Impeachment motion against CJ- confirms legal fraternity-Conspirators coming out of the closet
Posted on November 3rd, 2012
Impeachment, the correct procedure – Choksy
K.N. Choksy PC said the impeachment mechanism is the only accountability mechanism for the Higher Judiciary. As far as Judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are concerned, it is the only method by which they are made answerable for their conduct in office.
Where the minor Judiciary is concerned, the Judicial Service Commission, which is headed by the Chief Justice, has its own accountability and disciplinary procedure. Regarding the President, the Constitution provides an impeachment procedure by Parliament.
The President is also made responsible to Parliament for his actions. He also has to face the hustings and the people every six years.
Members of Parliament can be expelled by the political party which have nominated them and lose their seats in the House.
Regarding public servants, there is a mechanism where the Public Service Commission exercises disciplinary control.
Thus, there is an accountability process in every sphere of public service in its broad sense. Choksy said that when one looks back on the impeachment of Superior Court Judges there is precedence. This is not the first occasion on which impeachment proceedings have been commenced against a Chief Justice. During the stewardship of President J.R. Jayewardene, in the case of Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon too, the process of impeachment was put in motion.
A Select Committee of Parliament headed by Mr. Premadasa was appointed to look into certain preliminary questions. However, the matter came to a natural end before culmination as Chief Justice Samarakoon reached his age of retirement and thereby ceased to hold judicial office.
There is also international precedence for this procedure of impeachment by the legislature in other domains such as the United States of America and Australia.
“Sri Lanka is a democratic nation and accordingly the process and procedure is not without safeguards. There is a due process to be followed prior to impeachment. A petition has to be presented to the Speaker with not less than one third of the total number of Members of Parliament, signing it. (In the present case, 117 Members have signed it, i.e. more than half). Once the Petition is presented to the Speaker, the Speaker has to appoint a Select Committee of Parliament, which comprises Members of Parliament, both from the Government and the Opposition to inquire into and report to Parliament on the allegations in the Petition.
“At the Select Committee which inquires into the matter, the Chief Justice has the right to be represented by Counsel, by a representative or to appear in person. Thereafter, the findings of the Select Committee are tabled in the House, and Parliament debates the issue. If the Report of the Select Committee is passed by a simple majority in Parliament, an Address is sent to the President by Parliament for the removal of the judge, in this case the Chief Justice. The President acts on this Address of Parliament.”
Therefore, Choksy noted, that there is a balanced mechanism and Constitutional process where the Chief Justice has a right to be heard and the due process of the Law is followed. The Parliament thus acts on the lines of a judicial body.Choksy noted that it is not a Kangaroo Court as there is a Constitutional process mechanism.
To ensure that justice and fair play prevail, Parliament refers the matter to a Select Committee of Parliament. This enables a finding to come in a rational and non-partisan manner in fairness to the judge concerned and the institution of the Courts. Choksy said that the Constitution mandates that the Chief Justice shall not be removed other than for “proved misbehaviour”, proved to the satisfaction of Parliament. Parliament scrutinises and debates the findings of the Select Committee.
The words “proved misbehaviour” are of wide importance. They bring within their sweep both misbehaviour in the exercise of their official duties, and also personal conduct; and this for a good reason, namely, that judges must be like ‘Caesara’s wife’ i.e. beyond any suspicion whatever. He noted that the impeachment proceedings of the Chief Justice are entirely in the hands of the Legislature. The Judiciary does not come into the scene at all in keeping with the rule that none shall be a judge in his own cause.”Nevertheless, Parliament has to be satisfied that there is proved misbehaviour. Since the Courts do not come into the picture, the proof has to be to the satisfaction of Parliament.
The appointment of a Supreme Court Judge is made by the President under the Constitution, but the President is not empowered to remove such a judge. For the purpose of protecting the institution of the higher Judiciary, a wider process is envisaged with Parliament being brought into the mechanism.
“Normally, the appointing authority has the power to remove, but in the larger interest of the protection of the administration of justice, a wider body, namely, Parliament is involved. The President cannot remove a Supreme Court Judge or in this case the Chief Justice except upon an address of Parliament.” Choksy, President’s Counsel, who is an expert on Constitutional Law, had been the first Minister of Constitutional and State Affairs under President D.B. Wijetunge from 1992-1994 and thereafter Minister of Finance from 2002-2004 under President Kumaratunga during the Premiership of Ranil Wickremesinghe.Choksy has been a Member of Parliament for 21 years having joined Parliament in the first National List, when it was introduced under the stewardship of President R. Premadasa. Choksy was appointed in the first batch of President’s Counsels by President Jayewardene.
Impeachment motion against CJ Constitutional ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” Minister Keheliya Rambukwella
By Manjula Fernando
|
|
The handing over of the Impeachment Motion against the Chief Justice, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake to the Speaker with 117 signatures of Government MPs became the hot topic among political, media and diplomatic circles last week with the matter reaching as far as Geneva when the Sri Lanka faced a peer review of its human rights record (UPR) at the UN Human Rights Council on Thursday. To a question raised by the US representative the leader of Sri LankaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s team, Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe had also responded.
The Sunday Observer spoke to three key personalities, the Deputy Speaker, Government Spokesman and a constitutional expert to clarify matters connected with this move taken by the Government.
Deputy Speaker, Chandima Weerakkody speaking to the Sunday Observer explained as to how the motion will proceed in Parliament in the coming days.
ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-When a No Confidence Motion against a Chief Justice, a Supreme Court Judge or a Judge of the Court of Appeal is handed over to the Speaker under Article 107 (02) of the Constitution, the Speaker has to place it on the Order Paper. And thereafter as provided in Section 78 of the Standing Orders, a select committee comprising more than seven MPs must be appointed, then thereafter the select committee has to call for explanation from the Judge concerned. Then the committee can go for an inquiry in which the committee is authorised to call for any person, document or organisation concerned to give evidence. Within a period of one month, the select committee has to come to conclusions, and submit a report to Parliament which will have to be passed by a simple majority.
Thereafter, such reports should be presented to the President of the country for a final determination.
The President on addressing Parliament can then declare the removal of the judge concerned if he so decides based on the decision of the select committee.
When you take into consideration the period given for the select committee to complete their report which is one month, there canƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t be a delay in placing the Motion in the Order Paper. When the Motion against former Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon was handed over, it was placed in the Order Paper immediately and the select committee was appointed the next day. And the committee sat immediately and called for explanations on that day itself. The Chief Justice could submit her explanations in writing and she could give evidence in person before the committee.
The Motion against Samarakoon was presented by former President R. Premadasa who was a Cabinet minister at the time.
If the committee finds it difficult to complete the work within a month an extension can be sought from Parliament. On the last occasion, such extensions were granted on two occasions which resulted in getting a couple of more weeks being given to complete the work of this select committee.
Government Spokesman and Media Minister, Keheliya Rambukwella explaining the reasons that led to the move by the Government MPs refuted that it was done as a result of a clash between the Executive and the Judiciary.
ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-There is absolutely no point in making allegations and counter allegations. To start with, things cannot happen without a reason. Notwithstanding the allegations if there is a clash between the Executive or the Judiciary, when there are allegations of wrongdoing, it has to be investigated.
As far as the Government is concerned it is not a matter of the Judiciary having a clash with the Executive. There are certain reasons that had been raised by legislators, not by the Executive, to probe certain affairs of the Chief Justice and her conduct. Equally she has a right and freedom to come before the select committee to clear her name. She could even be represented by a lawyer.
We have not done this according to the law of the jungle. We did not hire the underworld, the sort of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Kalu LuckysƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ to insult the Judiciary or stone their houses.
The procedure that is taking place now is 100 percent constitutional, it is not outside the Constitution. In fact why this provision has been made in the Constitution is that it could be used in a situation of this sort where smooth functioning of the three institutions ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive – are in question.
It is to be used in an event of a necessity and we feel now there is a serious necessity to exercise this provision that has been set out in the Constitution, to look into the conduct of the Chief Justice.
Otherwise this will develop into a cold war between the Judiciary and the Legislature, and also the Executive. As a result the rights of the people can be jeopardized by all parties concerned. Section 3 of the Constitution clearly talks about the sovereignty of the people. When you have a doubt you have to get it cleared. You cannot play with it.
All constituent parties of the Government have endorsed the Motion. If this cold war is to continue, the credibility of a government will be lost in the face of the international community and the public.
Q: ArenƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t you concerned that this could be used against the Government as a key weapon to question its human rights record at the UPR and the subsequent HR council sessions in March. Have you not taken a great risk by this move?
If we practised the Law of the jungle, of course then it can be dubbed as a risk but this procedure which is taking place now is within the Constitution.
Why are these provisions in the Constitution if the Legislature cannot make use of it at a time of necessity? The Constitution is the basic law of the country. This right has to be respected by everyone.
Even the Executive can be impeached. If he acts against the Constitution, there are clear provisions for his impeachment.
A constitutional law expert S.L. Gunasekera, said I am the one who opposed Shirani BandaranayakeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s appointment at the time. I went on TV and criticized her appointment. How could a person who had not appeared for a single case, who had a university background accept the post of Chief Justice was my contention at that time.
Later her husband was given a top post at the Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation and the NSB. He was not fit for the post. If she was acting independently, this offer should have been rejected, they should never have accepted it.
There is no question that the Government can impeach the Chief Justice, the Constitution provides for it but I feel this is not the way it should be done.
Conspirators coming out of the closet
Conspirators coming out of the closet
Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment. According to Sri Lankan constitution ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ there are several stages between moving an impeachment motion and its final transmission to the President. An impeachment motion has to be based on some grounds but not personal – in that there is constitutional provision for the person in question to reply the charges against them. Initially if the motion to appoint a Select Committee is passed by the House, it will be handed over to the Speaker. When the impeachment motion is eventually passed by the majority in Parliament it will be referred to the President. This procedure is purely to ensure the dignity of the judiciary and accord due respect to it.
However, following are theƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ organisationsƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ and outside governments that are trying to impede the efficacy ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ of the constitutional rights given to people.
US
Independence of judiciary must be ensured in Sri Lanka: US
Washington, Nov 3, 2012 (PTI)
Expressing concern over the move to impeach Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, the US has urged the Sri Lankan Government to avoid any action that would impede the efficacy and independence of country’s judiciary.
“The US is concerned by actions taken to impeach Sri Lankan Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. We urge the Government of Sri Lanka to avoid any action that would impede the efficacy and independence of Sri Lanka’s judiciary,” State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said yesterday.
The US officials have also noted with concern the recent threats to Sri Lankan judicial officials, including the assault last month on a judge who had publicly criticised government pressure on members of the judiciary, she said.
“The US, along with its partners in the international community, continues to urge Sri Lanka to address outstanding issues of the rule of law, democratic governance, accountability and reconciliation,” Nuland said.
Amnesty International
SL targeting judges: AI
GENEVA: Human rights watchdog Amnesty International on Friday accused the Sri Lankan government of cracking down on the judiciary, a day after ruling party lawmakers moved to impeach the countryƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s top judge. President Mahinda RajapakseƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s United PeopleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) party submitted a resolution pushing for Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, who has been accused of flouting the constitution, to be sacked. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-The crackdown on dissent has extended to lawyers and members of the judiciary who speak out against abuses of power,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Amnesty said in a statement. Amnesty also highlighted the case of a high court judge who was attacked and injured by armed assailants last month after he had complained of attempts to interfere with the independence of the judiciary.
Impeachment motion against CJ- confirms legal fraternity
Ishara MUDUGAMUWA-CourtesyThe Daily News
Eminent members of the legal fraternity were of the opinion that the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice now handed over to the Speaker is totally justifiable, and above board. Gomin Dayasiri, Attorney-at-law said that in the same way that an average citizen complains to the police if harmed in any way, the government, when wronged, has the right to petition the legislature (Parliament) to obtain redress.
He said this is precisely why there are constitutional provisions to take action against errant Supreme Court Justices – and Chief Justices.
Jayatissa de Costa, senior Attorney-at-law was of the opinion that Parliament has the exclusive right to move against a Supreme Court judge. He said that the sovereignty of the people in the form of judicial power is exercised through Parliament by the judiciary.
He added that in any event, no Supreme Court judge can be got rid of arbitrarily, and that the constitution in Article 107 contains provisions about the process to be observed, under the heading of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”independence of the judiciary.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢
The Chief Justice can hold office as long as there is no moral turpitude on his/her part or abuse of office, and a majority of the Members of Parliament can vote to impeach a Chief Justice, but this is only after a rigorous process that precedes with several steps to be observed before such action is taken.
This newspaper also carries on page 6 an opinion by the External Affairs Minister that no judge is above the law, that clearly sets out that judges cannot, as per the constitution, abuse the power of office.
Meanwhile, youth Affairs and Skills Development Minister Dullas Alahapperuma invited all political parties to discuss the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. Addressing the media yesterday, Minister Alahapperuma said the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice which contains seven charges was handed over to Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Speaker Rajapaksa will examine the validity of the charges and take action,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ the minister said.
Alahapperuma said the government never wants to interfere with the judiciary and the motion was handed over to the Speaker based on the misconduct allegations against her. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-This is not the first attempt to impeach a Chief Justice in Sri Lankan history.
During the period of R Premadasa and Ranil Wickremesinghe, we experienced these types of incidents,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ he said.
ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Some people who said the attempt to impeach former Chief Justice Sarath N Silva was legal and can be done under the constitution, now say the attempt to impeach Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake is illegal.
All political parties should discuss the issue and give their comments,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ the minister said.
by Zacki Jabbar November 1, 2012, 9:24 pm Courtesy The Island
The government yesterday claimed that the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, presented to Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa, had been necessitated by the judiciaryƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s attempt to disregard the supremacy of Parliament.
The seven charges said to constitute “improper behaviour”, pertained to the Chief JusticeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s conduct both in her official and personal capacity, it said.
Media Minster Keheliya Rambukwella, addressing a news conference in Colombo yesterday, which was also attended by Minister Pavithra Wanniarachchi, Deputy Minister Lasantha Alagiyawanna and Parliamentarians Arundika
Fernando, Shantha Bandara and Sudharshani Fernandopulle, said that of late the judiciary had been infringing on the supremacy of parliament, which even prompted the Speaker to make a critical statement on the floor of the House.
Neither the President nor the government wanted to clash with the judiciary since it was imperative that a cordial relationship exist between the three institutions. However, with the legislatureƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s authority being openly challenged, there was no option but to go the whole hog and present an impeachment motion against Shirani Bandaranayake, Minister Rambukwella said.
Claiming that there was nothing personal in presenting motion, the Minister said that there were two previous such instances on the watch of President J. R. Jayawardena and Chandrika Kuamratunga.
Rambukwella said that if an institution exceeded its powers, then the government was perfectly entitled to act according to the law.
The course of action adopted by the Rajapaksa regime, he said was perfectly legal and there was neither malice nor will it do anything improper as the procedures prescribed by the Constitution had been followed, with more than the required one third of 225 MPs having endorsed the motion.
Minister Pavithra Wanniarachchi said that the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice, which contained seven charges, including actions committed in her personal capacity, had been signed by 117 UPFA MPs and presented to the Speaker yesterday in terms of Article 107.2 of the Constitution,
The Speaker would, she said, be required to appoint a Parliamentary Select Committee, comprising members of all parties, or call for a debate on the motion, if he was satisfied that that a prima facie case had been established.
The law stipulated that the Chief Justice could be summoned to be personally present to hear the charges that had been levelled against her, the Minister observed.
November 1st, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998. Two other impeachment articles, a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power, failed in the House. The charges arose from the Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones lawsuit.Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. With a two-thirds majority required for conviction (i.e., 67 senators), 50 senators (out of 100) voted guilty on the obstruction charge and 45 on the perjury charge. The Senate was 17 votes short of removing Clinton from office on the former charge in the Senate.[1]
On Saturday, July 27, the House Judiciary Committee approved its first article of impeachment charging President Nixon with obstruction of justice. Six of the Committee’s 17 Republicans joined all 21 Democrats in voting for the article. The following Monday the Committee approved its second article charging Nixon with abuse of power. The next day, the third and final article, contempt of Congress, was approved.
Lord Treasurer Lionel Cranfield is impeached for bribery The Duke of Buckingham instigates the impeachment of LioneI CranfieId, Earl of Middlesex, Lord Treasurer of England, on grounds of bribery and neglect of duty. On 25th April, Cranfield is fined £50 000 and suspended from office, and in December Lord Ley is appointed his successor.
Since 1797 the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen federal officials. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a justice of the Supreme Court, and eleven federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges. Not included in this list are the office holders who have resigned rather than face impeachment, most notably, President Richard M. Nixon.
So there is nothing unusual, the Democracy in Sri Lanka is perfect. Let us wait and see the outcome.
Please do not ever try to take way the legitimate rights of the people.
November 1st, 2012 at 3:58 pm
MPs are DIRECTLY elected by the people.
SC judges on the other hand are APPOINTED by politicians. But they must serve the people and the nation.
Govt taking on the SC when the UPR is progressing is a gutsy move.
99 countries support SL at the UN. Only a minority is against us. This time we are going to screw India.
Make the UPR victory at the BIG UN to screw small UNHRC next year!
Pit UN against UNHRC!!!!
That is Rajapaksha’s strength. Pit enemies aganist enemies. UNP against UNP, JVP against JVP, LTTE against LTTE, North India against South India, TNA against SLMC.
Now parliament against SC. Who will win? The president.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED THEY FALL!! :))
November 1st, 2012 at 5:05 pm
The fact that the Chief Justice delivered the Decision on the DiviNaguma Bill to the Secretary General of the Parliament instead of the Speaker seems, at face value, to be a minor, remediable, technicality.
The REAL ISSUE here seems to be the RULING of the Supreme Court (SC), under the Chief Justice’s leadership, that the NATIONL DiviNaguma Bill, which cuts across Provincial boundaries, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The Chief Justice seems to be BLIND to the fact that the 13th Amendment which created the Provincial Council System, and which forms the basis of the SC decision on the DiviNaguma Bill, is itself UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
The 13th Amendment was ILLEGALLY imposed upon Sri Lanka by India, ignoring VOCIFEROUS PROTESTS from the majority community, and most citizens, of Sri Lanka, under the THREAT of Permanent Military Occupation of Sri Lanka by Indian Forces.
If the Chief Justice cannot find the LEGAL PRECEDENT for delivering a Judgment that QUESTIONS the LEGALITY of the 13th Amendment itself, she DOES NOT BELONG in her position as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, for she lacks either the necessary JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE to DISCOVER those PRECEDENTS, and/or the necessary personal commitment to preserving the Integrity and Sovereignty of Sri Lanka.
In my own comments at LankaWeb.com and the SriLankaDefenceForum.blogspot.com , I have identified many International Legal Precedents (for example, the infamous Munich Agreement that was abrogated by Czechoslovakia after the defeat of Nazi Germany) that can be used for that purpose.
Therefore, let this MYOPIC & USELESS judge be removed from the Supreme Court, using any and all evidence that exists of her unsuitability for her position on the Supreme Court, for she has failed her FOREMOST DUTY to Defend & Protect Sri Lanka.
November 1st, 2012 at 7:47 pm
From a professional point, I’m against the government move to impeach the Chief Justice. If the stated grounds of impeachment are true, it gets total credibility but if the reason for this is referring the Divineguma Bill to the provinces, it is not right.
Unfortunately 13A has empowered the provincial councils. There is the provincial list, central government list and the concurrent list of powers. Certain matters in the detailed Bill (which are released to the public on a pieacemeal basis) contravene the provincial list. Therefore, referring it to the provincial councils, though a mockery of the unitary status, is correct in the strict interpretation of the law. The problem lies not in the supreme court verdict but in 13A.
This raises another question about the consistency of 13A with the rest of the Constitution before it was made. A nation where the parliament cannot make laws affecting the provinces is not quite a unitary country. That means 13A is in violation of this basic principle and hence it is against the Constitution. 13A must be repealed.
Having said that, if however, the Divineguma Bill once enacted goes to dismantle provincial councils, its worth it.
November 1st, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Dilrook,
I am on your side. It is stupid move but there are ulterior motives.
Why the hellsomeone this stupid governement(including Gota cannot file a case against 13 A in SC instead ?
Most importantly this stupid move will kill the recent fantastic drive to scrap 13A, which should have been done long time ago and Maharaja offering back side to India never taken any step, nor any other thieve.
Having said that, Bar Association lead by few National betrayors who licks RW bum was planning to put Kachal at every instant. These bastards ( if CJ is one of them , so be it) should be investigated thoroughly and even the slightest error should have been used to presucute them.
Impeachment, if any , should have been done once CJ has been tested by 13A case. I am sure there is a way to make 13A unconstitutional, it is just no one interested. Even if that is not possible, 2/3 majority voting power or referendum could have been used to kill it before this impeachment.
Now US Zionists are already making noise and internationally it looks bad.
WHY CANNOT THESE THIEVS IN THE PARLIAMENT DO THE RIGHT THING ?
November 1st, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Dham,
“why can’t these thieve in parliament do the Right Thing”
They are called thieves because they continue to do the wrong thing. The onus to all the problems of SL falls on these thieves. Until the sri lankans demand accountability and take legal action against these thieves the problem will continue. It is not enough changing them at the next election and appointing another set of thieves.
November 2nd, 2012 at 1:11 am
Unfortunately we still do not know the real facts of the case that made the government to bring impeachment charges . We do not know even the seven charges against the Chief Justice.. Perhaps Gomin Dayasiri may be able to explain the situation.
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:35 am
Gentlemen,
Give some thought about this.
How was 13 amendment imposed?
1. Thousands of Sinhalese were killed.
2. Parliament was terrorized.
3. Supreme court was threatened and politicized.
4. Other dirty nonsense.
So, what’s wrong in using SIMILAR action to SCRAP it?
Now the PRO-13 camp must feel the pain patriots went through in 1987.
The end JUSTIFIES the means. It is like war.
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:44 am
Formula is simple.
For the past 3 years Gota kept quiet. He suddenly woke up because of the SC decision.
KEEP HIM AWAKE !
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:54 am
Root cause is the dreaded 13 A. Now the 13A plat is flowering. No point removing the flowers. Kill the roots and then remove the plant.
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:08 am
Ananda USA says : “The REAL ISSUE here seems to be the RULING of the Supreme Court (SC), under the Chief Justice’s leadership, that the NATIONL DiviNaguma Bill, which cuts across Provincial boundaries, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL”.
Absolutely right. We agree !
I wonder just WHY the SC ruled the DiviNeguma Bill as Unconstitutional ? Is it ?
———–
As far as I know the 13-A can be removed in two ways :
(1) 2/3rds majority vote in Parliament.
(2) Referendum by the People of Lanka.
Am I right here ?
November 2nd, 2012 at 12:47 pm
I don’t know but from what I understand The Suipreme court had not decided against the Bill
But refered it back to the Parliament informing that the Parliament could decide on it.
But it would have been more appropriate if a judgment had been given. I do not see the reason why the SC could not take a decision. It is true that the Judiciary should be independent, but it should know where to draw the line. If a Bill is progressive and beneficial to the country and the people they should go all out to find a loop hole in the law to make a favourable decision.
If the Bill had been approved by eight out of nine Provinces, and if the North for want of a PC the Governor has signed it , there is no reason for the SC to go against it. It cannot deprive the rest of the provinces the benefit of the Bill, if it considers that it is against the law to take a decision as the Bill was signed by the Governor of the North in the absence of a PC.
The Courts have to interpret the law and for that it could extend an interpretation covering what is not written. These are what becomes precedents in law. And the Courts the world over resort to these procedures. If the SC in Sri Lanka did not do it there is some thing wrong with our Courts. May be the Chief Justice was then prejudiced against the government because of an attack on a Judge, and refused to make a judicial pronouncement on an important bill.
November 2nd, 2012 at 1:18 pm
As we discuss this further and further, it appears to us that this woman is making mockery of the constitution. She is not an expert in constitutional law. She is not educated enough in constitutional law to understand the fine details of responsibilities of a unitary state in constitutional terms.
A unitary state is a sovereign state governed as one single unit in which the central government is supreme and any administrative divisions (sub national units) exercise only powers that their central government chooses to delegate. Many states in the world have a unitary system of government. Further, the devolved governments cannot challenge the constitutionality of acts of Parliament, and the powers of the devolved governments can be revoked or reduced by the central government. In a unitary state, sub national units are created and abolished and their powers may be broadened and narrowed, by the central government. Although political power in unitary states may be delegated through devolution to local government by statute, the central government remains supreme; it may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail their powers.
There may be some unknown influence forcing this woman to deliver such contradictory and conflicting judgement knowing pretty well that once a judgement is delivered, it will become the law of the land. Dear Friend, this is a serious problem. She is planning for a fragmented central government authority and central government is not supreme any more. Separate state is already in making.
Here we have an unfortunate judgment from the chief justice who interprets the constitution to emphasise that the central government is powerless to take Devinaguma development project without approval from the regional governments. Even under federal constitution this should not be the case.
Many countries have created autonomous regions by delegating powers from the central government to governments at a subnational level, such as a regional, local, or state level. Based on a broad definition of a basic political system, there are two or more levels of government that exist within an established territory and govern through common institutions with overlapping or shared powers as prescribed by a constitution or other law.
The United Kingdom is an example of a unitary state. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland which, along with England are the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom, have a degree of autonomous devolved power – the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament in Scotland, the Welsh Government and National Assembly for Wales in Wales, and the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly in Northern Ireland. But such devolved power is only delegated by Britain’s central government, more specifically by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which is supreme under the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. Further, the devolved governments cannot challenge the constitutionality of acts of Parliament, and the powers of the devolved governments can be revoked or reduced by the central government (the Parliament with a government comprising the Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister). For example, the Northern Ireland Assembly has been suspended four times, with its powers reverting to the central government’s Northern Ireland Office.
However, the Federalism is a political system in which the powers are divided between the central government and numerous regional governments. There is a written constitution which formulates this power sharing arrangement between the state and its units. These units referred to as the provincial or regional governments have the power to act independently in certain areas of governance. For example in the USA, the local governments have exclusive powers to issue licenses, provide for public health, conduct elections and form local governments, look after the intrastate trade, etc.
Throughout U.S. history, the division of power between the federal government and state governments has been the subject of continuous political and legal battles. After suffering from the British government’s political and economic tyrannical policies applied to the American colonies that eventually led to the American Revolution (1775783), many Americans greatly distrusted centralized governmental powers. As a result, when the Continental Congress drew up the Articles of Confederation in 1781, the new central government was assigned few powers. The central government had little authority over commerce, no court system, and no power to tax. The states were essentially a loose union of sovereign (politically independent) governments, each free to regulate commerce as it saw fit, make money, and have their state courts hold judgement over national laws.
It soon became apparent to many Americans that such a fragmented governmental structure based almost solely on state powers would greatly hold back political and economic growth of the young nation. So, in 1787 a Constitutional Convention was called to restructure the government and create a national economy. Debates raged between federalists, those supporting a strong central government as proposed in a Virginia plan, and anti-federalists supporting continued strong state governments as proposed in a New Jersey plan which greatly resembled the Articles of Confederation. Finally, a compromise, known as the Great Compromise, was struck deciding on federalism as the basis for the governmental structure. Federalism is a dual (split in two) system of sovereignty, splitting power between a central government and various state governments. Both the federal and state governments can directly govern citizens through their own officials and laws. The resulting Constitution in recognizing the sovereignty of both federal and state governments gave to each some separate unique powers and some shared powers. Importantly, both the federal and state governments must agree to any changes to the Constitution.
November 2nd, 2012 at 1:32 pm
This episode is as amusing as the Malaka-Pradeep episode but has far more serious consequences.
What exactly were the seven charges? Were any of the MP’s signing the petition privy to such charges?
“Improper Behavior”? Isn’t that the norm of our erstwhile MP’s and Ministers? Do you see any one resigning or impeached?
SB was a political appointee as a “gift” when in 2010 August she presided over the petitions on the 18th Amendment that was shrouded in mystery and was publicly known that even the Cabinet of Ministers was not given time to study it, before giving consent.
She was happy to compromise her credibility and independence away, ridicule the independence of the Judiciary and insult the aspirations of the people in having an independent judiciary.
MR may not like her interpretation of the law and constitution as it stands (however it may have been imposed) but the Legislation.
Old saying- Sleep with the Dogs end up with..
Bring on the next gullible CJ
November 2nd, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Its true that we all should respect the jugements delivered by the SC or the Judiciary.But one thing has to be kept in mind, that is,NONE IS ABOVE THE LAW OF THE STATE.
So people make mistakes irrespective of their social positions.Similerly, the SC too has an obligation to APPLOGISE TO THE LEGISLATURE IF A SITUATION LIKE THAT HAS ARISEN AND POINTED BY THE LEGISLATURE.WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT,ALTHOUGH THE SPEAKER OF THE PARLIAMENT POINTED THIS,THE SC DID NOT TAKE ANY INITIATIVE TO SAY “SORRY”.
So, the SC is at fault as THEY THINK THEY ARE TOO BIG FOR THEIR SHOES!!
I can remember, during the height of the LTTE war, SOME RADICAL WANTED THE CHECK POINTS AROUND COLOMBO WANTED TO BE REMOVED,WHICH THE Govt OBLIDGED.
The judgement was given by Sarath Silva the famous WOMANISER!!!
November 2nd, 2012 at 2:27 pm
NMY
Who appointed her?
November 2nd, 2012 at 2:56 pm
There is no illegality in impeaching a Chief Justice, if his/her conduct affects the parliamentary procedures, and the protection of the people. Sarath de Silva should have been impeached as it was during the dangerous period of terrorism that he ordered the removal of road blocks.
Neelamahayodaya confuses the present issue though the history he recounts is interesting.
What is relevant at the moment is the impeachment of the CJ and the issue that prompted such action. CJ in the present case had not looked into all relevant issues with regard to the Bill. She may have gone on the fact that 13A is law therefore powers of PCs should be retained. She may have thought that the absence of a PC in the North was essential to pass the Divineguma Bill to make it part of the Law of the land. She may have been prompted by interested parties…or people who she may have thought as better qualified such as Sarath Silva for instance…perhaps…..
I think there was nothing against the Bill that could have prompted the SC not to make a favourable decision.
It is immaterial who appointed her. She is the CJ
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:00 pm
I meant :She may have thought that the presence of a PC in the North is essential to pass the Divineguma Bill to make it part of the Law of the land.
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Marco
In most of the countries the Chief Justice is appointed by the President, This is true in US. In India, in Philippines, in Singapore however in UK Lord Chief Justices are appointed by a special panel convened by the Judicial Appointments Commission. It is the constitutional responsibility of the president to appoint a Chief Justice and that does not mean that president should get the blame for every blunders the Chief Justice is making.
November 2nd, 2012 at 4:26 pm
NMY,
In US all judges are appointed by president, is it true ?
“There may be some unknown influence forcing this woman to deliver such contradictory and conflicting judgement knowing pretty well that once a judgement is delivered, it will become the law of the land. Dear Friend, this is a serious problem. She is planning for a fragmented central government authority and central government is not supreme any more. Separate state is already in making.”
Very true.
But this incident distracts all from 13 A issue and TNA issues.
WHY NOT GET RID OF IT BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE.
BAR ASSOCIATION is fully corrupted by UNPiers. UNP is trying everything using its friends of master betrayal lawyers and judges.
Scrapping of 13 A will get rid of all the excuses.
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Dham
Looks like this whole episode is masterminded by the reactionary force that is desperate for destabilising the unitary nature of the constitution. Abrogation or abolition of 13th amendment is not so easy task. International backers will get UNP with the help of TNA, Muslims, Trotskyites and Fonseka to fight against any proposal the government going to made. US ambassador has already made her illegitimate interference and poke her rotten fingers to Sri Lankan pie again and criticise the government for organising the impeachment against CJ. So you can see who is behind this. I am sure the US ambassador knows that Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, while trial by the parliament select committee is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. It has happened in US many times and it can happen anywhere in the world.
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:21 pm
NeelaMahaYoda said:
1. “The United Kingdom is an example of a unitary state. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland which, along with England are the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom, have a degree of autonomous devolved power – the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament in Scotland, the Welsh Government and National Assembly for Wales in Wales, and the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly in Northern Ireland.”
Yes, but is it not true that, despite formally being a unitary state, there is a movement NOW for Scotland to COMPLETELY BREAKAWAY from the UK as a Sovereign Nation? That could become a reality in the next five years.
Suffice it to say, that the GRADUAL EROSION of Central UK Government’s authority in Scotland in recent decades, beginning with the creation of an autonomous Scottish Parliament, and the DEVOLUTION of MORE & MORE POWER to the Scottish Parliament, has INEXORABLY led to the current situation of Scotland being poised to become an independent state. So why was this ALLOWED to happen by the British?
Scotland’s impending breakaway would have been UNTHINKABLE and NOT TOLERATED in the past when Britain was threatened by foreign enemies on the European Continent (e.g., Spain in the time of Queen Elizabeth I, Republican France in Napoleon’s time, Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany in the WW I period, and finally Nazi Germany in the WW II period. ) Today, the UK does not feel that urgency regarding Europe, in the fond belief that all disagreements that led to conflict in the past are suppressed by the European Union. But clearly, the UK and other European countries feel threatened by distant enemies in Asia, and wage war whenever they feel threatened.
Given the disparity in knowledge and wealth between the West and their distant enemies in Asia, the only REAL THREAT to this HEGEMONY of the Western powers is that those countries may acquire Nuclear Weapons, thus achieving PARITY and some degree of INVULNERABILITY. That is at the CORE of their CURRENT drive against Iran and its allies, by every possible means, including as we shall soon see after the US Presidential Elections, WAR.
Sri Lanka, however, does not share the sense of security enjoyed by these Western powers. Quite the opposite is true for Sri Lanka; our historical threats from abroad are continuing unabated. The foreign threats against Sri Lanka, arising not only from Sri Lanka’s historical enemies from across the Palk Strait, but from distant neo-colonialists playing big power games in the Indian Ocean, abound.
GIVEN THAT REALITY, Sri Lanka cannot be complacent about its security, defer to Western powers enjoying overwhelming military superiority over their enemies, and DISMANTLE our CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, or DIMINISH its POWER & AUTHORITY by devolving power to UNREPENTANT OLD SEPARATISTS, and would-be NEW SEPARATISTS. That would amount bto SUICIDE.
Let us recall that the Victorious Allies, on the East and the West, carved up Germany and stationed vast armies for many decades in Europe to guarantee their own security. The NATO of today, has inherited that role in Europe, not only to keep enemies in Eastern Europe at bay, but also to keep warmongering regimes raising their heads again in NATO countries, like Germany.
As Britain did in the past, when it felt INSECURE and armed itself to the teeth, Sri Lanka must keep its defences STRONG. Among those defences, a STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT whose writ holds sway across ALL of Sri Lanka is KEY. That is ESSENTIAL to Sri Lanka’s survival for the FORESEEABLE future.
2. ” Throughout U.S. history, the division of power between the federal government and state governments has been the subject of continuous political and legal battles. After suffering from the British government’s political and economic tyrannical policies applied to the American colonies that eventually led to the American Revolution (1775-1783), many Americans greatly distrusted centralized governmental powers. As a result, when the Continental Congress drew up the Articles of Confederation in 1781, the new central government was assigned few powers. The central government had little authority over commerce, no court system, and no power to tax. The states were essentially a loose union of sovereign (politically independent) governments, each free to regulate commerce as it saw fit, make money, and have their state courts hold judgement over national laws.”
TRUE, but the US then was a new country that was created by the VOLUNTARY agreement of the original 13 colonies to come together to win their independence from Britain; it was not a nation that had any historical existence as a single nation. The 13 states had widely different economies and cultures; the north was engaged in shipping, trade, agriculture, and some manufacturing, while the south was almost entirely plantation-style agriculture relying on slave-labor. States rights were critical to the elite in each state, who wanted to preserve their privileges and position intact within their state. Without compromise and agreement to join together, the United States would not have been created. The continuing threat of invasion by European powers, primarily the British (which happened in 1812 when they burned Washington, DC) kept them together for common defense.
States rights came to a head 100 years later when the issue of Slavery and other Economic issues became bones of contention. The Economic issues included the desire of Northern industrialists to feed their mills with Southern products, rather than allowing them to export to more profitable foreign markets. The Southern States asserted, that as entities that joined the United States VOLUNTARILY, they had the right to secede from the Union to pursue a separate future.
Abraham Lincoln, and the Unionists felt that, the preceding 100 years of being joined together had transformed the country into one nation, with shared expectations and aspirations from ALL of the citizens of the country. He felt that two aggressive nations competing for the same resources of the East as well as the new frontier territories in the West would lead to interminable War as was then common in Europe. The Unionists felt it was their duty to preserve the country whole, and endow future Americans with the blessings of a peaceful, mighty, undivided nation.
Abraham Lincoln strongly felt that keeping the country whole was a duty that transcended abolishing slavery. He said: ” If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” He wrote this on August 22, 1862, just a few weeks before signing the Emancipation Proclamation, in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition. Officially he MUST save the Union above all else, personally he wanted to free all the slaves.
As you correctly state, the US Federal Government has gradually acquired more power and authority, that the Founding Fathers had not granted it, in response to PERCEIVED national needs, such as national defense, Economic security of citizens (New Deal, Social Security), Anti-trust laws to control monopolistic practices of banks, corporations, and the wealthy through breaking up monopolies (Standard. Oil, US Steel, AT&T, Banks etc etc), alleviating civil strife (Civil Rights Laws), regulating monetary policy (the Federal Banks), Education policy (US Dept. of Education), healthcare, consumer protection (FDA) etc etc. Imposition of the hated NATIONAL INCOME tax was central to funding this EXPANSION of Federal Government operations (See below).
Just as the United States responded to PERCEIVED National Needs by centralizing authority, Sri Lanka has EVERY RIGHT to respond to its needs in the SAME Areas by centralizing its power …. AS IT SEES FIT … according to its own WIT. That is the ESSENCE of SOVEREIGNTY.
The point I wish to make is that, although the States initially had SEPARATE Sovereign Rights, once they JOINED the Union, the the United States asserted that Citizens of the Country as a WHOLE gradually acquired RIGHTS that transcended the rights of the INDIVIDUAL States. For example, since declaring independence, they were able to move anywhere within the country, settle down, and exercise their rights at both the State and Federal levels. It is this principle of citizen’s rights on a NATIONAL LEVEL that Abraham Lincoln invoked to wage the US Civil War to defeat the Confederacy, and RETURN the SECEDING states to an undivided Union.
In Sri Lanka, which has historically existed as a single nation for millenia, despite internal divisions from time to time in response to foreign invasions, no Sovereign Rights, similar to those of the US States, can be claimed for the Provinces similar to that of the 13 Colonies
Therefore, any NEW LAW, such as the 13th Amendment, ILLEGALLY IMPOSED by a FOREIGN NATION to devolve power and separate rights to the Provinces. has no legal standing in the eyes of the SOVEREIGN people of ALL of Sri Lanka, who have lived together as one people for millenia, and acquired those SOVEREIGN rights as a single nation.
Let us also note in passing, that it is the very recognition of “States Rights” in the US that led to the SECESSION of those SEPARATIST States to form the Confederacy. Why should Sri Lanka place its neck within such a NOOSE held by SEPARATISTS? That would be LUNACY!
3. SLAVERY: As a peripheral issue, I would like to mention that one of the compromises made by the Founders of the United States was whether African American should enjoy the same rights as whites. Thomas Jefferson, who had a black mistress till he died, and many descendents today who trace their lineage to that union, could not specifically include wording in the Declaration of Independence, guaranteeing the inalienable rights, endowed by God to humans, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to African Americans. It was not possible to do so later in the Constitution, or even the Bill of Rights still later. African Americans, apparently, were not human enough … for another 100 years until the US Civil War that emancipated them in theory …. and then 100 years beyond that to be finally empowered in the 1960’s as a result of the Civil Rights Movement led, among others, by Rev. Martin Luther King. They were valuable property not to be easily given up!
That is one chapter in the DARK history of the US Champions of Democracy and Human Rights who dare to PREACH to Sri Lanka today. There are many other dark tales to tell another day, at a more propitious time.
4. Federal TAXATION: Perhaps the issue closest to the heart of all Americans is that of taxation. Given that British EXCISE taxes sparked the American Revolution, the Federal Govt did not impose a Federal INCOME tax until 1931, although income taxes were imposed briefly during the Civil War and the 1890s. The US Govt also collected tariffs on some imports, and States and local governments collected poll taxes on voters, and property taxes on real estate. The States and the federal government began taxing inheritances after 1900, while the states (but not the federal government) began collecting sales taxes in the 1930s.
November 2nd, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Have you noticed how Western Media say:
1. The “World Community” represented by US, UK, France and Canada are critical of Sri Lanka
2. Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan support Sri Lanka.
The second set is mentioned because they are the TARGETS of the first set of countries, either to be held responsible as barriers to progress, or demonized as terrorist ridden countries typical of those who support Sri Lanka.
In contrast, the “World Community” is always identified with the self-appointed “human rights and democracy” Champions of first set, representing only a VERY SMALL FRACTION of the people of this Earth, quite the opposite of the “World Community”!
Finally, note that the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of the 99 countries that spoke up in support of Sri Lanka are not mentioned, or listed by name, in any of these Western Media article.
We patriots at LankaWeb.com, should get hold of that voting list and publish it at LankaWeb, and at all other websites where we can submit it, to EXPOSE the HYPOCRISY of these Neo-Colonialist Wolves posturing in Democracy Sheepskins on the world stage.
November 3rd, 2012 at 12:38 am
I urge all to read Sri Lanka’s National Report on Human Rights submitted to the UPR hearings at the United Nations (Nov 1, 2012 – Nov 5, 2012), in its ENTIRETY.
I am copying below the Introductory Section I of that document, for your convenience.
In particular, I would like to draw your attention to Item #4 of that section on the safeguards embedded in Sri Lanka’s constitution for protecting Human Rights. Such safeguards are not a part of the original US Constitution, and were relegated to the Bill of Rights as a CORRECTION to the original Constitution.
It was possible for the framers of Sri Lanka’s Constitution to do so, in the light shed by earlier Constitutions of other countries, whereas the US Constitution needed to patch the holes in the original US Constitution with the Bill of Rights and various other Amendments.
This is why it is NOT NECESSARY to tack on a separate Bill of Rights to Sri Lanka’s Constitution as proposed by another Blogger at LankaWeb.com. ALL of the Safeguards in the US Bill of Rights are ALREADY embedded in EQUIVALENT FORM within the MAIN BODY of Sri Lanka’s current Constitution.
…………………………………….
Human Rights Council
Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review
Fourteenth session
Geneva, 22 October–5 November 2012
National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of
the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21*
Sri Lanka
I. Introduction
1. Sri Lanka is pleased to submit its national report for the 14th Session of the Working Group.1 As consistently maintained Sri Lanka considers the UPR to be the most appropriate forum at which human rights related matters pertaining to a country should be discussed, together with voluntary engagements under the human rights treaties and interactions with special procedures mechanisms. This is despite two unhelpful attempts to needlessly draw attention to the situation in Sri Lanka in the Council in 2009 and again this year. These ill-conceived, unwarranted, unnecessary and intrusive attempts did not result in any tangible benefits for the Sri Lankan people over and above what the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) set out to do and has been able to achieve for them. Sri Lanka regularly briefs the Council on gains made, challenges faced and future plans vis-à-vis the human rights situation in the country. Participation in the new interactive, collaborative and inclusive mechanism, the UPR, must be viewed as part of that ongoing effort.
2. Sri Lanka today is a stable, united and forward-looking country. Our polity has enjoyed being constitutionally governed and being part of a vibrant democracy for over 64 years as an independent nation. The nation has achieved peace and social tranquility by the military defeat of one of the worst manifestations of terrorism the world has seen in recent times – the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The humanitarian operation ensured for the people of the North and East their right to live in dignity and restored democratic freedoms. It also ensured for the rest of the country freedom from fear of terrorist attacks. Sri Lanka is now consolidating gains made in economic, political, social and cultural spheres and our potential for advancement has increased exponentially. Equity in economic development, eliminating regional disparities, and guaranteeing equality of opportunity for every Sri Lankan no matter where they live, their ethno-cultural background, the language spoken or religion professed, remain the national priority.
3. Sri Lanka‟s multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual and multi-cultural character which has been preserved in the face of conflict and terrorism, equips us to face the unique challenges and opportunities ahead.
4. Sri Lanka‟s Constitution gives pride of place to Fundamental Rights in Chapter III which provides exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to ensure expeditious legal remedy. Article 3 recognizes that the sovereignty of the people is inalienable and includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and franchise. Article 4 (d) casts a positive obligation on the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary to respect, secure and advance fundamental rights. The Constitution inter alia recognizes the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom from torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; right to equality, freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and punishment; prohibition against retro-operative penal legislation; freedom of speech, assembly, association, occupation and movement. The rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to freedom from torture are enshrined as absolute and non-derogable rights.
5. Sri Lanka accords the highest priority to active participation in the multilateral treaty framework relating to human rights and is party to seven core human rights treaties. The international Conventions subscribed to by Sri Lanka have been given effect to in accordance with the constitutional process through specific constitutional provision, the enactment of substantive legislation and through subsidiary legislative instruments. Sri Lanka also continues to actively engage with the OHCHR and an invitation was extended in 2011 to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit the country.
6. Despite nearly 30 years of conflict against terrorism, we successfully sustained the wellbeing of our people. This has been confirmed by the UNDP‟s Human Development Report (2011) which has given Sri Lanka a value of 0.691 in its human development index.2 This has been achieved by the consistent investment in public services such as health, education and the provision of economic opportunity, including the provision of public services and the payment of salaries to public servants, even in areas that were unlawfully occupied by the LTTE.
7. Notwithstanding their military defeat and being proscribed in 32 countries, the LTTE‟s international network and sympathizers continue to espouse the agenda of destabilization and separatism. Their attempts to misinform host governments, opinion makers including media and the Sri Lankan expatriate community by blatant falsehood, propaganda and misinformation, proceed unabated. Their financial and other links with international criminal organizations continue to pose a threat to Sri Lanka and the international community. The substantial resources they possess enable them to sustain a vicious campaign of disinformation, and destabilize peace efforts with a view to undermining the reconciliation process.
November 3rd, 2012 at 6:52 am
NMY
So the President was quite happy to appoint a person who is not an expert on Constitutional Law nor educated enough in constitutional law to understand the fine details of responsibilities of a unitary state in constitutional terms to the position of Chief Justice.
Have we not seen this before on Political Appointments? I can mention over a dozen cases where huge financial losses/blunders made by “non-expert” political appointees.
It remains to be seen if a “blunder”was indeed made by the CJ and what exactly was the “Improper Behavior” in her Official and Personal capacity.
Lets cut to the chase…