Impeachment motion – Parliament will decide - Deputy Speaker, Chandima Weerakkody

By Uditha Kumarasinghe

Deputy Speaker Chandima Weerakkody said according to the provisions of the Constitution, the task assigned to the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) was not to decide whether Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was guilty or not of the charges against her in the impeachment motion.

The PSC was to investigate the charges in the impeachment motion and submit a report to Parliament. The Deputy Speaker in an interview with the Sunday Observer said that in a later debate in Parliament, the Members of Parliament will decide whether the incumbent Chief Justice is guilty or not of those charges.

Finding guilty is not the task entrusted upon the Committee and it should be done by Parliament. The Deputy Speaker said that the inquiry procedure was in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution.

When the members were appointed to the PSC, Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa was very emphatic that all parties should represent the PSC so as to project the will of the people. It is very clear that none of the members appointed to the PSC was signatories to the impeachment motion.

As long as there is a quorum, members of the PSC could continue to discharge their responsibilities. Had they delayed the process, it would have created confusion in the country. As responsible Members of Parliament, they had to conclude the inquiry within one month as stipulated in the Constitution.

Excerpts of the interview:

Q: The Appeal Court on Thursday read out the Supreme Court determination that the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) process had no legal validity and jurisdiction to take a judge to task. In the light of this development, what are the steps that the Government is going to take? Will this lead to an open confrontation between the judiciary and the legislature?

A: We have not been informed of such a decision by the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.

When Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa and 11 members of the PSC received notice issued by the Supreme Court, the Speaker said that the Parliament should not respond in keeping with the historic ruling given by former Speaker Anura Bandaranaike.

The Speaker further said that his ruling will apply to any future court decision against the PSC or on its activities as well. On that basis, the Parliament had taken a decision as to how it should act on this matter.

According to article 4 (1) C of the Constitution, the Parliament has not delegated its powers to the judiciary on matters relating to powers of Parliament. According to the Constitution Parliament should directly exercise such powers.

Therefore, in regard to the removal of a judge of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court authority is bestowed upon the Parliament as enshrined in article 107 of the Constitution.

So it is very clear that the Parliament should continue the impeachment process without the interference of a third party. Any court ruling will not be binding on Parliament.

Q: The Opposition UNP too holds the Government’s view in regard to supremacy of Parliament in declining the Appeal Court writ. What action could be taken against DNA and TNA parliamentarians for violating parliamentary privileges as they appeared in the Court of Appeal?

A: According to section 17 of Parliamentary Privileges Act, if any member or official of Parliament is to give evidence elsewhere relating to the parliamentary procedure or on any of its committee, he should obtain special approval from Parliament. We don’t know whether they had given evidence or not. If they want to give such evidence, they should submit an affidavit to Parliament. On the contrary if the DNA and TNA members continue to give evidence, it will amount to breach of Section 17 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act. As per Section 9 of the same Act, both members should have heeded parliamentary privileges. They should take judicial notice under section 17 and other parliamentary privileges.

Each Member of Parliament should act in responsible manner without creating any rift between the legislature and the judiciary. Even Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe maintains this view. First of all, there should be a country to engage in politics.

Q: The Government holds the view that since the PSC has wound up its proceedings, writs issued by the Court of Appeal against a non-existing body have no effect. Could you explain this?

A: I don’t know whether there had been a restraining order against the Committee. It’s very clear that there is no committee in existence. According to the provisions of the Constitution, the committee is not to decide whether the incumbent Chief Justice is guilty or not of the charges against her in the impeachment motion.

The PSC was set up to investigate the charges in the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice and to submit a report to Parliament. Thereafter at a later debate in Parliament, the Members of Parliament will decide whether the Chief Justice is guilty or not of the charges against her in the impeachment motion. Finding guilty is not the task of the committee but it is for the Parliament to do so. There is no final determination on the charges as yet.

Q: Will the impeachment motion be debated in Parliament on January 08?

A: So far dates have not been fixed. Therefore, the impeachment motion could be debated in Parliament on any particular date after January 08. Most probably the first Party Leader’s Meeting will be held on January 07 or 08. At that meeting, the date and time to debate the impeachment motion will be decided.

At the debate, it is up to the Members of Parliament to prove whether there had been any proven misconduct or misbehaviour on the part of the Chief Justice. Such charges will be proved by a vote in Parliament.

Q: Could you also explain as to why the UNP, DNA and TNA members of the PSC failed to submit a dissenting report?

A: It would have been prudent if not only the Opposition members but even the Chief Justice stayed on. She had made submissions. If there had been any ill-treatment or irregularity, the counsel representing the Chief Justice should have requested to have recorded such things. Even when junior lawyers in the lower courts in this country, observe that there is anything against their clients, they want them to be included in the proceedings.

But when we read the PSC report, we don’t see any objections raised by the lawyers. If the Chief Justice felt that this investigation was not conducted properly or she found it not comfortable to appear before the PSC, the Standing Orders provided her the opportunity to be represented by a lawyer. The number of lawyers increased during the second or third day of the PSC deliberations.

Q: The leaders of the three leftist constituent parties had proposed that the parliament should be prorogued so that the current tension could be eased. What are your views on this?

A: The prorogation does not prevent Parliament from proceeding with the matters before it. This is a matter before Parliament. It is only to gain popularity that these proposals are made. Legally when it is not possible, what can be achieved through prorogation of Parliament?

Q: The Opposition UNP, certain sections of the civil society and people’s organisations have protested against the manner by which PSC has conducted the impeachment inquiry against the Chief Justice by being the accuser, prosecutor and the judge. What have you got to say about this allegation?

A: This inquiry was held in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution. According to the provisions of the Constitution, if one third of the Members of Parliament belonging to any party feel that charges of misbehaviour or incapacity could be maintained against a judge, certainly they can move an impeachment motion. When such motion is presented, it is mandatory upon the Speaker to appoint a committee. The Speaker can nominate more than seven members to that committee. When we sit in Parliament, we all are Members of Parliament and our responsibility is also same.

The Speaker maintained that all the parties should represent the PSC and thereby the will of the people should be projected.

The composition of this committee was decided upon the parliamentary election results of 2010. Actually the ruling party members set up this committee on the strength of the existing numbers of Parliament.

The Speaker was however, not in favour of it and decided to base it on the 2010 election results. Once the committee is appointed, as long as there is the quorum, it could continue to fulfil its task. It is clear that none of the members appointed to the PSC were signatories to the impeachment motion. As long as there is a quorum, members of the committee can continue to discharge their responsibilities.

If they had delayed the process, it would have led to confusion. As responsible Members of Parliament, they should conclude the inquiry within stipulated one month period as provided for in the Constitution.

Q: The current uneasy relationship between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary is not in the larger interest of the country. Is there a way out to reconcile the differences and arrive at an understanding?

A: It is up to those who represent such organisations to properly understand their responsibility towards the country. Personal issues should not be mixed up with other issues of the country.

If we have a personal allegation, we should be able to handle it ourselves without allowing a third party which is very keen to bring disrepute to this country once again. This country had suffered for over three decades due to terrorism. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the parties concerned to handle such situations.

Q: The UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Mrs. Gabriela Knaul has expressed serious concern about the impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice. What is the Government’s response?

A: Actually I am not in a position to give the Government’s response. When the lawyers were attacked sometime back, an ordinary person in my village told me that he saw no damage inflicted on them when he viewed that incident on the media. The lawyers themselves didn’t want the investigations to proceed further. During the UNP regime when the lawyers were against the Government, the UNP put a fullstop to it by killing them. Several prominent lawyers such as Wijedasa Liyanarachchi were tortured and killed. By doing so, they thought the opposition to the Government would come to an end.

Former Parliamentarian and organiser of my electorate Prince Gunasekera had to leave the country to safeguard his life. Likewise many were either chased out of the country or driven to the grave. Nothing of that sort happens today. Now we should understand that this is an ‘operation’ by an external party.

This person in my village whom I refereed to earlier, also told me if you could wait and see there will be a response from one of the international agencies very soon. As he said, we had received a letter in a couple of weeks later. I am grateful to the people of this country as they are far-sighted. They could see what is going to happen to the country. That is why the people have rejected the third party interference. People have realised as to what forces are behind Sri Lanka to create issues.

Q: Amidst the controversy over the impeachment motion, some scholars have stressed the need for a reappraisal of the role of the judiciary in the present day context. Your views?

A: It is now understood that there is a lot to be done in the system. Some of our laws are outdated and some of them have to be amended to suit the present day needs. Of course, we have to face situations. When we decide to amend laws, it would lead to controversy, and to create various other issues. Reappraisal will have to be done from time to time. The Members of Parliament, the public and various other groups should contribute to it.

Q: There is a controversy over the manipulation of Law College Entry Examination results, which has resulted in gross injustice to a section of the candidates. Could you explain this?

A: I have also heard of it from the newspapers. This type of incidents should be investigated. If there had been such manipulation, steps should be taken against those who had been involved in it. At the same time, it may be a fabrication. Some people are fond of creating stories in their imaginations. Immediate investigations should be launched and relief given if any such injustice is done to those candidates.

Q: Could you explain the controversy over the arrest of Jaffna University students on the alleged LTTE activities?

A: If there had been any breach of law whether they are university students or not, action should be taken against them. At the same time, action should also be taken, if anybody had acted arbitrarily. The rule of law in the country should prevail. That is a must.