Fri, 31 Mar 2023 Today's Paper

Make it official –UNP tells MR

16 December 2012 08:48 am - 9     - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}


United National Party (UNP) today requested President Mahinda Rajapaksa to officially notify his decision to appoint an independent committee to review the decision made by the Parliamentary Select Committee against the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice.

UNP said the following in its statement which called President Rajapaksa to make this official notification to Parliament.

The Media on 14 December 2012 has reported a meeting between President Rajapaksa and the Newspaper Editors wherein the President has stated that he will have an independent inquiry after conclusion of the Parliamentary process.

The UNP wishes to make the following observations:

Parliament is responsible for inquiring into the matters stated in the Resolution under Article 107 against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. Therefore the President should inform Parliament and not the newspaper Editors of how he proposes to act in regard to the Resolution. Instead, he made this statement at a meeting of newspaper Editors. This is nothing more than a meeting called by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the Editor in Chief of the Republic President Mahinda Rajapaksa to give instructions to the Media. When the Government members of the now defunct Parliamentary Select Committee came in to the room the Media should have left the meeting. Instead, they proceeded to have breakfast with the President.

• Once a resolution is passed under Article 107, the President has no option but to remove the Judge in relation to whom the resolution has been passed. He has no discretion on the matter. If he does not, he has violated the constitution and has to be impeached under Article 38 (2) of the Constitution. Neither is there legal provision for the Parliament to hold an inquiry at that stage. The proposed inquiry is against the Latimer House Principles which envisages an inquiry before Parliament passes a Resolution.

After the 2003 Abuja Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference, countries such as the United Kingdom (Constitutional Reform Act 2005) and New Zealand (Judicial Conduct Commission and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004) brought in legislation to fall in line with the principles enunciated there.

In the United Kingdom and the United States of America where impeachment proceedings to remove judges originated, there are two Chambers. First, the House of Commons (UK) and the House of Representatives (USA) initiates the process and prepares the articles of impeachment The Second Chamber, the House of Lords (UK) and the US Senate then carry out the trial. Our Parliament is an uni-cameral Parliament, ie. it consists of one chamber. In 1984 there were two Select Committees on Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon. The first Select Committee went into the facts. The findings of the Select Committee were as follows:

“Your Committee is of opinion that although the statements referred to above may not bring the entire Supreme Court into disrepute, they are not befitting the holder of the Office of the Chief  Justice”

The Second Select Committee went into the question whether Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon’s conduct amounted to ‘misbehaviour’ under Article 107. They held;

“Every breach of convention does not necessarily amount to proved misbehaviour. The standard of proof required is very high. In all the circumstances of this case, while this Committee cannot but condemn this speech, we cannot come to the conclusion that the Hon. Chief Justice is guilty of proved misbehaviour

In this instance, there has only been one Select Committee which only accepted charges 1, 4, and 5 of the Resolution. The Select Committee has also admitted that they did not have the benefit of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake’s evidence. The Chief Justice withdrew from the Select Committee proceedings as they failed to follow proper procedure and adhere to Article 12 of the Constitution which guarantees equal treatment before the law to every citizen. In this background a Second Inquiry is necessary before a Resolution is presented to Parliament.

Standing Order 78A is silent on the procedure to be followed by the House after the Select Committee Report is tabled. The necessary legal provisions can be made if the Cabinet adopts as an urgent Bill the Private Members Bill titled “Removal of Judges of the Superior Courts” presented by Wijeyadasa Rajapaksa, MP. This can be passed in Parliament on 08 January 2013 without debate making way for the second inquiry.

Therefore President Rajapaksa and his Government must act within the law according to the Latimer House Principles and hold the inquiry as stated above.

  Comments - 9

  • Game Kolla Sunday, 16 December 2012 09:23 AM

    UNP and SLFPA are both two sides of the same coin. Leader of the UNP is keeping mum on this issue.

    Yuri Sunday, 16 December 2012 09:36 AM

    What will chance with these JUNTAs, untill then

    Imran Hussein Sunday, 16 December 2012 10:18 AM

    Come on UNP. tell this to someone who understands the procedures certainly not MR or Chamal.

    Andrew Pitugala Sunday, 16 December 2012 10:49 AM

    The question is not whether it is official but whether it would be a genuine effort for an honourable, transparent, totally independent and just inquiry.

    Mahela Monday, 17 December 2012 03:10 AM

    Both UNP and SLFPA and the communist party, all of their priority is the Parliament Pay check. So they are safe guarding it.That is all.

    Al Rasa Monday, 17 December 2012 05:32 AM

    PUH.... UNP has now become smarter to be concern over the independent commission which was a concession by the honorable act of President where as it is not necessary and bound. We remember the way all resolutions were passed
    by JR including impeachment of Sirimavo Bandaranayake.

    Calistus Jayatilleke Monday, 17 December 2012 08:56 AM

    No need for anyone to get excited with the President's intention to appoint an "independent" committee because first of all, in the current scenario where loyalty has a price, it is next to impossible to find any "independent" persons. I wont be surprised if this so called "independent" committee is headed by none other than "doctor" Mervyn Silva!

    Adil Monday, 17 December 2012 11:11 AM

    I wonder how independent the independent commission would be.

    Damma Deepa Monday, 17 December 2012 03:16 PM

    " Its nonsense, there is no Justice and pair-play in this country. Educated Citizens are antagonized. The so called Constitution is mire a dirty smelling cloth like Kurakkan Satakaya "

Add comment

Comments will be edited (grammar, spelling and slang) and authorized at the discretion of Daily Mirror online. The website also has the right not to publish selected comments.

Reply To:

Name - Reply Comment

Import of South Indian eggs: Sri Lanka walks on Indian eggshells

With the increase in egg prices the government decided to import eggs to regu

Wokeism: Is it destructive, or are you afraid of change? A response

In order to critically discuss a movement, we must first understand its etymo

Defeat in Ananthapuram Battle denoted the LTTE’s end

Many battles were fought during the long war between the Sri Lankan armed for

Wokeism: A Weapon of Mass Destruction?

When can one say they’ve had enough of being in a state of ‘wokeness’ a