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

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

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

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....

"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 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.

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)

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

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.

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.. "

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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..

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.

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 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.