Impeachment passed

FRIDAY, 11 JANUARY 2013 20:04
The impeachment motion was passed a few minutes ago with 155 votes for the motion and 49 against it. Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa said that motion against the Chief Justice was passed in parliament.
http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/24935-impeachment-passed.html

---

Jan 11, 2013 (LBO) - Sri Lanka's parliament has passed an impeachment resolution against chief justice Shirani Bandaranayake in a deeply partisan vote with courts and the opposition parties saying the move was illegal.

The parliament voted 155 for 49 against with 20 abstentious, reporters said.

The vote was delayed at the last minute when the main opposition objected saying a resolution to call for President Mahinda Rajapaksa to make a speech formally was not before house.

Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa, a brother President Rajapaksa ruled after a ten minute recess that the vote could be taken.

Crackers went off in the environs of the parliament.

Earlier in the day pro-government backers of the move to oust the chief bussed to the capital from various locations mainly in busses of a state-run transport utility were demonstrating on the approach road to the parliament.

Courts have already ruled that a parliamentary committee that found the chief justice guilty was unconstitutional and its findings were quashed.

Sri Lanka's lawyers struck work for two days as parliament debated the issue.

Rights groups, lawyers, the clergy and business chambers have asked the administration not to go ahead with the impeachment and to respect the law and the court decision.

Ruling party members however went ahead saying the court ruling amounted to a re-writing of the constitution and not just an interpretation of it.

Chief Justice Bandaranayake has denied the charges against her and asked for an independent tribunal where due process and rules of natural justice prevail.

On Friday a group of lawyers called upon the Supreme Court not to accept any new appointee saying it amounted to disregarding their own ruling.
http://www.lbo.lk/fullstory.php?nid=369716324

---

By The Nation

The impeachment motion on Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was passed in Parliament with a majority of 106 votes a short while ago. A total of 155 MPs voted for the motion, while 49 votes were cast against it. Reports said several MPs from the government were not present in the Chamber at the time the vote was taken, while some who contested the last general election under the UNP but who crossed over to the government later, voted for the motion.
http://www.nation.lk/edition/latest-top-stories/item/14457-cj-impeachment-motion-passed-in-parliament.html

all of us knew the end result.... even CJ knew

chamith wrote:all of us knew the end result.... even CJ knew

Then there should be a sinister,malicious agenda participating in this drama by CJ creating unnecessary problems among Judiciary and Parliamentary System as well as humiliating the Judiciary System of this country.

chamith wrote:all of us knew the end result.... even CJ knew

. agree with you. I just wonder MPs such "paba" n " sanath" cast their votes. That's moe important to me than the result.

UKboy wrote:

chamith wrote:all of us knew the end result.... even CJ knew

. agree with you. I just wonder MPs such "paba" n " sanath" cast their votes. That's moe important to me than the result.

UKboy hope u have watched this: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=paba+360&oq=paba+&gs_l=youtube.3.9.0l10.3805.10611.0.20782.5.5.0.0.0.0.334.1439.2-4j1.5.0...0.0...1ac.1.Mu4cHyBIi5c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sKiNjPEvI0
Paba's interview on 360, this get more funny towards the end.

Before in my leisure time i use to watch Mervin silva's stunts on youtube now,, there is a whole lot of competition out there now; eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ1zKb2PV3A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=GF1Fgs97wQo&feature=endscreen

Whitebull wrote:

chamith wrote:all of us knew the end result.... even CJ knew

Then there should be a sinister,malicious agenda participating in this drama by CJ creating unnecessary problems among Judiciary and Parliamentary System as well as humiliating the Judiciary System of this country.

If you were CJ, then would you accept the claims whether those are right or wrong, because you dont like to see a clash between judiciary & parliament? Fair trail is everybody's right.

CP told DEW to abstain
January 11, 2013, 11:33 pm
The Island

Senior Minister D. E. W. Gunasekera told Parliament yesterday that he had been instructed by his Party, the Communist Party, to refrain from voting on the impeachment motion against Chef Justice Dr. Shrani Bandaranayake.

"My party has instructed me to refrain from voting on this Motion, in keeping with the political position taken by my predecessor Sarath Muttettuwegama, on a similar impeachment in 1984," Minister Gunasekera said.

Speaking during the debate on the impeachment motion, the Minister said that the members of the House were entitled to their constitutional right to move a resolution for an impeachment. "If the party concerned is proved guilty, he or she should step down or be removed. This is unquestionable."

However, he said that as representative of the people, in the legislature being supreme, they should act fairly, judicially, ethically, constitutionally, and legally setting an example to the other two organs of the State.

Full text of Minister Gunasekera’s speech: "Since the enactment of the JR Constitution of 1978, this House had to face four impeachments against chief justices namely Neville Samarakoon, Sarath N. Silva and presently Dr Shirani Bandaranayke. This House is also aware of an impeachment against President Premadasa which ended up in abortion – quite mysteriously.

In this background, I wish to explain my position with regard to the current impeachment under discussion based on the following material facts.

Firstly, the constitutional position. Much has been said on the floor of this House, in the media, in different courts of law and even in the streets. I do not propose to exhaust you with my comments and observations on these arguments and counterarguments.

The simple unchallengeable fact is that the Constitution, in terms of Article 107 (2), provides for an impeachment in respect of judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. In terms of Article 107 (3), Parliament is required to provide for a process for such an impeachment which should include a procedure in respect of investigation and proof of the alleged misbehavior or incapacity and also the right of such judge to defend.

Specifically, in terms of Article 107 (3), Parliament is called upon to enact a law or standing order. But, as you all know, until 1984, this Parliament failed to enact a Standing Order, until the need arose in the case of impeachment against Neville Samarakoon. As yet, though 35 long years have lapsed, this Parliament has failed to enact a law with regard to process or procedure.

Neither this House, nor the judiciary nor the legal fraternity, including the Bar Council nor the Attorney General’s Department nor the Ministry of Justice nor the Executive, for that matter, realized the need for an enactment of law in respect of such a process or procedure. This failure led us to this impasse, crisis and confrontation.

Touching upon the Standing Order 78 A, currently under debate, I should remind this House that even that Standing Order 78 A was introduced to this House in a mighty hurry within a matter of 24 hours, according to authoritative sources.

In that Standing Order 78 A, it should be admitted that there was neither a process nor a procedure as required by Article 107 (3) – the whole question of unconstitutionality arose from this glaring inadequacy.

As I said, this controversy first arose in the case of the Neville Samarakoon impeachment – this is lucidly and clearly illustrated in the separate report submitted jointly by the then official opposition led by Anura Bandaranayake, comprising Dinesh Gunawardena and Sarath Muttettuwegama, who served in that Select Committee.

In that report they touched upon both the constitutional aspect regarding the judicial power and the need for an amendment to the Standing Order containing a process and a procedure.

I quote from the report of 1984: "We would urge that HE the President could refer this matter to the Supreme Court for an authoritative opinion thereon under Article 139 (1) of the Constitution. The signatories to this statement feel strongly that the procedure that Parliament finally adopts should be drafted along the lines of the Indian provisions where the process of inquiry which precedes the resolution for the removal of a Supreme Court judge should be conducted by judges chosen by the Speaker from a panel appointed for this purpose. We, therefore, urge this House to amend Standing Order 78A accordingly."

This recommendation was ignored by the then UNP Government perhaps simply because it originated from the official opposition.

This request had not been considered by this House and by all the Administrations even though almost 29 long years have lapsed since the last impeachment.

This lacuna could have been easily remedied by the House within 24 hours through the strengthening of the Standing Order 78 A.

Tissa Vitarana, Vasudeva Nanayakkara and myself addressed this issue in writing immediately after the appointment of the select committee in respect of the Shirani Bandaranayake impeachment. We addressed it to all those who are concerned. Had there been a positive response, there would have been no conflict, and there would have been a smoother operation of this impeachment process. Even and enactment of a law was not a complicated process.

Secondly, in the absence of such a laid down process and procedure, in my view, the accused party would not be satisfied that the inquiry was conducted fairly, orderly, judicially, and ethically. Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon’s first reaction to 78A was that he would not attend the inquiry. On second thoughts, he came along with his defence counsel Mr. S. Nadesan.

Thirdly, since the inception of the impeachment resolution, the whole issue was completely politicized. The issue was taken to the streets. Our attempts to intervene to avert such a development were in vain.

The official opposition failed in its duty to avert such a situation on the contrary, they subscribed and contributed to those negative developments. Their withdrawal from the select committee is incomprehensible. They should have remained there and produced a separate report on their own, if they disagreed or were not satisfied with the conduct of the inquiry. Naturally, the media reaped a good harvest during this whole period.

As far as we of the Left are concerned, right from the beginning we attempted to intervene at several stages to avert a constitutional crisis, a confrontation between the legislature, executive and judiciary, the politicization of the impeachment issue.

The members of the House are perfectly entitled to their constitutional right to move a resolution for an impeachment. If the party concerned is proved guilty, he or she should step down or be removed. This is unquestionable.

However, as representative of the people in the legislature being supreme, we should act fairly, judicially, ethically, constitutionally, and legally set an example to the other organs of the State. Parliament never attempts to usurp powers of the executive or judiciary. Equally we cannot allow the executive or judiciary to cause invasion to our territory.

Parliament is not supreme over the people or even the Constitution – our supremacy lies at the level of the three organs of the State. We can claim to be supreme, as representatives of the people who are sovereign. But the fact remains that under the 1978 Constitution our supremacy has eroded. Our power has been substantially reduced. This is the root cause of the chaotic situation. As legislators, we do not enjoy the powers we enjoyed under the 1972 Constitution.

We are no longer supreme, as some of our members claim for we are being bridled both by the executive and the judiciary.

Fundamentally, all these issues arise from the destructive and defective nature of the 1978 Constitution. Remedy is to get rid of it as early as possible, as otherwise, we shall continue to suffer the consequences of these controversies, conflicts and confrontations between these three organs of the State.

There have been attempts of invasion by the judiciary on the legislature by the Chief Justice Sarath Silva. Speaker Anura Bandaranaike had to react and resist.

For democracy to thrive, the rule of law has to be guaranteed. For that the supremacy of Parliament is important. We must take back the powers that have been usurped. The independence of judiciary must be guaranteed to ensure that the judiciary must cooperate with the executive and the legislature.

We must not create by ourselves conditions for conspiracies or foreign intervention. If we solve our problems by ourselves in cooperation with the political parties, such conducive conditions for foreign intervention will not emerge.

Finally, I wish to reiterate what Speaker Anura Bandaraniake, in his historic decision of 20-06-2001 said: Members of Parliament may give their minds to the need to introduce fresh legislation or amend the existing Standing Orders regarding impeachment against judges of superior courts. I believe such provision has already been included in the draft constitution tabled in the House in August 2000." Thirteen years have lapsed, nothing was done. We have abdicated our responsibility, thus this crisis.

In consideration of these factors, my party has instructed me to refrain from voting on this motion, in keeping with the political position taken by my predecessor Sarath Muththettuwegama on a similar impeachment in 1984.

Let sanity prevail, it is my wish and appeal."

chamith wrote:

UKboy wrote:

chamith wrote:all of us knew the end result.... even CJ knew

. agree with you. I just wonder MPs such "paba" n " sanath" cast their votes. That's moe important to me than the result.

UKboy hope u have watched this: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=paba+360&oq=paba+&gs_l=youtube.3.9.0l10.3805.10611.0.20782.5.5.0.0.0.0.334.1439.2-4j1.5.0...0.0...1ac.1.Mu4cHyBIi5c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sKiNjPEvI0
Paba's interview on 360, this get more funny towards the end.

Oh paba . I felt sorry for sri lankans. Majority dont know how to use the politicians and get rid of them. It always works in the opposite direction.

I was wondering
1 - In a situation like this, should the MPs vote according to their party line or what is good for the People,
2 - With a terrible financial mess we are in right now, how this would affect the CSE and FDI etc?

chamith wrote:

Whitebull wrote:

chamith wrote:all of us knew the end result.... even CJ knew

Then there should be a sinister,malicious agenda participating in this drama by CJ creating unnecessary problems among Judiciary and Parliamentary System as well as humiliating the Judiciary System of this country.

If you were CJ, then would you accept the claims whether those are right or wrong, because you dont like to see a clash between judiciary & parliament? Fair trail is everybody's right.

In my comment which you have quoted for ur question have I asked her to accept those claims ? So ur question is also bit unrelated to my comment.Anyway I like to give u an answer to thr question as it has been directly pointed at me.
Resignation does not mean that the person resigned have accepted to the claims.She should have resigned when her husband involved in that controversial transaction.
On the otherhand even in front of committee her representatives has mainly argued about the procedure but not about claims.
The way she and her friendly people behaved, humiliating entire Judiciary System in the country, was a way that a politician might use....but definitely not the way an educated honourable top ranked government official would use.
And also people are realy worring about recent decision given by Supreme and Appeal court issueing writ againt the impeachment.But common people can not talk about it as it might give rise to contempt to court.

President has no option but to sack CJ - Presidential Spokesman
January 12, 2013 10:53 am
Ada Derana

According to the Constitution of the country, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has only one option before him now to act on the resolution passed by the Parliament on Friday on the removal of the Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayake, an official said.

Presidential spokesman Mohan Samaranayake stated that the President has no option but to act based on the resolution passed by Parliament.

The parliament on Friday passed an impeachment motion resolution against the Chief Justice with a two thirds majority. The motion to sack the country’s top judge was based on the findings of the Parliamentary Select Committee appointed by the Speaker of Parliament last month to probe the charges against her.

The resolution calling the President to remove the Chief Justice was passed with 155 votes in favour and 49 against it. The resolution needed only a simple majority of 113 votes out of the 225 member legislature.

“There is no option left for President to select in this process but to act according to laid down procedures in the country’s supreme law the constitution” Mr Samaranayake was quoted as saying by the Government Information Department.

When inquired regarding the reported expert committee said to be appointed by the President, he said there was no room for such a committee in the constitution. “What the President meant by saying it was that he would seek expert advice on the legality of the matter.”

“He has sought expert advice from eminent persons in the fields like legal, judiciary, mercantile, finance etc. They all have advised the President that the only option the President has is to act on the resolution that will see the removal of the CJ and appointing a new CJ within days. And there is no formal committee to be appointed by the President,” Mr. Samaranayake said.

I think MR will go for another 10 or 15 years like Mr.Mahathir Mohomed did putting all his opponents behind bars. But will our country become a developed nation end of his tenure..? I hope for the best.

Maubima newspaper (13th January,2013) indicates that HE MR has reversed his former decision of appointing an independent committee to probe the accuracy of the report passed by Supreme Parliament. Media exposes that in cabinet meeting, it is discussed to finalize everything in a short period, rather dragging the matter further,as international eagle eyes are on.

It seems that HE will sign the final papers for exit & entrance of the new comer for CJ's chair unless extraordinary event occurs with heavy pressure from dissenting community. As media elaborates, pandemonium is inevitable if the top judges rebuff sitting with the new CJ in future proceedings. No doubt that more oppression occurring in coming few days may hit the market progress as institutional & HNWIs' follow wait & see policy.

January 12, 2013 04:25 pm President Mahinda Rajapaksa today defended the government’s move to impeach the country’s Chief Justice, saying they had proceeded with it constitutionally and also termed it as the completion of another ‘obstacle’.

He stated that government is faced with various obstacles and that one such obstacle was completed yesterday.

The impeachment motion against Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was passed with a two thirds majority in Parliament last night.

However, various conspiracies have already been set in motion, he stressed.

Everybody should be bound to safeguard the independence and dignity of the judiciary, President Rajapaksa said while urging the public refrain from defiling the dignity of the sacred land, which is the judiciary.

The court premises have not been used for political activities in the past, however now it has become a “picketing roundabout,” he said during a ceremony at the Sugathadasa Stadium this morning to handover letters of appointment to 52,000 graduates.
http://www.adaderana.lk/news.php?nid=21244

අගවිනිසුරුවරිය රඟපෑවේ දේශපාලන භූමිකාවක්‌!
- විදේශ කටයුතු ඇමැති මහාචාර්ය ජී. එල්. පීරිස්‌

ප්‍රශ්නය - පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ලෙස පත්ව අගවිනිසුරු පිළිබඳ තීරණයක්‌ ගැනීම කොතෙක්‌ දුරට සාධාරණද?

පිළිතුර - ලෝකයේ සෑම තැනකම මෙවැනි දෝෂාභියෝග ගෙන එනවා. ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණ විනිසුරුවන්ට එරෙහිව ඒ පිළිබඳ කටයුතු කරලා එය හරිද වැරදි ද කියා සොයා බලන්නේ අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම මන්ත්‍රීවරුන්. මෙය සෑම රටකම තිබෙන තත්ත්වයක්‌. ඇමරිකා එක්‌සත් ජනපදයේ මෙය කරන්නේ සනාතන සභාව. එක්‌සත් රාජධානියේ සාමි මන්ත්‍රී මණ්‌ඩලය පිලිපීනයේ මීට අවුරුද්දකට කලින් එහි අගවිනිසුරුවරිය කොරෝනා මහත්මියට එරෙහිව ගෙන ආ දෝෂාභියෝගය විමර්ශනය කළේ සනාතන සභාව. ඒක තමයි පිලිපීනයේ ක්‍රමවේදය. ඒ ගැන කිසිම අපැහැදිලි භාවයක්‌ නෑ. මේ කටයුත්ත අධිකරණයට භාර නැහැ. සහෝදර විනිසුරුවරුන් ගැන අධිකරණයෙන් හොයන්න යන්නේ නැහැ. එහෙම වුණොත් ජනතාව තුළ ඇති විශ්වාසය පලුදු වෙනවා.
පිලිපීනයේ අගවිනිසුරුවරියට විරුද්ධව දෝෂාභියෝගය ගෙන ආවාම ශිරාණි බණ්‌ඩාරනායක මහත්මිය වගේම කොරෝනා මහත්මියත් ඉහළ අධිකරණයෙන් රිට්‌ ආඥවක්‌ අපේක්‍ෂා කළා. ඒත් ඒ රටේ ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණය එය එකහෙළා ප්‍රතික්‍ෂේප කළා. එක්‌සත් ජනපදයේ වෝල්ටර් නික්‌සන් විනිසුරුට එරෙහිව දෝෂාභියෝගයක්‌ ගෙන ආ අවස්‌ථාවේ ඔහුත් ඇමරිකානු ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට ගියා. වෝල්ටර් නික්‌සන් ෙµඩරල් දිසා විනිසුරුවරයා. එරට ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ විනිසුරුවරු නව දෙනෙක්‌ ඉන්නවා. මේ නව දෙනාම ඒකමතික තීරණයක්‌ ගන්නවා නම් ඒක ඉතාම විරල අවස්‌ථාවක්‌. සාමාන්‍යයෙන් ඔවුන්ගේ මත විවිධයි. ඒත් මේ දෝෂාභියෝගයේදී ඒ විනිසුරුවරු නව දෙනාම ඒකමතිකව කිව්වා මෙය අධිකරණයට භාර කටයුත්තක්‌ නොවේ, එය පිහිටා තිබෙන්නේ ව්‍යවස්‌ථාදායක භූමිකාව තුළය කියලා. එම නිසා අධිකරණය මැදිහත් වන්නේ නෑ කියලා ඒ විනිසුරුවරු තීන්දු කළා. ඒ රටවල අඛණ්‌ඩව අනුගමනය වූ ක්‍රියාපටිපාටිය පිළිබිඹු කරමින් තමයි, අපේ ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ 107 වගන්තියේ තුන්වැනි උප වගන්තිය මගින් මේ දෝෂාභියෝග පිළිබඳ වගකීම පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට දී තිබෙන්නේ.

ප්‍රශ්නය - අගවිනිසුරුවරිය වරදක්‌ කර ඇත්නම් විශ්‍රාමලත් ස්‌වාධීන විනිසුරු මඬුල්ලක්‌ මගින් පරීක්‍ෂණ කළ යුතුව තිබුණා. එහෙම නම් මෙවන් තත්ත්වයක්‌ ඇති වන්නේ නෑ කියා සමහරු කියනවා...?

පිළිතුර - නෑ, මම කලින් සඳහන් කළ පරිදි කිසිම රටක ස්‌වාධීන විනිසුරුවරු මෙය කරන්නේ නෑ. කොරෝනා අගවිනිසුරුට එරෙහි දෝෂාභියෝගය විමර්ශනය කළේ විශ්‍රාමලත් ස්‌වාධීන විනිසුරු මඬුල්ලක්‌ නොවේ. එහි වගකීම භාර වන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට. ස්‌වාධීන විනිසුරු මඬුල්ලක්‌ ලවා මෙය කරවීමට අපේ නීතියේ කිසිම ඉඩකඩක්‌ නෑ. නීතියේ රාමුව තුළ තමයි, මේ දෝෂාභියෝගයේ කරුණු ඉදිරියට ගෙන යා හැක්‌කේ. අපේ රටේ උච්චතම නීතිය තමයි ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාව. ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ මේ ගැන විශේෂ වගන්තියක්‌ තියෙනවා. ඒ තමයි 107 වගන්තිය. ඊට පටහැනිව ක්‍රියා කරන්න අපි කාටවත් බැහැ. ඒ වගන්තිය යටතේ 78 (ඒ) කියන ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග පාර්ලිමේන්තුව සම්මත කළා. ඒ අපේ රජය යටතේ නොවේ. අවුරුදු විසි නවයකට කලින්. ඒ කියන්නේ 1984 දී. ඒ ස්‌ථාවර නියෝගය පාර්ලිමේන්තුව අනුමත කළා. එහි විස්‌තර සහිතව සඳහන් වෙනවා මේ සම්බන්ධව අනුගමනය කරන ක්‍රියාපටිපාටිය. ඉන් එහා ගිහින් පිටස්‌තර දේ කරන්න අපේ නීතිය යටතේ අවකාශයක්‌ නෑ.
http://www.divaina.com/2013/01/13/politics04.html

Some say Crisis ? Some say No Crisis?

Some people stick to there opinion .

Where we accept or not. There is one issue here. Opinions are clearly dividend in this matter.

Did anyone really study why?

Chaotic situation still prevails thumping on what events newly come up after public holidays such as-
a) new appointment for the post of CJ.
b) acceptance the new appointment by SC judges & government reaction.
c) reaction from bar association.
d) public & opposition movements.
e) handling the obligations to international community.
Authorities should ensure that no agitation to be created against the parties involved by using the uncontrollable supporters, protecting the government credibility.

President signs CJ’s removal notice
President Mahinda Rajapaksa has signed the removal notice of the Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake and it has been delivered to her official residence, President’s Media Unit said.

Parliament on Friday passed an impeachment motion against the Chief Justice with a two thirds majority. The motion to remove the country’s top judge was based on the findings of the Parliamentary Select Committee appointed by the Speaker of Parliament last month to probe the charges against her.

The resolution calling the President to remove the Chief Justice was passed with 155 votes in favour and 49 against it.

The government has drawn international criticism over the impeaching of the chief justice, with the US, UK and Commonwealth expressing deep concern while organizations such as the ICJ have condemned the move.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has publically vowed that it will not welcome a new Chief Justice and the Lawyers Collective has called on the Supreme Court and the superior judiciary to not recognize the newly appointed Chief Justice.

Last month, a parliamentary committee ruled that Bandaranayake was guilty of possession of unexplained wealth and misuse of power and declared her unfit for office.

Bandaranayake has denied the allegations and accuses the government of denying her a fair trial.

The Supreme Court on January 01 had interpreted the constitution holding that a Select Committee does not have the power to arrive at a finding against a Judge of a Superior Court, while the Court of Appeal on January 03 exercising writ jurisdiction quashed the decision of the PSC.

However, the parliament had decided to go forth with the debate on the impeachment motion.
http://www.adaderana.lk/news.php?nid=21252&mode=beauti

Whitebull wrote:අගවිනිසුරුවරිය රඟපෑවේ දේශපාලන භූමිකාවක්‌!
- විදේශ කටයුතු ඇමැති මහාචාර්ය ජී. එල්. පීරිස්‌

ප්‍රශ්නය - පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ලෙස පත්ව අගවිනිසුරු පිළිබඳ තීරණයක්‌ ගැනීම කොතෙක්‌ දුරට සාධාරණද?

පිළිතුර - ලෝකයේ සෑම තැනකම මෙවැනි දෝෂාභියෝග ගෙන එනවා. ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණ විනිසුරුවන්ට එරෙහිව ඒ පිළිබඳ කටයුතු කරලා එය හරිද වැරදි ද කියා සොයා බලන්නේ අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම මන්ත්‍රීවරුන්. මෙය සෑම රටකම තිබෙන තත්ත්වයක්‌. ඇමරිකා එක්‌සත් ජනපදයේ මෙය කරන්නේ සනාතන සභාව. එක්‌සත් රාජධානියේ සාමි මන්ත්‍රී මණ්‌ඩලය පිලිපීනයේ මීට අවුරුද්දකට කලින් එහි අගවිනිසුරුවරිය කොරෝනා මහත්මියට එරෙහිව ගෙන ආ දෝෂාභියෝගය විමර්ශනය කළේ සනාතන සභාව. ඒක තමයි පිලිපීනයේ ක්‍රමවේදය. ඒ ගැන කිසිම අපැහැදිලි භාවයක්‌ නෑ. මේ කටයුත්ත අධිකරණයට භාර නැහැ. සහෝදර විනිසුරුවරුන් ගැන අධිකරණයෙන් හොයන්න යන්නේ නැහැ. එහෙම වුණොත් ජනතාව තුළ ඇති විශ්වාසය පලුදු වෙනවා.
පිලිපීනයේ අගවිනිසුරුවරියට විරුද්ධව දෝෂාභියෝගය ගෙන ආවාම ශිරාණි බණ්‌ඩාරනායක මහත්මිය වගේම කොරෝනා මහත්මියත් ඉහළ අධිකරණයෙන් රිට්‌ ආඥවක්‌ අපේක්‍ෂා කළා. ඒත් ඒ රටේ ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණය එය එකහෙළා ප්‍රතික්‍ෂේප කළා. එක්‌සත් ජනපදයේ වෝල්ටර් නික්‌සන් විනිසුරුට එරෙහිව දෝෂාභියෝගයක්‌ ගෙන ආ අවස්‌ථාවේ ඔහුත් ඇමරිකානු ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට ගියා. වෝල්ටර් නික්‌සන් ෙµඩරල් දිසා විනිසුරුවරයා. එරට ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ විනිසුරුවරු නව දෙනෙක්‌ ඉන්නවා. මේ නව දෙනාම ඒකමතික තීරණයක්‌ ගන්නවා නම් ඒක ඉතාම විරල අවස්‌ථාවක්‌. සාමාන්‍යයෙන් ඔවුන්ගේ මත විවිධයි. ඒත් මේ දෝෂාභියෝගයේදී ඒ විනිසුරුවරු නව දෙනාම ඒකමතිකව කිව්වා මෙය අධිකරණයට භාර කටයුත්තක්‌ නොවේ, එය පිහිටා තිබෙන්නේ ව්‍යවස්‌ථාදායක භූමිකාව තුළය කියලා. එම නිසා අධිකරණය මැදිහත් වන්නේ නෑ කියලා ඒ විනිසුරුවරු තීන්දු කළා. ඒ රටවල අඛණ්‌ඩව අනුගමනය වූ ක්‍රියාපටිපාටිය පිළිබිඹු කරමින් තමයි, අපේ ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ 107 වගන්තියේ තුන්වැනි උප වගන්තිය මගින් මේ දෝෂාභියෝග පිළිබඳ වගකීම පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට දී තිබෙන්නේ.

ප්‍රශ්නය - අගවිනිසුරුවරිය වරදක්‌ කර ඇත්නම් විශ්‍රාමලත් ස්‌වාධීන විනිසුරු මඬුල්ලක්‌ මගින් පරීක්‍ෂණ කළ යුතුව තිබුණා. එහෙම නම් මෙවන් තත්ත්වයක්‌ ඇති වන්නේ නෑ කියා සමහරු කියනවා...?

පිළිතුර - නෑ, මම කලින් සඳහන් කළ පරිදි කිසිම රටක ස්‌වාධීන විනිසුරුවරු මෙය කරන්නේ නෑ. කොරෝනා අගවිනිසුරුට එරෙහි දෝෂාභියෝගය විමර්ශනය කළේ විශ්‍රාමලත් ස්‌වාධීන විනිසුරු මඬුල්ලක්‌ නොවේ. එහි වගකීම භාර වන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට. ස්‌වාධීන විනිසුරු මඬුල්ලක්‌ ලවා මෙය කරවීමට අපේ නීතියේ කිසිම ඉඩකඩක්‌ නෑ. නීතියේ රාමුව තුළ තමයි, මේ දෝෂාභියෝගයේ කරුණු ඉදිරියට ගෙන යා හැක්‌කේ. අපේ රටේ උච්චතම නීතිය තමයි ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාව. ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ මේ ගැන විශේෂ වගන්තියක්‌ තියෙනවා. ඒ තමයි 107 වගන්තිය. ඊට පටහැනිව ක්‍රියා කරන්න අපි කාටවත් බැහැ. ඒ වගන්තිය යටතේ 78 (ඒ) කියන ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග පාර්ලිමේන්තුව සම්මත කළා. ඒ අපේ රජය යටතේ නොවේ. අවුරුදු විසි නවයකට කලින්. ඒ කියන්නේ 1984 දී. ඒ ස්‌ථාවර නියෝගය පාර්ලිමේන්තුව අනුමත කළා. එහි විස්‌තර සහිතව සඳහන් වෙනවා මේ සම්බන්ධව අනුගමනය කරන ක්‍රියාපටිපාටිය. ඉන් එහා ගිහින් පිටස්‌තර දේ කරන්න අපේ නීතිය යටතේ අවකාශයක්‌ නෑ.
http://www.divaina.com/2013/01/13/politics04.html

I think Wimal can explain this better than G.L.

Vptilak wrote:

Whitebull wrote:අගවිනිසුරුවරිය රඟපෑවේ දේශපාලන භූමිකාවක්‌!
- විදේශ කටයුතු ඇමැති මහාචාර්ය ජී. එල්. පීරිස්‌

ප්‍රශ්නය - පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ලෙස පත්ව අගවිනිසුරු පිළිබඳ තීරණයක්‌ ගැනීම කොතෙක්‌ දුරට සාධාරණද?

පිළිතුර - ලෝකයේ සෑම තැනකම මෙවැනි දෝෂාභියෝග ගෙන එනවා. ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණ විනිසුරුවන්ට එරෙහිව ඒ පිළිබඳ කටයුතු කරලා එය හරිද වැරදි ද කියා සොයා බලන්නේ අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම මන්ත්‍රීවරුන්. මෙය සෑම රටකම තිබෙන තත්ත්වයක්‌. ඇමරිකා එක්‌සත් ජනපදයේ මෙය කරන්නේ සනාතන සභාව. එක්‌සත් රාජධානියේ සාමි මන්ත්‍රී මණ්‌ඩලය පිලිපීනයේ මීට අවුරුද්දකට කලින් එහි අගවිනිසුරුවරිය කොරෝනා මහත්මියට එරෙහිව ගෙන ආ දෝෂාභියෝගය විමර්ශනය කළේ සනාතන සභාව. ඒක තමයි පිලිපීනයේ ක්‍රමවේදය. ඒ ගැන කිසිම අපැහැදිලි භාවයක්‌ නෑ. මේ කටයුත්ත අධිකරණයට භාර නැහැ. සහෝදර විනිසුරුවරුන් ගැන අධිකරණයෙන් හොයන්න යන්නේ නැහැ. එහෙම වුණොත් ජනතාව තුළ ඇති විශ්වාසය පලුදු වෙනවා.
පිලිපීනයේ අගවිනිසුරුවරියට විරුද්ධව දෝෂාභියෝගය ගෙන ආවාම ශිරාණි බණ්‌ඩාරනායක මහත්මිය වගේම කොරෝනා මහත්මියත් ඉහළ අධිකරණයෙන් රිට්‌ ආඥවක්‌ අපේක්‍ෂා කළා. ඒත් ඒ රටේ ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණය එය එකහෙළා ප්‍රතික්‍ෂේප කළා. එක්‌සත් ජනපදයේ වෝල්ටර් නික්‌සන් විනිසුරුට එරෙහිව දෝෂාභියෝගයක්‌ ගෙන ආ අවස්‌ථාවේ ඔහුත් ඇමරිකානු ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට ගියා. වෝල්ටර් නික්‌සන් ෙµඩරල් දිසා විනිසුරුවරයා. එරට ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ විනිසුරුවරු නව දෙනෙක්‌ ඉන්නවා. මේ නව දෙනාම ඒකමතික තීරණයක්‌ ගන්නවා නම් ඒක ඉතාම විරල අවස්‌ථාවක්‌. සාමාන්‍යයෙන් ඔවුන්ගේ මත විවිධයි. ඒත් මේ දෝෂාභියෝගයේදී ඒ විනිසුරුවරු නව දෙනාම ඒකමතිකව කිව්වා මෙය අධිකරණයට භාර කටයුත්තක්‌ නොවේ, එය පිහිටා තිබෙන්නේ ව්‍යවස්‌ථාදායක භූමිකාව තුළය කියලා. එම නිසා අධිකරණය මැදිහත් වන්නේ නෑ කියලා ඒ විනිසුරුවරු තීන්දු කළා. ඒ රටවල අඛණ්‌ඩව අනුගමනය වූ ක්‍රියාපටිපාටිය පිළිබිඹු කරමින් තමයි, අපේ ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ 107 වගන්තියේ තුන්වැනි උප වගන්තිය මගින් මේ දෝෂාභියෝග පිළිබඳ වගකීම පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට දී තිබෙන්නේ.

ප්‍රශ්නය - අගවිනිසුරුවරිය වරදක්‌ කර ඇත්නම් විශ්‍රාමලත් ස්‌වාධීන විනිසුරු මඬුල්ලක්‌ මගින් පරීක්‍ෂණ කළ යුතුව තිබුණා. එහෙම නම් මෙවන් තත්ත්වයක්‌ ඇති වන්නේ නෑ කියා සමහරු කියනවා...?

පිළිතුර - නෑ, මම කලින් සඳහන් කළ පරිදි කිසිම රටක ස්‌වාධීන විනිසුරුවරු මෙය කරන්නේ නෑ. කොරෝනා අගවිනිසුරුට එරෙහි දෝෂාභියෝගය විමර්ශනය කළේ විශ්‍රාමලත් ස්‌වාධීන විනිසුරු මඬුල්ලක්‌ නොවේ. එහි වගකීම භාර වන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට. ස්‌වාධීන විනිසුරු මඬුල්ලක්‌ ලවා මෙය කරවීමට අපේ නීතියේ කිසිම ඉඩකඩක්‌ නෑ. නීතියේ රාමුව තුළ තමයි, මේ දෝෂාභියෝගයේ කරුණු ඉදිරියට ගෙන යා හැක්‌කේ. අපේ රටේ උච්චතම නීතිය තමයි ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාව. ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ මේ ගැන විශේෂ වගන්තියක්‌ තියෙනවා. ඒ තමයි 107 වගන්තිය. ඊට පටහැනිව ක්‍රියා කරන්න අපි කාටවත් බැහැ. ඒ වගන්තිය යටතේ 78 (ඒ) කියන ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග පාර්ලිමේන්තුව සම්මත කළා. ඒ අපේ රජය යටතේ නොවේ. අවුරුදු විසි නවයකට කලින්. ඒ කියන්නේ 1984 දී. ඒ ස්‌ථාවර නියෝගය පාර්ලිමේන්තුව අනුමත කළා. එහි විස්‌තර සහිතව සඳහන් වෙනවා මේ සම්බන්ධව අනුගමනය කරන ක්‍රියාපටිපාටිය. ඉන් එහා ගිහින් පිටස්‌තර දේ කරන්න අපේ නීතිය යටතේ අවකාශයක්‌ නෑ.
http://www.divaina.com/2013/01/13/politics04.html

I think Wimal can explain this better than G.L.

May be.......but most important thing is the content...