Courtesy The Sunday Observer

Remember the traitor who attempted to sell his country and danced to the tune of disgruntled forces both here and abroad in his lust for power during the 2010 Presidential election?

Fortunately, masses rallied round the patriotic forces to ensure a landslide victory for President Mahinda Rajapaksa. If the traitors had captured power by any chance, we cannot imagine the pathetic situation the country would have been pushed to.

Now those very same sinister elements and traitors have teamed up in inviting Dr. Mrs. Shirani Bandaranayake to take to politics. She has neither accepted nor rejected a call from a defeated presidential election candidate.

Working to a political agenda, Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake appears to have joined hands with a group of traitors. Public Relations and Public Affairs Minister Mervyn Silva and several intellectuals were quoted as expressing such views in yesterdayƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s issue of our sister paper.

Minister Silva said the Chief Justice was acting a political role though she has been found guilty by the Parliamentary Select Committee in its investigation on the impeachment motion signed by 117 parliamentarians. He said the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-cat was out of the bagƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ with Sarath FonsekaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s invitation to the Chief Justice to join politics. Minister Silva said there were a number of contradictions in the statement on the alleged shooting incident at UNP parliamentarian PresidentƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s Counsel Wijedasa RajapaksheƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s residence.

Bar Association of Sri Lanka vice president and senior attorney-at-law Anoma Goonathilaka said, a few were attempting to create chaos in the country at a time when peace was achieved after defeating terrorism.

Meanwhile, Dr Nihal Sri Amarasekara said the process of the impeachment motion is in accordance with the provisions of the constitution adding that it cannot be challenged.

Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake created history when she filed a case in the Court of Appeal against the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) which investigated the impeachment motion against her. IsnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t that a move to evade the PSC and its punishment rather than trying to prove her innocence, if so, in a legitimate manner?

The charges levelled against Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake, who holds the important post of the Chief Justice, are of an extremely serious nature. Such conduct is unbecoming for the person who holds the senior most position in the Judiciary.

While we maintain our utmost respect and honour to the Judiciary and the Supreme Court at all times, we have the right to question why disciplinary action should not be taken against a person who has been found guilty by the PSC. Just because the accused person holds the post of Chief Justice, he or she could not enjoy immunity against these charges.

If Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake is not pleading guilty and is honest, she had an enough and more opportunity to do so in a respectful manner before the PSC. But when the charges were read and the investigation process began, she ran away from the proceedings giving lame excuses that she has no faith in the committee.

IsnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t that a bad precedence? Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake has no right to challenge the PSC appointed by the Parliament which holds the supreme most power of the masses. What if an accused takes Dr. Mrs. BandaranayakeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s conduct as an example and attempts to walk out of a court proceeding saying he or she has no faith in the bench? If such unruly and ugly incident takes place in future, who had set a bad example and insulted the judiciary system?

Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake is now attempting unethical and unconstitutional means to challenge the Parliament. What she should bear in mind that she could never ever challenge the supreme most body of Parliament which reflects the power of the people. That is the ultimate decider and not the Judiciary, or even the Executive for that matter as the Parliament has the power to impeach both those top slots.

Even the countryƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s main Opposition, the United National Party (UNP) has accepted the fact that the Parliament is supreme.

Even schoolchildren would know that those serious charges against Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake are good enough to charge her even under the Bribery or Corruption Act and the Inland Revenue Act. Since she holds the post of Chief Justice, even a more appropriate constitutional method of impeachment had been tried.

If she canƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t prove her innocence before the PSC, she should step down gracefully, rather than seeking cover under the position she holds and making use of that mechanism to discredit Parliament.

The order given by Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa stands on the impeachment motion of Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayake. Deputy Speaker Chandima Weerakkody has said no Court of Law shall issue notices on the Speaker of the Parliament or members of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC). Hence, such notices are a nullity.

Deputy Speaker Weerakkody, on being asked about the Court of Appeal issuing notice on the respondents in the case filed by Dr Bandaranayake against the PSC report, said as in Section Nine of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, all Courts in Sri Lanka should take notice of Parliamentary decisions.

Former Speaker, the late Anura Bandaranaike gave a similar order in a similar situation that the Supreme Court is in no position to issue injunction orders against Parliament. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-This became a historic ruling. This was accepted by former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ he said and added ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the Courts have followed this as a precedent.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

Present Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa gave a similar order regarding similar notices issued by the Supreme Court. Speaker in his ruling said: ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-I wish to make it clear that this ruling of mine as Speaker of Parliament will apply to any similar purported notice, order or determination in respect of the proceedings of the committee which will continue solely and exclusively under the authority of Parliament,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-The order stands in relation to the case of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Dr Bandaranayake,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ he added. Meanwhile, legal experts said that the Court of Appeal is in no position to summon the PSC members under Constitutional provisions.

The Court of Appeal consisting of three Judges last week issued notice returnable on January 3, 2013 on the respondents in respect of the petition filed by Chief Justice Dr Shirani A Bandaranayake requesting a Writ of Certiorari to invalidate the three charges she was found guilty by the PSC.

It appears that the interested parties are attempting to give a political twist to the impeachment motion and the subsequent PSC findings. Some Opposition politicians who have been rejected by people in toto and those who have links to LTTE cohorts seems to be attempting to give it an international facelift, in the hope that the international community may try to meddle with the process.

No Commonwealth country has adopted the Latimer House principles on judges, as they are. Britain has also adopted these principles as applicable only to North Ireland, a British Colony. Britain has not adopted these rules though certain segments that the country is bound to adhere to the Latimer House principles.

Any country will be in jeopardy if it tries to adopt the Latimer House principles as they are.

Sri Lanka is an independent and sovereign state governed by a Constitution adopted in 1978. The current Constitution clearly outlines the procedure to be followed to investigate the charges against judges in the Supreme Court and in the Court of Appeal, including the Chief justice, Chairman of Court of Appeal and the Executive President.

The countryƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s Constitution clearly outlines that charges against the Chief Justice be investigated by a Parliamentary Select Committee.

Supreme Court judges in the US can be impeached under its Constitution though appointment to the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. The US Constituion states ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their office during good BehaviourƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ High officials in the judiciary of the US can be removed on impeachment for treason, bribery, high crime , conviction and misdemeanour.

The Royal Charter of Justice by King George II was replaced by the Republican Constitution in 1972.

As the President of the Patriotic National Movement Dr Gunadasa Amarasekera has said, Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake has played a political role in deciding to sit in judgment over the Divi Neguma Bill.

He said this was in defiance of a ruling by Justice Mark Fernando that she should not be a part of Benches hearing political cases on devolution. Dr. Amarasekera said Dr. Mrs. Banadranayake had made political comments on the subject of devolution of power.

The Jathika Hela Urumaya filed two cases in the Supreme Court challenging her appointment as a Supreme Court Judge as she had made political comments on the subject of devolution of power. Dr. Amarasekera said Justice Fernando while dismissing these cases against her appointment to the Bench, had stressed that she should not hear cases of that nature in the future.

He said Justice Fernando made a special note defining her judicial role, and the type of cases she can hear. As Dr Amarasekera has quite rightly said, Government should unravel the massive conspiracy associated with the conduct of Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake who apparently has allowed herself to be a pawn in the hands of the NGO mafia and the LTTE proxies.

It is clear that the forces who were conspiring against the country during the height of the war on terrorism are behind Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake. The political campaign based on the impeachment motion against Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake is the latest episode of their conspiracy. Unfortunately, these conspirators have used some lawyers to achieve their ulterior motives.

People should understand that the political campaign based on the impeachment motion is part of a conspiracy which is being hatched by the NGO mafia in connivance with the LTTE proxies to create confusion and discord in the country. The LTTE proxies and NGOs used various tactics and persons to achieve what Prabahakaran could not.

Prabhakaran and his goons, along with a section of the international community, did their level best to experience a regime change in Sri Lanka during the height of the battle against terrorism so that the military operation would be halted. They wanted a weak leader who would dance to the tune of the West. This same agenda is being tried once again.

They are trying to create discord within the country by inciting people for an Arab Spring style uprising to force the government out of office which is to the liking of Western countries.

What these sinister elements should bear in mind that unlike in those Arab countries, leaders in Sri Lanka have won successive elections and the masses have reposed faith in the President in no uncertain terms.

BASL vice president Anoma Gunathilake scoffed at the accusations by certain quarters that complainants themselves are investigating the impeachment charges against the Chief Justice.

She said the impeachment motion was signed by a group of parliamentarians and these signatories have not been appointed to the Parliamentary Select Committee investigating into the impeachment charges.

Gunathilake said the people have been left with no option other than to protect the present government if they want to keep the country and the nation intact. She added that it appears that Dr, Mrs. Bandaranayake is trying to lead her case against the Constitution.

ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-We have reasons to believe that she is trying to complicate a normal constitutional process that impeached her on charges of misbehavior, with her current actions,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ she said. Other lawyers echoed Mrs GoonetillekeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s sentiments. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-She is trying to rouse international interest with a view to wielding an undue advantage over her impeachment trial,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ she added.

The extreme conduct of certain lawyers is a clear example what these sinister forces plan to achieve by using Dr. Mrs. BandaranayakeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s impeachment case as an effective political tool. She is mature enough not to get into that trap. If she work with these forces in future, then she is doing so unwillingly.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) rejected two proposals presented to it by the anti-impeachment lobby among the law fraternity. BASL president Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe rejected two resolutions forwarded by the anti-impeachment factions at the BASL special general meeting, to call on UN organisations, the Commonwealth and the International Lawyers Associations to exert pressure on the government over its move to impeach Dr, Mrs. Bandaranayake from the post of the Chief Justice.

These factions proposed to the BASL not to accept a new Chief Justice in the event the present Chief Justice is removed from office after the impeachment process.

They proposed that no attorney should appear before a new Chief Justice who will be appointed under such circumstances. However, BASL chief Rajapakshe rejected these proposals at the meeting. BASLƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s anti-impeachment faction submitted their proposals against the impeachment proceedings only 18 hours before the meeting was held, whereas they were supposed to present them to the BASL seven days prior to the meeting on December 15.

Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake should neither seek cover of her high office nor let the Supreme Court premises be used for demonstrations that would give undue advantage for her.

Those who put on a circus around Hulftsdorp recently bringing down the estimations of the law courts in the eyes of the people, used state money to do so, observed some legal experts and independent observers of events, who advisedly chose to remain anonymous.

They said that those who put on a veritable ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”circusƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ around the Supreme Court premises and said they were doing so on behalf of the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”judiciaryƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, were conducting all of these activities that to a great extent brought down the estimations of the judiciary in peopleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s eyes – and also disrupted court work – on the public purse.

They were driven to the scene in state maintained vehicles, by state paid chauffeurs, and they used state fuel allocations, and sometimes operated from state offices using state telephone facilities etc., in organising these ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”protestsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ which were mostly aimed at the PSC, which was legitimate instrument of the elected legislature.

Hence, to bring the peopleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s representatives to ridicule, they used state money and state facilities, these independent observers added.

They further stated that this raises further issues about the conduct of these protests funded by the taxpayersƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ money, by those who however were claiming to be ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”independentƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ but were subverting the elected LelgistlatureƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s functions, and holding it ridicule, all the while using taxpayersƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ money.

This splurge on state facilities however was to create an atmosphere of chaos around the Hulftsdorp courts prior to recent PSC hearings, prior to which some of these persons consorted with accused who have come before courts, and also some respondents in cases in courts of law over which these persons themselves presided. However, these ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”protestorsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ had the audacity to say, when these shenanigans and more of their ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”exploitsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ were exposed in the media – as the media was obliged to, in the cause of public interest – that sections of the media are ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”misusing public fundsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢(!), the sources said. It is high time Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake step down gracefully without bringing further disrepute to the post of the Chief Justice. People still repose faith on the judiciary and its impartiality. But if Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake continues to behave in a manner which in unbecoming of the Chief Justice, that would only bring a blackmark to that highly respected position.

It is up to her to clear her name in a constitutional manner or face charges. She could not and should not evade the process by giving lame excuses or use other means to get away tactically. No one is above the law and she should follow that and set an example in a dignified manner.