Columns
Judiciary silenced; a dark chapter in Sri Lanka’s history
View(s):= Two CJs now: Shirani claims she still holds office but heavy force used to prevent her from entering court premises
= UNHRC chief issues scathing attack, Canada initiates moves that may get Lanka suspended from Commonwealth
By Our Political Editor
Clad in a purple blouse and black pants, Shirani Bandaranayake, who maintains she is still Chief Justice, was at the Arpico supermarket in Hyde Park last Sunday afternoon.
Together with her husband Pradeepa and son Shaveen, Ms. Bandaranayake was engaged in shopping of a different kind – buying up plastic crates and collecting large corrugated carton boxes. There was no security detail to protect her. Every now and then, she was accosted by well-wishers. Some shook her hands to wish her well and say how much they admired her. Others greeted her with clasped hands and a traditional bow. It was obviously with reverence to the office she held and for not succumbing to enormous pressure to quit. Except for a broad smile and a thank you, she remained tight lipped.
Ousted Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake leaving her official residence along with her son. Pic by Indika Handuwala
Returning to her official bungalow, right opposite the British High Commission at Bauddhaloka Mawatha-Wijerama Road intersection, the family broke rest till late into the night. They were packing their belongings into the crates and boxes. Only hours earlier, President Mahinda Rajapaksa had written to her that she was being removed from office. Two persons, one an official and another, an officer from the Presidential Security Division, dressed in suits turned up to deliver the letter last Sunday. So the next morning, (Monday) a national holiday on account of Thai Pongal, lorries of a house moving company were transporting personal belongings to her own residence at Lake Drive in Rajagiriya. It continued on Tuesday, an eventful day where there were a number of historic developments.
On Sunday evening, Rajapaksa placed his signature to a warrant appointing Mohan Peiris, legal advisor to the cabinet, as Chief Justice. He was sworn in on Monday, a holiday. Hence he was expected to assume office on Tuesday. This is perhaps the first time in the world that there are two Chief Justices, Shirani Bandaranayake, who took her oaths on May 17, 2011 and Mohan Peiris sworn in last Monday.
The official website of the Supreme Court (www.supremecourt.lk/) only gave a very brief biographical sketch of Peiris where some of the positions he held immediately before President Rajapaksa named him Chief Justice were left out. One such omission was the fact that he was Chairman of Seylan Bank, the flagship of the now beleaguered Ceylinco Group of companies. Perhaps inadvertently, the website also left out the name of Justice Eva Wanasundera from the list of Supreme Court Judges when it hurriedly included the name of Peiris to head the list. Even access to recent Supreme Court rulings remained blocked on Friday.
More than 600 police officers, some armed and contingents of soldiers carrying assault rifles, were deployed for duty in and around the superior courts complex in Hulftsdorp and the official bungalow of the Chief Justice at Bullers Road-Wijerama Road intersection. This is in addition to a posse of plainclothesmen that included those from state intelligence agencies being deployed in the two venues. Last Tuesday morning, the Government was not taking any chances of seeing two Chief Justices scurrying for one seat. So plans were in place to stop the older office holder and allow the newcomer. Armed police personnel stood guard at the entry and exit points to the Chief Justice’s office. Police conducted checks on vehicles entering the courts complex. All were under clear instructions not to let in Ms. Bandaranayake.
Cars of even judges were inspected with drivers being told to open their boot. Judges meekly complied. The Government was showing who the Boss is in this country. The main opposition UNP’s media communications manager, Mangala Samaraweera, told a news conference that the Suprem Court Marshal had given permission for the Police to undertake that “high handed act”. He alleged that he had not obtained prior approval of the Superior Courts Complex Management Board, a necessary requirement for such checks and other security measures within the courts complex. The Board is headed by the Chief Justice and comprises ten other members. Like the proverbial closing the stable doors after the horses have bolted, the UNP has become hyper active only after the impeachment resolution was passed in Parliament and Rajapaksa had chosen a new Chief Justice. Paradoxical enough, the UNP has become as much a casualty in the public eye as the Rajapaksa administration over the CJ impeachment issue.
Also on Tuesday, other events were playing out opposite the official bungalow of the Chief Justice. Ms. Bandaranayake had originally hoped to visit her office in Hulftsdorp, ahead of giving up her house, to hand over documents and receive confirmation from the Supreme Court Registrar that all state properties in her office were in place. She had wanted an inventory taken. Thereafter, she was to return to her bungalow, speak a few words to the media outside and depart for her private residence. A detailed statement on her behalf was to be released by her lawyers later that day. Plans changed after Ms. Bandaranayake received reports that she would not be allowed into the courts complex. Armed men were already in place with orders to use force if necessary to prevent her, she was told. One high ranking Police source said their men were under orders to prevent her entry and to deal sternly with lawyers and their supporters who would lodge protests. One senior officer told his men “Avashyanam Kalu Koat galavanna. Egollo okkama gahala pannanna” (remove their black coats, if necessary. Assault and chase all of them away). Such was the treatment to be meted out. UNP’s Mangala Samaraweera charged that “goons armed with poles” were also on the ready to act as an advance group. The Government, he charged, “has used the might of the armed forces and law enforcement to turn the Temple of Justice into a garrison so that it could safely place its desired Chief Justice on the chair.”
Media personnel had gathered outside the CJ’s official bungalow by Tuesday afternoon to hear Ms. Bandaranayake. Outside, lorries loaded with more belongings of the family were headed to Lake Drive. A naval rating arrived in uniform armed with a large sized envelope. He walked to the gate and spoke to a member of the household. Moments later, as he prepared to return with the letter, it came to light that he had by mistake brought the package to the bungalow still occupied by Ms. Banadaranayake. It was addressed to His Lordship Chief Justice Mohan Peiris. There were more humorous moments before Ms. Bandaranayake left the official bungalow. “You cannot have a news conference here. This is government property,” S.P. Ranagala, Superintendent of Police, Colombo South Division, told the media personnel. A journalist interjecte,d “How can the Golden Key depositors have a protest here and cook milk rice (kiribath). “You will have to ask the Police spokesperson that question. She (Ms. Bandarnayake) has to go,” replied Ranagala. Then he added, “She (Ms Bandaranayake) is now an ordinary citizen.” Another asked “Aren’t state officials allowed to stay for three months after they leave office? There are cases against even ministers for not vacating their official bungalows.” The senior police officer in charge of the area said, “We will cut water and electricity to the bungalow if she does not leave.” Just then, media personnel saw a person in plainclothes who was with a group wearing civilian attire walk towards a Police gazetted officer, standing to attention and speaking to him. He kept both hands adjacent to his body as he spoke confirming that groups of security personnel in plain clothes were present.
It was past 3.30 p.m. when Ms. Bandaranayake emerged in a red SUV driven by her son Shaveen. She was in the back seat whilst her husband Pradeepa sat in front. Journalists mobbed her vehicle as policemen tried to prevent them. A senior policeman said they could not allow her to speak. Media personnel shot back whether a citizen cannot speak anymore.
In brief remarks to the media, she said, “For sixteen years I worked strictly according to the law. I always thought of the good of my people. In the future also I will think of my people. I will stay with my loving people in the future as well. There is no change in that. I am innocent. I worked for sixteen years without taking one day’s leave. I did not take a single vehicle permit. I did not get the opportunity to thank any one. I did not get the chance. Thank You.”
One of her family members said that during her tenure as Chief Justice, Ms. Bandaranayake was entitled to three duty free vehicles at different periods of time during her tenure. However, she had chosen not to make use of them. Permits for import of duty free vehicles given to selected categories including Members of Parliament and Provincial Councillors is the commodity that is much in demand in the motor trade these days. Some importers of duty free vehicles have been able to raise anything between Rs 20 million and Rs 30 million rupees by selling their permits. If the “sale” was previously on open papers to circumvent a ban on such change of ownership, the Government has now legalised even the liberal sale of these permits.
By Tuesday evening, Ms. Bandaranayake issued a statement she was prevented from reading out. She asserted in the statement that she remains the Chief Justice. Her statement has been widely publicised. To place matters in context and for reasons of clarity, here is what she said:
“I am the 43rd Chief Justice of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. As the Chief Justice, I have an obligation and an unwavering duty towards the judges, lawyers and the citizens at large of my country. I stand here before you today having been unjustly persecuted, vilified and condemned. The treatment meted out to me in the past few weeks, was an ordeal no citizen let alone the Chief Justice of the Republic should be subjected to. The 32 years of continuous service at the University of Colombo and the Supreme Court, during my 54 year lifespan, I have rendered in varying capacities towards my motherland, is rewarded unfortunately, in this unjust manner.
“Though I was accused and arbitrarily convicted by the Parliamentary Select Committee, I have been vindicated in the bastions of the law. I take solace in the fact that, the due process and the rules of natural justice of which I was and continue to be an advocate and a firm believer, have been upheld by the superior courts of this country. The Supreme Court, acknowledged by the Hon. Speaker as having the sole and exclusive jurisdiction in interpreting matters relating to the Constitution, in its recent interpretation, unequivocally declared that the PSC and its proceedings therein were unconstitutional and illegal. Moreover, a Writ of Certiorari was issued by the Court of Appeal quashing the findings of the PSC. Therefore, the decisions of the PSC are ultra-vires, null and void and have no force or validity in law.
“In the circumstances, in my country which is a democracy, where the rule of law is the underlying threshold upon which basic liberties exist, I still am the duly appointed legitimate Chief Justice. It is not only the office of Chief Justice, but also the very independence of the judiciary, that has been usurped. The very tenor of rule of law, natural justice and judicial abeyance has not only been ousted, but brutally mutilated. I have suffered because I stood for an independent judiciary and withstood the pressures. It is the People who are supreme and the Constitution of the Republic recognises the rule of law and if that rule of law had prevailed, I would not have been punished unjustly.
“The accusations levelled against me are blatant lies. I am totally innocent of all charges and had there been a semblance of truth in any allegation, I would not have remained even for a moment in the august office of the Chief Justice. I can stand before you today as the Chief Justice, a citizen and a human being, purely because of that very innocence.
“Since it now appears that there might be violence if I remain in my official residence or my chambers I am compelled to move out of my official residence and chambers particularly because the violence is directed at innocent people including judges, lawyers and committed members of the public.
The 16 years I have spent in the Supreme Court have been dedicated to uphold the rights of the people in this country. I have always considered it my solemn duty to protect, to the best of my ability, the life and liberty of human beings and the rights of children and their education. I have always acted to that end. I thank all those who stood with me and the greater cause to fight for the independence of the judiciary.”
Two key elements in Ms. Bandaranayake’s assertion are significant. In one she says “I still am the duly appointed legitimate Chief Justice.” The other is her remarks that “it now appears that there might be violence if I remain in my official residence or my chambers.”
She adds that “I am compelled to move out of my official residence and chambers particularly because the violence is directed at innocent people including judges, lawyers and committed members of the public.”
She was, throughout, of the view that quitting office was not an option for her. By doing so, she felt, it would give credence to the Government’s claim that there were improprieties on her part. Her counsel pointed out repeatedly that the entire impeachment process was both unjust and unfair since no time was given to Ms. Bandaranayake to answer the accusations made. Nor was she told of the procedures the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) would follow. However, the decision not to seek a confrontation with any security arm or government official by remaining in her official residence or attending office was made on Tuesday afternoon. She had learnt of plans put into place by the Government and the likelihood of physical attacks on her, her loyalists and lawyers if there was resistance. Hence, her use of the words, “it now appears that there might be violence if I remain in my official residence or in my chambers.” Thus, she chose to adopt a non-violent approach whilst insisting that she still remains the Chief Justice.
As her statement was reverberating in Sri Lanka and world capitals, the Chief Justice appointed by President Rajapaksa had walked into his office in Hulftsdorp. A posse of policemen in an old Isuzu vehicle escorted a Mercedes Benz in which he travelled. Tighter security was in place. As there were lawyers protesting at the front gate to the Superior Court Complex, Peiris was driven in through the back gates. “An appropriate entry”, said a protesting lawyer, sarcastically.
At his office, Peiris was greeted by the Registrar and the Supreme Court staff. Also wishing him well were two Court of Appeal judges, Attorney General Palitha Fernando PC and some lawyers among whom were Razik Zarook PC who appeared for one of the intervenient petitioners in the nine references made by the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of the Constitution, Faizer Musthapha PC, Kuvera De Zoysa PC (both newly appointed), Chaturika Wijesinghe (wife of former Bar Association of Sri Lanka President late Bandula Wijesinghe).
The next day, the Registrar went from judges chamber to chamber saying that the new Chief Justice was inviting them for tea. Perplexed, unsure of what to do, the honourable Justices trooped in, from the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, one by one to the Chief Justice’s chamber for tea and kiribath with Peiris. There was no talk on official matters and there was a sense of unease all around. Justice Rohini Marasinghe broke the ice with a speech welcoming the newly appointed Chief Justice.
It was she who had last Sunday told President Rajapaksa that the judgment of the Court of Appeal declaring the Parliamentary Select Committee illegal was wrong when the President met the Appeal Court judges at ‘Temple Trees’. Her statement that many of the judges were opposed to the judgment drew an angry retort from the President of the Court, Justice S. Sri Skandarajah, who asked the judges, one by one, if it was so. Many said it was not the case, whereupon President Rajapaksa intervened to say that this was a matter for the Court and not for him.
With Rajapaksa swearing in a new Chief Justice, more measures are to follow in the coming weeks. That is to include the transfer of some members of the judiciary and the possible arrest of one of them. One of the first tasks of Chief Justice Peiris was to order the transfer of Manjula Tillekeratne, Secretary to the Judicial Service Commission. A replacement is to be named. He also cancelled the transfers of some judges of the lowers courts that were ordered by Ms. Bandaranayake.”
Moves to revise the Supreme Court determination and the Court of Appeal writ which ruled against the impeachment of Chief Justice Bandaranayake are also under consideration. It is likely that it would come in the form of an appeal by the Attorney General before the Court of Appeal. On the other hand, there were moves to resist the appointment of Peiris with cases against him to be filed in different courts. One was a writ of Mandamus on the Bribery and Corruption Commission to inquire into the complaint made against him there by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP).
Nowhere did the developments in Sri Lanka impact as strongly as it did in Canada. The country’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, said his country would “push for this latest troubling development to be addressed at the next meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CIMAG).” He called the impeachment process of the Chief Justice “highly politicised and lacking transparency and respect for the guarantees of due process and fair trial.”
Rick Roth, Press Secretary for Foreign Minister John Baird told the Sunday Times yesterday, “I can confirm our High Commissioner in the UK has asked the Secretary General of the Commonwealth to hold a special meeting on Sri Lanka, and the Minister has also written to the Secretary General with the same message.” The meeting is of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. The members of this group are Australia, Bangladesh, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Sierra Leone. The Maldives, which was also a member, remains suspended. Diplomatic sources say Canada will call for strong action against Sri Lanka including a possible suspension from membership for violating “the fundamental principles of the Commonwealth”.
This is whilst a top level team of officials from the United States will visit Sri Lanka beginning January 26. They are Vikram Singh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence; Jim Moore, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs and Jane Zimmerman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labour. Singh serves as the principal advisor to senior leadership within the US Department of Defence for all policy matters pertaining to development and implementation of defence strategies and plans in the South Asian region with the exception of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moore, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service with the rank of Minister Counsellor, was the Deputy Chief of Mission of the US Embassy in Colombo. Ms. Zimmerman, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, is responsible for South and Central Asia, the Western Hemisphere and International Religious Freedom in the Bureau of Democracy. Contrary to reports, Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary in the State Department for Central and South Asia will not be visiting Sri Lanka. He is currently awaiting agreement for nomination as the US Ambassador to Indonesia.
This is expected after tomorrow’s inauguration of President Barack Obama. The US team’s visit comes as moves intensified for a harsher resolution against Sri Lanka being presented at the UN Human Rights Council sessions that begin on February 25. A strongly worded second draft of such a resolution which also makes references to the ouster of Chief Justice Bandaranayke is now being circulated among some member countries.
In this backdrop, Rupert Colville, spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, issued the following statement this week: “The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay is deeply concerned that the impeachment and removal of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice has further eroded the rule of law in the country and could also set back efforts for accountability and reconciliation.
“The removal of the Chief Justice through a flawed process — which has been deemed unconstitutional by the highest courts of the land — is, in the High Commissioner’s view, gross interference in the independence of the judiciary and a calamitous setback for the rule of law in Sri Lanka.
“Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was served notice of her dismissal and removed from her chambers and official residence on Tuesday (15 January), in spite of a Supreme Court ruling that the parliamentary procedure to remove her violated the Constitution.
“Sri Lanka has a long history of abuse of executive power, and this latest step appears to strip away one of the last and most fundamental of the independent checks and balances, and should ring alarm bells for all Sri Lankans.
“The jurist sworn in by the President as the new Chief Justice on 15 January, the former Attorney-General and Legal Advisor to the Cabinet, Mr. Mohan Peiris, has been at the forefront of a number of government delegations to Geneva in recent years to vigorously defend the Sri Lankan government’s position before the Human Rights Council and other human rights mechanisms. This raises obvious concerns about his independence and impartiality, especially when handling allegations of serious human rights violations by the authorities.
“We are also concerned that the impeachment process has caused bitter divisions within Sri Lanka, and that it sends an ominous signal about the Government’s commitment to accountability and reconciliation. It flies in the face of the strong calls by the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission, and by leaders of Sri Lanka’s civil society and legal profession, to rebuild the rule of law which has been badly eroded by decades of conflict and human rights violations.
“Just this morning we have received alarming reports from the Independent Bar of Sri Lanka of a series of death threats, acts of intimidation and even a couple of reported murder attempts against lawyers who have been supporting Chief Justice Bandaranayake, and the rulings of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on her case.
“The High Commissioner will be issuing a report on Sri Lanka at the February-March session of the Human Rights Council, focusing on the engagement of UN mechanisms in support of the accountability and reconciliation processes.”
In making this statement, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has given a forewarning of the report she will present to the Council next month.
That her findings and conclusions are not going to be favourable to Sri Lanka is quite clear. Until this week, the Government has not finalised its delegation for the UNHRC sessions or decided who will head it. Last March, though President’s Human Rights Special Envoy, Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, led the Sri Lanka team, External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris was also on hand for the sessions. However, their strong lobbying failed to prevent the US-backed resolution from being adopted. This time, any delegation would face a formidable task to convince the Council that Sri Lanka has implemented the assurances given in last year’s resolution. Needless to say such a failure would draw a harsher resolution.
Complicating matters is an undertaking Sri Lanka gave the UNHRC some years ago (at a time when an impeachment motion was contemplated against then Chief Justice Sarath Silva) that Standing Orders of Parliament are subject to judicial review and that an inquiring committee (in this case the Parliamentary Select Committee) was subject to judicial scrutiny. In the impeachment of Bandaranayake, the Government took up a diametrically opposite position saying that they were not.
Whilst the two Chief Justices were busy last Tuesday, one insisting that she still holds office whilst another was ascending office, the same day, a Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) Provincial Council member Wasantha Samarasinghe, used a report in a London-based website to lodge a complaint against Chief Justice Mohan Peiris for alleged impropriety.
Samarasinghe, who is also President of the JVP backed Inter Company Employees Union, styling himself as Convenor of an Organisation ‘Voice Against Corruption’, said in a written complaint that “respondent Mr, Mohan Peiris, in 2008 appeared as the Senior Counsel in the case 360/2008 SC FR for the Royal Fernwood Porcelain Ltd.” The complaint adds:
“The Director General of Customs was also one of the respondents.
Mr. Mohan Peiris who appeared on behalf of the company on 10.11.2008 sought another date in this case on the basis that discussions are on with the Director General of Customs to resolve the issue without going for trial. Accordingly the former Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva postponed the case for 03.12.2008 to discuss a settlement and inform Courts. During this period Mr. Mohan Peiris was appointed as the Attorney General. After the appointment, the following events took place (according to the article in the said website). The Director General had mentioned that the amount due as the State cost in this case was Rs. 75,462,012
“The Attorney General who stopped appearing on behalf of the particular company had intervened as the Attorney General and told the Director General that the case could be settled by paying Rs 2,616,219. The communication was sent in writing. Accordingly I state that a lawyer who represented a petitioner taking undue advantage of a post given to him by the Government was illegal. I quote the following to establish this.
“It is a fundamental tenet of the legal profession that an Attorney-at-Law should not act for two opposing or conflicting sides to a legal dispute. Quite apart from the fact that it is moral common sense, the prohibition is expressly laid down in the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorney-at-Law) Rules of 1988. Rule 2 makes clear that ‘These Rules shall apply to every Attorney-at-Law admitted and enrolled by the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.’
“This includes Mr. Pieris. Therefore I state that Mr. Mohan Peiris fraudulently deprived Rs 72,845,793 to the state and benefited from it unlawfully. The Media has reported that Mr. Mohan Peiris is being appointed as the Chief Justice. Relevant extracts from Lankadeepa and the Daily Mirror. The pages are attached. Since the allegations come directly under the Bribery and Corruption Act, action should be taken immediately to investigate this matter and action initiated under criminal laws and the money due to the state should be recovered.
“I wish to seek permission to submit further documentation on this matter which is in the process of coming to us. I am urging the Commission to ;
a. To act to recover a sum of Rs 72,845,793 which has been deprived to the state in a fraudulent manner.
b. Grant permission to submit further documentation.
c. To initiate action against Mr. Mohan Peiris under criminal laws of the country.
d. Initiate action to inform the relevant authorities to suspend him as an Attorney-at-law as this was a violation of ethics in the legal profession.”
In Friday’s Daily FT, former Chief Justice Sarath Silva said that Bandaranayake cannot continue to hold on to the post of Chief Justice, but in the same breath added that Peiris was not a suitable person to hold the office of Chief Justice. He blamed the Government for taking a hasty decision and picking on the wrong man for the job. Peiris’ coziness with the Government and its high officials, and the government jobs he held were being held against him for a job that not only requires independence, but also appearing to be independent. Well-meaning persons had advised President Rajapaksa of not “falling from the frying pan into the fire”, but it was clear that with several members of the legal profession refusing to take up the post, in the circumstances, it had to fall on someone who was willing to do so.
In this backdrop, on Thursday, the official government spokesperson Minister Keheliya Rambukwella, announced that a 19th Amendment to the Constitution was now under consideration. Its aim, he told reporters during the weekly news briefing was to “strengthen Parliament.” He made clear that this amendment did not in any way relate to discussions now under way within the Government over the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. It deals with matters that have arisen after the impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. Here is a Q and A that followed:
Q: It is held that the Parliament is Supreme. What more is there to strengthen?
Rambukwella: That is the case in one area. There may be other areas where it needs to be strengthened. Therefore you need a careful study. This has to be done with the help of Constitutional experts, if the need arises.
Q: (not clear)
A: That was something which was discussed at length. The Speaker also gave an opinion. He has said certain amendments were needed.
Q: Only an amendment?
A: So far only a discussion has taken place. In a democratic country everybody has the right to express their views.
Q: Do you accept that it was a flawed system and that is why the amendments are necessary.
A: I don’t think so.
Minister Susil Premajayantha: The UNP General Secretary Tissa Attanayake held a news conference on Tuesday. He should answer some questions. He says the former CJ is still being accepted by them. He also says they do not agree with the manner in which the former CJ was removed and the new CJ was appointed. The opposition members accepted the PSC and they took part in it. The UNP and our party accepted this. Mr. John Amaratunge raised an issue in Parliament about notice being issued on the members of the PSC.
At that time Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe held that the ruling of Mr. (Anura) Bandaranaike should be upheld. The Speaker considered this one as well as related laws and said any notice issued would not be accepted. The current Speaker took the same stand as taken by Mr. Bandaranaike. The UNP accepted this position. Because it accepted this, it took part in the Select Committee. When Notice was issued for a second time too by courts it was not accepted by the UNP. They should have refused to take part in the Select Committee if it did not accept the position taken.
Minister Susil Premajayantha: The Parliamentary Select Committee process is over now. That was only about the Impeachment motion. It was only a report, but not a ruling.
Q: Mr. Mangala Samaraweera has blamed the government for the threats on lawyers and there are death threats to Mr. (J.C.) Weliamuna.
Minister Premajayantha: Even Minister Yapa had threats. We reject allegations made by Mangala Samaraweera in this regard. He was with us, he is good at creations.
Q: Legal action has been initiated against Mr. Mohan Peiris.
Minister Premajayantha: That we do not know. Any citizen can go to courts and file action. We too have seen it in the newspaper.
Q: The US State Department has said it was not satisfied with the explanation given by Minister G.L. Peiris to the diplomats about the CJ issue.
Minister Premajayantha: They can express their views. It is after a study that a view could be expressed on this. External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris as a professor in law has explained it according to our country’s Constitution. We act according to our Constitution.
The week’s historic events (almost) close the chapter on one of the darkest periods in Sri Lanka’s politics. The force of the police and the security forces, the new weapons they have acquired to fight a terrorist enemy now no more, have been used to keep away a Chief Justice from walking into her own office, not to sit and work, but to take away her personal belongings. For the same reason, hired goons have taken to clubs, poles and knuckle dusters. The same lethal force has been used to ensconce a new Chief Justice. Those who used their democratic right to express dissenting views and help throw light on gross injustice have become terrorists and traitors. They face intimidation and death threats. A judiciary has been silenced.
A new dark chapter begins now. If one is not deaf or dumb, the need to desist saying anything that displeases the ruling establishment, is the message. Otherwise, it would be invitation to disaster. That is Sri Lanka today, once a tranquil paradise isle and now the land of the might.
Follow @timesonlinelk
comments powered by Disqus