Constitutional cliff: Govt. set to go ahead with impeachment processView(s):

Govt bid to remove Chief Justice Bandaranayake on course; debate to take place on Jan 10, 11, in spite of Supreme Court ruling Besieged regime emboldened by the impotence of the main opposition party; angry Ranil reprimands MPs for going to courts on Thursday In her petition, Chief Justice explains her side of the story in respect of the three charges, of which she was found guiltyBy Our Political Editor

Former UNP Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya at the Court of Appeal on Thursday. Pic by M.D. NissankaThe cheers from the dawn of 2013 turned to fears just three days later as the nations judiciary and legislature edged closer to an open, no-holds-barred confrontation. The bad news for the Government came after the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) that probed the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake had no legal power or authority. Thus, at least as determined by the countrys apex legal body, the voluminous 1,575-page report signed only by seven government members has become invalid.Though the Supreme Court is acknowledged as the sole authority to interpret the Constitution, how the legislature will officially react to its determination will be known only on Tuesday. This is when Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa makes a formal statement to Parliament. There were indications yesterday he would reject the findings and point out what are being described as some unacceptable errors in the determination.Behind the scenes, preparations by government leaders and remarks from some ministers also made clear the House would debate the impeachment resolution on January 10 and 11 and pass it. The Speaker would thereafter advise President Mahinda Rajapaksa of the wish of majority of members in the House to have Chief Justice Bandaranayake removed, should they vote in favour of the impeachment motion. Then, the President would proceed to issue a proclamation and later appoint a new Chief Justice. Already, the Government is frantically busy trying to identify a successor.The President himself and some ministers have tried to persuade former Attorney General C.R. de Silva PC to take up the job. He has declined the offer. De Silva is a close friend of the President, but his role as Chairman of the LLRC (Lessons Learnt and reconciliation Commission) whose recommendations were acclaimed as an honest account on reconciliation and good governance won him accolades both internally and from the international community.The government naturally felt he would be an acceptable choice to smoothen ruffled feathers at the Bar and would be acceptable to the opposition and the international community as well. He has informed the government suitors that he would like to remain at the unofficial Bar where he enjoys a lucrative practice. Moves by another section to have him contest the impending Bar Association elections have also been turned down by him. He has said he is not prepared to compromise his independence by canvassing support from various quarters.In the face of de Silva turning down the offer of the Chief Justices post, the name of a serving judge of the Supreme Court has now been considered besides a senior officer at the Attorney Generals Department. A new appointment, though on the basis that Parliament has impeached the Chief Justice and the President has thus removed her, is still fraught with dangerous hurdles that could be damaging on all fronts.Firstly, the incumbent Chief Justice would claim every right, unless she resigns, to remain in office. This is on the grounds that the Supreme Court has held that the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) is illegal, and consequently a parliamentary vote being void. At this eleventh hour, some government intermediaries have successfully probed the possibility of a retirement for Chief Justice Bandaranayake in return for the withdrawal of the impeachment resolution and other matters. A frightening situation would thus arise, if the Government, using its steamroller majority in Parliament to oust her, for instance, resorts to removing her physically. Valid reasons for such action would be cited as the resolution and a consequent presidential proclamation.A legal expert, who did not wish to be identified, warned it could trigger a chain reaction and lead to a dreadful hiatus. He said, like other executive actions, the Presidents appointment of a new Chief Justice could be challenged in courts. One could seek a declaration seeking the serving incumbent to remain citing the Supreme Court determination. Needless to say that such a confrontation, which now seems inevitable, is not good for the judiciary, the government or the country. In their hurried and strong determination to remove the Chief Justice, senior UPFA leaders do not seem to be conscious of the inherent dangers of their actions or their far reaching repercussions. They see things only through their political prism.The Supreme Courts determination this week was the result of seven different writ applications filed in the Court of Appeal. The petitioners sought order prohibiting the eleven-member PSC from investigating into allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity against Chief Justice Bandaranayake. The Court of Appeal made the seven references to the Supreme Court. At their sittings on Thursday, the three-member Court of Appeal Justices Sri Skandarajah, Anil Gooneratne and A.W.A. Salam announced the unanimous Supreme Court determination. It was signed by Justices Gamini Ameratunga, K. Sripavan and Priyasath Dep.The Court of Appeal first took up the seven cases. Thereafter, it heard the writ application filed by Chief Justice Bandaranayake challenging the findings of the now legally declared invalid Parliamentary Select Committee. The PSC had found her guilty on three different counts. The court asked D.P. Mendis PC and Nigel Hatch PC appearing for two intervenient petitioners to state why they should be allowed to intervene in the proceedings. One appeared on behalf of Chandrasena Weeerasekera of Kiribathgoda, a Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) trade unionist and another for Sumudu Kantha Hewage, an attorney at law. The latter sought the dismissal of the CJs petition on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction.After a brief adjournment, the Court decided not to allow the intervention. It held that the intervenient petitioners would not be affected directly or indirectly, and therefore had no status. However, the court said it would hear the Attorney General. Presidents Counsel Romesh de Silva urged court to hear the case on that Thursday itself as a matter of urgency. He said the Parliament had already fixed the impeachment debate for January 10 and 11 and any delay would adversely affect the petitioner. Then the court put off hearing for tomorrow (Monday), January 7, at 9.30 am. The court also ordered to notice the Attorney General to assist them.Meanwhile, the opposition United National Party (UNP) got into a tangle over the Court of Appeal hearing. Party MPs had received a letter signed by leader Ranil Wickremesinghe telling them that they should make no statement or take any action with regard to the impeachment motion without his or the General Secretarys permission. Wickremesinghe had sent this letter prior to his vacation in Florence, Verona and eventually Rome (he met the Pope at the Vatican and asked for his blessings for peace, reconciliation, unity and justice in Sri Lanka).When the Court of Appeal had issued notice on the PSC MPs, Lakshman Kiriella, one of the two UNP members in the PSC, had expressed an inclination to attend court. The other MP John Ameratunge was abroad. Similarly, several other MPs had also wanted to do so. Deputy leader Sajith Premadasa and Colombo MP Ravi Karunanayake had inquired from Tissa Attanayake, the General Secretary if they could go. Attanayake called his leader in Italy to find out. He was told that they should not go to court. Kiriella was also told not to go.However, eight others went. They were Karu Jayasuriya, Dayasiri Jayasekera, Ajith Perera, Niroshan Perera, Ruwan Wijewardene, Harsha De Silva, Eran Wickremaratne and Range Bandara.On his return this week, Wickremesinghe was furious. He is taking up the position that the party should fight for the independence of the judiciary within parliament. He has already given vent to his feelings about the judiciary giving order after order permitting cross-overs from the UNP to the Government, and taken up the position that the judiciary has no control over the legislature.Five MPs who went to court that day, the two Pereras, Wijewardene, de Silva and Wickremaratne were hauled over the coals. They were told that they must observe party discipline and to look elsewhere if they could not. They were also asked to apologise to the General Secretary, which they had to do. Action against Jayasuriya and Jayasekera is pending while Bandara remains suspended and therefore might avoid reprimand.The UNPs stance on the entire issue has been questioned in all quarters with Wickremesinghe himself handling its strategy. Party members are blaming him for not making political capital out of the issue. Government politicians are gleefully saying that the opposition is also backing what they do, while cartoonists are lampooning the party for playing ball with the government.Responding to some of the criticism, Wickremesinghe while addressing the partys lawyers union said yesterday that how to deal with the Court of Appeal notice was something they had discussed with other opposition parties and privately said that in the absence of Tamil National Alliance (TNA) leader R. Sampanthan who is abroad, lawyer MP M.A. Sumanthiran hijacked the party position and because of his connections with the Chief Justices lawyers reversed a decision taken by the UNP and the TNA. The matter is due to be taken up by the UNP with the TNA next week when Sampanthan returns.The Supreme Court ruling, that jolted the UPFA Government on Thursday, noted that A Parliamentary Select Committee appointed in terms of Standing Order 78A derives its power and authority solely from the said Standing Order which is not law. Therefore a Select Committee appointed under and in terms of Standing Order 78A has no legal power or authority to make a finding adversely affecting the legal rights of a Judge against whom the allegations made in the resolution moved under proviso to Article 107(2) (of the Constitution), is the subject matter of its investigation. The power to make a valid finding, after the investigation contemplated in Article 107 (3), can be conferred on a court, tribunal or a body, only by law and law alone.This is the reason why, the SC determination said, the framers of the Constitution have advisedly used the word law when they enacted Article 107 (3) which reads Parliament shall by law or by Standing Orders provide for all matters relating to the presentation of such an address including the procedure for passing of such resolution, the investigation and proof of the alleged misbehaviour or incapacity and the right of such Judge to appear and to be heard in person or by representative. (Emphasis added)The SC said, There is a presumption that Parliament will not use words in vain or unnecessarily. The reason for the use of the word law in Article 107(3) is clear from what we have stated above. Therefore, in our opinion it is mandatory for Parliament to provide by law the Body competent to conduct the investigation contemplated in Article 107(3) and give a legally valid and binding finding with regard to the allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity investigated by it. However, the SC determination added, Matters relating to the presentation of an address and the procedure for the passing of such resolution are matters which can be stipulated by Standing Orders but there is nothing to prevent Parliament from providing for such matters by law as well. The selection of the body to investigate the allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity and its composition and the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted (procedure) are all matters to be decided by Parliament in its wisdom keeping in mind the necessity to ensure equal protection of the law enshrined in the Constitution..Yet, the governments legal advisors were miffed that the determination had in quoting Article 107 (3) of the Constitution only referred to the words .Parliament shall by law and left out the reference to the words or by Standing Orders. They argue that the PSC had been appointed under Standing Orders and was hence constitutionally valid a point which Speaker Rajapaksa is expected to elucidate on Tuesday. It is speculated to be the grounds on which he will reject the Supreme Court determination and rule that the House could go ahead with the impeachment process. Speaker Rajapaksa is also to brief party leaders during a meeting on Tuesday morning. At the same time that day, President Mahinda Rajapaksa is expected to address the government parliamentary group.The Supreme Court determination has also drawn from a ruling by then Speaker Anura Bandaranaike, often quoted in the past several weeks by government ministers and parliamentarians to bolster their argument that Parliament is supreme. Anura Bandaranaike declared that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to issue interim orders restraining the Speaker in respect of steps he is empowered to take under Standing Order 78A. This ruling was prompted by the issue of a restraining order on Speaker Bandaranaike by then Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva because there were moves for an impeachment motion against him in Parliament.Quoting from the same ruling, the Supreme Court determination said, Before we conclude it is pertinent to invite attention of all concerned to the words of the late Hon. Anura Bandaranaike, M.P., the then Speaker of Parliament, contained in his ruling dated 20th June 2001, which is faithfully approved and followed by our Parliaments up to the present day. He said as follows:However Members of Parliament may give their mind to the need to introduce fresh legislation or amend the existing standing orders regarding Motions of Impeachment against Judges of the Superior Courts. I believe such provision has already been included in the Draft Constitution tabled in House in August 200. (Hansard dated 20.6.2001 column 1039). The Draft constitution did not see the light of the day as a new Constitution. The full text of the 27-page Supreme Court determination is found on the Times online website: www.sundaytimes.lkThe vast majority of ministers in the cabinet appear to have maintained a stoic silence over the SC determination. They have refrained from making statements. Earlier, former Prime Minister, Ratnasiri Wickremenayake, called for restraint when he addressed a public meeting in Horana. However, Economic Development Deputy Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena told the Sunday Times Though a Court interpretation on the Constitution has been given, the Standing Orders in Parliament is what governs the functions of the Parliament. After the Parliamentary Select Committee is appointed under these Standing Orders no other institution can summon members of the Committee or challenge the findings of the PSC or even make rulings against it.On Wednesday, a day before the SC determination, Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva, who was a member of the PSC told a news conference, The Speaker of Parliament made it very clear that his ruling on December 7 that what he said will apply to not only to the notices issued by the Supreme Court but also to future such notices issued by them with regard to the Parliamentary Select Committee. That Committee has completed its work and handed over its report. We are not able to change the decision we have made. We have undertaken this task in keeping with the Constitutional requirement. This Committee has no powers now. Its work is complete. We had authority only till its work was completed. We are bound as MPs to uphold the supremacy of Parliament. In the light of these reasons, he said, MPs need not heed notices from Courts and present themselves.However, his views were challenged by Vijitha Herath, who served in the Committee on behalf of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JCP). He was one of four opposition MPs who walked out from Parliament on the grounds that the PSC probe against Chief Justice Bandaranayake was not free and fair. He told reporters present in Courts on Thursday: This is a historically important day for the people. Parliament is the institution that consists of the representatives elected by the people. However, today the Government, with a so called two thirds majority, which is not a real mandate, is claiming Parliament is supreme.We cannot accept that Parliament is supreme. It is the people who are supreme. We are bound as MPs to safeguard the rights of the people. We have to follow the present Constitution. Today the decision given by the Court of Appeal clearly states that Standing Orders cannot operate in violation of the Constitution. The Court clearly stated that Standing Order 78A is in conflict with the constitution. Hence if a judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal is being removed, it cannot be done in a manner that is against the Constitution. This is a special decision. We see it as a decision that has been given in a manner to safeguard the rights of the people. This court ruling shows that no executive power or a two-thirds majority can tread on the rights of the people.Since the now legally invalidated PSC report became public, its most vociferous campaigners have been the ministers who served in the committee. They made statements in both print and electronic media on why they found Chief Justice Bandaranayake guilty and delved at length on many other alleged accusations against her. This is notwithstanding the fact that such allegations were not among charges listed against her. Copies of the PSC report were this week released to the media. It was only last week they were issued to Colombo-based diplomatic missions.Last week, some of the controversial provisions in the report were highlighted in these columns. They related to an earlier move by the Committee to allow only one counsel to represent the Chief Justice and not to grant her more time to answer charges. Official proceedings of December 5 relates to marking of documents and reveals, among other matters, the issues raised by opposition participants. It was later that they walked out. Here are excerpts of some of the proceedings:The Chairman: (Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa) We are going till 12 December and on the 12th, we will decide about the next dates. Hon. Members, I am now handing over these documents to you. Document No 1 is the letter sent by Mr. Manjula Tillekeratne. We have asked for some documents and he has said, I have to place the aforementioned letter before the Judicial Service Commission. That is why I always say the delay is from their side, not from our side.There were several remarks by government members. Then Lakshman Kiriella (UNP Member) said Only thing, Mr. Chairman it is subject to proof. This is how the proceedings were reported:The Chairman: Do not say like that, my good Friend. All these documents have been certified by the banks and adds in Sinhala Ewa Katha Karanna Giyoth Methana Pissuwak Ney. Subject to Proof kiyanney mokada? (If we go to talk about that here, there will be madness. What is subject to proof?The Hon (Dr.) Rajitha Senarathna: If these are not her bank statements and her declarations of assets, let them say that. Let her say, This signature is not mine.The Hon. John Ameratunga: The thing is we cannot come to a conclusion. Let them come and assert that. At that stage, we will take a decision.The Chairman: It is very wrong for the Committee Members to say like that because these are all official documents and these are not (switches to Sinhala) Kela Paththara (or Jungle Newspapers).The Hon. John Ameratunga: Yes, but some of the Members are challenging it. Let us listen to them.The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella: How can you mark them? We have not even seen them. Eka Puduma Deyak Ney (That is a strange thing).The Hon. R. Sampanthan: We have not seen them.The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella: Meka puduma deyak ney. (This is a strange thing).The Chairman: Mey manthrilata ay okkoma denna. Mama mark kerannam. Ethakota evarai ney. (Give this to all the members. I will mark them. Everything will be alright then, isnt it).The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella: Hon. Ameratunga, shall we go?The Hon. Wimal Weerawansa: (in Sinhala). Ehema Keranna Epaa (Dont do that).The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella: There is no point in this. I do not want to be a part of this inquisition. Mey kuruse ana gahana ewata mama kemethi nehe (I dont like nailing this cross).The Hon. Rajitha Senarathna: Kavuruvath Kemethi nehe kuruse ana gahana ewata (No one likes to nail the cross).The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella: Mr. Chairman, you are a lawyer. Documents have to be proved.The Hon. Dilan Perera: Documents are marked here.The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella: You cannot mark these documents without proving them.The Chairman: This is a Parliamentary Committee. This is not a court of law.The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella: We have not seen them. How can we agree?In another instance on record, Minister Wimal Weerawansa is quoted as saying Ahinsaka Nona Methana Thiyagena Madawana Neh (Innocent lady. They are keeping you here and intimidating you isnt it). Minister Dilan Perera was to point out that the Assistant Secretary General K.A. Rohanadeera was also present and that she is also a nona or lady. Counsel for Chief Justice Bandaranayake, Romesh de Silva was to say these are not remarks to be made on the Hon. Chief Justice. He added, I think there is no purpose our staying here. They must not insult the Chief Justice.The concluding remarks of senior counsel Romesh de Silva on December 6, before the legal team and Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake walked out, among other matters, noted: We have repeatedly asked for procedure and we have not been told the procedure.The Chairman: I just told you the procedure.Romesh de Silva: That is what you told us, but according to our understanding that is not the procedure at all. I must make my submissions. We have not been given adequate time to prepare our defence. The way in which some Members of the Select Committee have behaved leads us to the conclusion that they have completely made up their minds. Several remarks that were made do not befit Members of a Select Committee. In the circumstances, we are convinced that there has been no fair trial, that we will not get justice at this Committee. We have absolutely no faith. We have no faith in the continuation of this..Of the 14 charges made against Chief Justice Bandaranayake, nine charges were not probed by the PSC despite being mandated to do so. The only reason they were unable to pursue was because of the hurried conclusion of their sittings notwithstanding earlier plans to continue. Of the balance five charges, Chief Justice Bandaranayake was cleared of two due to insufficient evidence. It was of the remaining three charges (1, 4 and 5) that she was found guilty.In her writ application to the Court of Appeal she has set out the following details in response to these charges. Her senior counsel has said they had no opportunity to place most of these matters before PSC since no time was given:Charge No. 1The housing unit bearing at Trillium Residencies was not purchased by her and the special power of attorney bearing No. 823 of Public Notary K.B. Aroshi Perera was therefore not used; the property was purchased by her sister (Renuka Niranjali Bandaranayake) and Brother in law (Kapila Ranjan Karunaratne) by the monies remitted by them from Australia. They are in senior positions in the mining sector in Australia. As far back as May 6, 2010, (i.e. nearly 16 months prior to her hearing fundamental rights cases involving the now financially bankrupt Ceylinco Group) the sale of housing units of the Trillium Residencies had been excluded from the Fundamental Rights Application relating to the Ceylinco Group.Charge No 4:Not declaring in the annual declaration of assets and liabilities that should be submitted by a judicial officer the details of more than twenty bank accounts maintained in various banks including nine accounts in the National Development Bank.Chief Justice Bandaranayake has stated that all assets have been declared by her including all monies in her bank accounts and also the monies invested by her which are declared under Treasury Bills.As at 31st March 2012 she had only four actively operative accounts. The NDB Bank had maintained two routine accounts as per standard internal banking practice in the name of Shirani Bandaaranayake.Of the nine accounts referred to in this charge, Chief Justice Bandaranyake has said there is in truth and in fact only seven accounts. The other two accounts are old account numbers migrated due to an IT System change by NDB Bank. Of the seven accounts, two are special routine accounts (as opposed to regular current accounts) maintained by the NDB Bank for investment purposes in terms of standard internal banking practice at the NDB Bank and these are not regular current accounts, she has pointed out.These routine accounts could be operated only by the NDB. The CJ does not operate these accounts which are opened by the NDB only for the purpose of channelling the investments made by her. When investments such as Treasury Bills mature, the funds are credited along with the interest. Thereafter the capital and the interest are re-invested by the bank as per the standing instructions of the customer based on the financial advice given by the NDB Bank. She has pointed out that during the maturity period of the investment these routine accounts carry zero balances. She has insisted that the investments that were routed through these Routine Accounts have been stated in her declarations of assets and liabilities under the title Treasury Bills. Hence, she has argued that the Parliamentary Select Committee has wrongfully concluded that she had not disclosed the Routine Accounts maintained by the NDB Bank without properly understanding the nature of such accounts. The Chief Justice has also pointed out that she had not disclosed three other accounts mentioned in the PSC report since they were only opened after the relevant date of disclosure.The lawyers for Chief Justice Bandaranaike argue that allegations that she amassed Rs 256 million, publicised in sections of the state media, were totally false. They said this was not a charge in the impeachment resolution. If it were true she would have been charged in the impeachment with unlawful accumulation of assets. This was not done because the allegation was false, one of them said.He added: An independent and impartial examination of her assets including bank accounts will clearly establish that this allegation is totally false. Every single asset has been declared in the annual declarations. He said there is no special or deliberate effort to zero account balances on the 31st March every year.Charge 5Whereas, Chief Justice Bandaranayake becomes unsuitable to continue in the office of the Chief Justice due to the legal action relevant to the allegations of bribery and corruption levelled against Mr. Pradeep Gamini Suraj Kariyawasam, lawful husband of the said Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. As a result of her continuance in the office of the Chief Justice, administration of justice is hindered and the fundamentals of administration of justice are thereby violated and whereas not only administration of justice but visible administration of justice should take place.The allegations against a judges spouse cannot, Chief Justice Bandaranayake has said, in any event be a ground for proved misbehaviour on her part. This is particularly in the absence of any allegation that she has in fact conducted herself in a manner unbecoming of a Judge of the Superior Courts in relation to the said Charge.The entire episode to oust Chief Justice Bandaranayake from her office has been accompanied by an indecent, mighty haste. Government sources admitted that they expected the Chief Justice to resign soon after her husband Pradeepa Kariyawasam was indicted for alleged bribery. This did not happen. She stayed and is fighting back though at every stage we thought she would throw in the towel, said the knowledgeable source. In such a scenario, the governments strategy throughout has been to only name and shame all those who were opposed to the impeachment move. That included a sizeable segment in the legal fraternity; some of them staunch backers of the government, who form part of the countrys intelligentsia. Other than hurling harsh abuse and more harsh abuse, such campaigns only multiplied the support base for Chief Justice Bandaranayake and conversely made the Government that much unpopular.It has perhaps been emboldened by the absence of vocal criticism albeit major protests by the main opposition. That is by no means, like switching on a light bulb, a shift in the public support pronto. With mounting living costs and rising corruption, there are many lessons to be learnt from the two-month long impeachment move. Main among them, for a government that rode the tidal wave of popular support just three years ago after defeating the Tiger guerrillas, is the immediate need to learn who their real friends are. From that, they will know their enemies. The sooner they do that, the earlier they save themselves all the embarrassment, the shame on their country and the people.Otherwise those so called advisors, barefoot judges with self-assumed brilliance in jurisprudence, a coterie of hangers on and hurrah boys or girls will continue with the game that might is right. Of course, those mighty also should lend neither ear nor give them loud voices. A learned approach would enlighten the people whilst ranting by rats who are first to desert a sinking ship would only lead to more and more political wrecks.International battle ahead; possible questions from CommonwealthView(s):

= Independent media barred from ceremonial sitting to welcome CJ 44, witch-hunt of CJ 43 continues= Cabinet reshuffle likely tomorrow, PM to continue, President furious over senior ministers remarks on PM successor= Army Board issues report, contradicting LLRC recommendations; new National Oil Company to handle exploration and productionBy Our Political EditorArmed troops and police surrounded the superior courts complex, the citadel of the countrys judicial system in Hulftsdorp last Wednesday, for the second time in two weeks. Last week they kept protesting lawyers at bay as the newly appointed Chief Justice Peter Mohan Maithree Peiris drove in through the back entrance to the premises to assume office. Their only task this time was to keep the private media away from covering Peiris formally assuming duties as Sri Lankas 44th Chief Justice.There were neither protests nor demonstrations outside the complex this time; just a formal boycott by the Bar Association. Journalists from the private media, photographers, video cameramen, reporters and foreign correspondents were stopped at the gates. Whilst they waited, a court security official walked up to the entrance of the Supreme Court and shouted who is the cameraman from ITN? He was identified. He waved him to come forward and the gates opened. He was asked why the others were being debarred. The reply came in double quick time. The Marshal of the Courts had given instructions. Moments later, a camera unit of the state television broadcaster Rupavahini drove in one of their vehicles after the gates were opened wide for them.

A lawyer appeals to enter Court Premises and debarred, Private Media look on. A police bus is on stand-by. Pic by M.A. PushpakumaraFor the first time in the countrys legal history, there was censorship on a ceremonial event held to make a nation learn that a new Chief Justice was being ceremonially welcomed. A photographer from the Government Department of Information was taken in and the office later distributed one photograph of a select group of judges from both, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal seemingly enjoying a chat with Chief Justice 44 Mohan Peiris. They included Justice Shirani Thilakawardene, Satya Hettige Eva Wanasundera and Rohini Marasinghe. Significantly, there was no group photograph of Peiris with the rest of the Justices of the Supreme Court as is customary.This is whilst Shirani Bandaranayake, who maintains she is still the Chief Justice, was busy trying to meet another challenge, this time from a fresh front. The Department of Inland Revenue has gone into top gear this week to raise a number of queries from her on monetary transactions mentioned during the impeachment resolution passed by Parliament. This is on the basis that she had not disclosed large amounts of money from certain transactions. She is to tell them that no millions of rupees were received. The witch hunt continues, remarked a legal counsel representing her. The lightning speed at which tax people have reacted shows there is more to come, he warned speaking on grounds of anonymity.The government said it was right in introducing the impeachment resolution obtaining Parliament approval with more than a two thirds majority. It also insisted it was right in sacking Chief Justice 43 Bandaranayake. These events received wide publicity in the private and even the state-run media. Yet, the move to shut out the private media from the ceremonial sitting last Monday by deploying hundreds of troops and armed policemen could not prevent what transpired in the Supreme Courts complex from becoming public. The only exception perhaps was the photo opportunities, which raises the question whether armed deployment was really necessary for that little cover up.Troops and policemen in their hundreds could not hide the fact that last Wednesdays ceremonial sitting was in breach of hallowed tradition. It was devoid of any formal involvement by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. For well over 200 years, arranging a ceremonial sitting to welcome a Chief Justice has remained a prerogative of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL). The Association makes a written official request to a new incumbent in office to attend the ceremony. Some of its members still argue that without the BASL formal request there could not be a ceremonial sitting.This is because such a sitting, they say, involves two traditional addresses. One is by the President of the BASL in his capacity as head of the unofficial bar welcoming the new Chief Justice. The other is by the Attorney General (as head of the official bar). Since the BASL had resolved that it would not take part in any ceremony to welcome a new Chief Justice, its officials and most members kept away. This is significant in view of the fact that all attorneys including those in the Attorney Generals Department are also members of the BASL.Thus, a ceremonial welcome of a new kind played out on Wednesday. If Attorney General Palitha Fernando did deliver the traditional address, taking the place of the President of the BASL to welcome the newly appointed Chief Justice was Razik Zarook, attorney-at-law. It was only a week earlier President Rajapaksa (who is also the Minister of Finance) named Zarook as Chairman of the Bank of Ceylon. Zarook was expelled from serving as Patron of the BASL Matara Branch for not opposing the impeachment resolution against CJ Bandaranayake. He welcomed Chief Justice Peiris on behalf of those lawyers assembled here today. He was chosen to speak when some others had refused to do the honours despite Peiris himself urging them to do so. This week, a section of the BASL was canvassing a resolution to suspend him from membership in the premier legal body. A defiant Zarook, one-time Chairman of the CWE and Ambassador under UNP administrations, says he would not be deterred by the actions of a few.Judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and the High Courts, District Courts and Magistrates were present. Among the notable senior lawyers who took part in the ceremonial welcome for the CJ was former Attorney General Shibly Aziz, a staunch critic of the impeachment move. He is one among senior counsel who wrote to Supreme Court Judges requesting that Judges of the Supreme Court should refuse to accept an appointment of CJ (or acting CJ) or refuse to recognise any person appointed to the office of the CJ.. He told colleagues he attended the ceremony since Mohan Peiris was his junior in the Attorney Generals Department. Another is Sanjiva Jayawardena PC who was earlier critical of the impeachment move. Among other lawyers present were Arthur Samarasekera PC, former Sri Lanka Ambassador to Myanmar, Faisz Mustapha PC, one-time High Commissioner to Britain, and Sarath Kongahage, Ambassador to Germany. Legal officers attached to state corporations, armed services and statutory bodies were also asked to attend the event. Some senior police officers manning stations in the Colombo area were also seen in civilian attire when the addresses were made.A coterie of VIPs also graced the event. They included Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal, who is a respondent in a Fundamental Rights Petition relating to the Central Bank purchasing Greek Bonds reportedly suffering staggering financial loss. The case filed by UNP parliamentarian Sujeeva Senasinghe is now pending before the Supreme Court. Among the senior lawyers who did not attend the ceremonial sitting were S.L. Gunaskera, I.S. de Silva and Presidents Counsel Wijeyadasa Rajapaksha (President, BASL), Ananda Wijesekera, K. Kanag-Isvaran, Romesh de Silva, Maureen Seneviratne, Jayantha Gunasekera, Srinath Perera, Dr. Jayampathy Wickremeratne, Anil Silva, Rohan Sahabandu, Uditha Egalahewa, Prasanna Jayawardena, Maithree Wickremasinghe, Lakshman Perera, Harsha Amarasekera, Geoffrey Alagaratnam, Ikram Mohamed and Nalin Ladduwehetty.Protests over the removal of Chief Justice Bandaranayake and the appointment of Peiris as successor continue in different corners of the world. Forty four senior judges and eminent jurists, some retired and others serving, who are members of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said in a statement last Wednesday that Judicial independence and the separation of powers are the bedrock of the rule of law. Calling for the reinstatement of Bandaranayake, the three-page statement said, Sri Lankas actions further violate the core values of the Commonwealth of Nations enunciated in the Singapore Declaration 1971, the Harare Declaration 1991 and the Latimer House Principles on the Three Branches of Government 2003. The Latimer House Principles call on member States to uphold the rule of law by protecting judicial independence and maintaining mutual respect and cooperation between Parliament and the Judiciary. The statement added that Sri Lankas actions run against the regionally applicable standards set out in the Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA region.The Law Society of Upper Canada said it is deeply concerned about judges in Sri Lanka who, in carrying out their judicial duties, can be subjected to inappropriate processes where their decisions are contrary to the views of public authorities. International Human Rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, state that judicial independence and human rights are necessary to advancing the rule of law. The Law Society urges the Government of Sri Lanka to, (a) Take steps to ensure that judges are not subject to politically motivated sanctions as a result of issuing decisions; (b) Publicly recognise the importance, legitimacy and independence of the work of judges and their contributions to the strengthening of democracy and the rule of law; (c) Ensure that all judges can carry out their peaceful and legitimate duties and activities without fear of removal from office; and (d) Ensure in all circumstances respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with international human rights standards.Colombos Anglican Bishop the Reverend Dhiloraj Canagasabey said in a statement, This is a time for us as Church to take an honest look at ourselves, where we have shamelessly compromised our loyalty to God. We need to repent of ways in which we, as individuals as well as collectively, have;= Been silent when we should have spoken= Allowed ourselves (thoughtlessly or out of fear) to be used by those in authority to speak lies or commit wrong and unjust acts= Consciously received benefits for ourselves through acts of injustice committed against othersI as your Bishop call the Church to a period of lament together for the terrible state of our nation today, and repentance for our failing as a Church to love mercy, to seek justice and to walk humbly with the Lord (Micah 6:8).I therefore propose that(a) Sunday 3rd February 2013 be observed in all parishes within our Diocese as a Day of Lament. All services should have an extended time of silence, prayer and intercessions, to grieve over the state of our country today. Please encourage all parishioners to wear white and to fast wherever possible.(b) We as a diocese will congregate on 4th February 2013 at 9 a.m., dressed in white, for a service to continue our Time of Lament. Those who are unable to be present at the Cathedral for this service are encouraged to gather in their own churches at this time.(c) I further propose that all parishes in our Diocese have a series of Bible studies, reflections and discussions during Lent, which is traditionally a period of self-examination and penitence, to reflect on what it means to live as a faithful disciple-community of Jesus in the context of our nation today.For President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the Chief Justice affair seems to be a thing of the past. With the appointment of Mohan Peiris, he has begun to focus on a number of other issues. Yet a few of the measures he was originally billed to carry out being put on hold seems no surprise.Perhaps he does not want to rock his political boat too much and face new issues. However, it is likely that there will be a cabinet reshuffle tomorrow (Monday). UPFA sources say a few changes are possible. There will also be no change of the Prime Minister. The present incumbent D.M. Jayaratne is to be allowed to continue. Rajapaksa was livid with a senior minister, a known aspirant to prime ministerial office, over remarks he had reportedly made on a successor.

At the weekly cabinet meeting on Thursday, Rajapaksa cautioned his ministers to be careful when they visit other countries and hold talks with dignitaries or officials. Some polite denials have been construed by the host countries as having agreed to their requests, he pointed out. He revealed that External Affairs Ministry Secretary Karunatilleke Amunugama has brought this to his attention on Thursday morning, just ahead of the cabinet meeting. However, Rajapaksa did not reveal which Minister or the name of the country where the incident reportedly occurred. Some Ministers wondered whether this in any way related to the visit to India by External Affairs Minister, G.L. Peiris.At the same cabinet meeting, Rajapaksa won approval for a major change in the laws governing petroleum exploration. The Government Information Department said this was with the view to meeting the required legal standards of global expectations of the petroleum industry as well as to introduce the principles of good governance into Sri Lankas Oil and Gas Industry. However, there was more. The task of exploring oil deposits is to be vested in the hands of a National Oil Company, the Sri Lankan partner in all future foreign deals. This will mean the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) will have no role once the new laws are enacted.The copy of the cabinet memorandum from President Rajapaksa, titled Amendments to the Petroleum Resources Act No 26 of 2003 hinted that the global oil industry has started showing a keen interest in oil exploration projects in Sri Lanka. Here is the full text:The Petroleum Resources Act No. 26 of 2003 is the only governing legislation for exploration and recovery of petroleum resources in Sri Lanka. Following the hydrocarbon discoveries in the Mannar Basin by Cairn and their public notification of commercial interest, the global oil industry started showing a keen interest in investing inexploration projects in Sri Lanka. To enter into the global oil industry and to work on par with international standards, the importance and necessity of having a comprehensive strong enforceable legislation has become a crucial issue.This prime requirement was discussed at the Petroleum Resources Development Committee (PRDC) meeting held on January 18, 2012, and while agreeing to the above requirement, it was further emphasised at the meeting the necessity of having a strong regulatory framework in Sri Lanka, and for that purpose to make the Petroleum Resources Development Secretariat an independent corporate body with the mandate to efficiently manage and regulate upstream petroleum operations.Taking these facts into consideration, with the view to meeting the required standards of the global expectations of the petroleum industry as well as to introduce the principles of good governance into Sri Lankas upstream oil and gas industry, the Petroleum Resources Development Secretariat (PRDS), with advice of its consultants suggests amendments to the Petroleum Resource Act in the following areas:(i) Widening the scope of the Act by clearly describing the objectives of the Act.(ii) Allocating the responsibilities of preparing a Government policy on the exploration and production of hydrocarbon resources of Sri Lanka to the PRDC; (sic)(iii) Making the PRDS an independent corporate body with a mandate to regulate and manage upstream petroleum industry in Sri Lanka efficiently and effectively;(iv) Introducing the formation of a future National Oil Company defining its role and function as the State participant of the future production activities;(v) Introducing tax provisions empowering the Minister to decide on the necessary tax concession, so that state tax revenue could be optimised; and(vi) Including any other improvements to upgrade the Act to international standards.These developments came as the government appeared to be readying itself for the UN Human Rights Council sessions which begin next month. One strong indication came when Army Commander Jagath Jayasuriya handed over the report of the Board of Officers who studied the implementation of the recommendations made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission to Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa.The board comprised Major General Kamal Gunaratne, Brigadier Senaka Wickramarathne, Brigadier Aruna Wanniarachchi, Brigadier G.V. Ravipriya, Brigadier Suraj Bansajaya and Lieutenant Colonel Piyal Wijesiriwardhane. Their voluminous report was not made public but a three-page note distributed to the media on that occasion gave some selected highlights. It said the task of the board was to study the LLRC report and identify areas that are relevant to the Army and to formulate a viable Action Plan to address the specific areas so identified.The boards recommendations, made public, projects differing viewpoints to that of the LLRC report. That poses the question whether the Sri Lanka delegation to the UNHRC sessions in Geneva next month would have to make a shift in its approach. Quite apart from the upcoming issues, the Government is yet to decide who will lead Sri Lankas delegation to Geneva where the Human Rights Council sessions begin on February 25. Presidents Human Rights Special Envoy and Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, is yet to be named. This week, he was busy preparing an addendum further detailing Sri Lankas position on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) held last year.The Council report will come up for adoption at next months sessions. He has confided to his ministerial colleagues that the External Affairs Ministry has not been keeping him briefed on developments. One such instance, he has pointed out, is when Kshenuka Senewiratne, then acting External Affairs Ministry Secretary (as Amunugama was in New Delhi at the time) had written to Navanethem Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. If he were consulted, he had confessed, the letter would have been more polite and diplomatic in content. This is particularly in view of Pillay having to present a report to the Council as a follow up to the US-backed resolution.One highlight of the Army boards report notes, The Board concludes that the Army had taken all precautions to avoid civilian casualties during the humanitarian operation. In order to totally eliminate/minimise disciplines such as infantry tactics, special operations, artillery fire, armour employment, joint operations etc. in relation to Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) and to formulate new doctrines covering these disciplines.Strongly supporting this position was Defence Secretary Rajapaksa. He declared at the handover ceremony, No one talks of the people who died in action. For the parents they are missing, because they were taken forcibly by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and put to fight. When they died no one knew what happened to them. You have to understand this issue. There are the people who died in action. According to some of the people nobody had died in action. That cannot happen. How did they control these areas for the past 30 years? The Army lost nearly 6,000 soldiers after the humanitarian operation (the final military campaign to militarily defeat Tiger guerrillas in 2009) started. This was for the last two and half years. Close to 5,800 persons died during this two and half years. We had 20,000 soldiers injured. If we had suffered that amount of casualties, what about the terrorists?They must have lost more than that.However, the final report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) notes .The Commission is faced with similar difficulties in attempting a re-construction of certain incidents involving the loss of civilian lives which have been brought to the attention of the Commission. Whilst the Commission finds it difficult to determine the precise circumstances under which such incidents occurred the material nevertheless point towards possible implication of the Security Forces for the resulting death or injury to civilians, even though this may not have been with an (sic) intent to cause harm. In these circumstances the Commission stresses that there is a duty on the part of the State to ascertain more fully, the circumstances under which such incidents could have occurred, and if such investigations disclose wrongful conduct, to prosecute and punish the wrong doers. Consideration should also be given to providing appropriate redress to the next of kin of those killed and those injured as a humanitarian gesture that would help the victims to come to terms with personal tragedy, both in relation to the incidents referred to above and any other incidents which further investigations may reveal.In another chapter, the LRRC report spoke of disappearances.It says, Given the complexity and magnitude of the problem and considering the number of persons alleged to have disappeared, and the time consuming nature of the investigations involved, the Commission recommends that a Special Commissioner of Investigations be appointed to investigate alleged disappearances and provide material to the Attorney General to initiate criminal proceedings as appropriate. The office of the Commissioner should be provided with experienced investigators to collect and process information necessary for investigations and prosecution. This mechanism should also devise a centralised system of data collection at the national level, integrating all information with regard to missing persons currently being maintained by different agencies.Another recommendation of the Army says, The Board agree that in many countries the Police do come under the Home Ministry or Provincial Administration. However, the Board notes that such countries do not face widespread internal disorders. Conversely, the Police in some countries that face internal threats have proved to be total failures. Therefore the Board recommends that the Sri Lanka Police be placed under the Ministry of Defence at all times and it proposes that a Ministry of Defence Board should study and make recommendations with regard to the Role of the Police in insurgencies and terrorism. A reference in the voluminous report itself to this recommendation has the following statement: Refer this recommendation to the PSC (Parliamentary Select Committee) as it deals with an entirely policy/political issue.It is not immediately clear why the Army board chose to make recommendations on a policy/political issue. That too on what is evidently not a matter directly within its purview. The LLRC said in its final report that The Police Department is a civilian institution which is entrusted with the maintenance of law and order. Therefore, it is desirable that the Police Department be de-linked from the institutions dealing with the armed forces which are responsible for the security of the State.At last Thursdays event, Defence Secretary Rajapaksa went on to praise the military for its role in defeating Tiger guerrillas. He said, Nowhere in the world can you win a war unless you are a professional military. You win the war because you fight the war in a professional manner. Only a professional disciplined military can win a war. Otherwise it goes against the principles of war. If an undisciplined, unprofessional military can win a war that goes against the basic principles of war. So we proved that we defeated a terrorist organisation which even the international military experts were thinking was invincible.Commenting on disappearances, Rajapaksa said, You have to understand that when you say missing, people do not realise that there were people in these areas the LTTE recruited and were fighting a war. If you take the army, there were about 3,000 listed missing during the past 30 years. This is because we could not find the bodies of our soldiers.Similarly you know the situation that prevailed at that time.When they were fighting, obviously there were persons who were killed in the battlefront, people have forgotten that the LTTE recruited people, they were fighting with the armed forces. No one talks of the people who died in action, for the parents they are missing,, because they were taken forcibly by the LTTE and put to fight and when they die nobody knows what happened to them. According to some of the people nobody had died in action. Q: (not clear)Not a single person is missing from those who were handed over to us or surrendered to us. There was a procedure. This is another thing which the people have forgotten. Take the people who were coming from the sea. They first went to the hospital maintained by the Indians. It was manned by the Indian army. They reported to them first and thereafter were handed over to us or sent to welfare camps. Everywhere they surrendered, the ICRC was there, the UNHCR was there. There was procedure to register these people. Not a single person is missing from that list who surrendered to the Army.Since the military defeat of Tiger guerrillas more than three years ago, some of the issues arising from it have shifted to the international front. Some of the important battles here will be fought in the coming weeks and months. From the events that have played out so far; there is little doubt that the UN Human Rights Council sessions in Geneva will be unfavorable to Sri Lanka.Yet, the hype and frenzy that prevailed during weeks before last years sessions where the US backed resolution was adopted is absent. There were only a few murmurs at the Ministry of External Affairs where the issue was discussed by officials with Ravinatha Ariyasinha, Sri Lankas Ambassador to the UN in Geneva. Of course, as is the practice now, greater failures due to lack of preparations are made up for by the issue of strongly worded statements or letters.Then, there is the upcoming meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) where moves are afoot to suspend Sri Lanka from the Commonwealth. Reports that some member countries are making an attempt to shift the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting from Colombo to either Mauritius or Bahamas are reverberating in the corridors of the External Affairs Ministry. The event is scheduled for November this year. These no doubt are serious challenges to the UPFA Government. Statements, name calling or naming and shaming others will not help. It will only draw isolation and condemnation not to mention the other costly damage.

Govt. considers new CJ but Shirani wont goView(s):

= Unprecedented chaos and confusion continues with senior lawyers urging judges not to sit with any new CJ= US, Britain and Commonwealth Secretariat issue tough statements and Govt. faces grilling at UNHRC sessions= UPFA insiders say force may be used to prevent CJ from entering courts, but lawyers also planning counteractionBy Our Political EditorUPFA leaders were busy yesterday to ensconce a new Chief Justice, the countrys highest judicial office, on January 18 (Friday). On this day, he will be sworn in by President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Other than that ceremony, it is likely to be sans official events and ceremonial fanfare that goes when a Chief Justice takes office in Hulftsdorp.Last night, the government was looking at the possibility of appointing a serving Judge to succeed Shirani Bandaranayake as the Chief Justice. As revealed last week, C.R.de Silva, Presidents Counsel, turned down an offer from his good friend President Mahinda Rajapaksa, not once but several times. Having just retired as Attorney General, de Silva was a possible contender for the post when Chief Justice Sarath Silva retired in 2009, but the President must be ruing the fact that he didnt appoint him then, to fill the vacancy.Others who declined similar offers for this high office were Palitha Fernando, the current Attorney General and Justice Eva Wanasundera, a serving Judge of the Supreme Court. At least two other aspirants in the SC bench were not considered though one was, last week, a hot favourite.For the Government, a replacement for Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake has become necessary after the impeachment resolution against her was passed in Parliament on Friday with more than a two thirds majority.One of those who abstained from voting was Senior Minister and Communist Party Leader D.E.W. Gunasekera. However, he will not face any disciplinary action in the light of the contribution his party (the Communist Party) had made towards the UPFA, a high ranking source said. Another Minister representing a partner in the UPFA, their leaders warned on Friday, faced expulsion from cabinet. This was after reports claimed he was voting against the resolution. In the face of this, an expulsion letter was also ready. However, he voted in favour. Voting for the resolution was 155 government MPs as against 49 from the opposition.Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa defended the Governments action. He told the Sunday Times yesterday, We have followed the normal procedure. The President is the appointing authority of a Chief Justice. However, he cannot remove an incumbent for misbehaviour or incapacity without a request from the legislature. Those are the checks and balances in the Constitution.He said under the Soulbury Constitution as well as the Constitution of 1972, a Chief Justice could have been impeached without charges. However, the present Constitution required that charges be preferred. Instead of the required 75 MPs such charges were signed by 117. We have passed the resolution with more than a two thirds majority, he added. He said it was now up to President Rajapaksa to initiate action.In the light of this, at least for the Government, the fact that the country will not be without a Chief Justice for three days, from January 15, has raised some issues. Though tomorrow is a public, bank and mercantile holiday on account of the Hindu harvest festival of Thai Pongal, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday are working days. In terms of existing law, no bench of the Supreme Court can sit without a Chief Justice holding office. This has given rise to a question in some quarters whether there would be an acting Chief Justice in the interim. However, such a move is being strongly discounted. That will mean there will be no sittings of the Supreme Court during the three-day period, at least as far as the Government is concerned. However, it is likely the Supreme Court will sit since in its view, the entire impeachment process is illegal and Chief Justice Bandaranayake still holds office. The question is whether Bandaranayake CJ will come on the bench herself. The impeachment of her is also incomplete until the President signs the warrant giving effect to the motion passed by Parliament.President Rajapaksa was to sign a warrant yesterday declaring that Parliament has by majority vote decided to impeach Chief Justice Bandaranayake. This was after a Parliamentary Select Committee has found her guilty on three counts of proven misbehaviour. Thereafter, the Parliamentary Council, successor to the Constitutional Council after the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, will have to endorse the appointment of the new Chief Justice. The Council is chaired by Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa. Other members are Prime Minister D.M. Jayaratne, A.H.M. Azwer MP, Ranil Wickremesinghe as Leader of the Opposition and M.A. Sumanthiran MP, on behalf of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). It is not immediately clear whether Wickremesinghe will take part since his party has chosen to boycott sessions of the Parliamentary Council since the 18th Amendment to the Constitution was passed.Yet, the controversy over the office of the Chief Justice is far from over. Until Friday afternoon, emissaries, some high ranking and others from the legal profession, have been playing honest brokers. When efforts to reach an amicable understanding between the Government and Chief Justice Bandaranayake fell through, they traded allegations.One who negotiated on behalf of the Government said they conveyed that they would not be averse to dropping the impeachment if Ms. Bandaranayake resigned. He claimed that the Chief Justice had asked for three months time so she could retire. However, he said this was turned down at the highest levels of the Government. The reason given for the refusal sounded somewhat bizarre that she (Chief Justice Bandaranayake) had in the interim planned to appear before the UN Human Rights Council and state her case. He alleged that NGO groups were making preparations for this and added that would be damaging to the country.Sources close to Chief Justice Bandaranayake scoffed at the claims, but conceded that a dialogue did take place with different intermediaries.In all the talks we were involved; we made it clear that the only pre-condition Chief Justice Bandaranayake wanted was that the Government should not proceed with the unfair and unjust impeachment process. Other than that, she was willing to either have her investigated properly or readily consider any other measures she should take, the source said.The source added that Chief Justice Bandaranaike had reminded her interlocutors of what she had told External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris when she received her appointment. This was after Peiris had helped obtain it for her. She had said that though she would be entitled to serve as Chief Justice until 2023, she planned to retire in 2016. That was after completing five years in office. However, in the interim, attempts were being made to force her out on purported charges which she was not even allowed to counter by placing facts. Hence, she had wanted to prove her innocence first and expose the politically motivated move against her.Therefore, Chief Justice Bandaranayake will not give up office, voluntarily. Though Mohan Peiris is to be named as the new Chief Justice, she has chosen to fight it out. On Friday night, she was defiant and was at her official government bungalow located along Bauddhaloka Mawatha and Wijerama Road, together with her husband Pradeepa and her son, Shaveen. A government parliamentarian from the Colombo District had helped his supporters hoist tents nearby where music blared. Some of those taking part were described as one-time depositors in the now bankrupt Ceylinco Group of Companies. Milk rice or Kiribath was cooked on the roadside for celebrations after Parliament approved the impeachment resolution. Some used loud hailers to make speeches which were directed towards the Chief Justices official residence. Despite the raucous behaviour, it became clear that Bandaranayake was continuing to remain as Chief Justice, said a source close to her. According to the source, she would continue on the grounds that in terms of the Supreme Court determination, the Parliamentary Select Committee that probed her was unconstitutional.Her decision to continue in office has received the backing of senior lawyers including several Presidents Counsels. They urged her to heed the Supreme Court ruling and remain in office. On Friday, they sent out a signed appeal to judges of the Supreme Court. This is what it said:Your Lordships and Your Ladyships of the Supreme Court,THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE FROM OFFICE AND TO REPLACE HER CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAs Your Lordships and Ladyships are aware the Supreme Court has on the 1st of January 2013 exercised its Constitutional Jurisdiction and interpreted the Constitution holding that a Select Committee appointed under Standing Order 78A of the Parliament, does not have the power to arrive at a finding against a Judge of a Superior Court in terms of Article 107(3) of the Constitution.On the 3rd of January 2013 the Court of Appeal, exercising Writ jurisdiction under Article 140 of the Constitution, quashed the decision of the Parliamentary Select Committee finding the Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake guilty of three charges set out in the impeachment resolution submitted by 117 Members of Parliament.In view of the interpretation given by Your Lordships Court and the decision of the Court of Appeal, the attempt to remove the Chief Justice from office is without any legal basis and contrary to the Constitution and the law of the land.We understand that despite the aforesaid interpretation and the judgment of the Court of Appeal, nevertheless the Parliament of Sri Lanka is debating the resolution of impeachment and seeking to submit an address of Parliament to the President calling for the removal of the Chief Justice.We understand that there is a likelihood of such an address being followed by Her Ladyship the Chief Justice being illegally removed from office and being replaced with a new appointee, whose appointment is illegal and contrary to the Constitution of Sri Lanka and the very decisions of Your Lordships Court. Such a person would be a usurper in the Office of Chief Justice.As you are well aware you are obliged (as are we) to honour and follow the decisions of our courts whether we agree with it or not. Thus a disagreement in other quarters is irrelevant.In the aforesaid circumstances, at a time the Judiciary and the Bar of Sri Lanka are facing the gravest crisis in the history of its existence, we as members of the Bar feel it our bounden duty to call upon Your Lordships and Ladyships to act to protect the independence of the judiciary which is an intangible heritage of the people of this country.Accordingly we the undersigned earnestly request that the Judges of the Supreme Court should refuse to recognise any person appointed to the office of Chief Justice and refuse to sit with a person appointed as the Chief Justice as such an appointment would be contrary to the Constitution which Your Lordships and Ladyships and we as members of the Bar have sworn to uphold.We may add that Your Ladyships and Lordships are obliged to follow the decisions of our Courts and that if Your Lordships or Ladyships refuse to abide by the rulings of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal you cannot expect any other person to follow the orders of any of our Courts.Among the signatories to the statement are S.L. Gunasekera, Shibly Aziz PC, Ikram Mohamed PC, Ananda de Z. Wijesekera PC, Geoffrey Alagaratnam PC, Uditha Egalhewa PC, M.L.M. Ameen PC, Romesh de Silva PC, Prasanna Jayawardena PC and Shammil J. Perera PC.The Executive Committee of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) on Friday night decided to endorse the appeal sent out by senior lawyers to Judges of the Supreme Court. The Exco appealed to them not to accept the appointment of a new Chief Justice nor sit with him or her on the bench. The Bar Council yesterday endorsed the Executive Committees decision.The Government is aware of plans by incumbent Chief Justice Bandaranayake to remain in office. At meetings at the highest level, several options were being considered. One was to ask her to quit her official residence or face eviction. The other was to prevent her from entering her office by introducing new security procedures. Lawyers and supporters of Chief Justice Bandaranayake, on the other hand, were also busy discussing counter measures. One of the main steps is to move court against the appointment of Mohan Peiris as Chief Justice on the grounds that the present incumbent was still in office. There is little doubt that the steps taken by both sides will lead to chaos and confusion, and a disruption in the administration of justice.These new developments came after the Government, like a behemoth, bulldozed its way using its two thirds majority in Parliament, to pass the highly controversial impeachment resolution against Chief Justice, Dr. (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake. Ignored in the process was a determination of the Supreme Court declaring the exercise illegal and an order of the Court of Appeal annulling the validity of the PSC that probed the Chief Justice. Pleas by leaders of the Maha Sangha, other religious dignitaries, civil society organisations and foreign governments that encouraged democratic values were also ignored.The first note of caution from outside Sri Lanka came from the United States on Friday night. Their Embassy in Colombo said in a statement: The United States Embassy remains deeply concerned by the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, which were conducted in defiance of a Supreme Court order. This impeachment calls into question issues about the separation of powers in Sri Lanka and the impact of its absence on democratic institutions. The Embassy is also concerned about accounts of violence during several of the protests. The Embassy calls on all sides to respect the right of peaceful protest, and calls on the government to ensure that non-violent protesters are protected. The United States, along with our partners in the international community, continues to urge the Government of Sri Lanka to uphold the rule of law and respect the principles of democratic governance.

Later on Friday night, the British government also responded. Here is what its Foreign Office spokesperson said: The British Government is deeply concerned by the impeachment proceedings against Sri Lankas Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. We share the concerns already expressed by many people in Sri Lanka over both the process and related reports of the intimidation of members of the Sri Lankan Bar Association. The motion to impeach the Chief Justice runs contrary to the clear rulings of Sri Lankas highest courts and the proceedings appear to contravene basic principles of fairness, due process and respect for the independence of the judiciary and the Commonwealth Latimer House Principles. Together with our international partners, we call on the Sri Lankan Government to respect democratic principles and the right to peaceful protest and to ensure the continued safety of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake.The US and British statements are significant in the light of the upcoming sessions of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva. Its 22nd sessions begin on February 22 and ends on March 22. Sri Lanka is on the agenda after the 19th sessions adopted a US backed three-point resolution. It called upon the government to (1) implement the constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, (2) requested the government to present, as expeditiously as possible, a comprehensive action plan detailing the steps the government has taken and will take to implement the LLRC recommendations, and (3) encouraged the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant special procedures mandate holders to provide and the Government of Sri Lanka to accept, advice and technical assistance on implementing the two above mentioned steps. It requested a report from the Office of the High Commissioner to present a report on the provision of such assistance to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-second session.Following suit with a statement was Kamalesh Sharma, the Commonwealth Secretary General. He has urged the Sri Lankan Government to pause for further careful consideration following the passage by the countrys Parliament today of the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka.He added: The impeachment of a Chief Justice is a very serious matter. In this particular case, it has called into question aspects of the Constitution of Sri Lanka.The Commonwealth, collectively, is profoundly concerned about this situation. I strongly urge that time be taken to reflect and consider fully the constitutional and other ramifications of the differing positions taken by the Judiciary and the Legislature before any decision is taken by the Executive on the impeachment of the Chief Justice.I have been in touch with the Sri Lankan Government at the highest levels to offer Commonwealth assistance to find a way forward. I recognise that this is a matter for Sri Lanka, but am also conscious of our shared Commonwealth values and principles, to which Sri Lanka and all member governments have subscribed, the Secretary-General said.In respect of the Commonwealth, diplomatic sources said, the Commonwealth Secretariat would initiate action based on principles agreed at the last CHOGM. This is on the basis of the report of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group titled on strengthening their own role. It was endorsed at the last Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Perth, Australia last year.This followed two years of deliberations by CMAG, which was mandated in 2009 by Heads of Governments in Trinidad and Tobago. The core changes in CMAGs mandate now accepted by Commonwealth leaders include using the following as among the types of situations that might be regarded as constituting a serious or persistent violation of Commonwealth values. Among them are: The unilateral abrogation of a democratic constitution or serious threats to constitutional rule, and the abrogation of the rule of law or undermining of the independence of the judiciary.The Sunday Times learns diplomatic initiatives already under way by some countries to widen the scope of the matters to be discussed when Sri Lanka is taken up for discussion at the UNHRC sessions beginning next month. Such initiatives are expected to heighten, particularly in Washington DC, soon after the inauguration of President Barrack Obama for a second term on January 21. They are to include the prevailing human rights situation, the breakdown in law and order, media freedom issues and the impeachment of the Chief Justice leading to a chaotic situation in relation to separation of powers. Backing the US in their initiatives are Britain and Canada among others.In fact, much ahead of these issues receiving attention, the UN Human Rights High Commissioner Navanetham Pillay had written to External Affairs Minister G. L. Peiris drawing the Governments attention to areas where it should receive UNHRC co-operation. An External Affairs Ministry source said Peiris responded to Pillay by inviting her to Sri Lanka but did not answer any of the issues. He had been of the view that such matters could have been discussed when Pillay arrived. However, she is now expected to report to the Council of a government failure to accept her offers or take initiatives towards implementing the resolution. Other issues including those related to law and order and the judiciary come in this backdrop.In the light of these developments, diplomatic sources in Colombo say, Pillay may report to UNHRC of what she calls the Sri Lanka Governments failures. In such an event, another broader resolution which may incorporate stricter measures against Sri Lanka is not being ruled out. Such measures, one source said, could vary from an international investigation on Sri Lanka to the appointment of a Special Representative to advise UNHRC on what needs to be done. Another possibility is a call by the Council to work with the High Commissioners Office. This is in marked contrast to the March 2012 resolution which wanted the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant special procedures mandate holders to provide and the Government of Sri Lanka to accept advice and technical assistance. Any such measures would mean that Sri Lanka will remain on the UNHRC agenda for years to come.It was not only within Parliament that the Governments steamroller majority was reflected.

Police officers on duty outside the Chief Justices official residence at Wijerama Mawatha. Pic Indika HanduwalaAt Hulftsdorp, the citadel of the countrys judiciary, the demonstrators who turned up on Thursday to protest against Chief Justice Bandaranayake outnumbered lawyers, their well-wishers and even supporters of political parties. Some of the demonstrators were armed with clubs, and used them as flagpoles. Again we are compelled to talk about goons with political blessings because we are fast becoming a failed state and the rule of law in our motherland is crumbling down, complained Karu Jayasuriya, MP and one time deputy leader of the United National Party (UNP). He added: The law of the jungle reigns supreme in place of law; power of the goons in place of discipline; injustice in place of justice; dictatorship in place of democracy, are being established.Similar scenes played out in Hulftsdorp and outside the Parliamentary complex on Friday, the day Parliament took the unprecedented vote. Crackers were lit and fireworks displays followed the adoption of the impeachment resolution. Even the United National Party (UNP), whose role in the impeachment issue was described as confused, blowing hot sometimes and cold at other times, reacted strongly.Its communications manager Mangala Samaraweera, once Foreign Minister in the Rajapaksa cabinet, declared: Up to yesterday (Friday) at least we kept up appearances of being at least a nominal democracy. But as of Friday night, the Rajapaksa Government sheds the faade and the country becomes a pariah of the international community. He called what lawyers have dubbed Black Friday as Government members in the majority prepared to vote on the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice the darkest day in Sri Lankas recent history. The Matara District UNP MP was speaking at a launch of its communication drive at the partys trade union office, the Jathika Sevaka Sangamaya Headquarters on Friday.Ahead of the Parliament sessions, opposition members walked out of a party leaders meeting chaired by Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa on Monday morning. Representing the main opposition UNP were Lakshman Kiriella and Ravi Karunanayake whilst Suresh Premachandran represented the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and Anura Kumara Dissanayake the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP). Minister Wimal Weerawansa (National Freedom Front) said that Parliament should go ahead with the impeachment resolution against Chief Justice Bandaranayake. This is because the Government respects the Speakers ruling and not that of the Supreme Court. Minister Basil Rajapaksa (who represented the Sri Lanka Freedom Party) claimed that the recent Court of Appeal order was made up of 27 pages though only 20 pages have been released to the media. Nowhere has the Court of Appeal, Basil Rajapaksa argued, said that Parliament cannot proceed and called upon the opposition to point out if he was wrong. At this stage, representatives of the opposition parties, who had urged that Parliament should respect the order of the Supreme Court, and not go ahead with the debate, staged a walkout.udiciary silenced; a dark chapter in Sri Lankas historyView(s):

= Two CJs now: Shirani claims she still holds office but heavy force used to prevent her from entering court premises= UNHRC chief issues scathing attack, Canada initiates moves that may get Lanka suspended from CommonwealthBy Our Political EditorClad in a purple blouse and black pants, Shirani Bandaranayake, who maintains she is still Chief Justice, was at the Arpico supermarket in Hyde Park last Sunday afternoon.Together with her husband Pradeepa and son Shaveen, Ms. Bandaranayake was engaged in shopping of a different kind buying up plastic crates and collecting large corrugated carton boxes. There was no security detail to protect her. Every now and then, she was accosted by well-wishers. Some shook her hands to wish her well and say how much they admired her. Others greeted her with clasped hands and a traditional bow. It was obviously with reverence to the office she held and for not succumbing to enormous pressure to quit. Except for a broad smile and a thank you, she remained tight lipped.

Ousted Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake leaving her official residence along with her son. Pic by Indika HanduwalaReturning to her official bungalow, right opposite the British High Commission at Bauddhaloka Mawatha-Wijerama Road intersection, the family broke rest till late into the night. They were packing their belongings into the crates and boxes. Only hours earlier, President Mahinda Rajapaksa had written to her that she was being removed from office. Two persons, one an official and another, an officer from the Presidential Security Division, dressed in suits turned up to deliver the letter last Sunday. So the next morning, (Monday) a national holiday on account of Thai Pongal, lorries of a house moving company were transporting personal belongings to her own residence at Lake Drive in Rajagiriya. It continued on Tuesday, an eventful day where there were a number of historic developments.On Sunday evening, Rajapaksa placed his signature to a warrant appointing Mohan Peiris, legal advisor to the cabinet, as Chief Justice. He was sworn in on Monday, a holiday. Hence he was expected to assume office on Tuesday. This is perhaps the first time in the world that there are two Chief Justices, Shirani Bandaranayake, who took her oaths on May 17, 2011 and Mohan Peiris sworn in last Monday.The official website of the Supreme Court (www.supremecourt.lk/) only gave a very brief biographical sketch of Peiris where some of the positions he held immediately before President Rajapaksa named him Chief Justice were left out. One such omission was the fact that he was Chairman of Seylan Bank, the flagship of the now beleaguered Ceylinco Group of companies. Perhaps inadvertently, the website also left out the name of Justice Eva Wanasundera from the list of Supreme Court Judges when it hurriedly included the name of Peiris to head the list. Even access to recent Supreme Court rulings remained blocked on Friday.More than 600 police officers, some armed and contingents of soldiers carrying assault rifles, were deployed for duty in and around the superior courts complex in Hulftsdorp and the official bungalow of the Chief Justice at Bullers Road-Wijerama Road intersection. This is in addition to a posse of plainclothesmen that included those from state intelligence agencies being deployed in the two venues. Last Tuesday morning, the Government was not taking any chances of seeing two Chief Justices scurrying for one seat. So plans were in place to stop the older office holder and allow the newcomer. Armed police personnel stood guard at the entry and exit points to the Chief Justices office. Police conducted checks on vehicles entering the courts complex. All were under clear instructions not to let in Ms. Bandaranayake.Cars of even judges were inspected with drivers being told to open their boot. Judges meekly complied. The Government was showing who the Boss is in this country. The main opposition UNPs media communications manager, Mangala Samaraweera, told a news conference that the Suprem Court Marshal had given permission for the Police to undertake that high handed act. He alleged that he had not obtained prior approval of the Superior Courts Complex Management Board, a necessary requirement for such checks and other security measures within the courts complex. The Board is headed by the Chief Justice and comprises ten other members. Like the proverbial closing the stable doors after the horses have bolted, the UNP has become hyper active only after the impeachment resolution was passed in Parliament and Rajapaksa had chosen a new Chief Justice. Paradoxical enough, the UNP has become as much a casualty in the public eye as the Rajapaksa administration over the CJ impeachment issue.Also on Tuesday, other events were playing out opposite the official bungalow of the Chief Justice. Ms. Bandaranayake had originally hoped to visit her office in Hulftsdorp, ahead of giving up her house, to hand over documents and receive confirmation from the Supreme Court Registrar that all state properties in her office were in place. She had wanted an inventory taken. Thereafter, she was to return to her bungalow, speak a few words to the media outside and depart for her private residence. A detailed statement on her behalf was to be released by her lawyers later that day. Plans changed after Ms. Bandaranayake received reports that she would not be allowed into the courts complex. Armed men were already in place with orders to use force if necessary to prevent her, she was told. One high ranking Police source said their men were under orders to prevent her entry and to deal sternly with lawyers and their supporters who would lodge protests. One senior officer told his men Avashyanam Kalu Koat galavanna. Egollo okkama gahala pannanna (remove their black coats, if necessary. Assault and chase all of them away). Such was the treatment to be meted out. UNPs Mangala Samaraweera charged that goons armed with poles were also on the ready to act as an advance group. The Government, he charged, has used the might of the armed forces and law enforcement to turn the Temple of Justice into a garrison so that it could safely place its desired Chief Justice on the chair.Media personnel had gathered outside the CJs official bungalow by Tuesday afternoon to hear Ms. Bandaranayake. Outside, lorries loaded with more belongings of the family were headed to Lake Drive. A naval rating arrived in uniform armed with a large sized envelope. He walked to the gate and spoke to a member of the household. Moments later, as he prepared to return with the letter, it came to light that he had by mistake brought the package to the bungalow still occupied by Ms. Banadaranayake. It was addressed to His Lordship Chief Justice Mohan Peiris. There were more humorous moments before Ms. Bandaranayake left the official bungalow. You cannot have a news conference here. This is government property, S.P. Ranagala, Superintendent of Police, Colombo South Division, told the media personnel. A journalist interjecte,d How can the Golden Key depositors have a protest here and cook milk rice (kiribath). You will have to ask the Police spokesperson that question. She (Ms. Bandarnayake) has to go, replied Ranagala. Then he added, She (Ms Bandaranayake) is now an ordinary citizen. Another asked Arent state officials allowed to stay for three months after they leave office? There are cases against even ministers for not vacating their official bungalows. The senior police officer in charge of the area said, We will cut water and electricity to the bungalow if she does not leave. Just then, media personnel saw a person in plainclothes who was with a group wearing civilian attire walk towards a Police gazetted officer, standing to attention and speaking to him. He kept both hands adjacent to his body as he spoke confirming that groups of security personnel in plain clothes were present.It was past 3.30 p.m. when Ms. Bandaranayake emerged in a red SUV driven by her son Shaveen. She was in the back seat whilst her husband Pradeepa