Backed by LTTE rump, Tamil Diaspora, certain Western politicians and bankrupt Opposition politicians:

Traitors back at work?

by Our Political Correspondent

Remember the traitors who did their damnedest and made every effort to capture power at any cost during the 2010 Presidential election?

Despite all these the masses strongly rallied round President Mahinda Rajapaksa and gave him a clear mandate at the Presidential election held in January 2010.

Even at the general election held four month later, in April 2010, the very same set of traitors, backed by the LTTE rump, a section of the Tamil Diaspora and certain Western politicians, tried their level best once again. However, the masses gave an even stronger mandate to the President and the UPFA which was given a near two-third mandate by the people across the length and breadth of the country.

The LTTE rump, a section of the Tamil Diaspora, certain Western politicians and those who thrive on INGO funding had been making every effort to disrupt Sri Lanka’s 2006-2009 battle against terrorism.

But when the Security Forces vanquished the LTTE leadership and eradicated terrorism, the LTTE rump, a section of the Tamil Diaspora, certain Western politicians and INGO agents adopted a different strategy with the help of opportunist Opposition politicians who had been rejected by the people at successive elections.

It seems that these sinister agents are making every effort to capitalise on the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake and the subsequent Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) hearing.

Perhaps, Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake may not be aware of this situation and that these traitors and NGO goons are trying to use her case to achieve their political goals.

With due respect for the post of the Chief Justice in the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, its Judiciary and the Parliament, we would like to stress that the current action against Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake is a disciplinary hearing against a senior most Government servent.

It has nothing to do with the independence of the Judiciary. We always honour and respect the Judiciary and the Government has taken many meaningful steps to uphold the independence of the judiciary.

Allegation

But whenever there are allegations against the Chief Justice, Chairman of the Court of Appeal or Judges of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal, a PSC hearing after an impeachment motion by the members of the Legislature is the constitutional course of action. The Parliament has the power, not only to impeach these senior-most members of the Judiciary, but also the Executive President.

Hence, can Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake run away halfway through the PSC proceedings and get away with the charges levelled against her? Do those lawyers and INGO agents who shout from the rooftops at Hulftsdorp expect immunity for Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake?

There is no doubt that the charges levelled against her are of a serious nature. The only way that she could prove her innocence, if so, is to face the PSC hearing to tell her side of the story. By running away from the PSC proceedings, she has given the impression that she does not want to prove her innocence.

One wonders whether there is any interconnection between the withdrawal of Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake from the PSC proceedings and the subsequent withdrawal of the four Opposition members from the PSC.

The four Opposition members appointed to the PSC to investigate into the impeachment motion against Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake told a press conference on Friday that they had decided to withdraw from the PSC.

UNP Parliamentarians John Amaratunga and Lakshman Kiriella, DNA MP Vijitha Herath and TNA MP R. Sampanthan made this statement at a press conference at a committee room at the Parliament complex.

MP Amaratunga said the four members placed on record in the PSC a document that included several conditions last morning, and said if the matters were attended to, they would continue to participate in the PSC proceedings.

He said as those matters were not attended to, they have decided to withdraw from the Parliamentary Select Committee.

It is evident that the INGO goons had a hand in those so-called news conferences by certain lawyers who appeared to be dancing to the melody of the West. Some of these lawyers were known LTTE sympathisers who had even appeared for the suspects detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) regulations. Then, there was a lawyer who has direct links with Uncle Sam’s country.

Hence, one cannot single out the withdrawal of Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake from the PSC as an isolated incident. She may not be aware of the sinister forces behind the scenes or those who are attempting to gain undue advantage from her controversial act. If she had no confidence on the PSC or its conduct, she should have done so at the beginning or more precisely after facing the PSC. At the end of the PSC proceedings, she should have made her own observations or anything on her defence, rather than attempting to bypass a legitimate body appointed by none other than the Parliament.

Controversial act

One could also argue that Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake’s controversial act could turn out to be a bad precedent. What if an accused comes before a Bench headed by Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake in future and attempt to walk out stating that he or she does not have faith in her or the Bench? These are possibilities in future due to the unruly example set by Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake.

In stating so, we do not attempt to insult the Judiciary even in our wildest dreams. We have the highest respect and faith in the country’s Judiciary. That should remain forever.

However, the conduct of Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake could give a wrong impression to the public on the transparency of the senior most judges in the country. Whenever there are charges against them, they too should follow the law of the land without seeking cover through various other means.

Those NGO lawyer agents who talk big on transparency and get lavish funding for their NGOs were seen playing a prominent role in support of Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake. They should not be allowed to make use of Hulftsdorf or the impeachment motion against Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake to fulfil their personal agendas. If not, such action could discredit the post of Chief Justice. Just one person could not be allowed to bring such a highly respected position into disrepute by conduct unbecoming of a Chief Justice.

Meanwhile, the report of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to probe the impeachment charges against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was handed over to Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa yesterday.

The PSC hearing process was cutshort as there was no defence offered by the person facing the charges, who walked out of the proceedings. Subsequently, a totally scurrilous fabricated version of what transpired in the PSC meeting when Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake walked out the day before, was circulated on the same day, in the form of a media release by an organisation called the Sri Lanka Colombo Lawyers’ Collective.

Headed by a lawyer and NGO operative, the media briefing was set up by non-governmental organisation activists with the precise intention of distorting the PSC proceedings and bringing the Government into disrepute, particularly internationally.

The statement distributed at the press conference was unsigned, but purported to give an account of the PSC proceedings, and charged that the conduct of the PSC members was unbecoming.

The persons who distributed the media statement also took umbrage at perfectly reasonable questions asked by members of the PSC.

The press briefing was conducted in such a way as to give the impression that the Chief Justice’s Media unit was in operation. By all accounts, the information was fabricated, and calculated to malign the Legislature and was in short - untruthful. Clearly the conveners contravened all Constitutional norms and Standing Orders in purporting to give an account of the PSC proceedings - an ‘account’ which was of course clearly distorted.

CJ shouldn’t have boycotted PSC proceedings – V.K. Choksy

Leading lawyer V.K. Choksy, commenting on Dr. Mrs. Shirani Bandaranayake’s walk-out from the PSC process, said if the Chief Justice was not guilty of the charges against her, what she should have done was to participate in the PSC proceedings rather than boycotting it.

Her walking away from the investigation process had denied the people from getting to know whether she is not guilty of the charges levelled against her in the impeachment motion against her.

Choksy said if the Chief Justice was present before the PSC hearings, she could have easily made submissions to prove her innocence regarding the charges. PSC hearings are held in secrecy, but its final report tabled in Parliament will be made known to the public. The action taken by the Chief Justice will prevent the people from knowing her side of the story. Now the PSC would definitely find the Chief Justice guilty of the charges against her.

Apart from this, if representatives of the PSC are found guilty of defaming the Judiciary, the police can be directed to take them into custody. (Eg Minister SB Dissanayake’s case against former Chief Justice Sarath N Silva)

In such a case, the President, in his capacity as the head of the Executive and the Commander-in-Chief, can order the police not to carry out the Judiciary order.

This way, there is a possibility for a crisis to crop up among the Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislature.

Parliament to debate PSC report in one month

The PSC report on Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was presented to Parliament yesterday by the Chairman of the 11-member committee, Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa.

The comprehensive report submitted by the PSC contains evidence put forward by 16 witnesses, including Supreme Court Judge Shirani Thillakawardena. Twelve of the 14 charges levelled against the Chief Justice have not been defended by any submissions. Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa told the House last morning that the PSC Report will be taken up for debate in one month’s time. When the Objection demanded a fair hearing, the Speaker stated that he is even prepared to allocate even 10 days for the debate. The debate is expected to commence after January 8, 2013. Only a simple majority in Parliament is needed to impeach the Chief Justice, following a PSC hearing. Meanwhile, a group of Government MPs, in a press conference held at the Parliamentary Complex on Friday, claimed that the withdrawal of Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake and Opposition MPs from the PSC is a ‘tactical move’ under the blessings of interested parties.

PSC has full powers to issue ex-parte decision - Dean of Law Faculty, KDU

Dean of the Faculty of Law, Kotelawala Defence University (KDU) Dr. Prathiba Mahanamahewa, said even though Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake did not participate in the PSC hearing on the impeachment motion against her, the PSC had full powers to issue an ex-parte decision on the charges levelled against her.

Even in a normal case, the hearing is dismissed if the complainant fails to appear in Court. But an ex-parte hearing takes place even if the defendant is not present. This same rule applied to the PSC hearing on the impeachment motion, Mahanamahewa said. Whatever decision is taken by Parliament which is supreme on the impeachment motion, the final decision on the matter rested with the President. This is the normal system even in countries such as the US, Australia, UK and India. Sri Lanka is far ahead of them as regards democracy, he said.

He said the PSC hearing the impeachment motion has been appointed by Parliament according to powers vested in it by the Constitution. Even if a member of the PSC resigned, the Speaker has full powers to replace him with another member according to the Constitution.

Her ‘respondents’, ‘accused’, her supporters

Independent observers were aghast at the conduct of Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake in getting persons who have cases pending before the Supreme Court to speak and act on her behalf in respect of the impeachment motion brought against her.

They were particularly concerned about the conduct of the Chief Justice in getting Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera who is a petitioner in a case (Ref No 5/2012) filed before the Supreme Court to invoke blessings on her by tying a Pirith Noola which they contend is a great insult to the Judiciary. These observers point out that suspects, defendants and respondents in cases filed before Courts coming forward to bless and express support for Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake on the eve of her departure from the Courts Complex to appear before the PSC has brought total discredit to the independence of the Judiciary as well as levelling a great insult against the Judiciary.

They also added that this action is against the administration of justice, norms of natural justice and morality. A case filed against Sarath Fonseka by the Attorney General indicting him on 41 charges for keeping 10 Army deserters not assigned to him after retirement will come up for hearing before Colombo High Court Judge Kumudini Wickremasinghe. There are also cases filed against Parliamentarians such as Range Bandara due to be taken up for hearing shortly.

There are cases filed against several politicians, religious leaders and professionals who came to express solidarity and invoke blessings on the Chief Justice on the eve of her departure to appear before the PSC hearings on December 4 and the appearance of these suspects, defendants or respondents has been denounced by the public.

The Chief Justice shaking hands with these suspects, accused or respondents and expecting their support was damaging to the independence and supremacy of the Judiciary.

Opposition walkout ridicules parliamentary tradition - University academics

University academics yesterday said Opposition MPs have ridiculed Parliamentary traditions by walking out from the Parliamentary Select Committee appointed by the Speaker to investigate the impeachment charges against Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayake. The academics said it was a suspicious move by Opposition Parliamentarians to walk out from the PSC after they had participated in the same committee to hear the impeachment charges.

The Open University’s Department of Mathematics and Engineering Lecturer Nemsiri Jayathilaka said: “The impeachment trial against Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayake is a Constitutional process and the PSC was appointed by the Speaker of Parliament to conduct that trial.”

“The act of Opposition MPs stands to hamper a legitimate Parliamentary process. Their actions are against Parliamentary traditions,” he said. “The MPs should act to preserve the supremacy of Parliament, but they have done just the opposite in this case,” Jayathilaka said. He said once the Speaker appoints a committee to perform a task, the committee is expected to be agreeable. In this case, the Opposition MPs who first obeyed the Speaker’s orders to conduct the PSC process walked out of the PSC before the process ended, the academics said. Jayathilaka said: “I think that Speaker Rajapaksa has to do something about this. "One must not forget there are local and international elements trying to take advantage of the impeachment hearing against the Chief Justice to destabilise the country.”

No response to PSC charges

Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake fled the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) meeting in Parliament on Thursday, not having responded to any of the impeachment charges against her. In effect she spurned the Constitution, and the entire Parliament (the total Legislative Branch) including the Opposition, by rejecting the all-party PSC which constituted Government party MPs as well as Opposition MPs from multiple parties, including the main Opposition UNP. Having on two previous occasions not responded to any of the charges pertaining to her, on the third occasion yesterday, she stated she has no ‘confidence’ in the PSC process.

Sources say she was hedging responses to the charges from the day the impeachment motion was filed, and asked for time as a ploy to delay a pronouncement by the PSC.

The PSC hoped to conclude proceedings in one month, but this was impossible due to the erratic behaviour of the Chief Justice before it.

Though she was given a 20-day period of grace to file her answers, it was insisted that she provide responses to at least the first two charges, but at this point her lawyer Romesh de Silva said she has no confidence in the PSC and that she has not been provided the relevant documents regarding the charges even though all of the documents with regard to her accounts etc., had been provided.

After she staged the walk-out, a spokesman for the PSC pointed out that the Committee would take action against her for violating the Constitution and walking out of the PSC hearings, but will continue with the PSC sessions with the case being heard in absentia, i.e.: without the Chief Justice being present.