OH YEAH RIGHT, COLOMBO DID NOT KICK EIGHT SUPREME COURT JUDGES OUT! (Snicker)
Posted on December 20th, 2012
Rajpal Abeynayake- Courtesy The Daily News
J. R. Jayewardene threw the book at eight judges of the Supreme Court of this country. No, not the law books that he swore by and studied from in those Pushcannon days.
He threw his own little green book at them — the thoughts of President Jayewardene. According to this little green book, when a country changed her constitution, that countryƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s President had the right to send more than half the Supreme Court packing.
Little green book
There was no impeachment not even by the rules of the Article 107 that he wrote into his brand new, spanking constitution. Colombo elite lawyers and the Colombo elite NGO brigade took the little green book wisdom of J R Jayewardene as their gospel. 
They did not raise a finger, break one coconut, or tie one pirith nool before any saffron sage opposing J R JayewardeneƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s greening wisdom. Is it that they didnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t do so because J. R. Jayewardene did not even say that there are integrity issues against these eight judges sent home?
He did not say anything at all, or comment about their behaviour or say that they do not fit the times, or cannot carry out his vision. He just sacked them.
Justice Christopher. G. Weeramanthry who subsequently ended up a judge of the World Court, did not either then or later, say anything – – certainly anything thatƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s remembered, about J R JayewardeneƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s sacking of eight Supreme Court judges just because he could.
But then, by that time Colombo and that means Weeramantry too, had ceded demi-god status to the President with his little green book full of Jayewaredne thoughts. He was one of them too, these Colombans, and such people could aspire to godliness.
Not only could they aspire to godliness, they were encouraged to be gods. I donƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t know what Weeramantry said then but it may have been on the lines of, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Well, certainly a change of the constitution calls for a changing of the guard, my brotherƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ — and away he might have gone for his constitutional.
All the lawyer lovers in the UNP were in the Cabinet! No, really, they were in the entire parliamentary group, 75 percent of them who were lawyers!. And if that was not enough, they were in thrall of H.W. Jayewardene the PresidentƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s stalwart little brother who had a bound little law book of his own called ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”H. W. JayewardeneƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s thoughts for the Sri Lankan Bar.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ 
He had grabbed Hulftsdorp by the forelock, and had those lawyers drinking from between his knees. But in fact the that entirety of Hulftsdorp was happy to be doing exactly that.
It is as if they were goading the brothers on, saying ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Stone themƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Kick some ass,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ and as if on cue, the HW JR combine did so, stoning the houses of Supreme Court judges, because I guess, sending eight of them home was not enough. And talk about brothers running the show!
S. L. Gunasekera was a young man then, but he was old enough to say boo to these geese, but he did not say doodley-squat. Not for him any narratives about not appearing in Hulftsdorp at all — because let us see, if for one impeached judge he says that a lawyer must not appear before the succeeding judge, for eight judges sacked — and mind you kicked out and not impeached — he should of course have prescribed eight times eight that medicine right?
Colombo legal fraternity
And eight times eight of not appearing before the succeeding Chief Justice, is to not appear is courts at all by any math, but the young and affable S. L. Gunasekera appeared in courts and he would have bowed to all those bewigged wags, even though he may not have scraped.
If that is what could be said about S. L. Gunasekera and C. G. Weeramantry the less that could be said about the Colombo legal fraternity the better. To say the least, they could have afforded and cracked sixteen times the coconuts those days than were cracked in October of 2012 or thereabout, but they would have been considered crackers if they did so in the Jayewardene era, because all lawyers then had dyed themselves green and were trumpeting about the success of the old Law College Pushcannon boy who went onto become President (see he went to Royal and Law College Colombo, no Harvard or Cambridge for him — and didnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t he go on to sack eight judges heh heh, the luck of it?)
 C. G. Weeramantry |
 S. L. Gunasekera |
So some 35 or so years later, not just C. G. Weermantry but S. L. Gunasekera and the rest of the Colombo Bar has purportedly grown a backbone.
Or have they? Or, they know that they would not have their houses stoned or anything drastic like that, as it was in that era of the little green book. There is still much money to be earned, and of course if they thought there is real merit in not working with a new Chief Justice due to the impeachment of the current one, they would have done so, but they are not doing that because this is the lawyer-loving party, and these lawyers and Arabs love to live on dates.
What would they say? That it is 35 years and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, and this is a more liberal democratic era, which translates as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” no we will not do what we are doing now, even under duress if it was a UNP government?
Or a Colombo elite regime. All right, it was not 35 years ago when the entire Supreme Court came under potential threat with ChandrikaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s appointment of a new Chief Justice.
S. L. Gunasekera strutted the corridors of Hulftsdop then, congratulating junior lawyers who rose against this oncoming contagion, but not a typewritten sentence from him or one statement about ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”stopping this nonsense.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ C. G. Weeramantry must have been enjoying his days at the Hague in preparation for a time when he could sound suitably sanctimonious back home.
After all, by the time he got to Colombo, there would be enough barbarians inside of the Hulftsdorp gates already! Impeach one judge, and he could make eighty times the noise than about sacking eight of them, what eh, Your Lordship?
December 20th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
A new face will have to be introduced to the Supreme Court panel of judges to be appointed as the next Chief Justice. This is the new dilema the government is in.
December 20th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
The son of a Supreme Court judge, ජුනියස් රිචඩ් ජයවර්ධන (JR) became a lawyer after attaining a distinguished academic record in the Colombo Law College, became minister of finance in 1948, when Ceylon (from 1972, Sri Lanka) became independent. As prime minister, ජුනියස් රිචඩ් ජයවර්ධන amended the constitution to give Sri Lanka an executive presidency and became the first elected president in 1978.
ජුනියස් රිචඩ් ජයවර්ධන stripped of සිරිමාවෝ රත්වත්තේ ඩයස් බණ්ඩාරනායක’s political rights
ජුනියස් රිචඩ් ජයවර්ධන retired in 1989. By the time of ජුනියස් රිචඩ් ජයවර්ධන’s death 7 years later, Sri Lanka’s top office was held by Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga (CBK), daughter of ජුනියස් රිචඩ් ජයවර්ධන’s old political foe සිරිමාවෝ රත්වත්තේ ඩයස් බණ්ඩාරනායක.
BTW සිරිමාවෝ රත්වත්තේ ඩයස් බණ්ඩාරනායක mediated the India-China border conflict during 1962. During her premiership, the American and British oil companies were nationalized and a state controlled commercial banking system was established.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
What a pathetic piece of writing! And what a lot of incomprehensible rubbish. Would someone please tell me what the author means when he says, “And eight times eight of not appearing before the succeeding Chief Justice, is to not appear is courts at all by any math, but the young and affable S. L. Gunasekera appeared in courts and he would have bowed to all those bewigged wags, even though he may not have scraped.”?
Also, what does he mean when he says, “What would they say? That it is 35 years and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, and this is a more liberal democratic era, which translates as – no we will not do what we are doing now, even under duress if it was a UNP government?
Does he seriously suggest anyone would say “this is a more liberal democratic era”? He must be joking.
December 21st, 2012 at 11:22 am
Rajpal seems to have serious flawed logic here. The crux of his argument is that if somebody did not protest against similar previous action, knowingly or unknowingly, that person shall forever forfeit any rights to protests in the future. Well done Rajpal, just like many politicians, your rational thinking ability is gone to dogs now.
December 21st, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Sam, Cassandra, what Rajpal is showing is that while the impeachment of Shi(t)rani has been carried out according to law (created by JR), the said two lawyers are utter hypocrite to question the procedure while keeping silent 35 years ago when JR simply sacked them without a shadow of proper procedure !
December 21st, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Don’t you know that Rajpal was swiming in joy in a cold post of water, enjoying all this while in “Big Company” with unmeasurable perquisites. But recently he has found out that this pot of water has started to boil, and tht is why his writing has become so “pathetic” and “errotic”. Let us see him mingling with the “Black Coats” very shortly.
Please be patient and watch the drama.
December 21st, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Wickrama,
I have no personal knowledge of what these lawyers had been doing some 35 years ago. I do not know if they knowingly remained silent some 35 years ago. Perhaps Rajpal knew about it. What I know is that times have changed and we live in an era of fast dissemination of information. It is irrational to expect somebody to remain silent forever if that person knowingly or unknowingly did not actively protest in one previous event 35 years ago. Times change people, views, opinions, and reactions. It is irrational to blame somebody seeing things from a different perspective than 35 year ago.
December 22nd, 2012 at 2:05 am
Sam, the whole point is they failed to do the right thing then but doing the wrong thing now! So they are wrong then and now.
December 22nd, 2012 at 2:42 am
Wickrama- I beg to differ.
Having failed to do the “right” thing then, they have realised the mistakes and learnt from that experience and as a result they are doing the “right” thing now.
In any case, Rajpal appears not to counter the arguments/analysis put forward by these two eminent people but find a fault from over 30 years ago. That itself exposes him
December 22nd, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Wickrama,
That is where I beg to differ. If you really followed what the PSC did this time, you conscience will say it otherwise. We supported President Rajapakse in many ways many times but this is the time to stand up and say that he needs to act ethical and just manner.
December 22nd, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Wickrama- I beg to differ.
Having failed to do the “right” thing then, they have realised the mistakes and learnt from that experience and as a result they are doing the “right” thing now.
In any case, Rajpal appears not to counter the arguments/analysis put forward by these two eminent people but find a fault from over 30 years ago.
December 22nd, 2012 at 7:24 pm
How is Rajpal so certain that these two eminent lawyers were silent during JR’s time? A mistake people often make is to assume, because they are not aware of what someone said on any particular matter, that that someone had not said anything about it!
December 23rd, 2012 at 12:57 am
Sam, Do you agree that although MR did not act in “ethical and just manner”, there was nothing ILLEGAL in impeaching CJ ?
December 23rd, 2012 at 5:37 am
Wickrama,
Lets be honest to our conscience, we all know that MR is the puppet master of the impeachment charade. I strongly believe that President Rajapakse acted in the most unethical, unjust, and disgraceful manner, unbecoming of a president of Sri Lanka, in the case of this impeachment procceedings.
December 23rd, 2012 at 9:55 am
Sam, are you also a lawyer? Trying to avoid my question? I repeat- Do you agree that although MR did not act in “ethical and just manner”, THERE WAS NOTHING ILLEGAL IN IMPEACHING CJ ? “Be honest to YOUR conscience” and answer the question, please.
December 25th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
Wickrama,
Can you read. If you can please read the second sentence in my previous post. If you can’t here I copy the sentence again for your comprehension.
“I strongly believe that President Rajapakse acted in the most unethical, unjust, and disgraceful manner, unbecoming of a president of Sri Lanka, in the case of this impeachment proceedings.”
Drink a glass of water and read the above carefully before barking.