PSC has no authority to probe CJ - Court of Appeal

By The Nation
The Court of Appeal hearing the petition filed by Chief Justice,Dr.Shirani Bandaranayake against the Parliamentary Select Committee(PSC) that probed the charges in the impeachment motion on her today held that the PSC had no legal authority to conduct such probe as per the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

It added that a judge could only be probed by an entity with legal authority.'If not the entire judicial system in the country is threatened',the court observed.

Court pointed out that to conduct such a probe,Parliament needed to appoint a committee empowered with legal authority.
http://www.nation.lk/edition/breaking-news/item/14213-psc-has-no-authority-to-probe-cj-court-of-appeal.html

PSC has no legal authority to inquire allegations against CJ – Appeal Court

The Parliamentary Select Committee has no legal authority to inquire into allegations on the Chief Justice, the Appeal Court today said reading out the Supreme Court interpretation of the Sri Lankan constitution.
This was stated when two petitions filed by Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayaka were taken up at the Appeal Court today.
The Appeal court further explained that allegations against a judge could only be investigated by an entity with judicial authority. If not the authority of the whole judiciary of the country could be threatened, the Court added.
PSC was established under the standing order 78(A) and the aforementioned order is not a law, the Appeal Court observed.
Court hence stated that in order to inquire allegations the Chief Justice, Parliament needs to appoint and committee or an entity endowed with judicial authority.
Sri Lanka’s first female chief justice Shirani Bandaranayaka was found guilty on three counts on December 8 by a Parliamentary Select Committee.
“We have found her guilty of three charges out of the first five we have investigated,” Nimal Siripala de Silva, minister of irrigation and a member of the impeachment committee, told reporters on December 8.
He said the charges against Shirani Bandaranayake included financial irregularities, conflict of interest, and failure to declare her assets.
A lawyer for Bandaranayake said she had been framed, describing her as the victim of a “set-up job”.
Bandaranayake last year ruled against a bill proposing a budget of 80 billion rupees ($614 million) for development, saying it had to be approved by nine provincial councils.
The ruling angered the government and its backers, some of whom accused the judiciary of overstepping its authority.
Under impeachment proceedings launched last month, parliament speaker Chamal Rajapaksa, appointed a committee of 11 members, seven of them from the ruling party, to investigate 14 charges against Bandaranayake, ranging from not disclosing her wealth to professional misconduct.
The United States, the United Nations and the Commonwealth have raised concerns about the process and called on the government to ensure the independence of the judiciary.
Parliament is expected to vote on the impeachment when it sits after January 8. The Government which has more than a two-thirds majority, needs only 113 votes in the 225-member legislature to remove the chief justice from her post.
http://www.adaderana.lk/news.php?nid=21132&mode=beauti

Whitebull, kindly give your source. Thank you.

දැන් මොකද කරන්නේ....

http://www.adaderana.lk/news.php?nid=21132&mode=beauti

wiki wrote:දැන් මොකද කරන්නේ....

දැන් ඉතින් ඒක අහගන්න ඕනෙ වටකරගෙන ඉන්න පන්ඩිත හැත්තගෙන් තමයි. මදැයි ඇදගෙන නාගත්ත.

ආණ්ඩුවේ පෙත්සම් ඉවතට
2013 ජනවාරි 03 වෙනි බ්‍රහස්පතින්දා, 16:11
Lanka Truth

කතානායකවරයාට ලබාදී ඇති, තමන්ට එරෙහිව ගෙන ආ දෝෂාභියෝගයේ වාර්තාව බල රහිත කර රිට් ආඥාවක් නිකුත් කරන්නැයි ඉල්ලමින් අගවිනිසුරු ආචාර්ය ශිරාණි බන්ඩාරනායක මහත්මිය විසින් අභියාචනාධිකරණය වෙත ඉදිරිපත්කර තිබූ පෙත්සම ඉවත දමන්නැයි ශ්‍රී ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂයේ වෘත්තීය සමිත් සම්මේලනයේ මහා ලේකම් ඩී.සී. වීරසේකර මහතා ගොනු කළ අතුරු පෙත්සම අභියාචනාධිකරණ විසින් අද (03) ඉවත දැමීය.

පාර්ලිමේන්තු විශේෂ කාරක සභාවට නීතිමය බලයක් නැහැ - ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය
2013 ජනවාරි 03 වෙනි බ්‍රහස්පතින්දා, 12:06
Lanka Truth

දෝෂාභියෝගයක් විභාග කිරිම සඳහා පාර්ලිමේන්තු ස්ථාවර නියෝග 78 (අ) අනුව පත්කළ විශේෂ කාරක සභාවකට නීතිමය බලයක් නැතැයි මීට සුළු මොහොතකට පෙර ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය විසින් අභියාචනාධිකරණය වෙත ලබාදුන් අර්ථකථනය මගින් ප්‍රකාශ කර තිබේ. එයට හේතුව පාර්ලිමේන්තු කාරක සභාව එසේ නීතිමය බලයක් සහිතව ස්ථාපිත නොවන නිසා බවද පිටු 24කින් යුත් තීන්දුවේ සඳහන් වේ.

දෝෂාභියෝගයට එරෙහිව නීතීඥයින් පිරිසක් විසින් අභියාචනාධිකරණයේ ‍ගොනුකළ පෙත්සමකට අදාළව අර්ථනිරූපණයක් ඉල්ලා ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට ‍යොමුකර තිබූ අතර ඊට අදාළ අර්ථනීරූපණය ලබාදෙමින් මෙම ප්‍රකාශය සිදුකර තිබේ.

එම තීන්දුවේ වැඩිදුරටත් සඳහන් වන්නේ දෝෂාභියෝගයක් විභාග කිරීමට බලය ඇත්තේ ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට, අභියාචනාධිකරණයට හෝ එවැනි නීතිමය බලයක් සහිතව පිහිටවූ ආයතනයකට බවය.

Conflict is aggravated now between legislature & judiciary.
As of today Judiciary is in ahead of legislature.

What would happen with latest news by tomorrow morning.
What would be the advice given by top advisers of HE President.

Leaving behind all political & personal animosities, reconciliation is the best option for everyone, allowing to probe the allegation against the CJ by an independent committee.

As I personally feel, this process would lessen the grilling of growing issues which are the cynosure of both domestic & international political arena.

I am not going to comment anything about Appeal court decision but I would like to highlight relavent sections from our constitution and standing order So as intelligent human being we might be able to the reality.
First I like to mention who has the real judicial power of Sri Lanka.
According to the constitution it is the SUPREME LAW of Sri Lanka.(1st page of constitution).So if this commettee has been established according to the constitution it should become law and it should have lagal authority.

In the Republic of Sri Lanka sovereignity is in the people and is inalienable.Sovereignity includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and the franchise

-1978 Constitution chapter 1 item 3)
According to this People have the power.Now the problem is how people exercise this power.(I am going to quote the part which relates to Judicial power)

The judicial power of the people shall be exercised by Parliament through courts, tribunals and institutions created and established or recognized, by the Constitution or created and established by law except in regard to matters relating to the privilages, immunities and powers of Parliament and of its members wherein the judicial power of the People may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law.

- 1978 Constitution chapter 1 item4(c)
According to this Parliament have the judicial power which will be exercised through courts, tribunals and INSTITUTIONS.Therefore if an institution, in this case Parliament commettee is established for such a matter by the Parliament it should have the judicial power like court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we come to the matters regarding CJ.

The Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and every other of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal shall be appointed by the President of the Republic by warrant under his hand.
Every such Judge shall hold office during good behaviour, and shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of parliament, supported by a majority of the total number of Members of Parliament (including those not present) has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity:
Provided that no resolution for the presentation of such an address shall be entertained by the Speaker or placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, unless notice of such resolution is signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members of Parliament and sets out full particulars of the alleged misbehaviour or incapacity.
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.

-1978 Constitution chapter 15 item 107(1),(2),(3).
According to this there can be resolution to remove CJ and removing power is on President's hand.
And Parliament shall give instructions regarding matters to such resolution by law or by Standing Orders which is the scenario in this case.Now if Parliament establish a commettee according to the Standing Order that commettee should become an institution with judicial power as mentioned above(1978 Constitution chapter 1 item 4(c).

Now we need to look in to the Standing Order to check whether this commettee has been established according to the that.

78A. [(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Standing Orders, where notice of a resolution for the presentation of an address to the President for the removal of a Judge from office is given to the Speaker in accordance with Article 107 of the Constitution, the Speaker
shall entertain such resolution and place it on the Order Paper of Parliament but such resolution shall not be proceeded with until after the expiration of a period of one month from the date on which the Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order has reported to Parliament.

According to this part the time period is ONE MONTH. (There is a procedure to extend that period)

(2) Where a resolution referred to the paragraph (1) of this Order is placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, the Speaker shall appoint a Select Committee of Parliament consisting of not less than seven members to investigate and report to Parliament on the allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity set out in such resolution.

According to this the Speaker has the power to select the members to this commettee.It does not say to appoint members with legal authority ie ex-judges or judges.And the present commettee consists of 11 members including members from opposition.So it is a legal commettee.

(3) A Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order shall transmit to the Judge whose alleged misbehaviour or incapacity is the subject of its investigation, a copy of the allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity made against such Judge and set out in the resolution in pursuance of which such Select Committee was appointed, and shall require
such Judge to make a written statement of defence within such period as may be specified by it.

I think all these have happened.

**[(4) The Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and not less than half the number of members of the Select Committee shall form the quorum]

According to this eventhough opposition members were absent that report is legal.

(5) The Judge whose alleged misbehaviour or incapacity is the subject of the investigation by a Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order shall have the right to appear before it and to be heard by, such Committee, in person or by representative and to adduce
evidence. oral or documentary, in disproof of the allegations made against him

.
CJ appears in front of this commettee with her lawyers.

(6) At the conclusion of the investigation made by it, a Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order shall within one month from the commencement of the sittings of such Select Committee, report its findings together with the minutes of evidence taken before
it to Parliament and may make a special report of any matters which it may think fit to bring to the notice of Parliament;
Provided however, if the Select Committee is unable to report its findings to Parliament within the time limit stipulated herein the Select Committee shall seek permission of Parliament for an extension of a further specified period of time giving reason therefor, and Parliament may grant such extension of time as it may consider necessary.

According to one of the commettee member they have agreed to give an extention after taking permission from the parliament as commettee does not have the power to extend time period by itself.But CJ and her lawyers walked away from the commettee.
And on the otherhand power of asking for an extention is on commettee's hand not on alleged person's hand.And also if a significant single allegation is proved extention may not be needed.

(7) Where a resolution for the presentation of an address to the President for the removal of a Judge from office on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity is passed by
Parliament, the Speaker shall present such address to the President on behalf of Parliament.
(8. All proceedings connected with the investigation by the Select Committee appointed under paragraph (3) of this Order shall not be made public unless and until a finding of guilt on any of the charges against such Judge is reported to Parliament by such Select Committee.
(9) In this Standing Order “Judge” means the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and every other Judge of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal appointed by the President of the Republic by Warrant under his hand.]

According to article number 8 proceeding should not be presented to public during the hearing.But CJ and her lawyers complained revealing of proceeding to public during the hearing.But we do not know who is responsible for this.Anyway I have to mention that government would not get any benefit from such an action.
On the otherhand eventhough this revealing might badly affect the reputation of CJ it can not be a reason to disregard or discredit the commettee report.
So in summary,
In my opinion this commettee has been established according to the Constitution and Standing Orders by Parliament which has the People's judicial power and the hearing is also acceptable according to the Standing Orders.

I would like to say again this impeachment is the biggest blunder of this govt

People around the HE and His Advisers are directly responsible for this unfortunate situation

Give independent inquiry and hang CJ if she is guilty

I think she is also asking for that

D.G.Dayaratne wrote: I would like to say again this impeachment is the biggest blunder of this govt

According to the Constitution freedom of expression has been preserved as a fundamental right ofcourse with in certain limitations.So that anyone can say anything if he stays with in those limitations.
But that expression becomes valid ONLY IF it is proved with acceptable facts.

It is already accepted by average intelligent people

If necessary pl do a independent survey.

If we can have Independent general or Presidential election you can see very soon

Read the full text of Supreme Court determinationHere

---

Impeachment: Full Text Of The Supreme Court Determination Today

The Court of Appeal has today read out the interpretation of the Supreme Court that “The PSC has no legal power or authority to find a Judge guilty because Standing Order 78A is not a law.”

The Court of Appeal on 20/11/2012 in the course of considering several writ applications that came up before it has referred to the Supreme Court in terms of Article 125 of the constitution the following question relating to the interpretation of Article 107 (3) of the Constitution

“Is it mandatory under Article 107 (3) of the Constitution for the parliament to provide for matter relating to the forum before which the allegations are to be proved, the mode of proof, burden of proof, standard of proof etc., of any alleged misbehavior or incapacity in addition to matters relating to the investigation of the alleged misbehavior or incapacity?”

This question was referred in respect of all seven writ applications considered by the Court of Appeal on that day.

It is appropriate at this stage to set out the provisions of Article 125 (1) which is as follows.

“The Supreme Court shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to the interpretation of the Constitution and accordingly, whenever such question arises in the course of any proceedings in any other curt or tribunal or other institution empowered by law to administer justice or to exercise judicial or quasai-judicial functions, such question shall forthwith be referred to the Supreme Court for determination. The Supreme Court may direct that further proceeding s be stayed pending the determination of such question.”

The preamble to the 1978 Constitution assures to all people inter alia “FREEDOM, EQUALITY, JUSTICE, FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS and The INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY as the intangible heritage that guarantees the dignity and well being of succeeding generations of the people of SRI LANKA”.

The power of removal of the judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal upon an address of parliament is check provided by the Constitution to sustain the balance of power between the three organs of the Government. The exact nature of the investigation contemplated by Article 107 (3) is a question which has not received judicial attention. In this reference it is necessary to consider this particular matter as it has a link to the question referred to this Court by the Court of Appeal.

Without a definite finding that the allegations have been proved no address of parliament could be made for the removal of a judge. Thus the ‘Investigation’ referred to in Article 107 (3) is an indispensable step in the process for the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The investigation leads to a finding whether the allegations made against the Judge have been proved or not.

The finding that the charged allegation has been proved is the indispensable legal basis for the address. Thus a finding, after the investigation contemplated in Article 107 (3), that the allegation against the Judge has been proved is the final decision which directly and adversely affects the constitutional right of a Judge to continue in office.

In a State ruled by a Constitution based on the rule of law, no court, tribunal or other body (by whatever name it is called) has authority to make a finding or a decision affecting the rights of a person unless such Court, tribunal or body has the power conferred on it by law to make such finding or decision. Such legal power can be conferred on such court, tribunal or body only by an Act of Parliament which is ‘law’ and not by Standing Orders which are not law but are rules made for the regulation of the orderly conduct and affairs of the Parliament. The Standing Orders are not law within the meaning of Article 170 of the Constitution which defines what is meant by ‘law’. The power to make a valid finding, after the investigation contemplated in Article 107 (3), can be conferred on a court, tribunal or body or only by law and by law alone.

The matters relating proof being matters of law, also will have to be provided by law and the burden of proof and the mode of proof and the degree of proof also will have to be specified by law to avoid any uncertainty as to the proof of the alleged misbehavior or in capacity without leaving room for the body conducting the investigation to decide the questions relating to proof according to its subjective perception.

The right of the judge under investigation to appear and be heard being a fundamental principle of natural justice should also be provided by law with a clear indication of the scope of the ’right to be heard ‘ such as the right cross examine witnesses, call witnesses and adduce evidence both oral documentary.

The selection of the body to investigate the allegations of misbehavior 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 the ‘equal protection of the law’ enshrined in the Constitution.

The Attorney General and the learned President’s Counsel and other learned counsel for the parities who sought to intervene submitted that the power of removal of the judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal is a power of parliament. We are unable to accept this submission.

There is a constitutional right given to members of parliament to move resolution containing the allegations of misbehavior or incapacity against the judge of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal and the right to make an address of Parliament to be presented to the President for the removal of such judge for proved misbehavior or incapacity. The power of removal of such judge is the power of the President.

In view of the reasons we have set out above we answered the question referred to us, as set out at the beginning of this Order as follows.

“It is mandatory under Article 107 (3) of the Constitution for the parliament to provide for matter relating to the forum before which the allegations are to be proved, the mode of proof, burden of proof, standard of proof etc., of any alleged misbehavior or incapacity in addition to matters relating to the investigation of the alleged misbehavior or incapacity”

This answer to the question referred to us and this Order is applicable to Supreme Court references Nos. 4, 5,6,7,8 and 9 of 2012.

The reference made to this Court involves a matter which concerns the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. In dealing with the question we therefore kept in mind that the objectivity of our approach itself may incidentally be in issue. It is therefore, in a spirit of detached objective inquiry which is distinguishing feature of the judicial process that we attempted to find an answer to the question referred to us. We have performed our duty faithfully bearing in mind the oath of office we have taken when we assumed the judicial office which we hold.

Before we conclude it is pertinent to invite attention of all concerned to the words of the late Hon. Anura Banadaranaike MP, the then Speaker of Parliament containing in his ruling dated 20th June 2001. He said as follows

“However Members of Parliament may give their mind to the need to introduce fresh legislation to 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 2000.” (Hansard dated 20.06.2001 Column.1039)

2000 draft Constitution did not see light of day as a new Constitution.

We express our gratitude to the excellent assistance rendered by the learned Attorney General, the learned President’s Counsel and the other learned counsel who appeared for the other petitioners and the learned President’s Counsel and other learned Counsel who appeared for the parties who sought to intervene.

An application for Writ of Prohibition was filed by former Ceylon Chamber of Commerce Chairman and a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka and of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, UK, a former President of the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and LMD Sri Lankan of the year 2001 Chandra Jayaratne. K. Kanag Iswaran, President’s Counsel, appeared for Jayaratne.

As respondents he cited the PSC members: Ministers Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Nimal Siripala de Silva, Susil Premajayantha, Rajitha Senaratne, Wimal Weerawansa and Dilan Perera, Deputy Minister Neomal Perera and MPs Lakshman Kiriella and John Amaratunga R. Sampathan and Vijitha Herath as respondents.

The petitioner sought a Writ of Prohibition and an interim order to restrain the PSC from continuing the investigation into the impeachment motion.

The Court of Appeal November 20, 2012 referred to the Supreme Court for its constitutional interpretation of Article 107(3) of the Constitution on the procedure to be adopted on the impeachment of a Judge.
http://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/impeachment-full-text-of-the-supreme-court-determination-today/

Govt can hang CJ after an impartial inquiry

That was the
most acceptable statement made an eminent lawyer at the forum committee of OPA held to day evening

CJ also requesting only for an independent Inquiry

Why the govt can't give this

There is no room for another inquiry.Parliamentary commettee had been established according to the Constitution and Standing Orders for that inquiry.When things were not in favour of CJ, CJ walked away from the commettee.
So why there would be another commettee ? What if CJ walk away even from that commettee when things are not in favour of CJ ? Then another so called impartial commettee ?

(5) The Judge whose alleged misbehaviour or incapacity is the subject of the investigation by a Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order shall have the right to appear before it ..... in disproof of the allegations made against him

CJ participated in the proceedings of this illegal select committee !.

(6) At the conclusion of the investigation made by it, a Select Committee appointed under paragraph (2) ....... ... report its findings together with the minutes of evidence taken before
it to Parliament and may make a special report of any matters which it may think fit to bring to the notice of Parliament;

Even the court decided the PSC is not acceptable and has no right to investigate and decide, it has acted as per the given procedures in the constitution and done its duty by reporting what they have found.

Now it is the matter of the Parliament to act according to the text in the constitution and execute its power.

Yes, PSC has no right to give a judgement. Its duty is to report what they have found. No need to have judiciary power for doing this.

(2) Where a resolution referred to the paragraph (1) of this Order is placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, the Speaker shall appoint a Select Committee of Parliament consisting of not less than seven members to investigate and report to Parliament on the allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity set out in such resolution.

This clearly says PSC is set to investigate and report to the parliament on the allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity set out in such resolution.

PSC is an investigative and reporting body to the parliament about the allegations set out in the resolution. It is not a court to inquire and give judgments against anybody.
IMO, today's verdict talk about a high powered body to give judgements.

D.G.Dayaratne wrote:It is already accepted by average intelligent people

If necessary pl do a independent survey.

If we can have Independent general or Presidential election you can see very soon

Hi,
we can have different ideas and interpretations about the text in books and respect each other.

Somehow I cannot see any logic in the following statement at the moment: If we can have Independent general or Presidential election you can see very soon

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව අධිකරණය හා ගැටෙයි
අවසාන යාවත්කාලීන කිරීම : 2013 ජනවාරි 3 බ්‍රහස්පතින්දා - 16:38 GMT

අග්‍ර විනිශ්චයකාර වරියට එරෙහි චෝදනා විභාග කිරීමට ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට බලයක් නැතැයි ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ඉහළම අධිකරණය දුන් නියෝගය පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ බලධාරීන් විසින් ප්‍රතික්ෂේප කැරුණි.

ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණ තීන්දුව පිළිගැනීමට පාර්ලිමේන්තුව බැඳී නැති බවයි නියෝජ්‍ය කතානායක වරයා ප්‍රකාශ කරන්නේ.
සබැඳි තේමා

මානව හිමිකම්

බීබීසී සංදේශය හා කතා කරමින් නියෝජ්‍ය කතානායක නීතිඥ චන්දිම වීරක්කොඩි කියා සිටියේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව සතු බලය සම්බන්ධව තීරණ දීමට වෙනත් ආයතනවලට බලයක් නැති බවයි.

විනිසුරුවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීම සඳහා ගත යුතු පියවර සම්බන්ධ බලය ඇත්තේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට බව කියා සිටි නියෝජ්‍ය කතානායක වරයා 'ඒ බලය අපි ක්‍රියාත්මක කරනවා,' යැයි ප්‍රකාශ කර සිටී.

අභියාචනාධිකරණය විසින් බ්‍රහස්පතින්දා දුන් තීන්දුවෙන් කියවුනේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ස්ථාවර නියෝග පොදු නීතියක් නොවන හෙයින් ඒ යටතේ පිහිටුවා ගන්නා ලද විශේෂ කාරක සභාවට අග විනිසුරු ශිරාණි බණ්ඩාරනායක ට විරුද්ධ දෝෂාභියෝග චෝදනා විභාග කිරීමේ නීතිමය බලයක් නොමැති බවයි.

ඓතිහාසික නිගමනයක්

මෙම තීන්දුව ශත වර්ෂ දෙකක ශ්‍රී ලංකා අධිකරණ ඉතිහාසයේ දී එළැඹි ඓතිහාසික නිගමනයක් ලෙසින් පැසසුමට ලක් කරන ආසියානු මානව හිමිකම් කොමිසම එමගින් අග විනිසුරුවරියට එරෙහි පාර්ලිමේන්තු දෝෂාභියෝග ක්‍රියාදාමය නිෂ්ප්‍රභ කැරෙන බව නිවේදනයකින් කියා සිටී.

දෝෂාභියෝග ක්‍රියාදාමය ට එරෙහි පෙත්සම් කරුවන් වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටි අධිනීතිඥ ක්‍රිෂ්මාල් වර්ණසුරිය තීන්දුවෙන් අනතුරුව බීබීසී සංදේශයේ කේ එස් උදයකුමාර් හට විශේෂ ප්‍රකාශයක් කරමින් කියා සිටියේ අග විනිසුරුවරුන්ට එරෙහි චෝදනා විභාග කිරීමේ ව්‍යවස්ථානුකූල යාන්ත්‍රණයක් සකසා ගත යුතුය යන්න ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ නිර්දේශය වූ බවයි.

නඩු තීන්දුව විසින් 'ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ව්‍යවස්තාවට ගරු කළ යුතු බව,' සහතික කොට ඇතැයිද අධිනීතිඥ වර්ණසුරිය ප්‍රකාශ කළේය.

රට ‘අරාජික භාවයට’

අගවිනිසුරු දෝෂාභියෝගයට එරෙහිව දිගින් දිගට විරෝධතා

මේ අතර කොළඹදී ජනමාධ්‍යවේදීන් ඇමතූ නීතිඥ සංගම් නායකයන් රජයෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටියේ අභියාචනාධිකරණ තීන්දුවට හිස නමන ලෙසයි.

එසේ නොකළොත් රට අරාජික භාවයට ඇද වැටීමේ අවදානමක් ඇතැයි ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය උදෙසා නීතිවේදීන්ගේ සංගමය අනතුරු ඇඟවීය.

එහි සම කැඳවුම්කරු ජේ සී වැලිඅමුණ කියා සිටියේ එම තත්වය උදා නොකිරීමේ වගකීම 'පාර්ලිමේන්තුව ඇතුළු සියලුම ආයතන වලට,' තිබෙන බවයි.

අග විනිසුරුවරියට එරෙහි දෝෂාභියෝගය විභාග කළ කමිටුවේ නිර්දේශ සැලසුම් කොට ඇති පරිදි ලබන සතියේ විවාදයට ගැනීමෙන් වලකින ලෙසයි

"දැවැන්ත මහජන විරෝධයක්‌"

අධිකරණය සුරැකීමේ එකමුතුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුවෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටියේ.

ජනතාවගේ පරමාධිපත්‍යය

එය විවාදයට ගතහොත් 'දැවැන්ත මහජන විරෝධයක්‌,' ඇතිවීම වලක්වනු නො හැකි බවයි එකමුතුවේ නීතිඥ ඒ එස් එම් පෙරේරා ප්‍රකාශ කළේ.

ජනතා නීතිඥ සංගමයේ උප සභාපති සුනිල් වටගල ශ්‍රේෂ්ටාධිකරණ තීන්දුව හැඳින්වුයේ 'අධිකරණයේ ස්වාධීනත්වයත් ජනතාවගේ පරමාධිපත්‍යයත් සහතික කිරීමක්,' ලෙසින්.

මේ අතර දෝෂාභියෝග පරීක්ෂණ වාර්තාව පදනම් කොටගෙන ඉදිරි ක්‍රියා මාර්ග ගැනීම තහනම් කරන්නැ'යි ශිරාණි බණ්ඩාරනායක අග විනිසුරුවරිය කළ ඉල්ලීම විභාග කිරීම ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය ලබන සඳුදාට කල් දැමීය.

අගවිනිසුරු ශිරාණි බණ්ඩාරනායක දෝෂාභියෝග චෝදනා සම්බන්ධයෙන් වැරදිකාරිය කරමින් පාර්ලිමේන්තු තේරීම් කාරක සභාව දුන් නිගමනය පරීක්ෂා කිරීමට තවත් කමිටුවක් පත් කරන බව ජනාධිපතිවරයා මීට ඉහතදී පවසා තිබුණි.

අවසාන යාවත්කාලීන කිරීම : 2013 ජනවාරි 3 බ්‍රහස්පතින්දා - 16:38 GMT
BBC Sandeshaya

අග්‍ර විනිශ්චයකාර වරියට එරෙහි චෝදනා විභාග කිරීමට ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට බලයක් නැතැයි ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ඉහළම අධිකරණය දුන් නියෝගය පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ බලධාරීන් විසින් ප්‍රතික්ෂේප කැරුණි.

ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණ තීන්දුව පිළිගැනීමට පාර්ලිමේන්තුව බැඳී නැති බවයි නියෝජ්‍ය කතානායක වරයා ප්‍රකාශ කරන්නේ.
සබැඳි තේමා

මානව හිමිකම්

බීබීසී සංදේශය හා කතා කරමින් නියෝජ්‍ය කතානායක නීතිඥ චන්දිම වීරක්කොඩි කියා සිටියේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව සතු බලය සම්බන්ධව තීරණ දීමට වෙනත් ආයතනවලට බලයක් නැති බවයි.

විනිසුරුවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීම සඳහා ගත යුතු පියවර සම්බන්ධ බලය ඇත්තේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට බව කියා සිටි නියෝජ්‍ය කතානායක වරයා 'ඒ බලය අපි ක්‍රියාත්මක කරනවා,' යැයි ප්‍රකාශ කර සිටී.

අභියාචනාධිකරණය විසින් බ්‍රහස්පතින්දා දුන් තීන්දුවෙන් කියවුනේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ස්ථාවර නියෝග පොදු නීතියක් නොවන හෙයින් ඒ යටතේ පිහිටුවා ගන්නා ලද විශේෂ කාරක සභාවට අග විනිසුරු ශිරාණි බණ්ඩාරනායක ට විරුද්ධ දෝෂාභියෝග චෝදනා විභාග කිරීමේ නීතිමය බලයක් නොමැති බවයි.

ඓතිහාසික නිගමනයක්

මෙම තීන්දුව ශත වර්ෂ දෙකක ශ්‍රී ලංකා අධිකරණ ඉතිහාසයේ දී එළැඹි ඓතිහාසික නිගමනයක් ලෙසින් පැසසුමට ලක් කරන ආසියානු මානව හිමිකම් කොමිසම එමගින් අග විනිසුරුවරියට එරෙහි පාර්ලිමේන්තු දෝෂාභියෝග ක්‍රියාදාමය නිෂ්ප්‍රභ කැරෙන බව නිවේදනයකින් කියා සිටී.

දෝෂාභියෝග ක්‍රියාදාමය ට එරෙහි පෙත්සම් කරුවන් වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටි අධිනීතිඥ ක්‍රිෂ්මාල් වර්ණසුරිය තීන්දුවෙන් අනතුරුව බීබීසී සංදේශයේ කේ එස් උදයකුමාර් හට විශේෂ ප්‍රකාශයක් කරමින් කියා සිටියේ අග විනිසුරුවරුන්ට එරෙහි චෝදනා විභාග කිරීමේ ව්‍යවස්ථානුකූල යාන්ත්‍රණයක් සකසා ගත යුතුය යන්න ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ නිර්දේශය වූ බවයි.

නඩු තීන්දුව විසින් 'ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ව්‍යවස්තාවට ගරු කළ යුතු බව,' සහතික කොට ඇතැයිද අධිනීතිඥ වර්ණසුරිය ප්‍රකාශ කළේය.

රට ‘අරාජික භාවයට’

අගවිනිසුරු දෝෂාභියෝගයට එරෙහිව දිගින් දිගට විරෝධතා

මේ අතර කොළඹදී ජනමාධ්‍යවේදීන් ඇමතූ නීතිඥ සංගම් නායකයන් රජයෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටියේ අභියාචනාධිකරණ තීන්දුවට හිස නමන ලෙසයි.

එසේ නොකළොත් රට අරාජික භාවයට ඇද වැටීමේ අවදානමක් ඇතැයි ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය උදෙසා නීතිවේදීන්ගේ සංගමය අනතුරු ඇඟවීය.

එහි සම කැඳවුම්කරු ජේ සී වැලිඅමුණ කියා සිටියේ එම තත්වය උදා නොකිරීමේ වගකීම 'පාර්ලිමේන්තුව ඇතුළු සියලුම ආයතන වලට,' තිබෙන බවයි.

අග විනිසුරුවරියට එරෙහි දෝෂාභියෝගය විභාග කළ කමිටුවේ නිර්දේශ සැලසුම් කොට ඇති පරිදි ලබන සතියේ විවාදයට ගැනීමෙන් වලකින ලෙසයි

"දැවැන්ත මහජන විරෝධයක්‌"

අධිකරණය සුරැකීමේ එකමුතුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුවෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටියේ.

ජනතාවගේ පරමාධිපත්‍යය

එය විවාදයට ගතහොත් 'දැවැන්ත මහජන විරෝධයක්‌,' ඇතිවීම වලක්වනු නො හැකි බවයි එකමුතුවේ නීතිඥ ඒ එස් එම් පෙරේරා ප්‍රකාශ කළේ.

ජනතා නීතිඥ සංගමයේ උප සභාපති සුනිල් වටගල ශ්‍රේෂ්ටාධිකරණ තීන්දුව හැඳින්වුයේ 'අධිකරණයේ ස්වාධීනත්වයත් ජනතාවගේ පරමාධිපත්‍යයත් සහතික කිරීමක්,' ලෙසින්.

මේ අතර දෝෂාභියෝග පරීක්ෂණ වාර්තාව පදනම් කොටගෙන ඉදිරි ක්‍රියා මාර්ග ගැනීම තහනම් කරන්නැ'යි ශිරාණි බණ්ඩාරනායක අග විනිසුරුවරිය කළ ඉල්ලීම විභාග කිරීම ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය ලබන සඳුදාට කල් දැමීය.

අගවිනිසුරු ශිරාණි බණ්ඩාරනායක දෝෂාභියෝග චෝදනා සම්බන්ධයෙන් වැරදිකාරිය කරමින් පාර්ලිමේන්තු තේරීම් කාරක සභාව දුන් නිගමනය පරීක්ෂා කිරීමට තවත් කමිටුවක් පත් කරන බව ජනාධිපතිවරයා මීට ඉහතදී පවසා තිබුණි.

There is another interesting point to mention. I have quoted this from Sriranga's post,

The Court of Appeal has today read out the interpretation of the Supreme Court that “The PSC has no legal power or authority to find a Judge guilty because Standing Order 78A is not a law.”

According to this this is the opinion of the Supreme Court and the Appeal Court has just read out the opinion of the Supreme Court.
When I read this I remember a nice Sinhala Idiom.......

"Somehow I cannot see any logic in the following statement at the moment: If we can have Independent general or Presidential election you can see very soon"

The purpose of above statement is to warn the govt

I know very well What genuine supporter of govt say






Points: 1882
Join date: 2010-06-08
Location: Asia

View user profile Send private message

Back to top

CJ will be impeached successfully with UNP abstaining or with voting in favour.....in the parliament and no doubt this is as per the constitution.

illan kana wedak wei madam ta.

TAH

D.G.Dayaratne wrote:Govt can hang CJ after an impartial inquiry

That was the
most acceptable statement made an eminent lawyer at the forum committee of OPA held to day evening

CJ also requesting only for an independent Inquiry

Why the govt can't give this

whether she like it o not she will be given the send off through parliament.....it is like unp crying foul after loosing an election.....after election

"whether she like it o not she will be given the send off through parliament.....it is like unp crying foul after loosing an election.....after election "

Do you think it is a VICTORY

It will be a defeat in the long run

All genuine Supporters of govt must give correct advice
This is not a personal ego problem
Grave Problem related to future generation

Whitebull

I off my hat to you!
Others please remove your colored glasses and see the facts. Though your heart beat high let your brain to take decision.
I don’t want to say what Government is OK in every aspect. But they have worked systematically. See even main opposition rejected the order of the court. Court has no power over the parliament. Whether the members of parliament are right or wrong is a separate matter but it is the supreme body. If anybody does not want to recognize the fact that the parliament is the supreme body, then we are talking about anarchy or dictatorship! Then the law means what he or she is thinking only.
Don’t measure the superiority of the parliament merely looking at the members of parliament! You and I have sent all those guys to the supreme place. You and I could have sent brilliant people like Dr.Colvin, NM, Kenaman etc. But we did not do it. Now it has become a den of thieves and it is a separate story!