As a person trying to make sense of this fiasco, would groundviews be able to gather a response (from preferably some legal luminaries) to G.L. Peiris’ opinion: http://www.dailynews.lk/2013/01/15/fea02.asp

GL’s main argument seems to hinge on the fact that the Supreme court ignored the word “or by standing order” when issuing the writ of certiorari. Is this correct? And if it is, what basis does GL and the rest of the government have to dismiss the supreme court ruling? Is their assertion that the supreme court cannot provide a ruling on this matter valid?

Of course, I note with some dismay, but not surprise, that GL altogether fails to address the following issues.
1. Was due process observed in carrying out this impeachment?
2. What of of the background to the impeachment process – wherein the impeachment was only carried out because the CJ issued a ruling unfavourable to the regime. Does that not deserve some consideration? What is the impact on the independence of the judiciary?
3. Have these charges against the CJ been proven beyond reasonable doubt? There seems to be zero transparency in this process.

As we all know, unlike India, Pakistan and Burma that won full independence and became republics in the 1940’s, Ceylon remained a British possession with a constitution (soulburry) that explicitly recognized the Queen of England as the Queen of Ceylon. All legislature passed in parliament required royal assent in order to become law. This constitution did not have a provision for replacing it with a new constitution. Therefore, in order to replace the constitution, clearly, the procedure should be to create said the provision in parliament, and submit it to the Queen for royal assent, thereby making it law. But here’s the rub; they could not get royal assent for this! So our geniuses voted on it in parliament anyway, and asserted that it’s a “republican constitution”!!

So why should we care if the current constitution is blatantly ignored. We pulled it out of our a$$e$ anyway. Again, if you believe that the rule of law is sacrosanct, then you have to conclude that the current constitution is illegal, and that amazingly, the Soulburry constitution is still the supreme law of the land, and that the Queen of England is still the Queen of Ceylon! She always has been!! How’s that for a constitutional crisis?

Easier to share (email, tweet, publish on FB) responses for each question.