impeachment motion, are associated in this scenario.

If one observes it as an outsider, he will always have a serious doubt with all the material available. He may think this is some orchestration and some people are behind it.

He may find some of the elements of the Tamil diaspora playing a major role in this drama. Those who said that the only way to get rid of the terrorist menace is to negotiate with Prabhakaran, are also seen in this process.

Politically, the UNP itself and UNP MP Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, the President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) appear to be involved in this. It adds more colour as he is also an active member of the UNP. When MP Rajapakshe initiated this issue, there arose a serious doubt. The attempt to defeat United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) in 2007 was initiated by Wijedasa Rajapakshe crossing over to the UNP. At that time they said that they would defeat the Budget. When a Budget is defeated that is a financial debt.

Then the Government has to resign and go for elections. That was a crucial thing where Wijeyadasa Rajapaksha was an active player. He crossed over anticipating defeat. Perhaps he has forgotten it today. But it is a well known fact. Therefore, there is an element of alliance between Tamil diaspora and the West who were always telling us to negotiate but not to militarily defeat the LTTE.

They all had to get together. The gathering of that momentum in 2007 is being played in this activity as well. As an outsider if you carefully analyse the whole issue, the very elements which want to destabilise the Government and the Tamil diaspora which defended Prabhakaran, are very visible even today.

They are the players of this drama. They could be small players, big players or vital players. But they are there. This raises a serious doubt in an analytical mind.

Q: How do you look at the sinister efforts by certain anti-Government forces to cause a break down in relations between the judiciary and legislature?

A: We have been emphasising this from the beginning. The fact remains that there were some parties interested in causing a rift between the legislature and the judiciary. We had no such serious issues earlier. Once we had an issue when Anura Bandaranaike was the Speaker.

He made a statement in Parliament and that was accepted. During the regime of President J.R. Jayewardene, there were instances of hurling stones at judges’ houses and perhaps sacking some judges. But such incidents didn’t build up or spark off in this manner. That is why I say here there is a huge political colour and interference that has crept in either willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly playing a major role. It could be a total destruction.

I saw some articles in the newspapers that barbarians are at the gates of the temple of justice or whatever. Who are the barbarians? That has to be clarified very well. Now you find some of the barbarians are a part of the legal system itself. I suppose they have been harnessed and activated by a force which is completely outside the legal fraternity. Unfortunately it is taking place. My humble request to the legal fraternity is to look at it more seriously. Don’t look at it as an isolated case but in general by bringing out some proposals. But you cannot make use of a particular case in a particular situation.

Q: Some sections of civil society speak of ‘Latimer House’ principles of accountability and the relationship between the executive, legislature and judiciary. What does it mean?

A: Latimer is a set of Commonwealth principles and we are also a party that subscribed to it. But is the Commonwealth going to punish Sri Lanka? Then we should not say that we are having a Constitution. We could also say that Sri Lanka will be governed on the basis of Commonwealth norms and practices. If that is the case, it’s fine. But there is completely a different situation here. The people in this country are educated and they know their Constitution.

They know how a Latimer or whatever from Commonwealth applies and how much it blends with the existing Constitution, not beyond that. If they feel that we must get Commonwealth for everything, then elect the Commonwealth to govern this country.

Q: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Appropriation Bill 2013 contravenes Parliamentary control over securing loans, unless certain clauses are amended. Could you elaborate on this?

A: That was discussed at length. Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa made his observations and was satisfied with the explanation given by the Deputy Finance Minister stating that the Attorney General who represents the Government had perused it. He then referred to the process and said it was in order. If it is not in order, they could also find redress in another forum.

Q: Some foreign countries and organisations still complain that there is no media freedom in Sri Lanka despite private media criticising Government actions and its approach to controversial issues. Your comments?

A: If you say that the private media is being critical of the Government, how do you describe the media freedom? I honestly don’t understand. I suppose being a media man you can express it better than me whether there are any restrictions now. Basically I don’t agree to it and I cannot subscribe to it when one looks at the environment today.

Actually, this is also a part of that drama as I told you earlier. Since President Mahinda Rajapaksa was voted to office by the people in 2005, this has been the theme song of some the Western powers, Tamil diaspora and those interested in toppling the Government as they didn’t like a villager holding the executive presidency in Sri Lanka.

There were many other things added to it. From 2005, we were going through hard times due to these activities.

Q: Could you outline what more benefits would accrue to low income families under Divineguma compared to what they enjoyed earlier?

A: I cannot tell it you in one sentence, because a series of activities will be launched under Divineguma. It is not only for poverty alleviation. Divineguma has paved the way for a better lifestyle to people. It will help improve the lives of low income groups with the resources available with them.

That is very important, because they don’t really understand that they have resources besides their house which can be made use of to the optimum. It would contribute to the national economy as well. That is explicitly elaborated in the amendment and the motion itself. .

Q: The Provincial Council system has its pros and cons. Cannot the system be revitalised as an instrument of regional development?

A: I feel that Sri Lanka is too small to be divided into nine provinces and the work would be duplicated. I am in agreement with decentralisation. You need to look at the cost factor as well.

Under a decentralised set up, if 80 cents is going out as administrative expenditure and only 20 cents for capital expenditure, then of course, you need to re-look at the whole thing, since these are public funds. Nobody will benefit from the duplication of public funds. I think this is a separate subject to be discussed at length.

Q: Time and again reports appear in the newspapers that Provincial Council members utilise public funds for their foreign trips. Cannot the Government stop this and utilise such funds to improve the lot of the poor people?

A: The fact of the matter is that you need to look at the cost and whether the experience that they gather during such trips can be used here.

All this has to be assessed. You cannot just look through coloured glass and say that one should not go abroad or that public money should not be used.

They cannot go with their own funds. It is worthwhile whether they can bring something back.

All this has to be analysed. What I suppose is when a group of Provincial Councillors go abroad, it is up to the Chief Minister and the Governor concerned to make an evaluation of it and see whether it can be justified.

Q: Despite various development projects, the gap between the rich and poor gets wider and wider giving the impression that dividends of development have not passed down to the people. Would you comment on this?

A: It happens in a developing country when you have a rush of investments coming in and some people are kicking off. But a program like Divineguma looks at the average people. If we look at the plantation sector, 65 percent are small planters. So they have been given more subsidies. Benefits of this nature will take some time to trickle down.

But as you mentioned this gap can still be there so that we need to look at it again and do certain things to rectify it. I suppose if the direction is right over a period of time, we should be able at least to make the gap somewhat smaller.

Q: The Kandy city is a gift of nature. As an upcountry man, do you have any plans to beautify it as a true tourist destination?

A: I don’t agree with this beautifying story. It has to be practical and the viability has to be there. Kandy city has its beauty and there is nothing to beautify in the central hills. It is a marvel of nature.

What you need is to develop the roads. The Colombo-Kandy highway has to come up as at present it takes about three to four and a half hours to go to Kandy from Colombo.

The Colombo-Kandy highway is a number one priority.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa has stressed the need to implement this project. We have almost finalised everything and are trying to get it off the ground.

As far as the Kandy city is concerned you need to have a more organised and planned city. So the requirement is there.

There is some interest in moving it. Perhaps it may be a little slow. We need to expedite it.