Sri Lanka Equity Forum
Dear Reader,

Registration with the Sri Lanka Equity Forum would enable you to enjoy an array of other services such as Member Rankings, User Groups, Own Posts & Profile, Exclusive Research, Live Chat Box etc..

All information contained in this forum is subject to Disclaimer Notice published.


Thank You
Sri Lanka Equity Forum

Discussion Forum for Stock Market Investors in Sri Lanka

සිංහල පරිවර්තනය
Submit Post
Submit Post
Market Place

Add an ad

View all ads

Latest topics

» 8 Finance companaies to be closed very soon
by samaritan Yesterday at 6:26 pm

» Copreus (Pvt) Ltd - Need some Information
by jake94 Yesterday at 5:15 pm

» Sri Lanka’s largest pension fund EPF return to Colombo Stocks
by samaritan Yesterday at 4:04 pm

» Why AAIC Should trade above RS.50/-
by Teller Yesterday at 10:36 am

» Head and Shoulders Top
by freeforexsignals2020 Yesterday at 8:49 am

» UNION BANK (UBC) to be takeover by Union bank of india
by aklt Yesterday at 1:20 am

» INVEST ON AAIC, HASU, UAL.... YOU WILL NEVER WORRY......
by wisdom79 Fri May 24, 2019 7:42 pm

» Pakistan’s trade with Sri Lanka comes to a halt
by soileconomy Fri May 24, 2019 7:35 pm

» Daily Stock Market Update
by Teller Fri May 24, 2019 7:18 pm

» Market will test 4700
by karuna2 Fri May 24, 2019 12:25 pm

» Keep eye on Politics
by samaritan Fri May 24, 2019 11:49 am

» CSE from Dawn of Peace to Rebirth of Terrorism
by Yahapalanaya Fri May 24, 2019 9:59 am

» EAST Steady at 18
by mark Fri May 24, 2019 9:25 am

» New Support Level 5300
by hammurabi Thu May 23, 2019 8:47 pm

» LIOC upward curve
by karuna2 Thu May 23, 2019 5:57 pm

» SEC yet to publish its 2017 Annual Report
by Teller Thu May 23, 2019 5:10 pm

» HNB Assurance March net down 83-pct
by Teller Thu May 23, 2019 1:18 pm

» PABC net down 13-pct in March; loans contract
by Teller Thu May 23, 2019 1:15 pm

» Indian stocks jumped to record highs
by Teller Thu May 23, 2019 1:13 pm

» modi wins-India to no1 in the world
by Teller Thu May 23, 2019 1:07 pm

» Hayleys revenue up 34% YoY to Rs 219 bn in FY 18/19
by Teller Thu May 23, 2019 1:02 pm

» undervalued stock
by Teller Thu May 23, 2019 1:00 pm

» CIND , 10% guaranteed return
by Teller Thu May 23, 2019 12:57 pm

» INVITATION TO FORUM MODERATORS
by Agape Thu May 23, 2019 8:52 am

» Reputation???
by Uaecoindubai Wed May 22, 2019 7:12 pm

» AIA INSURANCE DE-LISTING (CTCE)
by lokka1 Wed May 22, 2019 12:55 pm

» Sri Lanka’s Top 10 Imports
by Gajaya Wed May 22, 2019 11:16 am

» Top 10 Small Scale Business ideas & Opportunities in Sri Lanka 2019
by Gajaya Wed May 22, 2019 11:15 am

» when bank lending rates put down ?
by nuwanmja Wed May 22, 2019 11:01 am

» Sri Lanka's EPF enters stock market with blood in the streets
by God Father Tue May 21, 2019 8:21 pm

» Sri Lanka caught in the big power conflicts
by God Father Tue May 21, 2019 8:16 pm

» High Profile Selling at EAST
by Uaecoindubai Tue May 21, 2019 4:43 pm

» A Trader’s Guide to FIX Engine
by Brenda John Tue May 21, 2019 11:24 am

» Reasons for market to crash
by Uaecoindubai Tue May 21, 2019 10:08 am

» ගෙවුම් ශේෂය, වාහන බලපත් හා ඩොලරයේ මිල
by ChooBoy Mon May 20, 2019 5:59 pm

» Terrorism and its Impact on the Sri Lankan Economy
by ChooBoy Mon May 20, 2019 5:41 pm

» Sri Lanka Equity Market Place
by Sstar Mon May 20, 2019 4:36 pm

» Sri Lanka Equity Market Talk
by Sstar Mon May 20, 2019 12:23 pm

» Sri Lanka Equity Market Help
by Sstar Mon May 20, 2019 12:18 pm

» LOFC IN FOR A BIG RUN
by stockback Sun May 19, 2019 5:20 pm

» Look PAP Amazing company
by Uaecoindubai Sun May 19, 2019 5:13 pm

» Sri Lanka Equity Market Place
by Uaecoindubai Sun May 19, 2019 5:13 pm

» CSE NOW AND AFTER ELECTION
by Ahcha Sun May 19, 2019 4:40 pm

You are not connected. Please login or register

Sri Lanka Equity Forum » Stock Market & Forum Help » Stock Market News » Sri Lanka court issues notice to parliamentary committee that probed Chief Justice

Sri Lanka court issues notice to parliamentary committee that probed Chief Justice

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Redbulls

Redbulls
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics
Dec 21, Colombo: Sri Lanka's Appellate Court today decided that it has the jurisdiction to hear a writ petition filed by the country's Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake challenging the decision of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) appointed to probe the impeachment motion against her.

Accordingly, a three-judge Bench of the Court of Appeal issued notice to the respondents of the writ petition to appear before the court on January 3, 2013.

The Chief Justice has cited 13 respondents including the Speaker, both seven government and four opposition members of the 11-member PSC and the General Secretary of Parliament.

Dr. Bandaranayake in her petition requested a writ of certiorari to invalidate the findings of the PSC which found her guilty of three out of the five charges investigated.

The PSC found Dr. Bandaranayake guilty of the 1st, 4th and 5th charges in the impeachment motion while dismissing 2nd and 3rd charges for insufficient proof. All other charges in the motion have been disregarded.

The Chief Justice also sought an interim order preventing the seven ruling party members in the PSC from taking any further steps based on the report.

The petition has stated that the Chief Justice was not given sufficient time to prepare for her defence and was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

The three-judge Bench comprised Justice S. Sri Skandaraja, Justice M.A.Salam and Justice Anil Gunarante.

The Appeal Court also cautioned the respondents to refrain from acting in a derogatory manner with regard to the rights of the top judge and any act disregarding the ongoing case and moves to alter the status quo may lead to a chaotic situation in the country.

Sri Lanka's parliament Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa last month said the notices issued on him and on members of the PSC by the Supreme Court have no effect and are not recognized in any manner, adding that future notices from court will be treated similarly.

"No person, or institution outside Parliament has any authority whatsoever to issue any directive either to me as Speaker or to Members of the Committee appointed by me. This is a matter which falls exclusively within the purview of Parliament's authority," he said last month in response to a Supreme Court's notice summoning him and the 11 members of the PSC probing the charges against the Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake.

It is yet to be seen how the Speaker would respond to the Appellate Court order.
http://www.colombopage.com/archive_12B/Dec21_1356079621CH.php

Redbulls

Redbulls
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics
Dec 21, 2012 (LBO) - Sri Lanka's court of appeal has summoned parliamentary Speaker and legislators who were in a committee that found the Chief Justice guilty of misconduct in controversial circumstances.

Sri Lanka's Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake went court asking to quash the decision of the committee saying she was denied natural justice, the committee was biased, and that it was not an independent tribunal.

The court of appeal has ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, reports said, in a landmark decision that will lead to the judicial review of the actions of a parliamentary committee for the first time.

Sri Lanka's Speaker had previously said that the parliament was not bound by court decisions, a position that was backed by opposition leader Rani Wickremasinghe, who also has a habit of claiming that the parliament is 'supreme'.

The Chief Justice in her plaint had cited a submission made by Sri Lanka at the United Nations over shortcoming in the island's impeachment process for judges in seeking judicial review of a decision made by a parliamentary committee.

"On the previous occasion the Human Rights Committee examined Sri Lanka’s periodic report, it express concern on the compatibility of the impeachment process with the scope and spirit of Article 14, since it would compromise the independence of the judiciary," the plaint said, quoting what is said was clause 302 in a set of documents.

"As stated above Article 107 a judge can be removed only on “proved grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity” and the standing orders allows for the judge in question defend himself either on his own or retaining a legal counsel, non adherence to the rules of natural justice by the inquiry committee would attract judicial review.

"Indeed nowhere either in the relevant constitutional provisions or the standing orders seek to exclude judicial scrutiny of the decisions of the inquiring committee. Thus, it is envisaged that if the inquiring committee were to misdirect itself in or breached the rules of natural justice its decisions could be subject to judicial review."
http://lbo.lk/fullstory.php?nid=46774672

worthiness


Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Most likely the Speaker rebuff the notice issued by the appellate court that aggravate the legal dispute on superiority between the parliament & the jurisdiction.

In that case, what would be happening next if the speaker & the PSC do not appear on summoned date? Any lawyer in the forum to enlighten us....

Slstock

Slstock
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics
"Sri Lanka's Speaker had previously said that the parliament was not bound by court decisions, a position that was backed by opposition leader Rani Wickremasinghe, who also has a habit of claiming that the parliament is 'supreme'"


Alright, there is something not right here. Is parliament above everyone then always? Someone who know the law clarify please?


Also Appeals court has jurisdiction for what Supreme cannot do? What is the court hierarchy then.

I really hope this gets sorted out nicely and fairly. Wasn't the President going to appoint another committee over the PSC judgement.

worthiness


Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
It gives the impression that the three supreme constituents are not trying to reconcile each other healing the incurable wound already innovated.
Debating further of the supremacy of such constituents will be cancerous unless schematic thought process from independent scholars is timely intervened.

wiki


Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
@slstock wrote:"Sri Lanka's Speaker had previously said that the parliament was not bound by court decisions, a position that was backed by opposition leader Rani Wickremasinghe, who also has a habit of claiming that the parliament is 'supreme'"


Alright, there is something not right here. Is parliament above everyone then always? Someone who know the law clarify please?


Also Appeals court has jurisdiction for what Supreme cannot do? What is the court hierarchy then.

I really hope this gets sorted out nicely and fairly. Wasn't the President going to appoint another committee over the PSC judgement.

It says constitution is supreme... And I have read somewhere judicial power of the parliament has been handed over to the supreme court during the CBK time. .according to that PCS has no power to probe a CJ..

Now interesting situation is developing.... ... අයින් කරලත් බැ.... නොකරත් බැ
(ගෙදර ගියොත් අඹු නසී මග හිටියොත් නුඹ නසී)

Redbulls

Redbulls
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics
Dec 21, Colombo: The Speaker of Sri Lanka's parliament and the legislators of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) that probed the impeachment motion of the Chief Justice will adhere to an earlier ruling by the Speaker and not appear in the court in response to a notice issued by the court.

The Appellate Court of Sri Lanka Friday issued a notice to the Speaker, 11 members of the PSC and the parliament secretary to appear before the court on January 3, 2013 in regard to a petition filed by the embattled Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake challenging the PSC decision to impeach her.

The Deputy Speaker Chandima Weerakkody has said that Parliament will follow the course with regard to the notices issued on the Impeachment Special Committee based on the ruling given by the Speaker last month.

Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa last month said the notices issued on him and on members of the PSC by the Supreme Court have no effect and are not recognized in any manner, adding that future notices from court will be treated similarly according to Clause Nine of Parliamentary Privileges.

"No person, or institution outside Parliament has any authority whatsoever to issue any directive either to me as Speaker or to Members of the Committee appointed by me. This is a matter which falls exclusively within the purview of Parliament's authority," he said last month when the Supreme Court issued notice summoning him and the PSC.

According to the parliamentary procedures, the PSC has been appointed to investigate the impeachment against the Chief Justice based on the powers vested under the Constitution and its members are therefore responsible to him as the Speaker and not to any external party, Rajapaksa has said.

The Speaker has referred his decision to an earlier instance where the former Speaker Anura Bandaranaike has set the precedent that the judiciary has no authority to influence affairs of the Parliament.

The Deputy Speaker has told the state-run television ITN that former Speaker Anura Bandaranaike gave a ruling on a similar situation and the former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva had accepted this historic ruling.

Under these circumstances, Deputy Speaker Chandima Weerakkody has said that they would adhere to the decision given by the Speaker last month with respect to the notices issued today against the PSC.

The Deputy Speaker has noted that the judiciary need to be aware of such decisions and pointed out that the legal situation is very clear as mentioned by the Speaker.
http://www.colombopage.com/archive_12B/Dec22_1356115818CH.php

Whitebull


Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
@slstock wrote:"Sri Lanka's Speaker had previously said that the parliament was not bound by court decisions, a position that was backed by opposition leader Rani Wickremasinghe, who also has a habit of claiming that the parliament is 'supreme'"


Alright, there is something not right here. Is parliament above everyone then always? Someone who know the law clarify please?


Also Appeals court has jurisdiction for what Supreme cannot do? What is the court hierarchy then.

I really hope this gets sorted out nicely and fairly. Wasn't the President going to appoint another committee over the PSC judgement.
Parliment should be above all as it represents the public.But there are inevitable shortcomings in representative parlimentary system.

Slstock

Slstock
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics
@Whitebull wrote:
@slstock wrote:"Sri Lanka's Speaker had previously said that the parliament was not bound by court decisions, a position that was backed by opposition leader Rani Wickremasinghe, who also has a habit of claiming that the parliament is 'supreme'"


Alright, there is something not right here. Is parliament above everyone then always? Someone who know the law clarify please?


Also Appeals court has jurisdiction for what Supreme cannot do? What is the court hierarchy then.

I really hope this gets sorted out nicely and fairly. Wasn't the President going to appoint another committee over the PSC judgement.
Parliment should be above all as it represents the public.But there are inevitable shortcomings in representative parlimentary system.

Yes theoratically parliament represents the public. So in that sense you are right. But due to obvious short comings that can/will happen ( and to reduce potential abuses) no single entity should be given supreme power "Always".

There should be cross checking between parliament and judicial system in controvertial/crucial matters.

I hope someone here clarifies what Wiki recalled

"I have read somewhere judicial power of the parliament has been handed over to the supreme court during the CBK time. .according to that PCS has no power to probe a CJ.. "

D.G.Dayaratne


Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Parliament is supreme under British System of government

Our constitution is mix of British and American systems Under this system the constitution is supreme. and NOT any of institutions

Sovereignty is with the people and not with the parliament

This is what i think

Any one who know can correct me giving acceptable facts

Slstock

Slstock
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics

Constitution is supreme. But who double checks whether it is constitutional in matter of importance? Do you get my point?


@D.G.Dayaratne wrote:Parliament is supreme under British System of government

Our constitution is mix of British and American systems Under this system the constitution is supreme. and NOT any of institutions

worthiness


Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Please read "Sunday Maubima e-paper dated 23 Dec 2012, page no.4.
The fifth para produces very important point.

"Arbudaya Uggra Athata"

Sorry, pasting the page is difficult.

K.Haputantri

K.Haputantri
Co-Admin
@worthiness wrote:Most likely the Speaker rebuff the notice issued by the appellate court that aggravate the legal dispute on superiority between the parliament & the jurisdiction.

In that case, what would be happening next if the speaker & the PSC do not appear on summoned date? Any lawyer in the forum to enlighten us....
In such event, the CA can proceed to hear the case ex-party.

K.Haputantri

K.Haputantri
Co-Admin
@Whitebull wrote:
@slstock wrote:"Sri Lanka's Speaker had previously said that the parliament was not bound by court decisions, a position that was backed by opposition leader Rani Wickremasinghe, who also has a habit of claiming that the parliament is 'supreme'"


Alright, there is something not right here. Is parliament above everyone then always? Someone who know the law clarify please?


Also Appeals court has jurisdiction for what Supreme cannot do? What is the court hierarchy then.

I really hope this gets sorted out nicely and fairly. Wasn't the President going to appoint another committee over the PSC judgement.
Parliment should be above all as it represents the public.But there are inevitable shortcomings in representative parlimentary system.

As I understand our constitution, in the first place, it is the people that is supreme, not any of the three organs of the Government- legislature, executive or judiciary. Hence, the sovereignity is vested with the people who exercise it during elections.

The constitution provides that the sovereignity of the people to be exercised first, at elections by the people themself and there-after, through the three organs of the government- legislature, executive & judiciary.

Legislative power of the people is exercised through parliament.
Executive power of the people is exercised through the president and cabinet of ministers.
Judicial power of the people is exercised through an independant system of courts.

The Parliament, however, has power to determine its own procedure, administer accordingly and punish any one who violates such procedure. Courts has no power to intervene in this area except where it exceeds its power or violates any constitutional provisions.

Most importantly, which relates to the current issue at hand, both the Supreme court and the Court of Appeal have their inherant powers of court of first instances and also the power of interpretation of any constitutional provision under which the three organs are supposed to behave.

It is under this power, that the CA has issued this order.

Slstock

Slstock
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics
That is the issue I wanted to clarify. The speaker has stated ( according to news article) the topmost court cannot hear the appeal.Then will they allow the next level CA? Ethically since CJ is in supreme , I guess supreme hearing it might not sound right. That is ethical but is it still legal? In that sense CA should be allowed to hear as CJ is also a citizen who might have the right to appeal .

I think a presidential intervention will be needed and possibly this might be a landmark case is in SL. Might be crucial for future democracy?


@K.Haputantri wrote:
@Whitebull wrote:
@slstock wrote:"Sri Lanka's Speaker had previously said that the parliament was not bound by court decisions, a position that was backed by opposition leader Rani Wickremasinghe, who also has a habit of claiming that the parliament is 'supreme'"


Alright, there is something not right here. Is parliament above everyone then always? Someone who know the law clarify please?


Also Appeals court has jurisdiction for what Supreme cannot do? What is the court hierarchy then.

I really hope this gets sorted out nicely and fairly. Wasn't the President going to appoint another committee over the PSC judgement.
Parliment should be above all as it represents the public.But there are inevitable shortcomings in representative parlimentary system.

As I understand our constitution, in the first place, it is the people that is supreme, not any of the three organs of the Government- legislature, executive or judiciary. Hence, the sovereignity is vested with the people who exercise it during elections.

The constitution provides that the sovereignity of the people to be exercised first, at elections by the people themself and there-after, through the three organs of the government- legislature, executive & judiciary.

Legislative power of the people is exercised through parliament.
Executive power of the people is exercised through the president and cabinet of ministers.
Judicial power of the people is exercised through an independant system of courts.

The Parliament, however, has power to determine its own procedure, administer accordingly and punish any one who violates such procedure. Courts has no power to intervene in this area except where it exceeds its power or violates any constitutional provisions.

Most importantly, which relates to the current issue at hand, both the Supreme court and the Court of Appeal have their inherant powers of court of first instances and also the power of interpretation of any constitutional provision under which the three organs are supposed to behave.

It is under this power, that the CA has issued this order.

D.G.Dayaratne


Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Again i say this is the biggest blunder\er of this govt This govt crate problem and enjoy

If the govt wants to maintain law and order and control some unwanted characters INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY is a must

Govt could have used Sriyani Bandaranayaka and independent judiciary to achieve stated objectives of MAHINDA CHINTHENAYA. We supported govt
because of stated objectives
Govt appointed her husband to manipulate judiciary. Govt usually tolerate any anti -Social act if the party concern is supporting govt Sriyani B could have purchased whole property Ceylinco If she gave favorable decisions continuously

D.G.Dayaratne


Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
If HE MR wants he can utilize this situation to start a new chapter His son also will win with unprecedented majority after him may be after 2020

Govt should know HOW TO CONVERT A THREAT in to AN OPPOTUNITY


ASPI will go over over 7000 with in the year 2013 With out govt manipulation

THE Present problem is most of his advisers are REAL FOOLS OR WHO TREATE EGO for personal benefits

K.Haputantri

K.Haputantri
Co-Admin
@slstock wrote:That is the issue I wanted to clarify. The speaker has stated ( according to news article) the topmost court cannot hear the appeal.Then will they allow the next level CA? Ethically since CJ is in supreme , I guess supreme hearing it might not sound right. That is ethical but is it still legal? In that sense CA should be allowed to hear as CJ is also a citizen who might have the right to appeal .

I think a presidential intervention will be needed and possibly this might be a landmark case is in SL. Might be crucial for future democracy?


@K.Haputantri wrote:
@Whitebull wrote:
@slstock wrote:"Sri Lanka's Speaker had previously said that the parliament was not bound by court decisions, a position that was backed by opposition leader Rani Wickremasinghe, who also has a habit of claiming that the parliament is 'supreme'"


Alright, there is something not right here. Is parliament above everyone then always? Someone who know the law clarify please?


Also Appeals court has jurisdiction for what Supreme cannot do? What is the court hierarchy then.

I really hope this gets sorted out nicely and fairly. Wasn't the President going to appoint another committee over the PSC judgement.
Parliment should be above all as it represents the public.But there are inevitable shortcomings in representative parlimentary system.

As I understand our constitution, in the first place, it is the people that is supreme, not any of the three organs of the Government- legislature, executive or judiciary. Hence, the sovereignity is vested with the people who exercise it during elections.

The constitution provides that the sovereignity of the people to be exercised first, at elections by the people themself and there-after, through the three organs of the government- legislature, executive & judiciary.

Legislative power of the people is exercised through parliament.
Executive power of the people is exercised through the president and cabinet of ministers.
Judicial power of the people is exercised through an independant system of courts.

The Parliament, however, has power to determine its own procedure, administer accordingly and punish any one who violates such procedure. Courts has no power to intervene in this area except where it exceeds its power or violates any constitutional provisions.

Most importantly, which relates to the current issue at hand, both the Supreme court and the Court of Appeal have their inherant powers of court of first instances and also the power of interpretation of any constitutional provision under which the three organs are supposed to behave.

It is under this power, that the CA has issued this order.

I think, no one can interfear with the Court of Appeal proceedings on this matter.

If the case is referred to the Supreme Court for any interpretations it is in order if SC looks into it by a bench without the current CJ.

To be fare by all the parties, she can refrain from appointing a smaller bench and request all SC judges (without CJ) to examine the case.

Whitebull


Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
@slstock wrote:
@Whitebull wrote:
@slstock wrote:"Sri Lanka's Speaker had previously said that the parliament was not bound by court decisions, a position that was backed by opposition leader Rani Wickremasinghe, who also has a habit of claiming that the parliament is 'supreme'"


Alright, there is something not right here. Is parliament above everyone then always? Someone who know the law clarify please?


Also Appeals court has jurisdiction for what Supreme cannot do? What is the court hierarchy then.

I really hope this gets sorted out nicely and fairly. Wasn't the President going to appoint another committee over the PSC judgement.
Parliment should be above all as it represents the public.But there are inevitable shortcomings in representative parlimentary system.

Yes theoratically parliament represents the public. So in that sense you are right. But due to obvious short comings that can/will happen ( and to reduce potential abuses) no single entity should be given supreme power "Always".

There should be cross checking between parliament and judicial system in controvertial/crucial matters.

I hope someone here clarifies what Wiki recalled



As you have mentioned there should be cross checking between parliament and judicial system.That is why they usually ask the opinion of judicial system in controvertial matters.But the problem here is now the controvertial is between these two systems.And to further worsen the matter it involves with head of one of the systems ie CJ who has power even to appoint judges to judge even her petitions.
And in this case although representative parlimentary system may be biased it should get the supremacy as theoriticaly it represents the public.
"I have read somewhere judicial power of the parliament has been handed over to the supreme court during the CBK time. .according to that PCS has no power to probe a CJ.. "
I do not know whether this is true or not but if this is true I think it is one of unwise decisions taken by CBK for obvious reasons.

worthiness


Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
I am not sure HE MR is mislead by himself or by his close advisers. Strength, Weakness,Opportunities & Threats (SWOT) are misinterpreted & misguided in the political arena, perhaps seeking the ruling power over years withing the close family circles.

It will not be a hitch at all as long as such family circles could well maintain the democracy rights of people while eliminating the ever increasing poverty line of common people.

Major overhaul in existing system, strengthening the independence of jurisdiction, police & bribery commission should not be further delayed empowering the people rather centering the unwanted power to limited group.

If not, so called ambitious plans launched to develop the country's economy would not achieve the desired results.

Whitebull


Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
අගවිනිසුරුවරියගේ පෙත්සම පිළිබඳව
අධිකරණ නියෝගය ආණ්‌ඩුව ඉවත දමයි

අජිත් අලහකෝන්

අභියාචනාධිකරණය හමුවේ පෙනී සිටින ලෙසට කර ඇති නියෝගය ප්‍රතික්‌ෂේප කිරීමට ආණ්‌ඩුව තීරණය කර ඇත.

විශේෂ කාරක සභා වාර්තාව ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීම වළක්‌වාලන ලෙස ඉල්ලා අගවිනිසුරුවරිය විසින් ගොනු කළ පෙත්සම සලකා බැලීම සඳහා කථානායකවරයාට සහ විශේෂ කාරක සභාවට අභියාචනාධිකරණය හමුවේ පෙනී සිටින ලෙසට පෙරේදා (21 දා) නියෝගය කර තිබිණි.

අභියාචනාධිකරණයේ මෙම නියෝගය පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප්‍රසාද පනත සහ ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාව අභියෝගයට ලක්‌ කරන්නක්‌ බව නියෝජ්‍ය කථානායක චන්දිම වීරක්‌කොඩි මහතා "දිවයින ඉරිදා සංග්‍රහය" ට ප්‍රකාශ කළේය.

අධිකරණයේ කටයුතු අධිකරණය මගින් සහ ව්‍යවස්‌ථාදායකයේ කටයුතු පාර්ලිමේන්තුව මගින් පමණක්‌ ක්‍රියාත්මක කරවිය යුතු බවට අනුර බණ්‌ඩාරනායක මහතා කථානායකවරයා ලෙස මීට පෙර තීන්දුවක්‌ ලබා දී ඇතැයි ද එම තීන්දුව එවක අගවිනිසුරු සරත් එන් සිල්වා මහතා පිළිගත් බව ද චන්දිම වීරක්‌කොඩි මහතා කීවේය.

එසේ තිබියදී ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය විසින් පසුගිය දිනෙක මේ හා සමානවම නොතිසි නිකුත් කිරීමක්‌ කර තිබූ බවත් වීරක්‌කොඩි මහතා අනුර බණ්‌ඩාරනායක මහතාගේ තීන්දුවට සමගාමී තීන්දුවක්‌ වර්තමාන කථානායක චමල් රාජපක්‍ෂ මහතා විසින් ද ලබාදුන් බව කීවේය.

පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප්‍රසාද පනතේ නවවැනි වගන්තිය යටතේ සියලුම අධිකරණ මෙම තීන්දුව පිළිබඳ දැනුවත් විය යුතු බව ද ඒ පිළිබඳ විශේෂ දැනුවත් කිරීමක්‌ අවශ්‍ය නොවන බව ද කී නියෝජ්‍ය කථානායකවරයා කතානායක චමල් රාජපක්‍ෂ මහතා විසින් ලබා දී තිබෙන එම තීන්දුව අභියාචනාධිකරණයට ද වලංගු කළ බව කීය.

කථානායකවරයාගේ තීරණය ප්‍රකාරව සහ පෙර සිට පැවැති සම්ප්‍රදාය අනුව ඉහත කී විශේෂ කාරක සභාව පමණක්‌ නොව පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ සියලුම කමිටු පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේම කොටසක්‌ සේ පිළිගැනෙන බව ද කීය.

ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවට අනුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුව තුළ ක්‍රියාත්මක කටයුතු සම්බන්ධයෙන් කිසිදු තෙවන පාර්ශ්වයකට මැදිහත්විය නොහැකි බව ද එම නිසා අභියාචනාධිකරණයේ ඉල්ලීම පිළිගත යුතු නැතැයි ද නියෝජ්‍ය කථානායකවරයා පැවැසීය.

අධිකරණය හමුවේ පෙනී සිටින්නැයි අභියාචනාධිකරණය විසින් කතානායක වරයාගෙන් සහ විශේෂ කාරක සභාවෙන් කළ ඉල්ලීම පිළිබඳ විපක්‍ෂයේ පක්‍ෂ කිහිපයකින් විමසා සිටියදී ඔවුන් ප්‍රකාශ කළේ තම මතය පිළිබඳ මෙතෙක්‌ තීරණයක්‌ ගෙන නැති බවය.
http://www.divaina.com/2012/12/23/news01.html

worthiness


Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics

What could be the public guess now, the response from courts over the uncompromising decision taken by the government?

What will be the next drama? Independence committee appointed by the Executive president or international panel?

wiki


Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
@worthiness wrote:
What could be the public guess now, the response from courts over the uncompromising decision taken by the government?

What will be the next drama? Independence committee appointed by the Executive president or international panel?


" Independent committee" is to buy time but want solve the problem. And majority of people are clueless and believe what ever the gov media is saying..

Jeremy

Jeremy
Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
@worthiness wrote:Most likely the Speaker rebuff the notice issued by the appellate court that aggravate the legal dispute on superiority between the parliament & the jurisdiction.

In that case, what would be happening next if the speaker & the PSC do not appear on summoned date? Any lawyer in the forum to enlighten us....

It tantamount to Contempt of Court. Which is a jailable offence. So we could see the PSC members in jail unless there is parliamentary immunity. Parliment is there to enact legislations and judiciary is for implementation of law. Parliament can never act as the judiciary. It is a very simple rule of separation of powers which Branches out to legislature, executive and judiciary, this is what I learnt as a kindergarten student.

kas

kas
Manager - Equity Analytics
Manager - Equity Analytics
GMNet wrote:
@worthiness wrote:Most likely the Speaker rebuff the notice issued by the appellate court that aggravate the legal dispute on superiority between the parliament & the jurisdiction.

In that case, what would be happening next if the speaker & the PSC do not appear on summoned date? Any lawyer in the forum to enlighten us....

It tantamount to Contempt of Court. Which is a jailable offence. So we could see the PSC members in jail unless there is parliamentary immunity. Parliment is there to enact legislations and judiciary is for implementation of law. Parliament can never act as the judiciary. It is a very simple rule of separation of powers which Branches out to legislature, executive and judiciary, this is what I learnt as a kindergarten student.

Mind you all the legislation that are executed by the judiciary is created or initiated by the Parliment (which have the representatives of the mass), So this is like son against the father Twisted Evil I'm not for or against the impeachment, Court only has the power to implement the law an order which is creted through the legislations by the parliament, and it's hilarious to see the top in the judiciary system (CJ) trying to get a verdict against the impeachment from the body (judiciary) she heads the top post.

Slstock

Slstock
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics
Okay lets keep this simple. As a democracy, if a citizen of the country ( CJ) wants someone to hear his/her appeal after being tried in the parliament where will he/she go? Is there no way.

Someone ( legislature or Judiciary) is right here. Public does not remember or is aware of Events like what happened during (possible) CBK decision . But it should give a clear cut answer to this controversy. Or have we got into muddy water where no one is right ( or both are right) as there is "hidden door" out.

These things are documented in the Hansard. Someone needs to check it and execute it. Who will? Presidents new committee?


D.G.Dayaratne


Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
At least president must read what is in this website. It appears that So called advisers also do not allow president to here independent intellectuals

Govt media also mislead HE. Hudson Samarasuiha ( Punchi PEMADASA) is the
leader Senarath in Dinamina also was with Gamini Disanayaka They try to treat personal ego and get maximum benefits

Instead of getting advice from present advisers President Office should open a web site like this The expenditure is also less

Future Generation including his sons also will be benifited

wiki


Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව අධිකරණ බලය සිය කැමැත්තෙන් අත්හැරීම

ව්‍යවස්ථාව අනුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට අධිකරණ බලයක් තිබුණේ පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද ප‍්‍රශ්නවලට අදාළව පමණය. ඒ බලයද පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් පසුව සිය කැමැත්තෙන් අත්හරිමින් ඒ බලයද ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය වෙත පවරන ලදි.

1978 වන තෙක්ම පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද විෂයේදීවත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට අධිකරණ බලයක් නොතිබුණි. ශ‍්‍රී ලංකාව පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද පනත් (1953 අංක 21 දරන පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද පනත) ඇති කරගනු ලැබුවේ 1953දීය. එම නීතිය යටතේ පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද ගණයට වැටෙන වැරදිවලට දඬුවම් දීමේ බලයක් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට නොතිබුණු අතර පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද ප‍්‍රශ්නවලට අදාළ වැරදිවලදී පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් ඒවා ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට යොමුකිරීමෙන් පසුව නඩු අසා දඬුවම් පැමිණවීමේ බලය පැවරී තිබුණේ ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයටය.

1977 ජූලිවලදී පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ හයෙන් පහක බලයක් සමග බලයට පත් එජාප ආණ්ඩුවේ අගමැති ජේ.ආර්. ජයවර්ධනට පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද ප‍්‍රශ්නවලදී ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට සමගාමීව නඩු අසා දඬුවම් පැමිණීමේ බලයක් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට හිමිකර දීමට අවශ්‍ය වී 1978 ජනවාරිවලදී එතෙක් පැවති පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද පනත සංශෝධනය කෙරෙන අලූත් පනතක් (ජාතික රාජ්‍ය සභාවේ 1978 අංක 5 දරන පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද හා බලතල පිළිබඳ සංශෝධන පනත) සම්මත කරගත්තේය. එම පනත සංශෝධනය කරගත් දිනම සිලෝන් ඔබ්සර්වර් පුවත්පතේ පළවූ ඡුායාරූපයකට යොදා තිබුණු කැප්ෂනයක වරදක් අල්ලාගෙන එම පුවත්පතේ කර්තෘවරුන් දෙදෙනෙකුට එරෙහිව (හැරල්ඞ් පීරිස් හා උපාලි කුරේ) නඩු අසා ඔවුන්ට දඬුවම් කළේය. එහෙත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව මේ බලය හැමවිටම පාවිච්චි නොකළේය. සමහර නඩු ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය වෙත ඉදිරිපත් කළේය. නිදර්ශනයක් වශයෙන් හැරල්ඞ් පීරිස්ට හා උපාලි කුරේට දඬුවම් දෙන ලද ආකාරය විවේචනය කරමින් රාජනීතිඥ එස්. නඬේසන් මහතා සන් පුවත්පතට ලියන ලද ලිපි පෙළකට එරෙහිව නඬේසන් මහතාට එරෙහිව වරප‍්‍රසාද ප‍්‍රශ්නයක් මතු කරනු ලැබූවත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව ඔහුට එරෙහිව නඩු අසා දඬුවම් කරන තැනකට ගියේ නැත. ඒ වෙනුවට නඬේසන් මහතා වරප‍්‍රසාද කඩකිරීමක් කර ඇති බවට තීන්දු කොට ඒ නඩුව ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය ඉදිරියට යැවීය. එහෙත් තමන් කැමති වෙනත් නඩුවලදී නඩු අසා දඬුවම් කිරීමේ බලය පාර්ලිමේන්තුව පාවිච්චි කළේය. ඒ මගින් වැඩියෙන්ම බැටකන අය බවට පත්ව සිටියෝ ජනමාධ්‍යවේදීහුය.

මට එරෙහිව 1992 වසරේදී පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද ප‍්‍රශ්නයක් මතුවූ අවස්ථාවේදී පාර්ලිමේන්තුව පවත්වාගෙන යමින් සිටි නඩු අසා දඬුවම් කිරීමේ ප‍්‍රතිපත්තිය මම හබයට ලක් කළෙමි. නඩු ඇසීම සඳහා නීතියෙන් නියම කළ පටිපාටියක් නැතුව නඩු අසා දඬුවම් කරන ප‍්‍රතිපත්තියක් නීතියට පටහැනි බව මා මතු කළ තර්කය විය. මොන මොන හේතු නිසා පාර්ලිමේන්තුව මාගේ විරෝධය බුල්ඩෝසර් කරන ප‍්‍රතිපත්තියකට නොගොස් නීතිපතිගේ මතය විමසීම සඳහා මට එරෙහිව ආරම්භ කර තිබූ නඩුව දින නියමයකින් තොරව කල් දැමීය. ඉන්පසු චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංග ආණ්ඩුව පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද නීතිය යටතේ නඩු අසා දඬුවම් කිරීමට පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට තිබූ බලය ඉවත් කොට ඒ බලය නැවත ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට ලබාදෙන ආකාරයට පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද නීතිය සංශෝධනය කළේය.

ඒ නිසා අගවිනිසුරු ශිරානි බණ්ඩාරනායක මහත්මියට එරෙහිව දෝෂාභියෝගයක් ඉදිරිපත් කරන අවස්ථාව වන විට නඩු අසා දඬුවම් කිරීමේ මොනම බලයක්වත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට නොතිබුණි. එය අගවිනිසුරු වෙනුවෙන් කරුණු ඉදිරිපත් කළ නීතිඥයන් සැලකිල්ලට නොගෙන තිබූ වැදගත් කරුණක් විය.
http://www.ravaya.lk/articals.php?d=3a066bda8c96b9478bb0512f0a43028c



ශ‍්‍රී ලංකාව එක්සත් ජාතීන්ගේ සංවිධානයේ සිවිල් හා දේශපාලන අයිතිවාසිකම් ප‍්‍රඥප්තියට හා ඊට අදාළ ප්‍රොටකෝලයට අත්සන් තබා ඇති රටකි. එම අන්තර්ජාතික ගිවිසුමේ 14 වගන්තිය අනුව නීතියෙන් නියම කළ අධිකරණයකින් සාධාරණ නඩු විභාගයක් ලබාගැනීමේ අයිතිය අහිමි කළ නොහැකි මානව අයිතියකි. 14 (1) අනුව හැම පුද්ගලයෙකුටම අධිකරණය ඉදිරියේ සමාන ලෙස සැලකිය යුතුය. පවත්වනු ලබන නඩු විභාග ප‍්‍රසිද්ධියේ පැවැත්විය යුතුය. 14 (2) අනුව චෝදනා ඔප්පු කරන තෙක් චූදිතයා නිර්දෝෂී පුද්ගලයකු ලෙස සැලකිය යුතුය. ඔහුට ඉදිරිපත් කරන චෝදනා දැනගන්නට සැලැස්විය යුතුය. 14 (3) අනුව චෝදනා අධ්‍යයනය කිරීමට සාධාරණ කාලයක් ලබාදිය යුතුය. 14 (3) (D) අනුව තමන්ට හෝ නීතිඥයකු මගින් නිදහසට කරුණු ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමට ඉඩදිය යුතුය. 14 (3) (E) අනුව සාක්ෂිකරුවන්ගෙන් ප‍්‍රශ්න කිරීමේ අයිතිය ලබාදිය යුතුය. 14 (5) අනුව දෙනු ලබන තීන්දුවක් අභියාචනය කිරීමේ අයිතිය ලබාදිය යුතුය.

http://www.ravaya.lk/articals.php?d=be3159ad04564bfb90db9e32851ebf9c

Whitebull


Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
@D.G.Dayaratne wrote:At least president must read what is in this website. It appears that So called advisers also do not allow president to here independent intellectuals

Govt media also mislead HE. Hudson Samarasuiha ( Punchi PEMADASA) is the
leader Senarath in Dinamina also was with Gamini Disanayaka They try to treat personal ego and get maximum benefits

Instead of getting advice from present advisers President Office should open a web site like this The expenditure is also less

Future Generation including his sons also will be benifited
Very good suggestion.Actually in the past some of our kings went under disguise to get to know true public opinion.

Whitebull


Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
@slstock wrote:Okay lets keep this simple. As a democracy, if a citizen of the country ( CJ) wants someone to hear his/her appeal after being tried in the parliament where will he/she go? Is there no way.
There are definite shortcoming of these systems.If a lay person does not receive proper justice in judicial system due to,
1.lack of evidences
2.False evidence
3.deliberately hidden evidences
4.lack of money to hire a good lawyer
5.......................etc
where can he go ?

Slstock

Slstock
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics
Wiki, thank you for the update. This clarifies many things. If there were no other amendments after CBK, this is going to get very interesting.

Mr President over to you for a fair trial.

Slstock

Slstock
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics
Whitebull, what you are saying applies mostly to a person who get a bad judgement after a trial or lack a good lawyer. Then there is appeal and supreme court. What you are stating is complex issue about inefficency of a legal system. These lapses in law can happen in any country and in any system.
(if one is persistent , I guess there are other options which I do nto want to state here. )

But the issue here is simpler. It is about parliament judgement without an appeal process.

BTW Wiki post clarifies somethings.


@Whitebull wrote:
@slstock wrote:Okay lets keep this simple. As a democracy, if a citizen of the country ( CJ) wants someone to hear his/her appeal after being tried in the parliament where will he/she go? Is there no way.
There are definite shortcoming of these systems.If a lay person does not receive proper justice in judicial system due to,
1.lack of evidences
2.False evidence
3.deliberately hidden evidences
4.lack of money to hire a good lawyer
5.......................etc
where can he go ?



Last edited by slstock on Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:37 am; edited 1 time in total

Chinwi

Chinwi
Associate Director - Equity Analytics
Associate Director - Equity Analytics
ඉන්පසු චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංග ආණ්ඩුව පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද නීතිය යටතේ නඩු අසා දඬුවම් කිරීමට පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට තිබූ බලය ඉවත් කොට ඒ බලය නැවත ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට ලබාදෙන ආකාරයට පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද නීතිය සංශෝධනය කළේය.

ඒ නිසා අගවිනිසුරු ශිරානි බණ්ඩාරනායක මහත්මියට එරෙහිව දෝෂාභියෝගයක් ඉදිරිපත් කරන අවස්ථාව වන විට නඩු අසා දඬුවම් කිරීමේ මොනම බලයක්වත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට නොතිබුණි. එය අගවිනිසුරු වෙනුවෙන් කරුණු ඉදිරිපත් කළ නීතිඥයන් සැලකිල්ලට නොගෙන තිබූ වැදගත් කරුණක් විය.



මෙහි පැහැදිලිවම සඳහන් වෙන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් නඩු අසා දඬුවම් කළ ක්‍රමය ගැනයි.
දෝෂාභියෝගය එයට වෙනස් , වෙනම ඇතුලත් කර ඇති ක්‍රියා වලියකි. ඒ දෙක පටලවාගෙන ඇති සැටියකි.
දොශාභියෝග ක්‍රමය අඩංගු කර ඇත්තේ වෙන කිසිම අයුරකින් ඉවත් කිරීමට නොහැකි ධුරයන් වල සිටින අය ඉවත් කිරීමේ මෙවලමක් ලෙසය.

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් නඩු ඇසීමේ ක්‍රියාවලිය දැනට ක්‍රියාත්මක නොවන වෙනම තිබුන එකකි .
දැනුවත්ව හෝ නොදැනුවත්ව මේ දෙක පටලවා මේගැන දැනීමක් නැති ජනතාව ඉදිරියට ගෙන එන බව පෙනේ

Slstock

Slstock
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics

Chinwi, you are raising a good issue about a regular case and an impeachment? Thanks for that.

According to your knowledge

මෙම දොශාභියොගයෙදී , චුදිතයට කිසිම අකාරයක අභියාචනයක් ඉදිරිපත් කල නොහෙකිද?

@Chinwi wrote:
ඉන්පසු චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංග ආණ්ඩුව පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද නීතිය යටතේ නඩු අසා දඬුවම් කිරීමට පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට තිබූ බලය ඉවත් කොට ඒ බලය නැවත ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට ලබාදෙන ආකාරයට පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප‍්‍රසාද නීතිය සංශෝධනය කළේය.

ඒ නිසා අගවිනිසුරු ශිරානි බණ්ඩාරනායක මහත්මියට එරෙහිව දෝෂාභියෝගයක් ඉදිරිපත් කරන අවස්ථාව වන විට නඩු අසා දඬුවම් කිරීමේ මොනම බලයක්වත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට නොතිබුණි. එය අගවිනිසුරු වෙනුවෙන් කරුණු ඉදිරිපත් කළ නීතිඥයන් සැලකිල්ලට නොගෙන තිබූ වැදගත් කරුණක් විය.



මෙහි පැහැදිලිවම සඳහන් වෙන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් නඩු අසා දඬුවම් කළ ක්‍රමය ගැනයි.
දෝෂාභියෝගය එයට වෙනස් , වෙනම ඇතුලත් කර ඇති ක්‍රියා වලියකි. ඒ දෙක පටලවාගෙන ඇති සැටියකි.
දොශාභියෝග ක්‍රමය අඩංගු කර ඇත්තේ වෙන කිසිම අයුරකින් ඉවත් කිරීමට නොහැකි ධුරයන් වල සිටින අය ඉවත් කිරීමේ මෙවලමක් ලෙසය.

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් නඩු ඇසීමේ ක්‍රියාවලිය දැනට ක්‍රියාත්මක නොවන වෙනම තිබුන එකකි .
දැනුවත්ව හෝ නොදැනුවත්ව මේ දෙක පටලවා මේගැන දැනීමක් නැති ජනතාව ඉදිරියට ගෙන එන බව පෙනේ

worthiness


Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
Senior Vice President - Equity Analytics
It goes back to major topic of civic subject what was learnt in golden days how the power of legislature, judiciary & executive defined.

Some media says that impeachment motion was taken up because of the CJ's verdict given on 'Divinaguma Bill" & it is the root cause for this on going conflict aggravated by party politics.

Some believe that the ambiguities in country's legal system that focus a number of administrative sections are to be reviewed & amended with a view to avoid unwanted chaos in the future.

Whatever, this has been a very good impartial discussion focusing into the different views.
Have a good day.



Slstock

Slstock
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics
Just for a fun/stress relief...

Can anyone guess what this means Very Happy Very Happy

ඡින්වි, යොඋ අරෙ රඉසින්ග් අ ගූඩ් ඉස්සුඑ අබොඋට් අ රෙගුලර් cඅසෙ අන්ඩ් අන් ඉම්පේච්මෙන්ට්? ථන්ක්ස් ෆොර් තට්.

ඇccඔර්ඩින්ග් ටො යොඋර් ක්නොව්ලෙඩ්ගෙ

Chinwi

Chinwi
Associate Director - Equity Analytics
Associate Director - Equity Analytics
@slstock wrote:Just for a fun/stress relief...

Can anyone guess what this means Very Happy Very Happy

ඡින්වි, යොඋ අරෙ රඉසින්ග් අ ගූඩ් ඉස්සුඑ අබොඋට් අ රෙගුලර් cඅසෙ අන්ඩ් අන් ඉම්පේච්මෙන්ට්? ථන්ක්ස් ෆොර් තට්.

ඇccඔර්ඩින්ග් ටො යොඋර් ක්නොව්ලෙඩ්ගෙ

Chinwi, you are raising a good issue about a regular case and an impeachment? Thanks for that.

According to your knowledge

Smile


By the way answer to your question is , as per my knowledge and thinking, he or she cannot and it is not necessary to appeal.

Because at that point he is a rejected person by the Parliament. What is the purpose of hanging out there ? රටක ජනතා පරමාධිපත්‍යයේ ඉහලම තැනින් ඉවත් කල පසු තව දුරට ඉල්ලීම් කිරීමේ තේරුමක් නැත . මෙම නිතිය ගෙනෙන විට මාසයක කල් හැරීමක් කර ඇත්තේ නම්බු පිටින් කැමැත්තෙන් යන්න දෙන්න බව කලින් අවස්තාවක JR ම කියා ඇත.

Whitebull


Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
@Chinwi wrote:
@slstock wrote:Just for a fun/stress relief...

Can anyone guess what this means Very Happy Very Happy

ඡින්වි, යොඋ අරෙ රඉසින්ග් අ ගූඩ් ඉස්සුඑ අබොඋට් අ රෙගුලර් cඅසෙ අන්ඩ් අන් ඉම්පේච්මෙන්ට්? ථන්ක්ස් ෆොර් තට්.

ඇccඔර්ඩින්ග් ටො යොඋර් ක්නොව්ලෙඩ්ගෙ

Chinwi, you are raising a good issue about a regular case and an impeachment? Thanks for that.

According to your knowledge

Smile


By the way answer to your question is , as per my knowledge and thinking, he or she cannot and it is not necessary to appeal.

Because at that point he is a rejected person by the Parliament. What is the purpose of hanging out there ? රටක ජනතා පරමාධිපත්‍යයේ ඉහලම තැනින් ඉවත් කල පසු තව දුරට ඉල්ලීම් කිරීමේ තේරුමක් නැත . මෙම නිතිය ගෙනෙන විට මාසයක කල් හැරීමක් කර ඇත්තේ නම්බු පිටින් කැමැත්තෙන් යන්න දෙන්න බව කලින් අවස්තාවක JR ම කියා ඇත.
Exactly that is the point.Someone can argue the parliment is bias and so on like that.......but it is the place where represents the public......

Whitebull


Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
Assistant Vice President - Equity Analytics
@slstock wrote:Whitebull, what you are saying applies mostly to a person who get a bad judgement after a trial or lack a good lawyer. Then there is appeal and supreme court. What you are stating is complex issue about inefficency of a legal system. These lapses in law can happen in any country and in any system.
(if one is persistent , I guess there are other options which I do nto want to state here. )

But the issue here is simpler. It is about parliament judgement without an appeal process.

BTW Wiki post clarifies somethings.


@Whitebull wrote:
@slstock wrote:Okay lets keep this simple. As a democracy, if a citizen of the country ( CJ) wants someone to hear his/her appeal after being tried in the parliament where will he/she go? Is there no way.
There are definite shortcoming of these systems.If a lay person does not receive proper justice in judicial system due to,
1.lack of evidences
2.False evidence
3.deliberately hidden evidences
4.lack of money to hire a good lawyer
5.......................etc
where can he go ?
No slstock I am talking about situation even after supreme and appeal court(lack of money does not come in to this but still other causes are there.) like in this CJ case.Lay person has to agree the decision of those higher courts like wise CJ has to agree to the decision of the parliment.

Slstock

Slstock
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics
As this is for educational discussion ( as citizens fo Sri lanka) and not politics let me state one thing. What is the role of the supreme court and appeal court? As far as I know they check the legality of a lower court decision after an appeal is made ( correct me here someone who know more).

There is no option here for CJ right now. Agree to what the parliament committe said or resign. No opportunity to be given chance to say her side.

Court verdict or impeachment :

do we want to be accused of things without giving us an opportunity to explain? I would not be happy. I hope you see my point here.

Atleast she should be given a hearing in front of an impartial committee and an opportunity to reply to accusations or decide to resign( which is an option)

Again , I am talking civic right in a democratic society. I really think president should revisit this to show transparency of our society to the public and world. It will be wise.

IF CJ cannot prover her innocence after an appeal/impartial hearing she should be removed. CJ also has responsibility to uphold her postion and act upon the high trust placed on it.

@Whitebull wrote:
@slstock wrote:Whitebull, what you are saying applies mostly to a person who get a bad judgement after a trial or lack a good lawyer. Then there is appeal and supreme court. What you are stating is complex issue about inefficency of a legal system. These lapses in law can happen in any country and in any system.
(if one is persistent , I guess there are other options which I do nto want to state here. )

But the issue here is simpler. It is about parliament judgement without an appeal process.

BTW Wiki post clarifies somethings.


@Whitebull wrote:
@slstock wrote:Okay lets keep this simple. As a democracy, if a citizen of the country ( CJ) wants someone to hear his/her appeal after being tried in the parliament where will he/she go? Is there no way.
There are definite shortcoming of these systems.If a lay person does not receive proper justice in judicial system due to,
1.lack of evidences
2.False evidence
3.deliberately hidden evidences
4.lack of money to hire a good lawyer
5.......................etc
where can he go ?
No slstock I am talking about situation even after supreme and appeal court(lack of money does not come in to this but still other causes are there.) like in this CJ case.Lay person has to agree the decision of those higher courts like wise CJ has to agree to the decision of the parliment.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum