| by Ranga Jayasuriya
( December 30, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Last week, Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa,
the chairman of the much disputed Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) was at
pains to make his case. The PSC he chaired became a chicanery and his own
government is now entangled in a faceoff with the Judiciary, partly because the
PSC members of the government had been ever too eager to impeach the chief
justice, come hell or high water.
JVP MP Vijitha Herath said he would most likely comply if he is served
with a notice. Should the opposition comply with the Appeal Court ruling, the
much hyped speaker’s statement, which disregarded an earlier Court directive
would no longer be the unanimous position of Parliament.
Now the million dollar question is whether the government would accept
the Appeal Court ruling – or the Supreme Court ruling on three FR petitions
which challenged the impeachment.
It was only a week ago that the three member panel of judges of the
Appeal Court stated: “This Court is of the view that any steps taken in
furtherance of the findings and/or the decision contained in the report of the
2nd to the 8th Respondents marked P17 would be void if this Court after the
hearing of this application issues a writ of certiorari to quash the said
findings and/or the decision of the PSC. Therefore the relevant authorities
should advise themselves not to act in derogation of the rights of the
Petitioner until this application is heard and concluded, since any decision
disregarding these proceedings to alter the status quo may lead to a chaotic
situation.”
Would the government accept the Supreme Court ruling, if the Court
rules that the PSC is a nullity?
It is the question Anura Priyadarshana Yapa repeatedly evaded at the
media briefing. The front organisation that arranged the press briefing on
behalf of the government was rather misfittingly called ‘Peoples Movement for
Justice.’ Seated by the head table, to
Yapa’s right was another dubious personality, Rohitha Bogollagama, the former
foreign minister whose tenure was tainted by allegations of corruption,
including one that he used public funds amounting to a staggering Rs4.5 million
to throw a birthday bash for his daughter in the US.
However, unlike the Chief Justice
Dr. Shirani Bandarana- yake, Bogollagama, despite mounting allegations of abuse
of public funds served his full term, but he lost his seat in the General
Elections in 2010. Yapa was at pains to stress that the proceedings of PSC were
fair.
Following is an excerpt from his responses:
On why the CJ was not given
opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.
Actually, when charges were given to us we realised that actual charges
rest on documentary evidence. We have not called outsiders. We only want to
authenticate those sources. We have called the CEO of the bank (NDB), the
President’s Secretary, the Governor of the Central Bank, one Supreme Court
Judge Shirani Thilakawardene. There was no problem. That was the procedure of
Parliament and that was not a court house. We have used a system and we have
adopted it.
On why the government was
adamant on pushing ahead with the impeachment of the CJ without a fair trial.
Actually speaking, they left; if they had stayed on they could have
asked us to bring such and such people. They just left without staying. What
can we do? We did not ask them to go.
Are Standing Orders the law?
If the Supreme Court says the Standing Order 78 A is not law, would you accept
it?
In every country, proceedings in Parliament are considered as law. Even
in the Constitution – I cannot remember the exact phrase – it says Laws and
Standing Orders. I don’t want to answer your other question.
(When he was pressed again
with the same question...) If the Supreme Court says that the PSC is a nullity,
then what will happen?
Has it been determined yet. I don’t want to answer that. We all operate
within the limits of our boundaries.
Were the PSC members in a
panic situation? Is that why they hold separate media conferences?
There is no panic or chaos. Once the proceedings of the PSC were over,
it is necessary to answer the remarks made about it. There is no panic.
On the derogatory remarks made
at the chief justice at the PSC proceedings.
I read media reports about that. PSC did not talk to the chief justice.
Romesh de Silva, PC, (her counsel)
answered on behalf of the chief justice. There was a situation when we
tried to verify matters with him. The members raised questions and there had
been an argument. But nowhere during the sittings were any derogatory words
used. There are no records of such words in the PSC reports.
However, notwithstanding Anura Priyadarshana Yapa’s defence of the PSC,
Lakshman Kiriella, an opposition member of the committee has said that no
insults were recorded in line with the normal practice with regard to the
Hansard.
According to the parliamentary procedure, the remarks that are insulting
and offhand are expunged from the Hansard.
“We were at these sittings and we heard every word that was said. The
Chief Justice and her lawyers also heard every insulting remark,” he was quoted
as saying.
Sri Lanka is heading towards a bitter confrontation between the
Judiciary and the Legislature, which has now become the rubber stamp of the
executive. That was partly Yapa’s making. He was too eager to please his bosses
that he has finally given a nightmare to Mahinda Rajapaksa. Should the
government disregard the Judiciary rulings, and thereby flouting the Constitution,
it would do so at its own peril.
( Ranga Jayasuriya is the editor, Lakbima News, the Colombo based
weekly)
 Last week, Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, th...){kind=link}