IMPEACHMENT MOTION : Dec 4 D-day against CJ
Posted on November 25th, 2012

Courtesy The Daily News

http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/11/26/news01.asp

* THE DAMNING CHARGES

* Over 20 bank accounts not declared in declaration of assets and liabilities

* Taking over Ceylinco case heard by another Bench; Bought house on Ceylinco Attorney papers

* Rs 34 m foreign currency deposits-not declared

* Rs 19,362,500 undisclosed

* Conduct unbecoming of a Chief Justice

NEWS SPOTLIGHT:

Forgetting integrity on impeachment

A former Justice Ministry Secretary during the Sirima Bandarnaike era, Nihal Jayawickreme, has come out to bat for the anti-impeachment forces, notwithstanding the fact that there are serious integrity and impartiality issues concerning the Chief Justice that warrants investigation.

Sprouting the words “‘integrity and impartiality”‘ as if chanting a mathra, he goes onto say however that the Bangalore principles which are a Code of Conduct for Judges, do not have anything to do with impeaching judges!

What next? That running has nothing to with marathons, or Ministry Secretaries have nothing to do with Ministries? Obviously, Mr Jayawickreme has distorted the discause, ignored the facts.

Please see editorial on page 4 titled HOT AIR ON IMPEACHMENT.


The Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC)will meet on Tuesday, December 4 to proceed with further hearing on the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayake.

The impeachment motion signed by 117 Members of Parliament was handed over to the Speaker of the House Chamal Rajapaksa and was entered in the Order Paper of the House on December 6 under item number 20.

The PSC headed by Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa consists of 11 MPs.

Those MPs who signed the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice requested that a special parliamentary committee be appointed to examine the charges and the Speaker granted the request to appoint the PSC as there are provisions in the Constitution to do so and in pursuance of the Standing Order No 78 (A)

Legal experts say the PSC has been duly appointed in line with the provisions provided by the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka .

The charges that are to be examined by the PSC is as follows:

Over 20 bank accounts not declared in declaration of assets and liabilities

Taking over Ceylinco case heard by another Bench; Bought house on Ceylinco Attorney papers

Rs 34 million foreign currency deposits not declared

Rs 19,362,500 undisclosed

Conduct unbecoming of a Chief Justice

The resolution in accordance with Article 107 (2) of the Constitution was for a Motion of Parliament to be presented to the President for the removal of Dr Mrs Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Arishumala Bandaranayake from the office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Ethics and Entrances

The Chief Justice used the no-security left side entrance to parliament and the inner chambers when she arrived for impeachment hearings before the Parliamentary Select Committee. The President and the Chief Justice are entitled to use that entrance by virtue of office. However, the CJ let two members of her retinue – lawyers we are told — to use that entrance as well, and it is now being asked what is the moral integrity of what she did? Does her rights as Chief Justice extend to others including hangers-on or faithful retainers as well?

You be the judge.

2 Responses to “IMPEACHMENT MOTION : Dec 4 D-day against CJ”

  1. Wickrama Says:

    Mrs. U. A. B. W. M. R. S. A. Bandaranayake ? Jeez!!

  2. Dilrook Says:

    [Quote] Dec 4 D-day against CJ. [Unquote]

    As it says, it has been already decided December 4 decision will be against CJ.

    All this because the Supreme Court gave the correct interpretation of 13A on the Divineguma Bill. If the government is genuine, 13A should have been repealed so that there would not be any conflict between the three branches of government.

    Basil promised India to fully implement 13A in 2008. Now 13A stands in the way of his Divineguma plan which is a very good development plan. He must be credited for it.

    It will be interesting to see what Shirani’s successor would direct the Supreme Court to adjudge the Divineguma Bill. If the Supreme Court then decides the Divineguma Bill to be consistent with 13A, that is a hilarious decision because it is not.

    It is amazingly shameful the extent to which the government goes to protect 13A.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2014 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress