Impeachment process in keeping with constitution - Minister S.B. Dissanayake

By Uditha KUMARASINGHE

Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayake said when one looks into the procedure adopted in the impeachment process against former Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, it is evident that the Government had not made even a trivial mistake. It was done in accordance with the Constitution and the Standing Orders of Parliament introduced by the then UNP Government. The Minister in an interview with the Sunday Observer said those who formulated the Constitution and the Standing Orders now question about them.

The Government had also followed the same procedure as adopted in the four impeachment motions moved in the past. Minister Dissanayake said it was clear that deliberate attempts had been made by some elements with the help of certain INGOs to divide the country while attacking the Government, the President and his family. Dollars provided by certain INGOs had been spent on this campaign. The Government had the strength to conclude the impeachment process against the former Chief Justice democratically and lawfully.

Therefore, all these issues will come to an end very soon. It is obvious even during the past, lawyers at Hulftsdorp were engaged in politics, but they never used Court precincts for their political activities.

This time lawyers used Court precincts for politics because of the former Chief Justice. She deliberately disturbed the balance maintained between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. However, Minister Dissanayake is confident that a similar situation will not occur in the future.

Excerpts of the interview:

Q: Will the split of lawyers throw a challenge to the administration of justice under the new dispensation?

A: All these unfortunate incidents were created deliberately or otherwise by former Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. No lawyer or any Opposition MP who favours the former Chief Justice talks about the 14 charges levelled against her in the impeachment motion.

They always allege that the former Chief Justice was not given a fair hearing. I think either they have misunderstood or deliberately make use of this issue to attack the Government.

Under the State Council or Donoughmore, Constitution or 1972 Constitution, a judge could be removed through a motion presented in Parliament. This is what US, UK and Australia are following today. In most of the countries such as US, UK, Australia, Philippines and Sri Lanka, the power to remove Supreme Court and Appeal Court judges has been vested in Parliament which represents the supremacy of the people.

The 1972 Constitution was formulated by Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, one of the illustrious leftist politicians and a legal luminary in Sri Lanka. According to the 1972 Constitution, a judge could be removed by a motion tabled in Parliament.

There was no procedure of charge-sheeting and calling for explanation. Under the 1978 Constitution when an impeachment motion is moved, there was provision to appoint a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to investigate the charges.

The accused could also appear before the PSC and make submissions. The Committee does not decide whether the accused is guilty or not. It will only look into whether there was misbehaviour as alleged.

There were only 139 documents in support of the 14 charges made against the former Chief Justice. When one goes through these documents, even a child could realise that there were problems associated with the conduct of the former Chief Justice. If one were to look at the history of impeachment issues, it is obvious that the former Chief Justice herself created the problems. The former Chief Justice deliberately disturbed the balance maintained between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

The PSC clearly demonstrated how the former Chief Justice conducted herself. The way she acted was not in keeping with that of a judge of a lower Court. As a result of this issue, divisions were created among the lawyers themselves resulting in various problems.

The Government has followed the Constitutional provision and Parliament’s Standing Orders on this issue. It was not the UPFA Government which formulated these Standing Orders or the Constitution. The framers of this Constitution and its Standing Orders now question about them. I think this situation will be resolved soon.

Q: Would you like to explain the “politics of Hulftsdrop” as alleged by many Government Parliamentarians?

A: This is a very unfortunate situation. We could see lawyers dashing coconuts and shouting various slogans opposite the law Courts. A Court ruling was given to remove certain clauses of the Constitution. What the Supreme Court said was that this cannot be done through Standing Orders of Parliament.

The Supreme Court has no power to give such rulings to Parliament. But the Court gave rulings against the Constitution and Standing Orders. All these decisions were arrived at during the Court vacation.

Before the final Court ruling was given, the Attorney General argued his case for nearly three hours.

So the Court would have studied and discussed about it and an hour later, a decision was given. Ideas may come into the minds of certain people to remove the head of State or the Government as in Pakistan.

When the university teachers held the recent protest march, the concept of “Arab Spring” would have been in their minds and some of them revealed this to the media as well.

It is clear that a deliberate attempt had been made by certain elements with the help of some INGOs to divide the country while attacking the Government, President and his family. Dollars provided by some INGOs were largely spent for this campaign.

But the Government had the strength to conclude this issue democratically and lawfully. All these issues will be resolved very soon. It is obvious even during the past the lawyers at Hulftsdorp engaged in politics, but they never used Court precincts for political activities.

This time lawyers could use Court precincts for politics because of the former Chief Justice. I don’t think a similar situation will erupt again.

Q: Would you briefly outline what led to impeachment against the former Chief Justice and justify the decision to oust her from the judiciary?

A: The first charge alleged that the hearing of the Ceylinco case was taken over by the former Chief Justice which is totally against the traditions of the judiciary. This case was heard earlier by the then Chief Justice Sarath N Silva who had later decided that it should be heard by Justice Shirani Thilakawardene. After Shirani Bandaranayake was appointed as the new Chief Justice, one person through a motion requested that this case be heard by a five judge bench. Justice Shirani Thilakawardene then referred it to the Chief Justice. The then Chief Justice decided to hear the case.

The second charge was her involvement in purchasing a Ceylinco house residence for her sister. It was alleged that she had been given a Rs. 1.6 million discount for this transaction. The panel of judges chaired by the former Chief Justice had issued a ruling that the Ceylinco property cannot be sold without the prior approval of the Supreme Court. But the former Chief Justice purchased a house from that Ceylinco property by completely ignoring this Court decision. This is a blatant violation of a Supreme Court decision.

If former Chief Justice had several bank accounts, all of them had been reduced to zero by March 31 each year from 2008 to 2012. As a result, this does not get into her assets declaration. This is a serious offence.

The PSC and Parliament investigate only the conduct of the Chief Justice. When a bribery and corruption case was filed against her husband, she should have taken a decision regarding her post, because the case will finally be committed to Courts. The PSC which investigated two or three charges, understood their seriousness.

So the PSC reported it to Parliament without investigating the other charges against her.

Q: Will the impeachment against the former Chief Justice be grist to the mill when the human rights situation is reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva this year?

A: The NGOs and those who have fled the country by means of

NGO funds attempt to highlight these facts. When we look at the procedure adopted in the impeachment process it is evident that the Government had not made even a trivial mistake. It was done in accordance with Constitutional provision and Standing Orders introduced by the then UNP Government.

The Government has also adopted the same procedure as in the past four impeachment motions. It’s clear that certain Western countries attempt to destabilize the Government as it turned down their requests to stop the war against terrorists when it had reached a decisive stage.

We should not seriously consider their actions. I think we should have maintained the same stance which we adopted during the resolution moved against Sri Lanka at the last year’s UNHRC. Resolutions have been passed against Israel at the UNHRC. Israel does not care for them. Under the leadership of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the country was liberated from the clutches of three decades long terrorism.

Eradication of world’s most ruthless terrorist outfit from Sri Lankan soil is a blessing for all countries including US, UK, Canada, Germany, Norway, France and India. My personal view is that we should not seriously consider these resolutions moved by dragging in trivial matters.

Q: Would you support the view that no institution is free

from the evil of corruption?

A: Sanity should prevail. Certain problems were created in the judiciary during the period of Chief Justice Sarath N Silva. Various criticisms had been levelled against him. I don’t say this merely because I was imprisoned. Except that, no serious allegations have been levelled against our judiciary. I would like to say our judiciary and its judges behave in a very responsible and exemplary manner when compared to other countries.

Q: There is an allegation that despite numerous trips by the Government Ministers, delegations and many other representatives nothing worthwhile had been done to save the life of ill-fated Rizana. Your comments?

A: Nobody can condone the punishment given to Rizana. She was only a child at the time she went to Saudi Arabia. She was sent to Saudi Arabia on a forged Birth Certificate and other documents. We have to admit that this is our fault. She had been accused of causing the death of an infant while feeding. I personally believe this infant must have possibly died due to choking. These are very unfortunate incidents.

This innocent child was found guilty of causing the death of the infant. I am not in agreement with the manner the cases are heard under Sharia law. These laws are still at a tribal stage. According to the Sharia law, the parents of the dead infant had the right to take a decision on Rizana. The Government did its best to get a pardon for Rizana. President

Mahinda Rajapaksa made a request to the Saudi King in this regard. Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare Minister Dilan Perera and our diplomatic missions also made many efforts to save Rizana’s life.

Meanwhile, certain people have attempted to rouse racial feelings among Sinhala and Muslim communities. This is dangerous for the co-existence of the communities.

Q: Could you explain what has happened to your mega proposal of setting up branches in Sri Lanka of prestigious foreign universities? In this, India is far ahead of us.

A: At present there are 3,781 foreign universities in India. Branches of foreign universities have been set up in other countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Singapore. With the dawn of 17th century, a huge competition

took place in the field of education. Today the world is governed by intellectuals and as a result, education had become competitive. In this backdrop private universities were set up throughout the world. When 150,000 students are qualified for higher education, only 25,000 were enrolled in universities.

According to the facilities available in universities, we can comfortably accommodate afford to 15,000 students. When President Rajapaksa assumed office in 2005, 9000 students admitted to universities had increased to 22,000 by 2012. The facilities in universities have to be increased further. There is a congestion in the universities at present. This has led students to pursue their higher education in foreign countries.

The situation in our country is much better than some of those foreign countries where our students go for higher education. It is the need of hour to set up affiliated foreign universities and other higher education institutions in Sri Lanka for the benefit of the students who can afford to study in such institutions. Our ultimate goal is to develop Sri Lanka as an educational hub in Asia. We can attract lots of foreign students to these universities as we could provide them education at affordable rates. At present there are nearly 20 foreign universities in Sri Lanka. In addition, the Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology (SLIIT) also plays a leading role in the higher education sector. Steps have been taken to set up new Engineering and Hospitality Management faculties in the SLIIT. The Higher Education Ministry has given degree holding rights to the SLIIT to conduct these two courses.

Q: Heads of certain constituent parties of the UPFA were not present in Parliament to vote for the impeachment motion, presumably due to the decision of their party high command. This will amount to the violation of collective responsibility. Would you like to express your views on this?

A: President Rajapaksa looked at this problem in a liberal manner.

It’s not clear to me as to why these two constituent parties of the UPFA abstained from voting, because only Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and Communist Party (CP) were absent at the time of voting.

I have no clear idea on the stance taken by the LSSP, because the 1972 Constitution introduced by Dr. Colvin R. de Silva has not referred to anything on appointing a PSC regarding an impeachment motion. According to that Constitution, any judge can be removed through a motion moved in Parliament without calling for any explanation. The Communist Party has reason for its decision. When the Standing Orders were passed by the Parliament in 1984, MP Sarath Muttettuvegama made a lengthy speech in Parliament stressing the need to formulate a specific law without introducing Standing Orders. I personally don’t agree with the comments made by him. If we are going to formulate a law tomorrow, the Court has to give a ruling on that particular law. If that law goes against the Supreme Court, they may perhaps attempt to amend that law in a manner which could be advantageous to them.

That is why it has been mentioned very clearly in the Constitution, “laws or Standing Orders”. Sometimes the CP abstained from voting to endorse the view expressed by late Sarath Muttettuvegama in Parliament.

But I don’t see there was a clear reason for the LSSP to abstain from voting. The President has permitted constituent parties of the UPFA to preserve their identity on certain matters of national importance. The LSSP is the oldest political party in Sri Lanka. One time it was the main Trotskyist party in the world.

So the LSSP has a long history. Under this Government, the LSSP has the right to maintain their theoretical stance by preserving its identity. We should not panic about it, because all constituent parties of the UPFA are determined to safeguard the President and this Government.

Q: With UK expressing that they were “deeply concerned” about the developments in the country relating to judiciary, will there be international repercussions on Sri Lanka which is an independent, sovereign entity?

A: When somebody goes and exerts pressure, certain foreign countries issue such statements. Still pro-LTTE businessmen are engaged in their business activities and raise funds in five electorates in London.

This is a racket. When Prabhakaran was alive, the LTTE had various business ventures in many foreign countries. Now these are run by various pro-LTTE elements. These groups have rallied round and pressurized Parliamentarians in UK. They have 7000 to 8000 votes in four electorates in London.

This is a decisive vote for Parliamentarians. Therefore, the pro-LTTE diaspora pressurizes Parliamentarians to make various statements. But we should not consider such statements seriously. Instead of looking at us, some of these Western countries have thousands of serious issues to be settled by themselves.

Q: You are a brilliant product of the Poramadulla Central College and now in active national politics. What is your overall assessment of Sri Lankan politics and its prospects?

A: Countries such as Singapore which doesn’t have natural resources like us have been developed rapidly. In the Mahinda Chinthana era, we had developed the economy and infrastructure facilities while waging a decisive war against the world’s most ruthless terrorist outfit. Amidst all these challenges, the Government could bring down the inflation rate to a single digit and increased foreign reserves. The per capita income which was US$ 900 was increased to US$ 2600 while tourism sector also recorded a dramatic improvement.

The Government has brought down the unemployment rate to four percent. At present, a massive economic resurgence has been launched in this Mahinda era.

Six major harbours have been constructed. There is a resurgence in the tourism industry and a significant increase in the production sector. Investments have also increased rapidly. Some people have created problems despite these significant developments.

The country has begun to move forward under “Mahinda Chinthana Vision for the Future”. At the same time, Asia is also moving forward. As hoped by the President, we would be able to exceed the US$ 4,000 per capita income by 2015.

If President Rajapaksa governs this country for another ten years, Sri Lanka will be raised to the standard of a developed country exceeding the per capita income of US$ 10,000. Therefore, we should take forward the country by strengthening peace, brotherhood, friendship and democracy. We should not forget that we had defeated the most dangerous and ruthless terrorist outfit in the world.

Still LTTE remnants the world over attempt to give back life to the LTTE. The pro-LTTE elements have engaged in rackets in many foreign countries in pursuit of this objective. They attempt to destabilize the country again. Our security should be further tightened without providing room to create such a situation in the country. Its benefits go to the Tamil children in the North. They were recruited by the LTTE by force or brutally. We should try to safeguard law, peace, democracy and harmony among the various communities.