Devalued Dignitaries
Posted on December 24th, 2012

By Gomin Dayasri

 Constitutional croaks trumpet awesome sayings to mystify simple minds: Presidential Powers are Overwhelming? Parliament is Supreme? Judiciary is Independent? Sovereignty is with the People”¦Helpless People stuffed on sovereignty, blandly watched a horrid exchange of rapid fire by the Executive- Legislature- Judiciary. Bruised and bloodied”¦ with no soft hands.

  Dignitaries stand deservingly devalued and devastated for ungainly conduct; needlessly plunged the country to a horrid depth.

 J.R. Jayawardane predicted President’s omniscient was such, except on switching sex; all other gimmicks were on board. Present incumbent meekly tried to shunt the impeachment on an Opposition plea and pleads for an independent panel to seek advice on a conclusion foregone. Looking sheepishly slippery instead of being majestically regal, a baffled President gives a bewildering impression: could be a ploy to quell opposition than to swap positions. A good case badly presented.

 Is there apprehension, an irked Supreme Court may fix him with the blessings of the Election Commissioner on the eve of an election “”…” 17th Amendment worked anti-clockwise?  That’s a tricky doosra.

 Overpowering Presidency is stricken by parliamentary antics. Who is the conductor twirling the baton in this orchestrated political symphony engaged in a command performance?

 If the acceleration of “ƒ”¹…”due inquiry’ is to sync with the speedometers maintained at a Formula One Grand Prix, make a pit stop at a Parliamentary Select Committee rather than pitch for night races. A rush to reach judgment erased the notion of a fair trial and impacted the value addition to Supremacy of Parliament. Justice- delayed or hurried- is justice damned. Lack of due process could originate multiple attacks across seas. With cryptic comments on NGOs, who are acting foot loose looking for a regime change?

 Mourn for absence of stalwarts like Lalit Athulathmudali, Sarath Muttetuwegama and Anura Bandaranaike on Government and Opposition benches to give respectability and reliability to a committee on impeachment. They managed adroitly a menacing J.R. Jayewardane with aplomb by convincing him the need for a semblance of propriety.

 Furrowed eyebrows will be raised- if judges are seen in huddle frequently with lawyers. A suspicion of bias arises when such black coats appear in court before them or enlist their causes for adjudication? Judges must never be excessively obliged to lawyers since it unconsciously disturbs the appearance of judicial equilibrium in court. Need of a lawyer for service is irrelevant, if judicial paws are kept clean with detergent. Judges are entitled to be aggrieved parties if injustice is caused.     

 Standards are scrupulously exacting for judges on likelihood of bias to keep the judiciary hygienically anti-septic. It is more stringent than actual bias.

 Accepting/Disbursing favors are in the Forbidden City for dignitaries: they must artfully steer clear of troubled precincts.  

 Character of a judge is determined by surrounding circumstances like watching from a perch, a family member enjoy benefits, perks and perquisites of public office presented by political authority.

 Favor begets favors: avoidance to reach such terrain is easy, if the thirst is quenched. A safe distance is an essential pre-requisite from political authority forever subject to judicial surveillance. No need to be soft and/or hostile after events unfold, if aloofness is observed clinically. Unthinkingly mistakes are made due to lack of experience and wisdom that turn inauspiciously fatal when terminators are on the prowl.

 If there is an embarrassing favor on offer, cry loud and clear NO, unhesitatingly. Otherwise less heard on the independence of the judiciary is a comfort to the ear. A firm refusal sure puts an end to speculation: if any other allegations are made of favors accepted. Such is the way presumptions and counter presumptions operate in the public mind.

 Those vaulting over the bar through political largeness without being filtered through the judicial process sometimes lack judicial wisdom gained through wide experience. Naturally, they are not toilet-trained from a tender age.      

  Neville Samarakone, outstanding lawyer with immense experience vaulted to the prime position of Chief Justice on a political appointment in later life, advised by smart slick legal minds, fought his impeachment battle on his private turf with his lawyers in resplendent quiet dignity. He kept a distance away from his former brotherhood- the legal fraternity – that offered wholesome support. None  faulted him, as he did not choose to play to a gallery. Presumptions were unanimously in his favor because he acquired by conduct- the repute of a respected judge. There was no divided Bar.

 People are attracted to issues that concern them “”…”not those that attract the fiefdom of a President or Minister or Parliamentarian or Judge or Lawyer. Experience has taught that dignitaries struggle to preserve their habitats of power and make it look, as if, it is for a cause”¦ a cause, they try to make out, is for the People. Lets not fool our-selves; their cause is primarily intended in looking after them-selves!

 People have ingenious methods of interpreting the constitution and then voting according to their conscience “”…” a gauge more accurate than legal maxims lawyers and judges rely on.

 If sovereignty is with the People after the parliamentary debate on impeachment, President should refer it to the People to decide the issue at a Referendum. A process to expensive, eh! Otherwise who did what where and why”¦it goes on endlessly. Finality is needed to end this fiasco.

 Constitution enthralls people with empty clichƒÆ’†’©: much is meaningless fiction- [“Sovereignty is in the People and is inalienable“ “”…”Article 3]. Sovereignty bestowed on the people is like a God hovering above or a nullified Nirvana- an unseen unrevealed uncertainty? Here”¦They’re”¦Every-where”¦No- where?  People are placed on a high with hollow expectations.

 Though devilishly possessed of sovereignty not even a request can be made for a referendum. No calls are taken on sovereignty on any count. Yet, sovereignty is said to be exclusively with the people:  On paper, yes. Cannot be taken away from the people being “ƒ”¹…”inalienable’. The pocket is bare with nothing to steal? A tasteless constitutional mouthwash gargled down the throats of an unsuspecting nation.

 Come clean – sovereignty means sweet nothing- shows a zero decimal. People have no power including the power to prevent dignitaries from losing their dignity”¦a myth that has became a misnomer.

23 Responses to “Devalued Dignitaries”

  1. NeelaMahaYoda Says:

    Gomin you are too idealistic, you are talking about dignitaries, what dignitaries, you mean the person who has taken some financial gratitude for delivering a favourable court ruling on behalf of the financial organisation involved in the world’s worst pyramid scam. You must be joking, I can assure you if this happened in UK, you dignitary should be sitting in the Whitemoor high Security prison with other 450 inmates by now. In fact, the Chief Justice heard the Divi Neguma case and she gave the judgment in few weeks. But in the Golden Key depositors case, she set aside the repayment plan approved by the previous Bench and after hearing it for over three and a half years, the case was to be now referred to the Commercial High Court. Is this the type of judiciary would you like to have in Sri Lanka???? How about thousands of people who lost their life long savings and aren’t you bothered about them???.

  2. Kamal Says:

    Gomin, no thanks for your mumble jumble.
    We common mortals need answers to simple answers to simple questions like the following to make up our minds to decide whether the process of impeachment is worthwhile or not.

    Did she or did she not fiddle with Inland Revenue Returns?
    Did she or did she not get a benefit from a purchase of a house?
    Did she or did she not have an interest in the Golden Key case?
    Did she or did she not take the case over to from another Judge?
    Did she or did she not change the process of benefit to the litigants arranged by the earlier judges?
    Why did she withdraw suddenly from the case and transfer it to a different court after nearly 7 yrs?

    Did Neelakandan & Neelakandan appear for the LTTE cases earlier?
    Did Neelakandan & Neelakandan appear for the Golden Key case for the defence?

    Did she or did she not write a thesis on Division of Power?
    Did she or did she not allow that to be published in LTTE support webs?
    Did she or did she not have an interest in the same subject when she decided on Divinaguma Bill?
    Did she or did she not heed to the advice given to her on her appointment?
    Did she or did she not know that her appointment was challenged on similar grounds?
    Did she or did she not think that it was not wise to make judgements on such cases?

    Who is the authority who can make judgement on an errant Chief Justice, who becomes a litigant, whilst being the one who appoints the judges to the bench?

    In which country in the world is that practice is prevalent?

  3. Kit Athul Says:

    Sorry Gomin, you are in a glass house… So do not attempt to defend CJ. can you answer the above commemts? No!
    Un fortunately Sinhala have not understood what this Great Constitution JR put to together; because the Tamil Nadu Tamils started the disinformation campaign from the day the constitution was inaugurated. You have forgotton what Jawaharlal wanted to do (or do you? where is the constitution he wrote and gave to Thondaman) You have forgotton what Indira Gandhi wanted to do? You have forgotten what Rajiv Gandhi did. One that did not fly was what his daughter Priyanka wanted to do. Why bring JR into this debate because; only to repete “Switching Sex” Did he say this NO! It was created by a well organized set of Tamils. Just for your reference Very recent similar statement “When the Army questions former LTTE Female Terrorists, their reprodutive organes ceased to function.”

    Now, you are contradicting your own ststements. “Those Valuting over the judicial process”? Don’t you think CJ is doing this? Why did she walk out of the hearings? I do not know why judge Weeramantry was not brought in to your article? Where you could classify him as an out standing expert on constitution law? Let me give me my comments about this BRITISH COLONIAL RELIC At the time Judge Weeramantry lived It was a the British Colony, there nothing changed. (Read Charles Perera’s article “What the Hultsdof Black Coates don’t like is the change)”So the legal knowledge was a person who memorises the British System (Which never changed) and practiced it. How the Weeramantry Clown imagined; that he can PORT this knowledge to the present day and then present it to Late JR and advice him how Sri Lanka should go back to the British Colonial System. This Clown had many supporters (Tamils disguised as Sinhala) They talk about his intergrity, but that integrityy belongs to the bye gone era of British Empire. In my opinion this clown’s VISA on his passport should be nullified the same way Brain Senaviratn’s VISA was nullified and then he be deported to Australia the same way. This action will stop him from coming back and to spread disinformation again to discredit Mahinda Rajapkse, and to call him a dictator.

  4. mario_perera Says:


    Thank you for you very penetrative and insightful article, couched in the most elegant English. Reading it I was reminded of ‘The Hollow Men’ of T.S.Eliot: “We are the hollow men, We are the stuffed men, Leaning together
    Headpiece filled with straw. Alas! Our dried voices, when We whisper together, Are quiet and meaningless, As wind in dry grass”.

    Yes, the cat is out of the bag, but not the cat and the bag that Government stooges refer to, of SF’s invitation to Dr.S.B. No cat and no bag there, just still born rats; just twists of knaves to make traps for fools. Behind such insidious smoke screens, the real cat and the real bag are rendered invisible. To my mind, it is this issue that Mr. Dayasiri has brought to light…the truth that we are showing ourselves to be a ‘hollow nation’ – a hollow National Assembly filled .with hollow representatives, all sounding brass and tinkling cymbal in homage to a King now doing something akin to the seven veils dance of a male Salome.

    The debate on the impeachment has now exceeded the point of total sterility. Arguments adduced have been repeated and re-repeated ‘ad nauseam’, and still continue to be repeated, missing the point by astronomical miles. The Constitution, much vaunted, much revered has been shown to be nothing but the cheapest of whores, to be used and abused by the high and the lowly, now being devoid of an authoritative interpreter. When everything is said and done, I would wish to think that the people would still hold the judiciary as being its final interpreter, and not the ragger muffin, riffraff, the dregs of our society that mostly constitute the so called UTTARITA parliament.

    Yes the cat is out of the bag. What has been revealed is the connivance between the Executive (what we call the legislative is nothing but an arm of the Executive) and the judiciary to get the dirty work of the former done, and for which the latter is now paying the price. Just think of Sarath Silva’s judgment that turned members of parliament into jumpers sitting on jumper seats with their fingers on the eject buttons ready to be pressed to save their scalps, and the judgement on the 18th Amendment by the actual CJ. These were all nails in the coffin of the judiciary.

    The impeachment issue is now a sterile debate. The next scene which will unfold is the locking of horns in a head-on confrontation from which neither party, be it Executive (with its handmaid the legislative) and the judiciary will emerge unscathed.

    What is under scrutiny is not who did what and why, but an identity crisis of the nation awakening to the fact of its glorified hollowness, of the dance macabre it has been executing in a trance induced by pied pipers leading it to its doom.

    Mario Perera

  5. callistus Says:

    As I said previously, never trust a lawyer, and Gomin is no different. Gomin please answer Kamal’s questions.

  6. Leela Says:

    Gomin: Just like the other three commentators here, this time, I too have to drop you. Pity you said nothing about that unholy alliance that had lined up behind SF at the last presidential election have now openly elevated the CJ as their idol. Read the web and talk at least to some of them, you’ll see that they are blind for all wrong doing by their new heroine. They’ll say what she stole is peanuts compared to Rajapakses. Why?

    Instead of answering such mind boggling questions you talk of mambo jumbo. You should have elaborated on simple questions that Kamal asked. At least you should have explained us of the ‘natural justice’ that her lawyers claim as being denied to her, and on that ‘Latima’ they talk about. I am very disappointed.

  7. samaraweera Says:

    Gomin, Shiranie B had done things unbecoming of a CJ. 20 Golden Key depositors committed suicide and Shiranie gets Rs. 1.6 million for an apartment. With dignity and respect she should resign. Why don’t you write about these? The Opposition as usual is making a cat’s paw of her.


  8. Naram Says:


    THank you for the contribution. Surely this situation needs a more foreceful interjection.

    We all accept that in the world league we are a low income country with a relatively poor infrastructure, resources, still largely dependent on exporting cheap labour to oil rich nations to keep our Paliament, Judiciary and the Press functioning. Yet I had thought we had democratic institutuions of some value, after all our armed forces made a wonderful achievement to rid the country of the terrorist menace that was strangling the country for nearly 40 years.

    But this talk about the legal ruminations over golden key show what a backwardhole we are. We willhave another 30 years of trench warfare to clean up the country of this transparency international experts. If we look at the seedy decade of the financial whiz kids – likes of Bernard Madoff, Raj Rajaratnam are behind bars in US.

    Sri Lanka is still struggling to get the Golden Keys, Sakvithis behind bars.

    Surely the corruption of our own bewigged and the blackcoats are in a league of their own in squeezzing the rest with the added force of NGOs. The stench of corruption from the pinnacle of justice is overpowering. YOu will recall in Sri Lanka black coat was not a calling respectable in the old days; only the dregs took up the challenge of byhearting law books.

    The best lawyers money can buy that CJ hired are still talking the language of papal inquisitions instead of advising her to draft a resignation letter to make a dignified exit for a period behind bars.

  9. mjaya Says:

    Gomin, a lot of patriots respected you for your patriotic actions of the past. You should see the truth for what it is not try to defend your own kind.

    Also don’t forget that “your own kind” do not have the best reputation in town. They can lie through their teeth for money, suck the blood (money) out of clients like leeches and “prove” that a black cat is a white cat.

  10. Raj Says:

    I couldn’t believe Gomin wrote this. Once I respected him. What on earth has become of him. If people studied him recently they would have noticed a changing man. He seems to be oblivious to what happened over the 30 years of LTTE terror, and what happened since 2005.

  11. douglas Says:

    All of the above comments are worth considering in the light of the ongoing “circus” of the Impeachment. In short, all that indicate the “frustrations” of the general public as regards the present state of affairs of the country.

    Like Kamal, I too have a whole lot of questions; but to raise a few:-

    1. How, who and why Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was appointed CJ?
    2. Who recommended her to be appointed CJ? and why the “Appointing Authority” today regret taking that advice?
    3. Why when “Millions” of money flowing into Bank Accounts of CJ from “Foreign Country” was accepted by the Banks and not reported to the “Authorities” including the Central Bank? and why no investigation was initiated?
    4. Is this “Policy” of “silence” by the Authorities/Government applicable to rest of the citizens if and when their Bank Accounts are filled with money from foreign countries?
    5. Why the Banks were “silent” when transfers of money from account to account were taking place and from when did these transactions take place? and for how long?
    6.Why the Authorities/Government were silent when the properties belonging (as alleged) to a subject of a courts case being sold and changed hands with the involvement of the CJ? Will that “silence” be available to all other citizens?
    7. Were the “Authorities” ignorent of the fact that Mr. Pradeep Kariyawawam is the spouse of the CJ when he was appointed as the Chairman of the NSB? and that would be bad in “principle” for good governance?
    8. When the Chairman of NSB was involved in a “fraudenlant transaction” and brought to the notice of the “Appointing Authority” why was it “quietly convered” and decalared “that is how it should be done, after all he is ape miniha (our man)”?
    8. Why the HE The President now say “I was not in favour of Impeachment, I’am saddened by recent developments, I will appoint a committee”?

    There are so many questions, but unfortunately the space and time constraints have to be taken into consideration.

    In summation, I would say this is nothing but the result of ” USE AND ABUSE OF PEOPLE” by the “Authorities” for their own benefit.

  12. SenaD Says:

    We need answers to the questions that Kamal has raised above!

    So far, the CJ on her part has said only that she is not guilty. She left the proceedings voluntarily denying herself the opportunity she was given under the procedure to counter the charges. She and her team has resorted to a defence of sorts outside the PSC.

    Perhaps we will be able to get the answers when the PSC report is presented to the parliament for debate.

    The procedure that must be followed is whatever that existed at the time of the alleged offences. If they were modified or altered in any way that would be incorrect too.

    Any alteration(s) to the procedure for impeachment of a CJ should apply only to any future applications of them.

  13. SenaD Says:

    Douglas has raised some questions regarding some unethical or even illegal behaviour by the authorities.

    I know only that the CJ was appointed by the president. My answer to all the other questions that Douglas raised is ” I don’t know” not being prevy to insider information, though I too could come up with conjectures just as anybody else.

    Had the CJ acted totally honestly and conducted all her financial affairs completely honestly paying taxes due etc, not merely appearing to be correct in terms of the assets declarations and also stayed away from hearing cases where conflict of interest did exist, then only she would have been able to defend herself. Perhaps that may be why she left the PSC.

    The lesson to be learned, particularly by people in high positions is that, if you ever engage in any illegal or unethical behaviour you may (or may not) be hauled up by the authorities before a tribual to answer for those. Pleading that all these were the norm does not work when caught up in the process.

  14. Kit Athul Says:

    Douglas, your questionn 1 and 8 needs answres first. Where does HE MR stand? Speakers position is clear, but MR’s? Is he covering up some one close to him? Like every one else I had great respect for Gomin, and SL but they are Hultsdof Black Coates as Charles clearly defines in his article. Many NGOS and INGOS are involed in this. From the e-meils floting about I see that Penny less De Silva has gone to the Turkish Embassy and received fire arms. He has distributed them to Black Coates. He openly says if they are attacked by the police they will fight back! same scenario happend in Bangaladash and Pakistan. They some how controlled it.

  15. NeelaMahaYoda Says:

    Regarding questions raised by Douglas, some of the information about appointment of SB as CJ is already available on the internet. Ref

    According to wikipedia “Bandaranayake was appointed to the Supreme Court on 30 October 1996 by President Chandrika Kumaratunga.[4][6] She was the first female justice of the Supreme Court.[4] Bandaranayake had never served as a judge and she had never practiced law. Her appointment to the Supreme Court led to protests from lawyers and judges. Bandaranayake served as acting chief justice on several occasions. In 2011 President Mahinda Rajapaksa appointed Bandaranayake as Chief Justice, succeeding Asoka de Silva who retired on 17 May 2011. She took her oaths before President Rajapaksa on 18 May 2011.[4][6]”

    As SB has served as acting chief justice on several occasions and there were no corruption allegations against her prior to her appointment as CJ, the government cannot be blamed for selecting SB as CJ.

    As far as banking regulations are concerned, only Sri Lankans with legitimate foreign earnings can have accounts in foreign currencies. But if the person is domiciled in Sri Lanka, then all the internal transactions should be carried out in SLR except for instances where importation of foreign goods is involved. But, still, the high profile people can easily abuse these regulations using their own obscure loop holes.
    Then, there are no capital gain taxes in Sri Lanka and more than $250 billion of key source of income for Sri Lanka is coming from remittances from migrant workers and therefore, there are no legislation at the moment to monitor these money transactions . Some of the transactions certainly may involve in money laundering but apparently, we do not have anti money laundering legislation in Sri Lanka.

  16. Kit Athul Says:

    NMY, thanks, for the info. So it was not Mahinda Rajapkse who first appointed Bandaranayake as CJ. It is customary to apointed or promote the deputy. Now one can see where Chandrika Kumaratunga got the money to buy the Castle for her daughter. MR has overlooked this appointment. It is good that the process is pushing the constitution to the limits.

  17. Leela Says:

    Questions that douglas raised should certainly be inquired.

    But the crux of the matter now is the impeachment. The CJ said; she is not guilty for any of the 14 charges she is been accused of. But the PSC has found her guilty for three. I am sure, most simple Simons like to hear both sides and give the judgement themselves.

    People are not stupid. Asking for time and bringing irrelevant matters in to arguments is an aged of delaying tactic of losers. Many people must have paid ‘black coated sharks’ to buy time when they were losing court cases. If a suspect of misbehaviour is allowed to head the judiciary, people will lose all their respect to it. And that is bad for the country as well as the judiciary. Hence, this impeachment must be concluded this way or that way, soon. SB and backers or HRW can appeal to any International Court afterword on violation of her human rights.

  18. douglas Says:

    Thank you all who submitted valuable comments on my posting. I appreciate your in-put on the matters raised.

    However, I feel guilty for deviating from the main topic of Mr. Gomin Dayasri. Please read the paragraphs starting from “Furrowed eyebrows……….” to the end. I am sure you will understand what he is driving at. The people placed in authority have to set the standards high and maintain that bar at all times. They must not scumb to “give and take” policy. That is why Mr. Dayasri says: ” If there is a favour on offer, say loud and clear NO, unhesitatingly. Today very many in appointed authoritative positions are not doing it and also” prevented” from doing it. That is how the society has become so corrupted and unproductive. In my opinion,(as an example) even CJ Justice Banadaranayake should have said a “loud and clear NO” when her sposue was appointed to the high position of Cahairman of the NSB. He or she can be “ape miniha or nona”, but maintain the dignity of the position and if not allowed to function according to “conscience of honour” just say Good Bye. In like manner the “High Priest” in authority must not “cover up” even if that person is “ape miniha or nona”. That “Chinthanya” must be got rid of.

    So please do not discard people like Mr. Dayasri who cry loud to maintain these high standards and place them in the category of “Black Coat Gang”. Let them carry on “crack cocanuts” and even join the “Pathola Campaign” or “Dash Pots & Pans”. At least we must be fortunate to have a few who can stand to “fair play” and “justice”.

    Thank you.

  19. Kamal Says:

    You tried to take a swing at MR and failed miserably didn’t you.

  20. douglas Says:

    Kamal – No. No at all. Those words such as “ape miniha” “cover up” are not my words, but those belong to HE. I can at any time quote those because that came out from the very mouth of the HE. Has he todate disputed it. NO

    He, performing “hara-kiri” with such utterances in public, is his responsibility and he would bear the consequences. That “hat” belongs to him and let him wear it. (period)

  21. Kamal Says:


    You made it obvious.

  22. Leela Says:

    Nothing wrong criticizing HE and short comings of the government. We all must do it but constructively. However, it is not constructive to drag short comings by HE right now and more particularly to mix it up with the impeachment for this lady must be fired asap.

    I think the CJ is a double agent placed by the NGOs and their pay masters to divide this country through the law machine. So, Gomin should have talked about legality of evidence that proved CJ’s ‘misbehaviour’ and expose her fraud. See, how Wijedasa is doing his best to show ‘natural justice’ was denied to CJ. I am disappointed of Gomin.

  23. cassandra Says:

    Gomin Dayasiri,

    You have referred, among other things, to the foreshadowed appointment of an Independent Panel to review and report on the findings of the Parliamentary Select Committee dealing with the impeachment of the CJ.

    “To to seek advice on a conclusion foregone”, is what you have said about it but “to seek CONFIRMATION on a conclusion foregone” might have been a more apt way of putting it.

    One can hardly forget another Independent Panel which another VIP appointed not so long ago. Remember a gentleman named Ban Ki-Moon and the panel he appointed to advise him? It delivered to him exactly what he wanted it to do!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress