Absolutely no
“law’s delay” in finding the chief justice guilty on an impeachment motion that
the movers signed but never read
In the case of
the proceedings against the Chief Justice Ms Shirani Bandaranayake s done with
such unholy haste and urgency not because of any apparent serious lapse on her
part but because she rubbed on the wrong side of a member of the Rajapaksa
dynasty, Basil Rajapaksa by a ruling thwarting their aspirations to control
rural development through a Bill with archaic provisions to replace provincial
councils and to do away with any prospect of any devolution of power to the
minorities through the 13th amendment to the constitution which was hitherto
bandied about so long to deceive the international community, especially India,
that sponsored it in 1987. In fact in his budget speech, Mahinda Rajapksa
revealing his hidden agenda revealed: "A change in the prevailing
Provincial Council system is necessary to make devolution more meaningful to
our people....." our people meaning the Sinhalese. The change envisaged
would centralize power in the minister widely known as "ten percent"
and would have enabled him to make millions by way of commissions. Having
amassed immense wealth quite in disproportion to any other usual manner in a
climate of absolutely unparalleled corruption, unchallenged criminality and
absolute political power regarded invincible being compensation for having
defeated Tamil militancy, with the Sinhalese masses fed on racist anti Tamil
rhetoric, it has now become necessary to consolidate their political power,
their wealth and immunity by the elimination of the only remaining obstacle, an
independent judiciary, though of sorts.
As a
consequence, the chief justice has had to face the farcical impeachment
proceedings, a comedy of errors concluded with such expedition and unholy haste
marking the end of the last vestige of any semblance of democracy in Sri Lanka.
In this slapstick comedy the principal clown is not minister Mervyn Silva,
Weerawansa or Rambukwella but Mahinda Rajapaksa the president himself. Like the
devil citing scripture he goes about the country pontificating to the ignorant
masses, unfortunately the majority in Sri Lanka, that he will not brook any
dishonesty or corruption in any section of the services.
In the absence
of any dissenting voice completely muffled, the masses are constantly fed with
stories slandering Ms Bandaranayake coming up with fables provided by the state
media deifying the Rajapaksa clan. The document impeaching Bandaranayake was
signed in the blank by the nearly 115 government parliamentarians and the
subject matter inserted therein, subsequently, so that except those in the
Parliamentary select committee (PSC), none other had read the impeachment
notice before they signed it. They signed the blank document because they were
ordered to do so. Those in the Rajapaksa clan eligible to sign had advisedly
refrained from subscribing to the contents by not signing. Now in the face of
the opposition and Bandaranake's justifiable defiance, the President in his
characteristic fashion in wriggling out of this impasse says that he himself
has not read the contents of the impeachment and that a review should be held
to clear his own conscience, as if his conscience is of paramount consideration
in this whole episode. Perhaps, he wishes to have a good night's sleep at the
expense of that of those adversely affected. The whole episode is in fact not a
comedy but in fact a comic tragedy with Rajapaksa emerging like the proverbial
emperor once again with no clothes on.
Four opposition
members of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) delegated to hear this
matter had withdrawn. Some government members of the PSC, arising out of their
own feeling of inferiority had abused Bandaranayake, tantamount to sadism not
giving the respect that should at least be given to a woman not to mention the
head of the judiciary. She was not allowed the basic right of her lawyers cross
examining witnesses and the proceedings were not to be in the public domain
which forced her to walk out of the proceedings in disgust. Some witnesses were
in fact were examined after she had left the proceedings. The PSC having
examined the oral and written evidence against the Chief Justice Dr Shirani
Bandaranayake is said to have found her guilty of three out of the five charges
investigated among the 14 charges brought against her in the impeachment
motion.
President
Rajapaksa in the meantime getting cold feet is said to have contacted the
counsel for Bandaranayake to get her to resign and that he would give her
another job. We understand that Bandaranaike is not hankering after positions
especially one offered by Rajapaksa with her primary aim being vindicating her
stand.
We are not
claiming to be competent to pass judgment on Ms Bandaranayake's conduct but we
certainly take umbrage at the manner in which the head of the judiciary is
being treated and on undermining of the principles of the rule of law of which
she is custodian. In the very least the manner in which she is being treated is
a violation of her rights as a human being.
The constitutions
of 1972 and 1978 successively compelled the judicial officers to defend and
uphold the constitution quite contrary to judicial office and against judicial
conscience with executive action thereafter eroding the position of the chief
justice and the judges of the Supreme Court.
Further, every
day that Sarath Silva a former chief justice held office for 10 years from the
year 2000 to 2010, the office of the chief justice was undermined and degraded
on a daily basis. He publicly and unashamedly claimed that President Rajapaksa
owed his position to him in that Rajapaksa would not have become the President
of Sri Lanka being able to contest the 2005 Presidential election and come to
power if the Supreme Court bench headed by him had not cleared Mahinda
Rajapaksa of allegations of misappropriation of Tsunami funds. We have no
reason, whatsoever, to doubt his claim. Apparently he believes that he did a
favour to Mahinda Rajapaksa to be reciprocated. In the ensuing culture enabled
by the constitution of 1978 where the chief justice had to constantly act to
please the president at every turn believing that the Chief justice had to act
at their pleasure made the position of Bandaranayake quite unenviable and
untenable. Unfortunately this is the position that the concepts of the rule of
law and the separation of powers have descended to with no redemption in sight.
( The Writer, editor of the EelamNation)
( The Writer, editor of the EelamNation)
