Impeachment Motion passed with overwhelmiong majority

Amidst various attempts by the Opposition to show that the procedure adopted in the impeachment process to remove Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake from office was fundamentally flawed, the impeachment resolution debated in Parliament for the removal of the Chief Justice was passed with an overwhelming two thirds majority.

With the approval of this impeachment resolution by a vast majority of Parliamentarians, this would go into history as the first ever resolution passed against a Chief Justice in Sri Lanka with a two thirds majority.

The impeachment resolution received 155 votes in favour and 49 votes against. Twenty members were absent at the time of voting including Members of the Government allied Communist Party and Lanka Sama Samaja Party, Ministers D.E.W. Gunasekera, Chandrasiri Gajadeera, Prof Tissa Vitarana and UPFA National List MP Prof.Rajiva Wijesinghe. The UNP and TNA voted against the resolution.

Before the commencement of the impeachment debate, attempts were made by the Opposition to prevent this resolution being debated on the floor of the House. Nearly two hours of the time allocated for the parliamentary debate on the impeachment motion was spent on a verbal tug-of-war between Government and Opposition members on the technicalities of the motion.

After Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa announced to commence the debate, Chief Opposition Whip John Amaratunga drew the attention of the House to the provisions of the Standing Orders which states that a debate on an impeachment motion against a Chief Justice should commence after one month of the tabling of the report of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) appointed to investigate the charges in the motion.

Amaratunga informed the House that the Chairman of the PSC had handed over the report to the House on December 8, 2012 and the printed report issued on December 17, 2012 during the vacation of Parliament.The report had not been tabled in the House but copies of the report had been put into the pigeon holes under each MPs name in the Parliament library.

The MP said the reason for allocating one month's time was for the MPs to study the content of report and they did not have adequate time to study it. Based on this issue, Chief Opposition Whip, Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and few other Opposition MPs attempted to build up the argument that the debate should be postponed.

Leader of the House and Irrigation and Water Management Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva told the House two Party Leaders meeting were held with regard to this debate, the Opposition never raised this issue. They only asked for three days for the debate.

The Opposition which agreed to debate this in the House and is now resorting to dilatory tactics. The Minister said Motion had taken its due course. He pointed out the counting of one month starts from the date it was presented to the House which was December 8.Now one month has lapsed and the motion can be debated in the House.

If there are any shortcomings regarding the content of the PSC report, it can be discussed during the debate. It will be Parliament that will finally decide whether this report is sufficient or not.

Environment Minister Anura Priyadarshan Yapa said he as the chairman of the PSC presented the report to the House on December 8. Now the mandatory time of one month has lapsed so that it could be debated."

Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa who listened to the references made by both Government and Opposition members on the subject adjourned the House for ten minutes to decide whether the MPs did not have the opportunity to study the contents of the report. When the House resumed sittings, Speaker Rajapaksa said that the debate could commence since the PSC process was in accordance with Standing Orders.

Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva who commenced the debate on impeachment motion against Chief Justice told the House that it was an important day in the annals of Sri Lankan parliament history. When the 18th amendment was passed in Parliament, Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake also participated in a process to give powers to the President to remove a Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice's involvement and mistakes she committed in the Trillium deal have been exposed. The Minister proposed that the House must recommend to remove the Chief Justice from her office as the PSC uncovered her misconduct and abuseof power.

Government Parliamentarians who joined the debate alleged that the Opposition through various misinterpretations given on the Constitution attempted to mislead the country and the international community.

Health Minister Maithripala Sirisena who joined the debate invited the Opposition to talk about the allegations levelled against the Chief Justice in the impeachment without only talking about the procedure of this motion.

TNA Parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran who joined debate said that he dressed in black to suit the purpose of the day.

He described it as being a black day in the judicial history of this country. He said they cannot allow the judiciary to go to hell and that" we have to safeguard the judiciary".National Languages and Social Integration Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara who interrupted Sumanthiran's speech said the Supreme Court could go to hell if it does not change its path. The Minister said the Supreme Court had itself selected to go to hell.

Amidst the interruptions made by the Government members, the MP who continued his speech said Minister Vasudeva was his childhood hero for the latter's work towards safeguarding democracy but today he was disillusioned.

External Affairs Minister Prof G.L.Peries in his speech strongly criticised the Supreme Court and accused it of transgressing on the powers of the legislature. .

Even at the eleventh hour of the vote, the Opposition tried their best to create disillusionment in the House stating that the voting cannot be held as the impeachment resolution has not been included in the Order Paper.

This led to a series of explanations between the Government and the Opposition Parliamentarians who quoted various clauses of the constitution and Standing Orders to consolidate their opinions. The Speaker had to adjourn the House for 10 minutes to give a ruling on this matter.

However, this turned into just another futile attempt by the Opposition when the Speaker informed the House that there is no legal barrier to conduct the vote.

Making another significant milestone in Parliament history the Divi Neguma Bill was passed with a two thirds majority in Parliament on Tuesday with amendments. The UNP, DNA and TNA voted against the Bill. Winding up the debate, Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa reiterated that no one will lose their jobs as a result of the Bill which would form a separate department nullifying five other authorities including the existing Samurdhi Authority.

The Minister in his speech mentioned how some Opposition parties went to court to prevent introduction of this Bill for the well-being of the poorer segment of the country.

If they go to courts a hundred times, they won't be able to obstruct to the forward march of the Government.

The Minister also categorically denied the allegation levelled by certain sections that powers of the Provincial Councils will be reduced or taken away with the introduction of the Divi Neguma Department.

He challenged them to show how this is so. The Bill will ensure powers at rural level and ensure jobs and other benefits of Samurdhi officers.

Following a request made by DNA MP Sunil Hadunnetti during the adjournment debate on Wednesday, the House observed one minute's silence as a mark of respect over the execution of Sri Lankan housemaid Rizana Nafeeq in Saudi Arabia.