Editorial10th June 2001 |
News/Comment| Plus| Business| Sports| Mirror Magazine |
|
No. 8, Hunupitiya Cross Road, Colombo 2.
Crisis of conscienceSeveral legitimate questions have been raised about the train of events that culminated in the latest impasse that seems to bedevil this nation perpetually mired in political wrangling. One question is "who engineered the judicial exercise" which resulted in a Court order that effectively purports to place shackles on the Speaker? Who constituted the Bench in the hearing that ensued? What was the locus standi or the "legal status in court " of the petitioners? This last question is pertinent in consideration of the fact that Fundamental Rights which offers remedies against Administrative and Executive powers, had been invoked in a case which involves Parliament, which has legislative powers and none of the powers stated above. Another legitimate query, which has been raised, is why the long date of September 3rd was fixed for the next hearing. Then, there is also this nagging issue of why the Speaker's proxy for the Attorney General to represent him in court, was obtained long after the case was heard. The wise Judges have ruled on the merits of the case, that Parliament should be stayed from appointing a Select Committee to go into the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice. The antecedents of the issue notwithstanding, what has resulted from it is that the whole debate has now catapulted into the political and parliamentary arena. One cardinal political principle behind the doctrine of the separation of powers, is that one branch of government serves as an instrument of checks and balances for another. Therefore, courts have been seen as bulwarks against the omnipotence of runaway Parliaments. But, today, in practice, Parliament does not enjoy such runaway power, as a result of the inbuilt safeguards of the system of proportional representation though that is not a reason for Parliament to have unlimited powers. Unfortunately, the constitutional crisis precipitated this week where the courts are questioning the rights of Parliament, has been a result of an issue that arouses a justifiable suspicion over the bona fides of those involved in the whole contretemps. It has now fallen on the honourable the Speaker, who is the chief custodian of the rights of Parliament and its members to see the Nation through this impasse. In deciding, the Speaker needs to keep himself above the fray of party politics, which will enable him to hold the scales of justice evenly in making his order. The Speaker must act according to the Rule of Law and democracy. He must also decide according to his conscience. The Speaker is unfortunately hamstrung by the fact that this is an unprecedented issue, which therefore has left him with no previous precedence to follow. But he can call for the best legal advice available in the country, which is what he is doing. The only available precedence of such Parliament Judiciary clashes point towards a stalemate scenario. Where Parliament will do as they wish and courts will do the same in a mutual 'hands off' approach by both. He will no doubt be mindful that the Nation is watching his handling of the issues involved, which on the one hand affect the government of which his sister is President, and which is now defending a beleaguered Chief Justice. In this political backdrop, it is doubly imperative that whatever decision he makes should be dictated by his conscience and not by any other considerations. This would be the judicious thing to do, as he would be able to be comfortable in the notion that he did what was correct. As one who has read the works of Shakespeare, he would appreciate what the Bard intoned, " to thine own self be true." It does not matter thereafter which option he has favoured. |
|
|
Front Page| News/Comment| Editorial/Opinion| Plus| Business| Sports| Mirror Magazine Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to |