CJ FLEES PSC, WALKS OUT ON BOTH GOVT, OPPOSITION-Obstructionist attitude before PSC-Not even the first two charges responded to
Posted on December 6th, 2012

The Daily News

Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake fled the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) meeting in Parliament yesterday, not having responded to any of the impeachment charges against her. In effect she spurned the Constitution, and the entire Parliament (the total Legislative Branch) including the Opposition, by rejecting the all-party PSC which constituted government party MPs as well as opposition MPs from multiple parties, including the main-opposition UNP.

MP Range Bandara

Having on two previous occasions not responded to any of the charges pertaining to her, on the third occasion yesterday, she stated she has no ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”confidenceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ in the PSC process.

Sources say she was hedging responses to the charges from the day the impeachment motion was filed, and asked for time as a ploy to delay a pronouncement by the PSC.

The PSC hoped to conclude proceedings in one month, but this was impossible due to the erratic behaviour of the Chief Justice before it.

Though she was given a 20 day period of grace to file her answers, it was insisted that she provide responses to at least the first two charges today – – but at this point her lawyer Romesh de Silva said she has no confidence in the PSC and that she has not been provided relevant documents regarding the charges — even though all of the documents with regards to her accounts etc., had been provided.

After she staged the walk out, a spokesman for the PSC pointed out that the Committee would take action against her for violating the Constitution and walking out of the PSC hearings – – but will continue with the PSC sessions with the case being heard in absentia i.e.: without the Chief Justice being present.

CJƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s conduct under microscope once again:

Her ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”respondentsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”accusedƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, her supporters

*Getting Ven Sobitha to tie pirith nool insult to Judiciary

*Action, a slur on administration of justice

Independent observers were aghast at the conduct of Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayake in getting persons who have cases pending before the Supreme Court to speak and act on her behalf in respect of the impeachment motion brought against her.

They were particularly concerned about the conduct of the Chief Justice in getting Ven Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera who is a petitioner in a case (Ref No 5/2012) filed before the Supreme Court to invoke blessings on her by tying a pirith noola which they contend is a great insult to the judiciary.

These observers point out that suspects, defendents and respondents in cases filed before courts coming forward to bless and express support for Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake on the eve of her departure from the Courts Complex to appear before the PSC has brought total discredit to the independence of the Judiciary as well as levelled a great insult against the Judiciary.

They also added that this action is against the administration of Justice, norms of natural justice and morality.

A case filed against Sarath Fonseka by the Attorney General indicting him on 41 charges for keeping 10 army deserters not assigned to him after retirement will come up for hearing before Colombo High Court Judge Mrs. Kumudini Wickremasinghe. There are also cases filed against Parliamentarians such as Range Bandara due to be taken up for hearing shortly.

There are cases filed against several politicians, religious leaders and professionals who came to express solidarity and invoke blessings on the Chief Justiced on the eve of her departure to appear before the PSC hearings on December 4 and the appearance of these suspects, defendeats or respondents has been denounced by the public.

The Chief Justice shaking hands lands with these suspects, accused or respondents and expecting their support was damaging the independence and supremacy of the Judiciary.

8 Responses to “CJ FLEES PSC, WALKS OUT ON BOTH GOVT, OPPOSITION-Obstructionist attitude before PSC-Not even the first two charges responded to”

  1. Leela Says:

    There are 14 serious charges against the CJ. Through a different pretext though, Elmor Perera has been advising her not to attend the PSC from the very beginning. So, this walkout is of no surprise. Indeed it could have been the plan from the outset. By making the constitutionally appointed judges (PSC) of all impeachments the defendants (PSC members and the speaker), the CJ has designed a new route for herself to judge her case in increments through fellow judges whom she appoints.

    The first charge is; apartments the CJ bought for her sister domicile in Australia with her power of attorney is in the list of properties of a subsidiary company of the company that filed a fundamental rights case, where the CJ had taken over from another judge using her authority to judge and that is not right.

    The second charge is the way she earned the money to pay for the above property is not disclosed is also not right.

    Asking for more time to prove her innocence is a mindboggling for she should have known all facts related said two charges off by heart. She should have bank statement, remittances and etc in hand. So, why she wants six weeks to prepare for the case is rather a delaying tactic. Perhaps she too wanted to get ready for this case like all knowing and infamous politicians.

    Anyway, now the accused CJ has walked out with a ridiculous excuse; ‘a lack of faith in the process and reiterating that a fair trial was not possible under these conditions.’ the entire parliament should finish this off in one voice as soon as it could.

  2. callistus Says:

    When a monk ties a pirith nool on a female’s hand he is not supposed to touch the hand, but hands over the nool to a man to do the tie. Mr Sobitha is breaking the tradition.

  3. Ratanapala Says:

    Taking the “good example” set out by the CJ – can also other people who are deemed “equal before the law” do similarly and walk out of a court of justice feigning that they do not recognise courts ability to judge? Can she not realise that the case against her is one between the People of Sri Lanka and Shirani Bandaranayake?

    If the PSC is the legal constituted body to investigate a Chief Justice then she has to honour it. Since the CJ is held at a higher degree of trust and ideals than an ordinary Sri Lankan, the case against her is much more grave than if the same offence is committed by an ordinary citizen.

    The Sovereignty of the nation is with the people as it is the people who are deemed sovereign. It is they who have vested that power with the Peoples representatives who comprise the Legislature – the Parliament and the Executive – the President and his Cabinet. And it is the Executive who appoints the Supreme Court Judges and the Chief Justice. Once appointed they enjoy their rights and privileges unless they are deemed unfit to carry out their exalted duties of interpreting the Law of the Land without fear or favour.

    Although the Parliament and the Executive can be changed at an election by the power of the people, those who are appointed as Supreme Court Judges and the Chief Justice can hold on to those exalted positions for almost “life” unless they are deemed unfit or incapacitated to carryout those duties. They must be ideal citizens, and above reproach while they hold such high positions.

    Parliament has an obligation to ensure that during the period the officers and staff of the judiciary hold office, they are required to satisfy expected standards of ‘good behaviour’ to foster respect for the law and the judicial system. According to Article 107 of Sri Lanka’s Constitution the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and every other Judge of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal shall “hold office during good behaviour”, and as to what constitutes violation of “good behaviour” is determined by Parliament. The Constitution has also established that removal of any of the above officers shall be on “the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”.

    What has to be determined is whether the charges levelled against the Chief Justice if proven constitute a deviation from “Good Behaviour” as expected from a Chief Justice or not.

    The Chief Justice or those other similar personnel cannot hide behind the veil of the so called “Independence of the Judiciary” for they too are can be held to account for their behaviour whilst holding high office. Therefore CJ has no right to walk away from the PSC which is the legally constituted body to hear of her transgressions if any. Like any other citizen she too is accountable to the society in which she enjoys the privileges of high office.

  4. lingamAndy Says:

    the PSC is the legal constituted ? Are you sure ?
    Please can any legal professinal comments !

  5. jay-ran Says:

    I’ astrong Buddhist whobelieves in Buddhist Phylisophy and respect the Buddhist Priests very much.But I’m ASHAMED TO CALL SOBHITA UNNEHAY AS HEHAS VIOLATED THE BUDDHIST PRINCIPLES VERY MUCH RECENTLY.
    Sobhita unnemat was openly supporting Sarath Fonsekawho was and still is a TRAITOR!

  6. Raj Says:

    This site has been invaded by 6 or more LTTErs. You can calculate that easily by the thumbs ups and downs.

  7. Leela Says:

    colombotelegraph is full of LTTE terrorists, eelam aspirators, anti buddhists, ngo cahoots, pseudo democrats, brigade of green coloured spectacles and red blooded revolutionaries self-professed as ‘educated’.

    I write regular comments there to contest them. Many subscribers do not like me. They not only oppose me but attack me with smear, slur, filth and in every way they could. They even wanted to ban me from ‘their’ site. But the moderator there allow my comments through. Nothing is bared up to now. So, I cannot see why lankaweb should ban views of those who oppose its opinion here.

  8. Leela Says:

    In a letter to the speaker through her lawyers Neelakandan Neelakandan, the CJ has requested “… to differ any further action until an independent and impartial panel is appointed to inquire in to the alleged allegations.” Neelakandans even attached a copy of Chandrika’s aborted constitution that was burned by the UNP in 2000 to suggest a clause in it as a way to proceed.

    Which constitution the CJ thinks the members of Parliament have taken their oath of allegiance? If the answer is obvious, then why cite a rejected constitution or a one to be, when there is a one in force.

    If the CJ is allowed to adopt a rejected constitution, could it not be argued by others too that they too should be allowed to follow suit. After all we all are equal in front of the law, ain’t we?

    If such a change was allowed to CJ at PSC, every one of us too should have the right to call for similar changes at the Supreme Court and other courts when we are allegedly smeared by judges there or deem to be in trouble. Needless to say this country will be in a real mess then.

    Needless to say, I agree with Ratnapala.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2024 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress