The Parliamentary Select Committee is a mistrial: Annul the impeachment report

TH05-SRI_LANKA_CHI_1288127f

Photo courtesy The Hindu

“Bonaparte throws the whole bourgeois economy into confusion, violates everything that seemed inviolable to the Revolution of 1848, makes some tolerant of revolution and makes others lust for it, and produces anarchy in the name of order, while at the same time stripping the entire state machinery of its halo, profaning it and making it at once loathsome and ridiculous.”   (Karl Marx in Eighteenth Brumaire of Napoleon Bonaparte, 1852)

We need an independent committee or a panel of judges not to evaluate the report of the Parliamentary Select Committee report but to examine whether its conduct is consistent with the law and the accepted national and international norms about impeaching judges. The impeachment proceedings so far should be declared a mistrial (i.e. a trial rendered invalid through improper and prejudicial errors in the proceedings leading to a leading to the impossibility of an impartial resolution) because in any civilized society a person cannot be tried twice for the exact same offence.  It’s called double jeopardy.

Typical reasons for a mistrial are the lack of jurisdiction a court may have over the case, improper admittance of evidence or testimonies, misconduct of any individual that prevents due process, a hung jury, or disqualification of a juror, and when legal counsels of the litigants find that unfair statements or comments have been made or crucial evidence or testimonies are not admitted or distorted.  It prevents an innocent person from being tried and tried again and again for the same crime until finally being found guilty by a jury or committee that is unprofessional and corrupt.

What the government has done so far is to impeach the constitution, justice system and parliamentary privilege by ignoring the requests by the Supreme Court to postpone the impeachment proceedings until it hears the petititions against it and violating the conventions and procedure of impeachment of judges in any civilized society.  To make matters worse the government appointed an all male committee, some of whom insulted the Chief Justice with sexist jibes. Rather than taking responsibility for its misconduct, the government now is trying to find ways out of it, and there is no reason to believe that it changes its original motives that lead to the impeachment in the first place. The judiciary’s failure to declare the PSC a mistrial is an insult to the country’s justice system. It will reinforce the very forces that led to the mistrial and set a dangerous precedence for the future.

President’s statement in the Daily Mirror makes it clear that he has his agenda only to satisfy himself:

“I have only to answer my conscience because at the end of the day, I have to be satisfied with the outcome of this report; I have to be satisfied that I have done by job properly. The instructions to appoint a further committee to look into this are my instructions. They aren’t found in a paper or book nor are there a law to it but I will do it in order to satisfy myself.” (12/12/12)

Is it a responsible use of immunity by the President not to take responsibility for the conduct of the PSC? Perhaps, the core problem here is Executive immunity. I think the government was irked by the decision of the Chief Justice on the Divinaguma Bill because the hidden aim of the Bill was to overcome the limitations imposed by the 13th Amendment on the concentration of power in the hands of the few who currently control the central government.

On other occasions, the President’s attempt to maintain his innocence over the impeachment has several implications. First, the President’s claim runs counter to numerous media reports about his active involvement in expediting the final report of the impeachment proceedings.  Second, it can be said (but not remotely believed) that he absolutely has no control over the 117 ministers who signed the motion, and hence lost control over his political party.  Thirdly, it could be that he has no proper legal counsel to handle delicate issues such as the impeachment.  If these implications are true then one cannot expect that the President has the capability or legitimacy to appoint a credible committee re-try the CJ.  It is not fair to let CJ go through another trial to compensate for the misadventures of the President and his legal counselors.

The impeachment of Chief Justice is not simply about her misconduct, but government attempts to discipline the judiciary to function according to its own parochial agenda.  It needs a judiciary that is obedient and predictable and at the same time to provide legal legitimacy for its agendas.  It also raises questions about responsible use of immunity by the Executive President.  Giving into the government’s attempts to re-start the impeachment is to miss an opportunity to place checks and balances in a country that is rapidly descending into lawlessness, anarchy, disorder, and international isolation.

In fact the appointment of another committee and Panel of judges proposed by is so called Leftist allies may very well be a tack it to distract the protestors and the international pressure. Because this government has learned the benefits of procrastination of its responsibility particularly when it comes to issues that draw international pressure.

CJ should be honored because she willingly participated in the impeachment hearings and had the courage to leave the hearing when the committee lacked civility and professionalism.  And her verdicts in cases against the government demonstrate her professional conduct was not influenced by the government appointing her husband as the Chairman of the National Savings Bank and the fact that she was appointed by the President.

Perhaps, the misadventure of CJ’s impeachment could initiate the long waited spring in Sri Lanka, provided the concerned citizens moved out of the Lipton Circus to the villages and built a mass movement against anti-democratic forces.

  • P.L.J.B.Palipana

    Thanks Mr.Jude Fernando. The Hon.CJ was truly professional and discharged correctly her duties and responsibilities.The REGIME got very angry with the DIVINEGUMA BILL and the Z-score judgement.Anyway Hon.Mahinda Rajapaksa can’t RULE a very complex country like ours and the only alternative is the replacement of Hon.Ranil Wickramasinghe to solve the un-resolved complexities according to the prevailing International Standards. WE LOVE OUR MOTHERLAND.

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear PLJBP,

      “Anyway Hon.Mahinda Rajapaksa can’t RULE a very complex country like ours and the only alternative is the replacement of Hon.Ranil Wickramasinghe to solve the un-resolved complexities according to the prevailing International Standards”

      Ranil’s ineptitude in handling the LTTE is a proven fact.
      His ineptitude in handling the Norwegians is a proven fact.
      His ineptitude in handling the diplomatic issues that arose during war is also a proven fact.
      So far he has been inept at handling his own party that is plagued with internal squabbles with 65 of his MPs crossing over to the government.

      Under these circumstances do you seriously think that Ranil can be a replacement for Mahinda?

      Please state your reasons.

  • RK

    As one of the MPs put it quite rightly, in a context where individuals who went around shooting people with their ‘gal katas’ in the name of a Marxist revolution preside over the impeachment hearing of the Chief Justice of the country, what justice can you expect? The whole sequence of events is indeed an impeachment of the Constitution. If we don’t recognize the gravity of this problem and don’t initiate a course of action to put things back on track we do deserve the kind of leaders we have got.

  • http://- Justin

    Since 1958 the legislature in SL was geared for anti Tamil, racist and genocidal legislation. Tamil legislators, for greater part of this period, were listening to this junk and were brain washed.

    It culminated in calling the genuine liberation aspirations of the people of Tamil Eelam, mandated by its people in 1977, as a “terrorist movement”, taking away the liberty of both Tamils and Sinhalese.

    The SL presidents manipulated the legislature to this end and caused war crimes and Tamil genocide.

    Both the executive and legislature have caused irreversible mess in SL, as evident from the present confrontation with the Chief Justice.

    The only remedy would be for people, both of SL and TE, to unite and draft a new constitution for the island, accomodating both SL and TE.

    The old guards are too old for this job. we need to undo the racist and opressive laws drafted against Tamils since 1958 and think of justice for all.

    • real justice

      This would be a lesson for all those people who accepted positions through the “back door” from the brothers inc. There are many examples. They did not foresee that the lawless, greedy people” will demand forever to “cooperate” with their whims and fancies!!! They should have known once you decide not to cooperate they would not “tolerate” you!!!

      Their demands will be endless as they have to keep on telling lies and bring in more “sham laws” to bury one crime after the other!!!

      You cannot fool the people forever!!!

    • Off the Cuff

      Justin,

      “Since 1958 the legislature in SL was geared for anti Tamil, racist and genocidal legislation”

      Can you please list the legislation that you aver to and prove your case with facts? I hope you were not trying to use the situation that has arisen with the impeachment motion to spread your Racist propaganda.

  • Leela

    The people are sovereign in our constitution. Both parliament and the President are elected by the people. The CJ and other superior Judges are not elected but appointed by the President. Once appointed judges, one can say they are set for life. The only way to remove them for misconduct is written in black and white in our constitution.

    So, regardless hair splitting arguments by local legal eagles and other various pundits against the impeachment of the CJ by parliament, the speaker had appointed the PSC to inquire in to it. The PSC has proceeded with the inquiry. After attending for a few days the CJ walked out of it. It looks as if its a preplanned strategy.

    Thereafter, attorneys for the CJ wrote to the speaker to complain that the CJ was degraded and abused during the inquiry. Opposition members of the PSC also walked out. But PSC proceeded ex-party for quorum was there, and its report was handed over to the speaker in double time.

    While that drama was going on, several CJ supporters had filed FR cases to annul or rather impede that impeachment procedure. But the bench to judge those cases were appointed by the CJ. These are what we villagers call ‘horage ammagen pena ahanawa’ asking thief’s mother who done it.

    Then we see that the present and so many other writers tell us how unqualified some of the PSC members are. They forget that neither our Ist prime minister nor our 2nd executive president had none of the so-called qualifications that they expect but they are accepted to us Sri Lankans as the best even to date. These are the people that suggest we are incapable and therefore we must ask the IC or the neo-colonists or the ‘white man’ or the WOGs to come back and do the job for us. All types of foreigners too have joined the fray to remind us how capable they have been throughout the world.

    The game is clear from the very beginning. By the time the inquiry was taken up at PSC the CJ had 23 days. Yet, CJ’s councils wanted more time. All most all the papers that the PSC gave to the CJ’s councils were her bank statements, deeds, her own court cases and etc are things that were already in her cupboard. It is obvious that this anti government clique wanted more time not to answer charges but to organise ‘CJ spring’.

    This asking time is a known tactic by thugs and elected rouges and murderers to prolong their ‘kudu’, ‘kasippu’ and murder cases to stay out of prison. Even losers of civil cases follow the same tactics. But, is that the procedure we expect from the ‘Nadukara Hamuduruwo’, the CJ? No.

    So, exploring Banking acts, legality and morality on how bank statements were obtained is a way to dodge her guilt. BASL president must tell us how the money mentioned therein was earned and why that bank account wasn’t declared in her asset declarations for we expect ‘Nadukara Hamuduruwo’ to be exemplary.

    Now that the PSC has found the CJ guilty for three serious but straight forward charges, instead of accusing whistle blowers and running round the mulberry bush, CJ sponsors like Mr. Wijedasa PC should have come up with facts to prove her innocence. Mr. Wijedasa PC can investigate Whistle blowers like the US did to Bradley Manning and the UK try to do for Assange.
    Leela

    • Burning_Issue

      I do seriously feel very sorry for you!

    • RK

      Leela, to begin with, there is no clear procedure mentioned in the Constitution as to how a PSC of this nature, once appointed, should conduct an inquiry and give its recommendations. Therefore, invoking the Constitution in order to affirm the “piety” and “sanctity” of those who are behind the impeachment move doesn’t work well. Even if it is assumed that the PSC and the procedures undertaken by the PSC are in accordance with the law of the country, you are missing the whole point here. The Constitution is no doubt the supreme law of the country, but this does not mean that the Constitution is perfect. If someone manipulates the loopholes and unclear areas of the Constitution for his (and, maybe his family’s) benefit and uses the Constitution in a constitutionally justifiable way, then there is a serious problem regarding the entire system. We need to be able to go beyond the surface level and read between lines.

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Leela,

      Your arguments against separatists were admirable but the current discussion is not about separatism but about Justice and the rule of law.

      Could you please state what you understand by Natural Justice and the Rule of Law?

      The President of course is above the Law (although it should not be so) but at least, shouldn’t everyone else be equal in the eyes of the Law?

      • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

        “Your arguments against separatists were admirable but the current discussion is not about separatism but about Justice and the rule of law.”

        I also was thinking in the same line about the Leela’s present arguments.

        It seems Leela’s line of arguments has taken an unprecedented turn.

        Thanks!

  • P.L.J.B.Palipana

    Thanks! Leela;this Parliament is illegal and unstable. The majority are crooks(including Wihiluwansa and Dilan Perera).They rob Social Wealth(Capital).This Motion came as the result of Divineguma Bill and the Z-score judgements. The Hon.CJ dischrged her duties and responsibilities according to the Constitution.I asked from thr Hon.President through the LEN not to take that stupid action. now FACE the REACTION. The only solution is the elimination of this IMPEACHMENT MOTION against the Hon.CJ.

  • Leela

    Mr Palipana and RK
    Why are you ridiculing the man who received the highest number of votes in Sri Lanka as Wihiluwansa and other MPs as crooks? Have we not accepted the declared proxies of the megalomaniac terrorist Pirapakaran as MPs for decades. They are still there, ain’t they. Mr Palipana, a crook for your could be an honest man for another. It is the voter and not the expatriates who decide the MP. For one thing it is not fair to insult intellect of over 250,000 voters who voted Weerawansa. They may not like it for they have their own reasons to vote for him as much as the separatists had their reasons to vote for LTTE proxies.

    That said; even if we assume that ‘the Constitution is not perfect’ as RK says, one cannot be allowed to accept it when he/she wants and reject it when he/she doesn’t want it. If you accept it once for your good you have accepted it for your bad as well.

    Shriyani Bandaranayake had accepted the constitution when she took oaths and signed the papers in front of President Rajapakse and accepted the job as the CJ. She cannot sight ‘the constitution is not perfect’ when it comes to impeach her. According to Article 107(2) of it, judges may hold office only ‘during good behaviour’ and cannot be removed before retirement age except through the impeachment procedure.

    We have got rid of Sudda in 1971. WOGs and Eelamists and NGOs and those who stand with the CJ may want them, but the vast majority do not want them back here again in the guise of commonwealth or any in manifestation. It is that lot that use or corroborated with the CJ for DiviNeguma and etc as a part of their game plan just like they did it with SF.

    Now the PSC hearing is over. She is found guilty for three of the five charges that were investigated. The report is with the speaker. Soon, all the evidences will be available to public to debate it openly. Never mind the parliament giving the verdict, we the public have clearly become the jury. So, it’s up to the CJ to prove her innocence for those three charges she was found guilty.

    If she is really innocent it should be a cakewalk for her for NGOs, black coated Haultsdorf Mafia, Tamil Diaspora and the opposition have all lined up with the CJ.
    Leela

    • Jude Fernando

      I think Leela completely misses the point of the article. She has resorted to a cheap populist strategy of branding of those who support CJ as NGO, Diaspora, mafia, expats etc. This is not a way to engage in an intellectually honest dialogue. The point of these labels is to distract the readers from the main point of the article by insulting and stigmatizing them. This is cheap strategy that governments use to marginalize dissent.

      CJ did not refuse to participate in the PSC. But she was denied of the due process and insulted. What exactly is the connection between denial of the due process and popularity of Rajapaksha? CJ’s point is not that the constitution is imperfect, but challenging its interpretation. Interpretation is a business of the courts not the politicians. The courts need to give the authority for the Parliament to proceed with the impeachment after listening to all petitions for and against it.

      No one says that the CJ should not be removed if found guilty. The point of current protests against the PSC is that she did not get a fair hearing. The protesters are not necessary supporters of CJ, they are simply demanding natural justice which include due process to the accused.

      Leela also forget the fact that great majority of those protest against the CJ are also voters/citizens of the country. It is they who filed petitions at the Supreme Court.
      If one follows Leela logic then there are two types of people in Sri lanka. Citizens, who support the government regadless of its actions, and the rest are expats, diaspora, mafia, and NGO suppoters.

      • Leela

        Jude,
        I believe, I have touch upon practically every thing written in the main article. Only thing that I haven’t written about was those ‘sexist jibes’.

        Last night, I watched this particular accusation levelled at a PSC member, Minister Premajayantha and his answers at ‘The Derana’ TV: Premajayantha said there never was any dialogue by any member of the PSC with the CJ; it was always with her attorneys. He said, word to word recording is there and it will be out just like the Hansard for anyone to buy. So everyone can see who is telling the truth, he said.

        He further said, the CJ and her legal team walked out on the 6th. Then he showed a letter to the speaker by the CJ’s attorney, Neelakandans dateline 7th but nowhere in that letter mentioned any ‘sexist jibes’ or any filth used by PSC members.

        Premajayantha showed another letter by Neelakandans date line 14th where the alleged claim was mentioned. He asked why not Neelakandans wrote it on the 7th the following day the CJ left the PSC?

        Many such things will come out soon in all TV channels for we the people to decide who is bluffing.
        Leela

      • John

        Jude,
        “The courts need to give the authority for the Parliament to proceed with the impeachment after listening to all petitions for and against it”

        Isn’t this madness ?, aren’t you totally mistaken?, is there any such provision in our Constitution ?
        On the other hand, if there is any provision in any “stone age” country’s constitution, which SC would ever grant impeachment of CJ of SC ?
        Please note Parliament of Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, does not need any permission from any court on earth to impeach a judge, because it’s the supreme body in the country, elected to office by people of the country / owners of this land & all it’s living beings, exercising their universal franchise, to run this land on behalf of them.
        Where do courts or judges stand in this equation ?
        Parliamentarians can, if they think fit, bring in a constitution anew, if necessary abolishing existing court system & bringing in some other court system anew.
        Basic rule is that, Supremacy of people & / or peoples representatives of a democracy is beyond any other institutions reach, no body can ever overpower.

  • John

    Leela is dead right, Parliament is supreme, because it’s elected by people,the ultimate owners of this land & its all living beings, so the PSC has the right to look in to CJ’s case & PSC has already given it’s recommendation & the Parliament will look in to it & give the final ruling , if the CJ should stay or leave, that’s it.
    Lawyers shouting foul are members of one profession & Judges are salary paid govt. servants & no more no less, none can take law unto themselves, if CJ is found guilty then she will have to face the justice.

    • P.L.J.B.Palipana

      Hi!Leela the History Repeats Itself.We know that Hon.CJ is 100% innocent.Her innocency must be proved via a Fair and Impartial tribunal.The tribunal must be appointed from the Common Wealth Nations. We love our MOTHERLAND and we need to protect only our MOTHERLAND.The way is the withdrawal of this stupid Impeachment Motion and then everything will be very fine. If you wish to protect Hon.MR and the country advice him to withdraw this fucking motion.

      • Leela

        MR Palipana
        PSC has found the CJ guilty. And they are dishing out reasons in writing why the CJ is guilty. Soon, there will be open debates on this on all TV channels.

        The people are the jury now.

        So, no point having commonwealth or any other tribunals to give new judgement. Besides, such tribunals have no room in our constitution. But anybody can analyse the PSC report and disseminate their opinion.
        Leela

      • John

        Mr.P.L.J.B.Palipana looks bit angry, wonder how does he know CJ was 100% innocent? SL constitution does not say that GOSL should hand over impeachment of judges to any foreign party,CW nations, etc, & it clearly says power is vested with Parliament of SL only.

  • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

    Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think this is what is happening now.

    Thanks!

    • Off the Cuff

      It’s unfortunate to see that some are blind and others are trying to fish in troubled waters.

      Justin and “Real Justice” are trying their separatists racists stunts and claiming that since 1958 the legislature was anti Tamil. Waiting to see how these Racists prove their Racist claim.

      Then we have Mr PLJB Palipana trying to promote Ranil W. Hope he too comes up with solid reasons.

      I do not agree with everything that Jude has written. I do not see why he had to drag the Presidential Immunity brought in by JRJ, Ranil and those in the JRJ govt to subvert the Rule of Law. Hence writing about it’s responsible use is a mockery. It is part of the Constitution and is irrelevant to the PSC and the impeachment.

      Why was it necessary to have 7 government members and just 4 opposition members in the PSC? Why was it not 6 from government and 5 from the opposition? Was there a fear of a government member finding the CJ not guilty?

      On a different note Yapa, I believe your post of 12/20/2012 • 7:33 pm was the 50,000 post on GV’s present series.

      • John

        Off the Cuff,
        Govt. MP’s in Parliament exceeds 150 out of total 225, so the proportionate share of Govt. members in PSC roughly is (11/225 *150) = 7.32 & opposition share is 3.68 , so it became 07 for govt & 04 for opposition.

        • P.L.J.B.Palipana

          John,who beleives your mathematics.Once again I wish to remind you that this parliament is virtual and unstable in one hand and relatively the Regime must go to a Presidential or A Parlimentary election to prove your mathematics. I challenge you to do that without wasting the time. Honestly I ask the Hon.President not to bring that Anti Sosial Impeachchment Motion against our Hon.CJ and now I ask him to withdraw it without wasting the TIME.That is all.Who cares Anura Bandaranayake???

        • Off the Cuff

          John,

          That is a foolish argument because delivering Justice was the aim of the PSC or was it just an ostensible aim?

          The government has a 2/3 majority in Parliament. It does not necessarily follow that the Disciplinary committee should also have a 2/3 majority to represent the govt. I see that your overzealous defence forgot that only 110 of that 150 signed the impeachment motion. Hence there were about 40 Govt MP’s that had not signed the motion. Yet the PSC was stuffed with accusers to provide a 7 to 4 ratio of govt to opposition.

          What excuse would you trot out to justify the inability of the govt to choose it’s representatives from amongst those govt members who did not sign the motion when there were 40 of them?

          Where do you hear accusers sitting in judgement of the accused?

          That happens in Kangaroo Courts. The type of courts of the wild west, where lynching was the order of the day. It happened with the Jim Crow Laws when the Ku Klux Gang reigned supreme. Is Sri Lanka emulating them? I sincerely hope not.

          Since you have been supportive of Leela, I would like to refer you to my post addressed to Leela above at this link http://groundviews.org/2012/12/13/the-parliamentary-select-committee-is-a-mistrial-annul-the-impeachment-report/#comment-49993

          Could you please state what you understand by Natural Justice and the Rule of Law?

          • John

            Off the Cuff,

            Impeachment needed only 113 signatures to be valid, those did not sign included MP’s Hon. Basil Rajapakse,Namal Rajapakse, etc,not because they opposed but it was not needed, if 113 MP’s had signed.

            The best & fairest way is to take a proportionate share for a committee & it truly represents peoples mandate.

            I read post you’re referring & it does not make any sense or even worth replying.

            To-Palipana, I referred your matter to my [edited out] awaiting reply.

          • John

            Off the Cuff,
            ..Further, as you try to suggest, if only 110 signed & balance (225-110) 115 disagreed, PSC composition biased, natural justice denied, etc then Parliament in full sitting can easily reject impeachment in wholesale,or ask for some other PSC inquiry, etc when it is taken up for debate & vote in 02nd week of January.

          • Off the Cuff

            John,

            My question
            What excuse would you trot out to justify the inability of the govt to choose it’s representatives from amongst those govt members who did not sign the motion when there were 40 of them?

            Your interpretation
            as you try to suggest, if only 110 signed & balance (225-110) 115 disagreed, PSC composition biased, natural justice denied, etc

            That is idiotic.
            The question that you are avoiding to answer is Why did the govt fail to appoint its members from the who did not accuse the CJ? There were 40 of them. What is the difficulty in selecting 7 from 40?

            You say “then Parliament in full sitting can easily reject impeachment in wholesale,or ask for some other PSC inquiry, etc when it is taken up”

            Don’t be daft. Do you understand what a simple majority is?

            Why did you avoid stating what you understood by “Natural Justice and the Rule of Law” ?

          • John

            Off the Cuff
            12/25/2012 • 4:34 am

            Speaker of Parliament , not the govt. could have selected 07 out of 40 MP’s, yes, I agree, but if Hon. Basil R( as chairman PSC) & Namal R with Mervin etc from that 40 included in that 7 , would it be okay for you ?

            Wouldn’t you or critics say it’s impeachment entertained by Chamal R ,(Speaker) & PSC was a smart job of Basil R & Namal R & finally Parliament ruling was sent by Chamal R to Mahinda R ,(President)to sack CJ ? It’s a R,R,R&R job ?
            First you reply to this , say if it’s okay for you, then I’ll reply to Natural Justice etc.

          • John

            Correction, Speaker could have appointed 7 selected by govt. party from those 40.

          • Kumara Justice

            John,

            The Key question is the purpose of the PSC. Was it to deliver Justice?

            If it was to deliver Justice then a committee comprised of impartial and sane persons should have been appointed to deliver it. When the committee has amongst it’s members accusers sitting in judgment of the accused then it is just a Kangaroo Court with an ostensible purpose of delivering Justice. Since you have been hemming and hawing when asked for your understanding of the Rule of Law and Natural Justice I take it that you do not understand either.

            The protests are not about CJ’s impeachment but about how it was done.

            You say “Speaker of Parliament , not the govt. could have selected 07 out of 40 MP’s, yes, I agree, but if Hon. Basil R( as chairman PSC) & Namal R with Mervin etc from that 40 included in that 7 , would it be okay for you ?”

            Intelligence seems to have deserted you.
            Is the Speaker not a member of the main political party that forms the govt? Is he not the brother of the President just as much Basil R is?
            Was he not elected on govt votes?
            Please do not bring out childish arguments.

            Are you implying that the 40 who did not sign are of the same caliber as Mervin?

            I would not object to either Namal R or Basil R if they displayed impartiality in the investigation. In fact they would have been a better choice than either Wimal or Rajitha S who are both accusers that has received adverse decisions from the Supreme Court.

            You have been talking of fair representation of the govt within the PSC and applied proportionality to justify it. Little did you realize that the govt is not composed of a singular party but is a composite of many. Have these parties been represented? Of course the NSF of Wimal has been included. What about the rest?

            The Speaker is expected to have sufficient intelligence to select upstanding and mature MP’s to represent the PSC. Any reason why Thissa Vitharana, Dew Gunasekera, GL Peiris, Mahinda Samarasinghe etc are less qualified than Rajitha and Wimal?

            You say “First you reply to this , say if it’s okay for you, then I’ll reply to Natural Justice etc.”

            Why? Is your understanding of Natural Justice and the Rule of Law conditional on my reply?

          • John

            I’ll reply to “Off the Cuff” , I sent a correction on speaker appointing on selection of govt. party. ,If you are “Off the Cuff” come on like that only.

  • http://www.groundviews.org Groundviews

    Important for the substance as well as the author, given his well-known political bias:

    “Many still labour under the delusion that what is important here is whether Shirani Bandaranayake is guilty or innocent of the charges against her and whether the government is justified or not in seeking to dismiss her from office. Those are but incidental questions. What is of importance to the country is that the Chief Justice who had, indisputably, given, together with two other judges, some judgments that did not please the incumbent government in the recent past, after similarly giving several that pleased it before then, is now being pilloried with purported charges which surfaced after the decision to impeach had been taken and several Members of Parliament had obligingly signed a purported resolution to impeach her that contained no charges. What is most alarming- is that the Tribunal that purportedly tried her, the PSC was obviously wholly biased against her and denied her the several safeguards of a fair trial normally afforded to any alleged criminal – be he/she a pickpocket, a drug dealer or a politician’s pet thug.

    Can this be otherwise than a not so veiled threat to the rest of the judiciary to ‘toe the line’ or face similar reprisals??? (sic)”

    Via http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/14034

  • Anurudhdha Tilakasiri

    I love it when people have conversations with their own pseudonyms!!!

  • http://www.groundviews.org Groundviews

    PSC has no authority to find a Judge guilty
    THURSDAY, 03 JANUARY 2013 11:30

    The Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) has no legal power or authority to find a judge guilty because standing order 78(A) is not law, the Supreme Court determines.

    The Court of appeal reading out the Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution today stated the power to make a valid finding after investigation can be conferred on a court tribunal or any other body only by law and law alone.

    “The proceedings that commenced before PSC is not contemplated by law and the commencement of proceeding and continuance is prima facie void”, the appeal Court said.

    Via http://www.dailymirror.lk/top-story/24718-psc-has-no-authority-to-find-a-judge-guilty.html

    • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

      Nduth haamuduruwange, baduth haamuduruwange!

      (Both productions and law belong to Hamuduruwo)

      Thanks!