KAMALIKA PIERIS
BAMBALAPITIYA
FLATS
The cabinet
has approved a multi-million dollar project to replace the Bambalapitiya Flats,
a significant landmark in Colombo, lying on very valuable land. A plan was,
floated in 2014 to redevelop the ten-acre land on which the Bambalapitiya flats
now stand. UTL Global Projects registered in Singapore made the proposal. A tripartite MOU was signed between UTL
Global Projects, Engineering Projects India and the National Housing
Development Authority for this project. The land belongs to the National
Housing Development Authority (NHDA). The
project did not materialize.
The project
was revived, when Yahapalana came in, on the recommendation of Housing and
Construction Minister Sajith Premadasa. The
Bambalapitiya redevelopment project was ‘a novel and complex project, the likes
of which had never been undertaken in this country’, he said.
Cabinet
approval was obtained and NHDA wrote to Global Project Pvt and Engineering
Projects India Pvt that the Cabinet had approved their joint proposal and they
should incorporate a company in Sri
Lanka for this project. Thereupon, a company called City Square Projects was
duly incorporated in Sri Lanka. A formal agreement was entered into between the
BOI and City Square Projects. Though Engineering Projects India was listed as a
partner in the agreement, the agreement was signed only by the directors of City Square.
In March
2017, on Cabinet approval, National Housing Development Authority signed an
agreement with City Square Projects, with the proviso that they had to bring
USD 10 million into the country within four to six weeks of signing the
agreement. Once the final project
documents are signed, the land on which the Bambalapitiya flats stand will be
transferred to City Square Projects on a
99-year lease.
Minister
Sajith Premadasa recommended in November 2016 that a gazette notification be
issued immediately to acquire the Bambalapitiya flats site under the
Condominium Management Authority law which provides for any condominium that is
over 40 years old to be acquired. He further recommended that the Bambalapitiya
flats be declared an ‘Urban development Site’ under Section 2 of the Urban
Development Projects (Special Provisions) Act No: 2 of 1980. This provision
disallows appeals to courts regarding the acquisition of property for
development projects.
C.A.Chandraprema
of the Island examined the
Bambalapitiya project agreement and alerted readers to its very serious
implications. He pointed out that the main investor, UTL Global Projects had been incorporated in Singapore only in
February 2011 and its owners are three
Indian nationals, Koorapati Premalatha Rani, Meena Pooja and Prashanth
Koorapati, members of one family.
They don’t
have any known background in construction or real estate development and are
not known to have the financial resources to be able to handle a project of
this nature either observed Chandraprema.
They definitely lack the financial standing to undertake a project of
this magnitude,
City Square
Projects is not a joint project of Global and Engineering Projects India. It is
owned by Global alone. Koorapati
confirmed in a letter to the Chairman of the Project Steering Committee of the
Bambalapitiya flats redevelopment project”, Ministry of Housing and
Construction, that City Square Projects
(Pvt) Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of UTL Global Projects Pte Ltd, through
its holding company Centennial Holdings” Singapore.
Global
Projects, is just three members of the
same family of Indian nationals, with no background in construction or real
estate development or the financial resources to be able to handle a project of
this nature, repeated Chandraprema. It is a family owned company with no
history worth talking about,
It is to a subsidiary wholly owned by them,
City Square, that the Bambalapitiya land
is to be transferred. They are going to
get 10 acres of the best land in Colombo on a 99-year lease without paying the
government any money. The government is going to give this
prime land, Bambalaptiya flats, to a company which does not have the financial
clout to be able to handle a project of this nature Chandraprema again observed. As a result, three Indian
nationals will hold a 99-year lease on ten acres of the best land in Colombo.
emphasized Chandraprema.
Global had misled the government into thinking that
they had brought in a large Indian government owned construction
conglomerate, Engineering Projects India
Ltd as their partner to finance and
build the project. BOI, the NHDA and even the tenants of the Bambalapitiya
flats appear to be under the impression that Engineering Projects India Ltd has
undertaken to invest 300 million USD in this project, said Chandraprema. That
is not so, he said.
Engineering Projects India Ltd, a state owned
entity in India, has extensive experience in construction and real estate and
solid financial backing. This company is already involved in water projects in
Vavuniya and Puttalam with the National Water Supply and Drainage Board. But
the company is not involved in this deal.
Since doubts had
been expressed, government of Sri Lanka asked for proof that Engineering
Projects was actually working with Global.
They asked, is Engineering Projects India Ltd actually in a consortium
with UTL Global Projects, if so where is the consortium agreement. There was no
consortium agreement with Global. Instead, Koorapati sent a
redacted version of the agreement between Engineering Projects India and City
Square to the Project Steering Committee, claiming that the rest of it was
‘highly confidential’.
The version
sent was a consortium agreement between City Square and Engineering Projects
India Ltd had been signed on 5 March 2016.Engineering Projects India will take
up equity in City Square Projects Pvt Ltd after applying for the required
permission from the government of India. Till then they will continue to
develop the project as a consortium.
Chandraprema pointed out that the dates on these letters show that Global
wrote to Engineering Projects India Ltd making the initial proposal only on the
day that they had applied to the BOI claiming that they were already in a
partnership with Engineering Projects India Ltd for redeveloping the Bambalapitiya flats. He also
pointed out that even if Engineering Projects India Ltd joins City Square
Projects later. That too means nothing. They have only a very limited role and
the three Indian nationals who own Global
will still be calling all the shots.
Chandraprema
observed that the document sent by Koorapati
did not say anything about the financial commitment of Engineering
Projects India Ltd to the project. This is a significant omission. The redacted
version of the consortium agreement simply states that Engineering Projects India Ltd
will ‘endeavour’ to find a third party to provide the working capital for the
project. That does not indicate a financial commitment.
The total
project is estimated to cost 500 Million USD. But, Koorapati’s letter to the
Project Steering Committee clearly indicates that they do not know where the
money for the project is going to come from, said Chandraprema. They have mentioned that the money will have
to be raised from third parties but no such third parties have been identified
.
Engineering
Projects India is a government owned business undertaking. It cannot invest any
money overseas without the approval of the Indian Cabinet and other agencies
such as the Reserve Bank of India. There
is no guarantee that Engineering Projects India Ltd will get the Indian
government’s permission for this project
If the Indian
government does not give Engineering Projects permission to go ahead with the
project they will drop out of it automatically. Then, three individuals, Koorapati
Premalatha Rani, Meena Pooja and Prashanth Koorapati who own Global Projects and City Square will be left holding a
99-year lease on 10 acres of land in Bambalapitiya without paying a cent to the
government, said Chandraprema.
Chandraprema also observed that there are
certain legal implications in the agreements signed. According to the
requirements of the BOI, both UTL Global Projects Pte Ltd and Engineering
Projects India Ltd should have been the joint owners of City Square Projects.
The BOI agreement that was signed on 22 June 2016 said that the project would
be a joint venture between UTL Global Projects Pte Ltd and Engineering Projects
India Ltd. The agreement between City
Square Projects (Pvt) Ltd and the NHDA is also based on the premise that UTL
Global Projects Pte Ltd and Engineering Projects India Ltd had jointly formed
City Square (Pvt.) Ltd.
However,
Engineering Projects India Ltd is not in a consortium with UTL Global
Projects and it is not part of City Square. This is a
clear violation of BOI rules. Global’s argument that even though Engineering
Projects India Ltd does not have a consortium agreement with Global, they do
have an agreement with City Square,
is also wrong. The consortium
agreement should be between UTL Global Projects Pte Ltd and Engineering
Projects India not between Engineering Projects India Ltd and City Square
(Pvt.) Ltd.
The government
has imposed the condition on City Square that within 4 to 6 weeks of signing
the agreement with the NHDA, they will have to bring in USD 10 million to the
country. This will not be difficult because City Square Projects (Pvt) Ltd will
be able to use that very agreement to obtain money by pledging the land as
collateral, said Chandraprema.
City Square
Projects Pvt Ltd has said that they have not pledged or mortgaged the land,
continued Chandraprema. They haven’t done so because the land has not been
transferred to them yet. But the moment the land is transferred to them, that
is exactly what is going to happen. Once
the land is transferred to City Square Projects Pvt Ltd, the land may be used as collateral to raise
the capital that UTL Global Projects Pte Ltd obviously lacks.
We have ‘incontrovertible proof’ that what
Global intends doing once they get their hands on the land is to mortgage it to
third parties, said Chandraprema. They
will do so without paying a cent to the government of Sri Lanka. A new group will
be left in possession of the Bambalapitiya land for 99 years and the residents
of the present Bambalapitiya flats and the government of Sri Lanka will be left
high and dry.
The residents of
the Bambalapitiya flats have voiced their strong opposition to the project and
point out that neither the government nor the developers have had transparent
discussions with them on the project. Minister Champika Ranawaka had filed a
Cabinet observation in 2016, stating that the financial credentials of the
developers did not appear to have been checked and that a proper feasibility
study of the project had not been carried out. There is still no feasibility
report for the project said Chandraprema in 2017.
Everything about these
project smacks of a giant scam said Chandraprema. There is something seriously
fishy in this whole business. Anyone can see from a mile away that this is not
a project that is ever going to be completed. The fact that the government has
not shown any interest in seeing the full agreement signed between City Square
and Engineering Projects shows that powerful figures in the government are in
on the deal. Such indifference on the part of the government can only be the
result of massive kickbacks.
The government of
Sri Lanka should reconsider this project.
Funding for the project should be available upfront before any approvals
are granted or the land handed over, said Chandraprema. All agreements entered
into by the BOI and the NHDA with UTL Global Projects Pte Ltd or its wholly
owned subsidiary City Square Projects (Pvt) Ltd should be suspended and
reviewed because they have clearly attempted to deceive the government of Sri
Lanka without disclosing material facts.
HAMBANTOTA
REFINERY
As this essay goes
to press, a second ‘Bambalapitiya flat’ issue
is taking place in Hambantota, where
the Yahapalana government has announced
in March 2019, the construction of a USD 4 billion oil refinery at Hambantota on 400acres of land, by Silver Park
International and the Omani government.
It was to be the biggest foreign investment in Sri Lanka since Independence.
This would provide 565 Sri Lankans direct employment and up to 185 jobs for
foreigners.
The original investment proposal was submitted
to the BOI in November 10, 2016, as a joint venture between Silver Park
International (Pvt) Ltd, Singapore, and the Ministry of Oil and Gas of the
Sultanate of Oman”. A Cabinet memorandum dated February 15 2019 reaffirms that
Silver Park International (Pte) Ltd of Singapore will hold 70 percent of shares
while 30 percent will be owned by the Ministry of Oil and Gas of Sultanate of
Oman”.
A
letter dated March 12 2019 from the BOI to Silver Park International in
Singapore also refers to an undertaking from Silver Park to set up a project
for 10 MMPTA Green Field oil refinery in Hambantota for export market in
collaboration with the Sultanate of Oman Ministry of Oil and Gas.
As soon as the deal was announced by the
government of Sri Lanka, Oman swiftly denied it had any part in the
multibillion dollar investment. Omani Government said it had not invested any
funds, nor agreed to invest any money so far on the project. That leaves Silver
Park, like Global, as the star of the
show. Thanks to the publicity, the identity of the investors have aroused local
interest.
Silver
Park International (Pte) Ltd was incorporated on June 15, 2017, in Singapore.
It was, therefore, set up several months after
the first investment proposal was submitted to the BOI in Sri Lanka. The directors
of Silver Park, like Global, are confined to one family. They are Jegath
Rakshagan Sundeep Anand, Jagathrakshakan Sri Nisha and Jagathrakshakan Anusuya.
They are the son, daughter and wife of S. Jagathrakshakan, a Tamilnadu
politician based in Chennai.
S. Jagathrakshakan has held positions as
Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting, Minister of State for New
and Renewable Energy and Minister of State for Commerce and Industry. He has been embroiled in several allegations.
It is widely reported that his personal wealth increased by 12 times in just
two years from INR 5.9 crore in 2009 to INR 70 crore in 2011. Media reports
said this was the highest percentage increase for assets among all ministers in
the central Cabinet during that period. Jagathrakshakan’s
name was also associated with the infamous Indian coal allocation scam too.
This
‘Silver Park’ family have incorporated two companies in Sri Lanka. These two
companies are Silver Park International (Pvt) Ltd and Silver Park Petroleum (Pvt)
Ltd. There are no Omani nationals or representatives in either company, reported Namini Wijedasa.
Silver Park International in Sri Lanka was set
up on September 10, 2018. Its directors are the same family, Jegath Rakshagan
Sundeep Anand, Jagathrakshakan Sri Nisha, Jagathrakshakan Anusuya plus a
fourth, Kunasingam Jasoharan of Mullaitivu.
The stated
objectives of this company are to carry
out the business of manufacturing, importing, exporting, distributorship,
intending, brokering, real estates, transportation and wholesale trade; to
participate in Government tenders in order to implement the same project and to
carry on bulk or wholesale trading activities; to operate as an investment
holding company; to act as an agent or representative to any other person or
companies; and to carry out any other business whatsoever the company may
decide at a directors’ meeting”.
Silver Park Petroleum” was formed on February
21,2019, six days after Development
Strategies and International Trade Minister Malik Samarawickrama submitted his
latest Cabinet paper on the subject. Its
directors are the same family, Sundeep
Anand, Sri Nisha, Kunasingham Jasoharan with a fourth, Dr T.A.G. Gunasekara. ‘Silver
Park Petroleum’” was created to build a
10 MMPTA (million metric tons per annum) petroleum refinery for exports at
Hambantota.
The foundation stone was laid for the new oil
refinery on 24.3.19 at Hambantota. The Omani Oil and Gas Minister who was
visiting Sri Lanka was also there. The
Omani Minister had met Prime Minister
Ranil Wickremesinghe at Temple Trees earlier on. The meeting at Temple Trees
was more in the nature of a courtesy call, a spokesman for the Prime Minister’s
office said.. No specifics
were discussed. This possible ‘scam’ has
been incorrectly compared to the
Volkswagen deal, it is nothing like the Volkswagen deal. It is like
the Bambalapitiya deal.
APPOINTMENT
OF HIGH COURT JUDGE KANNAN
Ramanathan
Kannan who had failed to get a position
as Magistrate was appointed a high court judge by the Yahapalana government,
over the heads of all the others on the list. Three legal bodies, the Judicial
Services Commission, the Judicial Service Association and the Bar Association
of Sri Lanka, reacted strongly to this appointment. They all said it was irregular. The senior-most judge
who should have been promoted was, D. L. A. Manaf, District Judge of Vavuniya. D.
L. A. Manaf was promoted to the High Court in March 2017.
Judicial Services
Commission (JSC) wrote to the President withdrawing its earlier recommendation
that Ramanathan Kannan be appointed a High Court Judge. JSC said that if the BASL had made ‘no proper
recommendation’ on the matter, the recommendation that the JSC had sent earlier
to the President had ‘no force or avail in law’.
Article
111(2) (a) of the Constitution stipulates that judges of the High Court can be
appointed by the president only on the recommendation of the Judicial Services
Commission. This retraction by the JSC therefore made Ramanathan Kannan’s
appointment as High Court Judge unconstitutional, said the media, but the JSC
did not expressly recommend that Kannan be removed from office.
The Secretary
to the President wrote to the Judicial Services Commission seeking a recommendation
for the removal of Kannan in terms of Article 111(2) (b) of the Constitution,
which provides for the dismissal of High Court judges by the President on the
recommendations of the JSC. But JSC did
not make such a recommendation. JSC
said it could intervene only when there is a complaint related to a
disciplinary matter. Critics however, observed that once the JSC retracted
their recommendation, he should have been removed by the President. However
this has not happened. Kannan l continued to be a High Court Judge.
Judicial Service
Association, (JSA), which represents the district judges and magistrates of Sri
Lanka, had met the Chief Justice, K Sri Pavan to discuss the Kannan matter and to inform him
of the concerns of the judicial officers of the minor judiciary. JSA requested the Chief Justice and other
members of the Judicial Service Commission to reconsider the appointment of
Ramanathan Kannan as High Court Judge. Appointing
a lawyer practicing at the unofficial bar over the heads of many senior judges
who had been serving for more than 16 years was a case of overlooking the
rights of the entire subordinate judiciary. A thing that has not happened in
recent history.
The JSA also requested the JSC to recommend to
the President the removal of Kannan in
terms of Article 111(2)(b) of the Constitution, since the said appointment was
made on the misrepresentation of facts. If
the need was to appoint a Tamil speaking High Court judge for the north and
east, the senior most candidate would be the District Judge of Vavuniya D. L.
A. Manaf. He is a highly qualified judge
with LLB and LLM degrees from the University of Colombo and has served as a
judge for 17 years .
Judicial Services
Association called a special General meeting to discuss the appointment and also the involvement of BASL,
in view of the fact that BASL has no say
in the appointment of judges. At the meeting JSA passed a unanimous resolution
objecting to the Kannan appointment and declaring it to be an interference with
the independence of the judiciary. They asked that the judge be removed and
that he be barred from functioning as a judge until he is removed.
The JSA adopted five resolutions seeking the removal
of Ramanathan Kannan from the position of High Court Judge. The first
resolution requested President Maithripala Sirisena to remove Ramanathan Kannan
from the position of High Court Judge as the appointment has no force or avail
in law. Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka
(BASL) have re-affirmed that the recommendation with regard to the appointment
of Kannan has no force or avail in law.
Second
resolution requested the JSC to recommend the President to remove Kannan from
the position of the High Court Judge. Third
resolution requested the JSC to consider not allowing Kannan to function as
High Court Judge till he is officially removed from the said position. The
fourth resolution stated that the independence of the judiciary has been
violated by the controversial appointment of Kannan and requested the President
and the JSC to restore and uphold the integrity and independence of the
judiciary.
The last
resolution requested the JSC to refrain from recommending nominations submitted
to them from the unofficial bar for appointing High Court Judges directly in
future. The appointment of Judges for High Court from unofficial Bar undermines
the knowledge, experience and sacrifices made by the District Judges and
Magistrates who work under immense pressures and difficulties for long periods
of time in difficult areas during their career.
The Bar Association came under the spotlight
over the Kannan matter. The Judicial Services Association informed
the Bar Association that the Chief Justice had told them that the
appointment had been made due to representations made to the President by the
unofficial bar. This request had then been communicated to the Judicial
Services Commission and the JSA had acceded to this request. The JSA stated that it had
checked with the Bar Association and was told that neither the Bar Council nor
the Executive Committee of the Sri Lanka Bar Association had anything to do
with it. Some elements in the Sri Lanka
Bar Association have misled the President and the Chief Justice.
The Bar Association
was also concerned. Their reputation was at stake. BASL appointed an expert
committee to look into the matter. The expert committee consisted of Upul
Jaysuriya, Ikram Mohamed, Romesh de Silva, Upali Gunaratna, Nihal Jayamanne,
Ajitha Athukorale, W.Dayaratna, Faiz Musthapha and K. Kanageeswaran.
Thereafter BASL held a meeting to
discuss the Kannan issue.
This committee
informed the Bar Association that it was
not possible to ask for Kannan’s removal as Kannan had not violated any conditions set out
in Article 111 (2) of the Constitution. If
the President was to remove Kannan without due cause, it would set a bad precedence.
Also a disciplinary committee would need to be appointed to investigate the Judge and his actions before any
recommendations for his removal are made. The BASL decided that since the BASL
did not recommend the appointment, they would now not intervene to either ask
for his removal or continuance.
BASL President,
U.R. de Silva, told reporters that the BASL did not approve of the appointment
of Kannan to the HC and that the former BASL President Alagaratnam had
recommended Kannan in his private capacity, using letterheads of the BASL and
that it was wrong to have done so. According to the BASL Constitution, the
President of the Association could not issue such letters without the knowledge
of the Executive Committee. BASL made it clear that this recommendation was not
made by the BASL. BASL has nothing to do with this. A few people from the BASL
acting on their own had gone to the President and asked that this appointment
be made.
What really happened is this, said Chandraprema. A political party
had first approached the Minister of Justice regarding the Kannan appointment
but he had refused to accommodate them on the grounds that political parties
have no role in the appointment of judges. Then this political party approached
the Bar Association. Some members of the Bar Association had then written to
the President and followed it up with a personal meeting as well. The
President, BASL then wrote to the JSC saying that the Bar Association would
like this person appointed to the High Court.
Presidential
Secretariat said that Geoffrey Alagaratnam had met the President twice to
canvass for Kannan’s appointment, not with members of the BASL Executive
Committee but with some outsiders. This was denied by Alagaratnam who told the
BASL that he did not meet the President. Alagaratnam also said that despite any canvassing he
(Alagaratnam) may have done to the President and to the Chief Justice on behalf
of Kannan, it was up to the CJ and the JSC to exercise ‘due diligence’ before
recommending Kannan to the President for appointment to the High Court.
President Maithripala Sirisena stated that he
had not made an arbitrary decision in this regard. He stated that this
appointment was made following a written request made by the Bar Association of
Sri Lanka (BASL). Mahinda
Rajapaksa said that in the nine years
that he was President, he had appointed only one Supreme Court judge from the
private bar and not a single member of the private bar had been appointed to
either the Court of Appeal or the High Court by his government.
The Bar
Association is now a highly politicized body with a UNP parliamentarian once
functioning as its President, said Chandraprema. BASL President played a major
role in the regime change project of 2015 and was given a top political
appointment the moment the government changed.
Yahapalana was ready to give further powers as a reward for the role
played by many lawyers in the regime change project of January 2015. These lawyers knew exactly what power they
wanted, it was the right to appoint judges. A group within the BASL, seeing
that Yahapalana was under obligation to them, exerted
this power straightaway. It is they who nominated Kannan, said Chandraprema. Kannan
is obviously being backed by an influential lobby, said Hemantha
Warnakulasuriya.
Alagaratnam just
before he stepped down from the position of President of the BASL, had written
a letter to the new Chief Justice Priyasath Dep saying that
the BASL has ‘every right’ to make recommendations to the President to appoint
eminent members of the bar for judicial appointments and called on the President
to consider the recommendations made by the BASL for appointments to the
judiciary from time to time.
Unfortunately, there
was no provision in the law to enable the Bar Association to make such
recommendations. Therefore, the first draft of the 19th Amendment contained a
provision that the Constitutional Council would have to consult the Chief
Justice and the Bar Association in making appointments to the Supreme Court and
the Court of Appeal. This was shot down by the Joint Opposition but re-
appeared in the draft prepared by Constitutional reform committee , which gave the Bar Association a role in the
appointment of judges to the superior courts.
. Lawyers for Democracy” in a statement issued in 2017, justified the appointment of Ramanathan Kannan
as a High Court Judge .There have been several appointments of private
practitioners to the High Court from 1974 onwards, one of the recent
appointments being that of Paramarajah
during Chief Justice Sarath Silva’s tenure of office. One of the reasons being
the lack of Tamil-speaking judges .
In our view,
when appointing a practicing lawyer to the higher judiciary, views should be
obtained only from the President of the Bar Association and not from its committees
such as the Bar Council or the Executive Committee. If the whole Bar Council or
the Executive Committee is involved there will be canvassing and open debate,
compromising the nominee’s independence. The practice has always been for the
President of the Bar Association to make such recommendations, whenever
suitable candidates are proposed.”The statement was Signed Lal Wijenayaka, K.S. Ratnavale and JC
Weliamuna, on behalf of Lawyers for Democracy.
Hemantha Warnakulasuriya
responded. The appointment that was made when Sarath Silva was the CJ was in 2007 when the High Court judge in
Jaffna retired and no other Tamil speaking judge was willing to go there out of
fear, he said. Then Sarath Silva went to Jaffna, and appointed S.
Paramarajah a highly respected senior lawyer as a High Court judge. The Jaffna
Bar Association and The BASL was not informed that such an appointment was
being made. Paramarajah was posted to the Eastern province and the Eastern
province High Court judge was posted to the North. That was a special
appointment made in difficult circumstances by the JSC so as to keep the Jaffna
courts functioning, said. (Island
3.3.17 p 10 )
You have to look
at all this from the point of view of the members of the judicial service.
Those who join the service as Magistrates serve in various difficult areas and
gradually get promoted. Their ultimate aim is to reach the superior courts,
after which they retire. That is their chosen career path. To deprive any one
of them of a justly earned promotion by appointing an outsider is a crime,
Warnakulasuriya added.
Judicial Services
Association said that Justice Minister Wijedasa Rajapakshe had told them that a
political party had wanted Kannan appointed a high court judge, suspicion
naturally centered on the Tamil National Alliance. TNA flatly denied
responsibility, but loudly supported Kannan. TNA but strongly opposed the JSA call to remove
Kannan. JSA’s
demand amounted to interference in the JSC. HC judge Kannan is still in office,
Sumanthiran said.
President
Sirisena had made the appointment following JSC recommendation in consultation
with the Attorney General. “Therefore, legally, the appointment is valid, said
M.A. Sumanthiran. Kannan’s appointment couldn’t be rescinded by
the President. The Constitution states
that once appointed a HC judge could be removed only on disciplinary grounds on
the basis of an inquiry carried out by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC)
and thereafter on a recommendation made to the President. We don’t see any reason to initiate a
disciplinary inquiry in respect of the new HC judge, said Sumanthiran.
Sumanthiran said
that appointments to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal as well as High Court
could be made from the judiciary, official bar and unofficial bar. He gave the example of appointment of C. G.
Weeramantry from the private bar to the Supreme Court, It is conveniently
forgotten that the Kannan appointment was made against the backdrop of a
shortage of Tamil speaking judges. Kannan’s
appointment was also supported by Tamil lawyers. There was an unusual number of
lawyers from Batticaloa at the BASL meeting, ready to defend Alagaratnam, observed
the media.
It is now admitted,
said analysts, that Kannan has been appointed as a judge of the High Court by
mistake. The former Chief Justice had
assumed that Alagaratnam was speaking on behalf of the BASL. We now have
a preposterous situation where a High Court appointment has been made without
the proper procedure being followed. That High Court judge has taken oaths and
is now functioning as a High Court Judge. He cannot be removed unless some
wrong doing is proved on his part.
The Bar
Association of Sri Lanka has no constitutional, legal or moral right to make
recommendations for the appointment of judges and that if the private bar
is given the power to recommend the appointment of judges, that would corrupt
the entire justice system with judges being dependent on the lawyers appearing
before them for promotions and appointments, said analysts.
If the judges of this country are going to be
dependent on the lawyers appearing before them for appointment and promotion,
they will be compelled to give them the
verdicts that they want and it will lead to unimaginable corruption in the
judiciary. If a member of the private bar is to be appointed to the judiciary
at all, it should never be done on the recommendation of that lawyer’s
colleagues.
Judges of the
Court of Appeal and the High Court are best appointed through promotion from
the lower judiciary or the Attorney General’s Department. Furthermore, if at
all a judge is being appointed from the private bar it is best that such
appointments be restricted to the Supreme Court. Kannan in the
mean time, continues as HC judge in
Jaffna. (Continued)