Hulftsdorp Hill

28th June 1998

Supreme Court KO's findings against Paskaralingam

By Mudliyar

Bar condemns publication of news item

The Executive Committee of the Bar Association met on June 15 to decide what action it should take with regard to the news item in the Sunday Observer of June, 7 which some lawyers felt ridiculed the Judges of the High Court and was in high contempt of the Judiciary. The Executive Committee after deliberation decided to write to Aloy Ratnayake, President's Counsel -Chairman of the appointed Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd. and a govt. appointee.

ANCL are the publishers of the Sunday Observer. The Executive Committee, more prone to read the English language newspapers and consisting of a number of President's Counsels had overlooked a news item that appeared in the Silumina. They had also overlooked the news items which appeared in the Dinamina, which said that the whole country was watching what action the Chief Justice as Chairman of a judicial services commission would take against the Judges for their behaviour. The disciplinary control of High Court Judges and the minor Judiciary comes under the Judicial Service Commission. The Dinamina took the role of the Public Prosecutor and as its watchdog. Be that as it may, we must commend the Executive Committee for writing the following letter:

15 June 1998

Chairman

Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd

D. R. Wijewardene Mawatha

Colombo 10

Dear Sir,

The Executive Committee of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka view with great concern your news item under the headline ''Accused UNP politico at dinner with High Court Judge'' which appeared in your publication of the Sunday Observer of 7th June, 1998.

The news report, if correct, merits serious action against the persons concerned. The news report if incorrect unnecessarily causes serious slur on the judiciary of this country and therefore must be corrected at the earliest possible time.

In these circumstances the Executive Committee has directed me to request you to forward to the Executive Committee the names of the Judges concerned so that suitable action could be taken. Your early attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

Sgd: Romesh de Silva, P.C.

President

There was a deafening silence from the Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited. The Chairman was angry. He said he was not obliged to reply to the Bar Association, and he would reply to the Chief Justice of the country, He brought in the issue of the Bar Association elections where Mr. Aloy Ratnayake worked strenuously for Mr. A.K. Premadasa and it was his thinking that Mr. Romesh de Silva had an axe to grind with him for this reason. We understand that he has not communicated to the Chief Justice the information, which would permit the Chief Justice to start an inquiry against the Judges if these allegations are true.

We believe there is not an iota of truth in these allegations, which had been concocted by some official or a politico who was angry with the recent decisions which went against the Government. The manner in which the report was presented clearly shows a contempt for the independent Judges of the country.

The Associated Newspapers have in the past published such news items against Judges of this country. During the UNP regime the newspapers published a news item disparaging the integrity of the Judges of this country. It was Mr. S. Nadesan Q.C. who brought this matter to the notice of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court issued a rule against the Editor and the Publisher of ' Daily News'

The Executive Committee of The Bar Association issued the following statement but there was no reply from the Chairman of the Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd. ''This statement refers to the lead story in the ''Sunday Observer'' of 07.06.1998 under the headline ''accused UNP Politico at dinner with H.C. Judge''

This headline together with the news item and the innuendoes contained therein casts serious adverse aspersions on the Judiciary. In these circumstances, the Executive Committee of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka unreservedly condemns the publication of this news item.

We may add that the letter was faxed and hand delivered to the Chairman Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd on 15.06.1998. No reply we understand has been received, so far..

The S.C. quashes the finding of malpractices commission

The Supreme Court decided to quash the findings in the interim report of the Special Presidential Commission probing malpractices in public bodies The interim report consists of findings against Mr. Wijepala Mendis, M.P.and the Chief Opposition Whip, the late Mr. Chandra Bandara former Minister of Power & Energy, Mr. R. Paskaralingam, former Secretary to the Treasury and Mr. Akil Mohamed former Secretary to the Ministry of Power & Energy.

When this matter was taken up before the Supreme Court, Mr. Ranjith Abeysuriya, P.C. with Mr. D.S. Wijesinghe, P.C. appeared for Mr. Ramalingam Paskaralingam.

One of the most interesting matters that came up for argument was the submission made by Mr. Sarath M. Silva, P.C., the Attorney General. The certified copies issued by the Commission to the Respondent stated that Justice Ninian Jayasuriya, a member of the Commission, sat as a member on 21st, 22nd and 25th of November, 1996. But in fact Justice Jayasuriya was hospitalized on the 13th of November, 1996.

The Attorney General pointed out that the counter affidavits filed by the Petitioner did not correct the original mistake made by him in the affidavit and there was no express admission by Mr. Paskaralingam in his counter affidavit of the fact that Justice Jayasuriya had not participated in the public sittings of the Commission. It was stated by the Attorney General it was grave misconduct on the part of Paskaralingam and his lawyers to have not expressly admitted this position. Sarath N. Silva the Attorney General took offence that even the President's Counsel who appeared for Mr. Paskaralingam and the instructing Attorney who filed the papers did not think that it was necessary to make an express admission that Justice Jayasuriya did not participate in the proceedings as clearly stated in his affidavits.

It was offensive for the Counsel not to expressly admit this fact. It would be tantamount to challenging the affidavit of a sitting Judge in the Court Appeal held in high esteem by the members of the Bar and members of the Public. Sarath Silva moved that the application warrants a dismissal in limine . Justice Wijetunga in his well considered judgement found that due to submissions and the fact contained in paragraph 54 of the original affidavit, the lapse on the part of Mr. Paskaralingam cannot be considered an attempt to misrepresent facts to this Court, and found that on the face, of it was due to advertanance and refused the application in limine. Unlike in the application filed by Mr. Sirisena Cooray to quash the findings of the Lalith Athulathmudali Commission, and the subsequent application filed by Mr. Wijepala Mendis to quash the findings contained in the same interim report, the Supreme Court only limited leave, that is the only question the Supreme Court will consider was a question of law and not a question of fact. The question of law was 'does the non participation of Justice F.N.D. Jayasuriya render the interim report, one made without jurisdiction. Therefore the Supreme Court did not go into the question of facts. Both Justice A.S. Wijetunga and Justice D.P.S. Gunasekera held that the non participation of Justice F.N.D. Jayasuriya does render the interim report one made without jurisdiction. The Chief Justice G.P.S. de Silva decided that non participation of Justice Jayasuriya and his failure to place his signature does not render the interim report one made without jurisdiction.

The U. N. P and the Commissions

It is unfortunate that the Sub Committee appointed by the UNP Working Committee included Mr. Henry Jayamaha, Attorney-at-Law which went into the land transactions of Mr. Wijepala Mendis to suspend his party membership and made the decision public when Mr. Wijepala Mendis went before the Court of Appeal for the issuance of a Writ to quash the findings of the Commission. The Committee did not consider the additional evidence to find out whether Mr. Wijepala Mendis was in fact guilty of the alleged transaction, instead of which they read the findings of the Commission and stated that as the findings of the Commission were that he was guilty of the charges levelled against him, Mr. Wijepala Mendis was guilty of the same allegations. At the same time the UNP states publicly that it will not accept the findings of the Commissions. One wonders what the position of the UNP would be if one accepts the Commission reports of the Lalith Athulathmudali Commission, the Kobbekaduwa Commission and the Batalanda Commission. If a Committee accepts the findings of Commissions to suspend or cancel party membership purely on the findings of a Commission but not support in Parliament the motion to deprive the civic rights it would be tantamount to a travesty of justice.

Will a disciplinary Committee of the UNP accept the following findings of the Batalanda Commission and what action would the Working Committee of the UNP take to refute or accept the findings of the Commission which says,'"We are also of the view that President J. R. Jayawardena , Ranil Wickremesinghe, Ranjan Wijeratne DIG Kelaniya and SP. Kelaniya, are indirectly responsible for the establishment and maintenance of an illegal detention camp at Batalanda."The only consistent policy of the UNP with regard to Commissions, is its inconsistency.

Outside Politics

Editorial/Opinion Contents