FINANCIAL CHRONICLE™
Dear Reader,

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

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


Thank You
FINANCIAL CHRONICLE™️
www.srilankachronicle.com


Join the forum, it's quick and easy

FINANCIAL CHRONICLE™
Dear Reader,

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

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


Thank You
FINANCIAL CHRONICLE™️
www.srilankachronicle.com
FINANCIAL CHRONICLE™
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
FINANCIAL CHRONICLE™

Encyclopedia of Latest news, reviews, discussions and analysis of stock market and investment opportunities in Sri Lanka

LISTED COMPANIES

Submit Post


ADVERTISE
Poll

EXCHANGE RATE PREDICTION: 2022

 
 
 
 

View results

ශ්‍රී ලංකා මූල්‍ය වංශකථාව - සිංහල
Submit Post


CONATCT US


Send your suggestions and comments

* - required fields

Read FINANCIAL CHRONICLE™ Disclaimer



Latest topics

» Expolanka to continue its winning streak
by samaritan Today at 10:22 am

» POSITIVES & TARGETS BY IMTIAZ BUHARDEEN
by Gowri123 Yesterday at 4:38 pm

» When will supply chain disruptions ease?
by Gowri123 Yesterday at 4:08 pm

» We’re seeing a shift toward international and value stocks, says Schwab’s Kleintop
by target1 Yesterday at 2:40 am

» Wall Street stumbles as consumer pessimism stokes growth fears
by target1 Yesterday at 2:34 am

» Free Market Capitalism vs. Crony Capitalism
by target1 Yesterday at 2:30 am

» Sri Lankan corporations reap large profits as workers and rural toilers face poverty and starvation
by CHRONICLE™ Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:37 pm

» අද රාත්‍රියෙන් පසු, යක්ෂයාගේ හෝරාව ඇරඹේ!
by God Father Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:13 pm

» Derana 360 with Minister Dhammika Perera
by samaritan Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:07 pm

» CENTRAL INDUSTRIES PLC (CIND.N0000)
by LHW Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:24 am

» Breaking News- Kanchana to go to Qatar ; 2 more ministers off to Russia
by Beyondsenses Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:13 am

» PM thanks President Biden for assuring US support to Sri Lanka
by Beyondsenses Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:07 am

» Sri Lanka Stock Market heading toward ASPI 4500
by God Father Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:14 pm

» Why no power cuts in certain areas of Colombo?
by God Father Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:03 pm

» කොළඹ රාජකීය ගොල්ෆ් සමාජය විසින් රජයේ දේපළ අවභාවිත කිරීම
by ddindika Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:33 am

» LOLC to enter the giant Indian Market
by samaritan Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:17 am

» LOLC HOLDINGS PLC (LOLC.N0000)
by CHRONICLE™ Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:46 am

» SOEs within Minimum Programme for Economic Recovery
by CHRONICLE™ Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:44 am

» COVID WAVES: Can there be another Covid-19 wave in Sri Lanka?
by CHRONICLE™ Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:36 am

» Luminex Limited lists on the Diri Savi Board after a capital raise of Rs. 250 Million
by CHRONICLE™ Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:34 am

EXPERT CHRONICLE™

MARKET CHAT


CHRONICLE™ ANALYTICS


ECONOMIC CHRONICLE

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP)


CHRONICLE™ YouTube

LATEST TWEETS

You are not connected. Please login or register

FINANCIAL CHRONICLE™ » DAILY CHRONICLE™ » PSC has no authority to probe CJ - Court of Appeal

PSC has no authority to probe CJ - Court of Appeal

+11
sahan8896
bullrun
traderathome
Chinwi
sriranga
D.G.Dayaratne
worthiness
wiki
K.Haputantri
Whitebull
Redbulls
15 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

D.G.Dayaratne


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

"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



Last edited by D.G.Dayaratne on Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:32 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : T correct mistake)

traderathome


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

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

traderathome


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

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 Rolling Eyes

D.G.Dayaratne


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



"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

bullrun


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

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!

bullrun

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

D.G.Dayaratne wrote: 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

Hey, have you ever been to a court? Can you ask a different court if you do not satisfy with the proceeding? The only option you have is to make an appeal to a right place. No one can ask inquiring committee in the way they want. Have you ever work in any office? In a private or Government office? You are under impression boss, Just like a politico!

wiki


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

CJ was with them.. that is why she was appointed despite some allegations and her husband got the chairman seat of NSB.. but when she is not doing what they want..they wanted to get rid of her... so come the impeachment.. but prediction of the people who brought impeachment went wrong.. now all the lawyers are collectively supporting her because of the manner they conducted,impeachment, PSC and the state media...

I see some senior lawyers who were strong supporters of the gov are openly backing CJ...now there is international concerns on this matter .....some political parties have to think twice about the future actions...some people(esp educated) difficult to support government....previous PM told that it is wise to take a step back.. (similar incident happen with SF case but never learnt lesson)

Now CA has given a decision... legislature has another opinion.... so what is the end.. Now all are looking at this..

Now ball is in the gov court .... time to act prudently and to put the ego to the dustbin

Whitebull


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

wiki wrote:now all the lawyers are collectively supporting her because of the manner they conducted,impeachment, PSC and the state media...
I do not think this statement is correct.We have right to express our opinion but we should not try to prove our idea with false infromations.

34PSC has no authority to probe CJ - Court of Appeal - Page 2 Empty SC ruling confirms UNP stand – Tissa A. Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:51 am

Redbulls

Redbulls
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics

SC ruling has placed a blockade on the Rajapaksa regime’s dictatorial trends, the main Opposition United National Party charged yesterday, vowing to do everything in its power to stop the Government to passing the impeachment resolution in Parliament in violation of the Supreme Court ruling.

In a statement welcoming the Supreme Court interpretation of the Standing Orders governing the impeachment of a judge of the superior courts, UNP General Secretary Tissa Attanayake says that the Government must now seek to frame laws in adherence to the Commonwealth’s Latimer House principles on the removal of judges, before proceeding with the current impeachment process.

The UNP Members on the PSC did not appear before Court the impeachment was a parliamentary process and this position has been confirmed in the Supreme Court ruling which states that the impeachment is a parliamentary subject, Attanayake’s release said

“It is noted that the Petition filed before the Court of Appeal does not seek redress from the Opposition MPs on the PSC,” the statement added.

According to the UNP General Secretary, the historic ruling by the Supreme Court has reinforced the legal position taken by the UNP from the very outset. “Our position has always been that is that while the impeachment process is a subject falling under the purview of Parliament, the laws pertaining to the process are not sufficient and further laws need to be enacted to clarify and legitimize the process,” Attanayake said. (DB)
http://www.ft.lk/2013/01/05/sc-ruling-confirms-unp-stand-tissa-a/

worthiness


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

We talk of superiority of parliament because of the constitution. Practically it is the place where den of thieves thriving. It is too late now as they have been voted in selection process.
I would like to know that any single, honest politician seated in PSC? Some of them might have been summoned before the court & verdict had been given against them. Cope report locked & sealed may include many politicians. If some them include in the PSC, what is the validity of PSC & its decision?

Redbulls

Redbulls
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics

The Supreme Court when making its decision, had not taken any notice of “by Standing Orders” in Article 107-3 of the Constitution which reads, “Parliament shall by law or by Standing Orders provide for all matters relating to an impeachment”, said former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva.

He alluded that in 1984 Parliament had decided to act according to Standing Orders and held that no Court could direct Parliament to make laws.

According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction only to determine whether a gazetted draft law is consistent or not with the provisions of the Constitution.

The former Chief Justice said that enacting laws is vested solely in Parliament which enjoys the people’s legislative power. The people could, however, exercise such powers at a referendum. If we were to enact laws as such Standing Orders would have to be done away with, he said.

The Constitution has stipulated that it is “by laws or by Standing Orders” and as such it is for Parliament to decide whether to abolish Standing Orders, if it so desires, he said.

“Had due regard been paid to Section 107-3, orders could not have been issued likewise. The discretionary powers of enacting laws are vested in Parliament and the judiciary cannot intervene. The judiciary cannot exceed parliamentary authority. According to Section 125 (1) of the 1978 Constitution, the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction only to interpret the Constitution. It is the exclusive right of Parliament to act according to its Standing Orders, former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva said.
http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2013/01/06/new01.asp

D.G.Dayaratne


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

You all know who is Mr Sarath Silvo

sahan8896


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

Better stop this thread because we all no the final result.Time to focus on market fellows.

Jeremy

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

http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2011/08/21/sarath-n-silva-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/


Sarath N. Silva – A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing
Frederic Jansz
The origin of corruption is when someone thinks power is for him, his family and his henchmen, said former Chief Justice Sarath N. de Silva speaking last week at the launch of the website ‘Voice Against Corruption’
That Sarath Nanda Silva was a Chief Guest at this ceremony is not only ironical but laughable. It only personifies the ridiculous depths to which civil society will sink or choose willingly to adopt a comfortable state of amnesia.
That Sarath Nanda Silva was invited to launch a website which mandate will purportedly fight corruption speaks volumes for the ludicrous levels to which Sri Lankan civil society will stoop. But then these attitudes are so typical to our fabric.

http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2011/08/21/sarath-n-silva-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/

40PSC has no authority to probe CJ - Court of Appeal - Page 2 Empty CJ’s petition to be heard today Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:48 pm

Redbulls

Redbulls
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics

The writ applications filed by Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, seeking to quash the findings of the arliamentary Select Committee probe and restraining the Speaker from taking any further action with regard to the impeachment process against her, will be taken up for hearing at the Court of Appeal today.

After delivering the Supreme Court ruling on the interpretation of Article 107 (3) of the Constitution the three judge bench of the Court of Appeal declared that as per the determination of the highest court, the PSC findings were prima facie void and set the date for hearing submissions on the Chief Justice’s petition for today.

Notice was also issued to all 11 members of the PSC to appear before the court and the Attorney General has also been asked to make submissions when the case is taken up today.

The three judge bench hearing Bandaranayake’s petition is led by President of the Court of Appeal S. Skandarajah and Justices Anil Gooneratne and A.W.A. Salaam. Appearing on behalf of Chief Justice Bandaranayake is President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva and his team, instructed by Neelakandan and Neelakandan, lawyers for the Chief Justice.

Meanwhile the seven writ applications filed by Chandra Jayaratne and others relevant to which the Supreme Court provided its ruling, will be taken up again at the Court of Appeal on 15 January.
http://www.ft.lk/2013/01/07/cjs-petition-to-be-heard-today/

traderathome

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

........CJ will go home....thats the sad truth ...not for her but a scarce for the whole judiciary system if MR unseat her.....just saw the intepretation by former CJ Sarath Silva.......

the constitution is very clear about the process......

This is what happens...when you drag the whole system just to save the position.

its very evident CJ did not want to go through the allegations presented from the beginning......

i am with the parliament in this instance (i mean MR)......Jaya wewa......

Maha Rajata jayen pita jaya....

the govt must take special care to keep informed about our constitution inteprtation on this to the diplomatic community.....this bugger GL very inactive sometimes.....or is it most the time Very Happy

traderathome

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

some oppositions opportunists say we mus not take the vote......on CJ......

what a cock and bull story...........this fellas muttering.....

janatha adipatya is supreme which is enshrined by the constitution....and protected.....

MR ta JAya,,,,,,,CSE ta Jaya....... Very Happy

This week will be jaya for all....... except UNP and JVP

Chinwi

Chinwi
Associate Director - Equity Analytics
Associate Director - Equity Analytics

රාජා හෝ මා හෝ ගංගා හෝ

සිංහල "හෝ" යන්නෙහි තේරුමට ඉංගිරිසි බසින් OR කියා යෙදේ .

හෝ / OR යන්නේ හේ තේරුම පහත දැක්වෙන පරිදි ය.
උදා 1:
පොරෝවේ හෝ කැත්තෙන් මේ ගස කැපිය හැක . = ගස කැපිය යුත්තේ පොරෝවෙන් මය.

සබන් හෝ ෂැම්පු යොදා හිස සෝදා ගන්න. = සබන් ම යොදා හිස සේදිය යුතුය.

ඔබ මෙතෙක් සිතා සිටියේ දෙකින් එකක් හැඳින්වීමට "හෝ" යෙදෙනවා කියා නම් එය වැරදි බවත් එසේ තව දුරටත් භාවිත කලොත් අපහාස කිරීමේ වරදට දඬුවම් ලැබීමට ඉඩ ඇති බවත් සැලකුව මනා ය.

අපේ රටේ ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ මෙසේ සඳහන් වේ
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.

මෑතක දී දුන් තින්දුවක මෙසේ සඳහන් වේ

The Court of Appeal today delivering the judgement says standing order is not law. Parliament Select Committee (PSC) has no legal authority ...
Court pointed out that to conduct such a probe,Parliament needed to appoint a committee empowered with legal authority.


රාජා හෝ මා හෝ හෝහෝ

Hanoifortune

Hanoifortune
Senior Manager - Equity Analytics
Senior Manager - Equity Analytics

"what ever go up have to come down one day"

K.Haputantri

K.Haputantri
Co-Admin

Chinwi wrote:රාජා හෝ මා හෝ ගංගා හෝ

සිංහල "හෝ" යන්නෙහි තේරුමට ඉංගිරිසි බසින් OR කියා යෙදේ .

හෝ / OR යන්නේ හේ තේරුම පහත දැක්වෙන පරිදි ය.
උදා 1:
පොරෝවේ හෝ කැත්තෙන් මේ ගස කැපිය හැක . = ගස කැපිය යුත්තේ පොරෝවෙන් මය.

සබන් හෝ ෂැම්පු යොදා හිස සෝදා ගන්න. = සබන් ම යොදා හිස සේදිය යුතුය.

ඔබ මෙතෙක් සිතා සිටියේ දෙකින් එකක් හැඳින්වීමට "හෝ" යෙදෙනවා කියා නම් එය වැරදි බවත් එසේ තව දුරටත් භාවිත කලොත් අපහාස කිරීමේ වරදට දඬුවම් ලැබීමට ඉඩ ඇති බවත් සැලකුව මනා ය.

අපේ රටේ ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ මෙසේ සඳහන් වේ
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.

මෑතක දී දුන් තින්දුවක මෙසේ සඳහන් වේ

The Court of Appeal today delivering the judgement says standing order is not law. Parliament Select Committee (PSC) has no legal authority ...
Court pointed out that to conduct such a probe,Parliament needed to appoint a committee empowered with legal authority.


රාජා හෝ මා හෝ හෝහෝ

මා හිතන හැටියට මෙහිලා වැදගත් වන්නේ සිහල හෝ යන වචනය හෝ එහි ඉංග්‍රීසි වචනය හෝ නොව ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ ඔබ උපුටා දැක්වූ ජේදයේ සමස්ථ තේරැරමය.

ව්‍යවස්ථාවෙන් කිසියම් පරිපාටියක් සැකසියයුතු බව පැහැදිලිව කියවෙතත් අදාල කාරක සභාව ඉදිරියේ මෙම චෝදනා විභාග කිරීමේ නිශ්චිත පරිපාටියක් නොතිබුන බව කවුරැත් දනිති. කල යුතුව තිබුනේ එකී පරිපාටිය නීති සම්මතයකින් හෝ කාරක සභා නියෝග සංශොධනයකින් හෝ එකී පරිපාටිය සම්මත කොට විභාගය ඇරඹීමය.

විපක්ෂ සාමාජිකයන්ද චූදිතද ඇයගේ නීතිඥයන්ද පුන පුනා කියා සිටියේ චෝදනා ඔප්පු කිරීමට අනුගමනය කරන පරිපාටිය (එනම් සාක්ෂි ලැයිස්තුව හරස් ප්‍රශ්ණ ඇසීමේ ක්‍රමය ආදිය) මුලින්ම ඉදිරිපත් කරන ලෙසය.

ඔබ උපුටා දචැක්වූ ව්‍යවස්ථා ‍කොටසෙන් එවැනි පරිපාටියක් සැකසියයුතු බව කියවෙතත් එය මග හැරීමෙන් ව්‍යවස්ථාව අනුව ර්‍කියා කර නොමැත යන්න මෙම තීන්දුවේ හරය ලෙස ගත යුතු යයි හගිමි.

K.Haputantri

K.Haputantri
Co-Admin

Opposition reps walkout
January 7, 2013 12:54 pm
Adaderana

The opposition party representatives are reported to have walked out of the Party Leader’s meeting today in protest over the Government’s refusal to accept the Supreme Court’s determination on the impeachment.

traderathome

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

K.Haputantri wrote:Opposition reps walkout
January 7, 2013 12:54 pm
Adaderana

The opposition party representatives are reported to have walked out of the Party Leader’s meeting today in protest over the Government’s refusal to accept the Supreme Court’s determination on the impeachment.
playing for the Gallery Laughing

what an irresponsible opposition.... Shocked

TNA of course trying maximum publicity... Evil or Very Mad

K.Haputantri

K.Haputantri
Co-Admin

Vote on impeachment to be held on Jan 11
January 7, 2013 12:54 pm
Adaderana

Party leaders today decided to hold the parliament debate on the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice on January 10 and 11 while the vote will be taken at 6.30pm on January 11.

The decision was taken during a special meeting between the leaders of political parties held today (07) at the Parliament premises.

However, it was reported that opposition party representatives had walked out of the Party Leaders’ meeting in protest over the Government’s refusal to accept the Supreme Court’s determination on the impeachment.

The Parliamentary Select Committee has no legal authority to inquire into allegations on the Chief Justice, the Appeal Court on Thursday (03) said reading out the Supreme Court interpretation of the Sri Lankan constitution.

This was stated when two petitions filed challenging the impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayaka were taken up at the Appeal Court.

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.

The 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.

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.

49PSC has no authority to probe CJ - Court of Appeal - Page 2 Empty Court quashes PSC report Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:41 pm

Redbulls

Redbulls
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics

The Court of Appeal a short while ago issued a writ quashing the Parliamentary Select Committee report on the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayke and its findings.
http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/24812-court-quashes-psc-report.html

Redbulls

Redbulls
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics

Contributors: Basil Fernando
January 7, 2013

A government's spokesman, Minister Vimal Weerawansa, was quoted in the BBC Sinhala Service today saying that the judges who have issued summons on the Parliamentary Select Committee will be called before the parliament to answer under the parliamentary privilege provisions of the constitution. He went on to say, "Now NGO fellows will catch Shirani Bandaranayake and try to bring contempt of court charges against us. We are not afraid of that. We will suggest as soon as these things is over (referring to impeachment) that all the judges who have been giving decisions against us should be called to the parliament under the parliamentary privileges. We should take the highest steps that can be taken against them under the parliamentary privileges. There is no judicial power to be raised against the parliamentary anywhere in the world. There is no power to obstruct the place (the parliament) which enjoys the people's sovereignty." He accused Shirani Bandaranayake, the Chief Justice, of using the Supreme Court for political purposes.

The threat of using parliamentary privileges against the judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, who have issued summons and made decisions in cases which have been raised recently relating to the impeachment issue, marks a further step in the attacks against the independence of the judiciary in Sri Lanka.

The government's attack goes into a very basic questioning of democratic principles, upon which the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary is based.

The government thinks that the people's sovereignty rests in the parliament and that the judiciary has no power to question anything that is done by the parliament. The assertion that the sovereignty of the people rests on the parliament alone is a deviation from the basic constitutional principle that the sovereignty of the people is expressed through all the three branches of government; the parliament, the executive and the judiciary.

The attempt is to treat the judiciary as if it is not a separate branch of the government but rather a subordinate institution to the parliament.

The comparison of judges, who have made some judgments against the impeachment methodology followed by the government, with terrorists is again an indication of the changes in the mentality of the government on the question of the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary. The judiciary's role in the interpretation of laws and its right to declare legislation or administrative action of the government as being in conflict with the constitution is being compared to terrorism.

This entire framework of thought, promoted by Minister Vimal Weerawansa and several other spokesmen for the government, is to relegate the judiciary into a position that is outside the government, even as an opposition to the government.

The debate that has developed in Sri Lanka is therefore a very fundamental debate relating to what the basic structure of the state in Sri Lanka should be. The government is quite earnestly pursuing claims that the executive acting through the parliament is the basic structure of the government, and that the judiciary is an external entity. The attempt is to turn the judiciary, through force if necessary, into a subordinate of the executive, rather than a separate branch of government.

Naturally, the judiciary (such as in the Supreme Court's judgment on the 1st of January, which was an interpretation of the constitution made at the request of the Court of Appeal) is asserting the basic principles on which democracy and the rule of law is based.

The government, in trying to assert that executive actions taken through the parliament are alone the state, are undermining the very foundations of the rule of law.

The government is attempting to give a basis to its power without reference to the notion of the supremacy of law. The government's claim is that it can define its own power structure without any reference to law or, in other words, the government is claiming that what it declares is law, and in making such a declaration it does not have to refer to the existing structure of the legal system as a whole.

What we have in Sri Lanka now is a fundamental crisis of rule of law itself. The implication of the government's interpretation of its power is that whatever position it takes is the 'law' and that in doing so it does not have to make any reference to the existing law.

The implication of the government's position is that their rule means making pragmatic arrangements in whatever way they wish and whenever they wish, irrespective of total structure defined by law within which the government has to function.

Through the attack on the judiciary, what is really being attacked is the idea of law itself. The government sees law as a series of pragmatic arrangements that do not have to relate to an overall legal structure and legal principles. Thus, the constitutional crisis that exists now is one that the executive has created for itself. It wants to bulldoze its way with the rogue 2/3 majority it has in parliament, irrespective of whatever conflicts it is creating with the overall structure of the legal system. The executive is behaving like a train driver that wants to run on or outside the railroad. That is how it has created these crises.

The government tried to blame the crises they have created for themselves on the judiciary. They cannot comprehend that all that the judiciary is doing is calling attention to the overall framework of the legal structure and pointing to where the government has derailed itself.

All this points to the fact that the total crisis that the government has created for themselves will not go away by the way they deal with the impeachment issue. In fact, the impeachment issue is only a small part of a much bigger and a complex crisis. All the propaganda that is created through the state media, making the Chief Justice, the other judges, lawyers and everyone who is calling for adherence to the rule of law into scapegoats, will in no way take the government outside the complex crisis that they are faced with.

The government's problem is not the Chief Justice or anyone else. In fact, the executive's crisis is itself. The end of the "war" has brought this crisis to the surface.

Instead of blaming the Chief Justice and others, the executive must looks itself in the mirror. It will see itself in chaos due to measures it has itself created.

The overall legal structure of Sri Lanka is not something that the executive will be able to get rid of easily. In every move it takes with that purpose, it will get itself far more deeply entangled with deeper problems and deeper conflicts.

If the executive does not look in the mirror, then no amount of blaming others will get the executive out of this mess.
http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-ART-005-2013

Whitebull


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

Redbulls wrote:The Court of Appeal a short while ago issued a writ quashing the Parliamentary Select Committee report on the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayke and its findings.
http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/24812-court-quashes-psc-report.html
One advantage of this decision to the government is this decision itself rule out one of the serious accusation to the government ie unnecessary intervention by government on Judiciary System.This clearly shows that Judiciary System is clearly running without illegal/unethical intervention from the government.But I can not say anything about independency about Judiciary System or this decision as it might lead to contempt to court.
However I think Parliament should use,to the maximum extent, the people's Judicial Power vested upon it by the Constitution which is ultimately the Supreme Law of our country.

52PSC has no authority to probe CJ - Court of Appeal - Page 2 Empty Court quashes PSC report - Updated Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:38 pm

Redbulls

Redbulls
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics

The Court of Appeal a short while ago issued a writ quashing the Parliamentary Select Committee report on the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayke and its findings.

The President of the Bench Justice S. Sriskandarajah with Justices Anil Gooneratne and A.W.A. Salam concurring delivered his judgement on the Writ application filed by Chief Justice Shirani A. Bandaranayake against the seven PSC members who found the petitioner guilty of three charges made in the impeachment motion against her.

The Court of Appeal quashed the findings of the report of the seven ruling party members of the PSC in view of the Supreme Court’s determination on Article 107(3) of the Constitution which was delivered last Thursday.

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to look into this matter and it had the power to exercise judicial review on findings provided by the Constitution. Therefore this power cannot be abdicated by the other arms of the government namely the Legislature or the Executive.

Petitioner Shirani Bandaranayake in her petition filed through Neelakandan and Neelakandan complained that the functioning of the seven government MPs, following the withdrawal of the four opposition MPs from the PSC was unlawful and ultra vires the Parliamentary Standing Orders.

Counsel Romesh De Silva in his submission cited an observation of Chief Justice Abrahams in colonial times when the Attorney General of Ceylon appeared to defend the Governor General in a case, that the court is the only place of refuge for the citizen, said that it was imperative that court does what was right.

He made reference to the Supreme Court determination that Standing Order 78A is ultra vires and unconstitutional and submitted that on that ground alone, the relief sought should be granted, given that under the Constitution it was the Supreme Court alone which was required to interpret the Constitution. It is clear that the PSC is illegal.

He said the inquiry was held in a manner that was lacking in terms of the requirements the failure to give a list of witnesses and documents, no proper time given to inspect reams of documents given with less than 24 hours to go through, denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and the refusal to allow independent observers.

He highlighted the inordinate bias on the part of the government members of PSC. Clearly, the accusers, prosecutors and judge were all the same contrary to all norms of a proper, fair and impartial inquiry.

He said the PSC acted deviously by informing the CJ and her lawyers that no witnesses were being called and then surreptitiously calling 16 witnesses over the phone. Thus, steps were taken to deprive the CJ of a fair inquiry.

He said there was also procedural impropriety, in that there was no proper clear procedure adopted by the PSC. In fact, all steps taken to secure a proper process were refused and denied.

He said PSC member Rajitha Senaratne had grounds for bias, given that his wife had made a Fundamental Rights application which had been dismissed by a bench presided over by CJ Bandaranayake. Though this was pointed out Dr. Senaratne continued to be a part of the PSC.

Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran said everyone should respect and uphold the Constitution. He informed court that the Opposition members in the PSC had prevailed on Chairman Anura Priyasharshana Yapa that adequate time to respond to clear charges should be given to the CJ.

He said the Chairman overruled all requests, causing the Opposition members in the PSC to walk out in disgust and protest. After those witnesses had been quickly called (no one knows how) and evidence of 16 persons has been taken without the knowledge of the Opposition members of the PSC.

Thereafter, a 35 page 'Report' has been published in less than 12 hours. Mr. Sampanthan had protested when he heard of this shocking conduct.
He concluded that his client had warned the PSC Chairman that failure to respect Court rulings relating to Constitutional interpretations would lead to a breakdown of the Rule of Law, which would make Sri Lanka a 'failed state', which should be avoided.

Counsel J.C. Weliamuna said all issues (around 20) relating to the propriety of the inquiry were overruled. When a President is impeached, he has the protection of an independent inquiry by the Supreme Court. Why should a Superior Court judge be denied an impartial, fair inquiry meeting required judicial norms? The Supreme Court determination on the Constitutionality of Standing Order 78A is binding and accordingly, the Petitioner is entitled to the relief sought.

Attorney General Palitha Fernando appearing as amicus curiae on the request of court submitted as follows:

The Appeal Court should consider whether it has the jurisdiction to entertain this application. Article 4 of the Constitution grants the Parliament not only 'legislative' power but also certain other powers.

Removals of the President, Members of Parliament etc involve review of the Supreme Court. But the framers of the Constitution have deliberately left out the judiciary from the situation of impeachment of a Superior Court judge.

Therefore the Appeal Court should not review steps taken to impeach the Petitioner Chief Justice. Several cases such as Victor Ivan's case refers to the need to maintain a balance of power between the organs of government which uphold that removal of Superior Court judges is a matter for the legislature to the exclusion of the judiciary.

The Appeal Court should refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation as to whether Article 4(c) permits the Appeal Court to entertain this application.(SS Selvanayagam)
http://www.dailymirror.lk/top-story/24812-court-quashes-psc-report.html

Whitebull


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

http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-ART-005-2013
I really doubt that this writter has even ever read...oopps....sorry touch the Constitution OR/and Standing orders OR
Is he working on a hidden agenda ?
PS :- Using of word OR is some what problematic NOW.So I would like to emphasize that here OR carries the conventional meaning.

Redbulls

Redbulls
Director - Equity Analytics
Director - Equity Analytics

(Lanka-e-News -07.Jan.2013, 5.00PM)
01. In a comprehensive interview after the Supreme Court determination that the PSC (that found the CJ guilty) was unconstitutional, the Deputy Speaker who is an Attorney-at-Law asserted on 4th January 2013 that “the government does not wish to see the country descend to anarchy”. He defended the PSC process by stating that “the PSC was only mandated to investigate and report” and “it was not mandated to make a “finding of guilt”. This is tantamount to an assertion that the purported finding of guilt in respect of three charges, arrived at by the PSC, is outside the mandate given to the PSC by Parliament, and therefore ab initio void. The irresistible presumption is that all advice tendered by him to the Speaker, the Chairman and Members of the PSC and anyone else who thought it fit to seek his opinion on this matter, prior to the aforementioned determination of the Supreme Court, would have been consistent with that unambiguous view of his.

02. That was indeed the mandate given to the PSC chaired by R. Premadasa and including Ranil Wickremasinghe, appointed on 4th April 1984 in terms of Standing Order 94 to investigate and report regarding allegations against Chief Justice Samarakoon. That PSC conducted an ex-parte investigation for more than four months and submitted their report on 9th August 1984 recommending that appropriate action be taken.

03. In terms of Standing Order 78A which had been hurriedly adopted in Parliament on 4th April 1984, a PSC with Lalith Athulathmudali as Chairman was appointed, also to inquire into and report to Parliament on the allegations referred to in a Resolution of 57 MPs placed on the Order paper of Parliament on 5th September 1984.

04. Chief Justice Samarakoon had refused to recognise the right of the earlier PSC to question him. He was, in any event, due to retire shortly thereafter on reaching the age of mandatory retirement on 21st October. He asserted that the action taken by the PSC was not in accordance with the Constitution and he had to protest at the very outset against the PSC proceeding with the inquiry as he did not want to be a party to the erosion of the independence of the Judiciary of which he was the Head. The six Government members of the PSC reported that the standard of proof required is very high and that they cannot come to the conclusion that the CJ was guilty of proved misbehaviour. The three opposition members, viz. Anura Bandaranayake, Dinesh Gunawardena and Sarath Muttetuwegama reported that “in seeking through this PSC to act under the provisions of Standing Order 78A, the Constitution of Sri Lanka was in fact being violated”, urged the President to refer this matter to the Supreme Court for an authoritative decision and recommended amendment of Standing Order 78A along the lines of the Indian provisions where the process of inquiry which preceded 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.

05. That limited mandate to inquire and report was presumably the only mandate given to the PSC that Speaker Anura Bandaranayake appointed on receipt of the resolution to impeach Sarath N. Silva Chief Justice in 2001, and therefore could not be restricted by the Supreme Court. It was because Sarath N. Silva could not accept any other’s right to investigate what he considered to be his “squeaky clean” activities that, without making any attempt to have Standing Order 78A invalidated or amended, he prevailed on the President (who had appointed him as Chief Justice in spite of wide ranging protests) to prorogue and then dissolve Parliament exercising the powers vested in her by the same Constitution, as that was the only possible means of his escaping impeachment. Not surprisingly, the said Sarath N. Silva is now pontificating on the virtues of Standing Order 78A.

06. On 31st December 2012, Cabinet Minister and member of the PSC Susil Premajayantha, also an Attorney-at-Law, stated that “the impeachment inquiry is not a legal probe but a legislative process and therefore proving of charges is not necessary”.

07. On 2nd January 2013 Leader of the House, Minister and member of the PSC, Nimal Siripala de Silva, Attorney-at-Law stated that the government was not worried about criticism by the International Community and would not, under any circumstances reverse the impeachment process.

08. On 3rd January 2013 the Supreme Court determination that “the PSC has no legal power or authority to find a judge guilty, as Standing Order 78A is not law,” was announced in the Court of Appeal.

09. On 4th January 2013 as aforementioned, the Deputy Speaker stated what he honestly believed were the limits of the mandate given to the Parliamentary Select Committee.

10. Even as the Court of Appeal is considering submissions in the Court of Appeal for the issue of a Writ quashing the purported findings of guilt made by the PSC, the Party Leaders have met this (7th January 2013) morning, at the Parliamentary Leaders meeting. On being informed by the Speaker that the relevant Supreme Court determination was not recognised by Parliament, the representatives of all opposition parties walked out of the meeting. The Deputy Speaker, in a vain attempt to put the cat back into the bag, had stated that the government representatives and the Speaker have decided to debate the PSC report on the 10th and 11th of January and take a vote at 6.30 p.m. on the 11th.

11. The obstinacy displayed by the Government will inevitably translate into anarchy in the event that the Court of Appeal quashes the “findings” of the PSC and the Government insists on having its own way in this matter. We are, indeed, living in momentous, if not disastrous times. The clock keeps ticking.

12. Will sanity prevail? Or, will we have to moan, “Oh Justice, thou art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason.”

Quo vadis, Mother Lanka?

Elmore Perera, Attorney-at-Law,
Founder CIMOGG, Past President OPA
http://www.lankaenews.com/English/news.php?id=13325

kas

kas
Manager - Equity Analytics
Manager - Equity Analytics


වම්ඉවුර

අධිකරණය සම්බන්ධයෙන් තනි වාක්‍යයේ වැදගත්කම

ඉකුත් සතියේ අභියාචනාධිකරණය විසින් ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට යොමුකළ ව්‍යවස්‌ථා නිර්වචනය පිළිබඳ ප්‍රශ්නය ගැන ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය විසින් දෙන ලද තීන්දුව රටේ මහත් ආන්දොලනයකට තුඩු දී ඇත. අභියාචනාධිකරණයේ ප්‍රශ්නයේ අන්තර්ගතය වූයේ විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීම පිළිබඳව ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ 107 (3) වගන්තියට අනුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන්ට එරෙහිව ඇති දොaෂාභියෝග චෝදනා විභාග කිරීමේදී එම අදාළ කමිටුව අනුගමනය කළ යුතු ක්‍රියා පටිපාටිය හා සාධන භාරය (ඔප්පු කිරීමේ ක්‍රමය) වැනි කාරණා වලට අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම ප්‍රතිපාදන සම්පාදනය කළ යුතුද යන්නයි. මෙහිදී නීතිපතිවරයා ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ පෙනී සිටිමින් පෙන්වා දුන්නේ ව්‍යවස්‌ථාව නිර්වචනය කිරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට බලතල තිබුණත් විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීම පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට පමණක්‌ අයත් බලතලයක්‌ නිසා ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට ඒ පිළිබඳව තීන්දු දීමට බලය නැති බවයි. මේ තර්කය නොසලකා හරිමින් ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය ඒ ගැන තීන්දුවක්‌ ප්‍රකාශ කර ඇත.

ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ මෙම තීන්දුව අතිශයින්ම වැදගත් එකක්‌ බව මගේ මතයයි. මෙයින් වර්තමානයේ සිදුවන ක්‍රියාදාමයට කිසිදු වෙනසක්‌ සිදු නොවූවත් අනාගතයේ ඒකාන්තයෙන්ම සිදුවන ව්‍යවස්‌ථා වෙනසේදී සැලකිල්ලට ගතයුතු කාරණා ගණනාවක්‌ම මතුවන බව කිව යුතුය. ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ තර්කය වී තිබෙන්නේ ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ 107 (3) වගන්තියට අනුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුව "නීතියෙන් හෝ ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග මාර්ගයෙන්" විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීමේ ක්‍රියා පටිපාටිය නියම කළ යුතු යෑයි කියා තිබුණද පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට එය ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග මාර්ගයෙන් කළ නොහැකි බවත් එවැන්නක්‌ කළහැක්‌කේ නීතියෙන් පමණක්‌ බවත්ය. මෙහිදී ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය කර ඇත්තේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් කළ යුතු තෝරා ගැනීමක්‌ පිළිබඳව පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට පිටින් සිට අදහස්‌ දැක්‌වීමයි. පාර්ලිමේන්තුව මේ කාරණය කිසිසේත්ම පිළිගනීවි යෑයි අපට සිතීමට අසීරුය. අපේ ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට දී ඇති බලතල අනුව ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට කිසිසේත්ම පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ අභ්‍යන්තර ක්‍රියා පටිපාටි පිළිබඳව තීන්දු දිය නොහැක.

අපේ රටේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ බලතල සම්බන්ධයෙන් මූලාශ්‍ර තුනක්‌ ඇත. ඉන් පළමුවැන්න 1978 ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවයි. දෙවැන්න ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවෙන්ම කියෑවෙන පරිදි එහි සඳහන් නොවන කාරණයක්‌ සම්බන්ධයෙන් 1953 අංක 21 දරන පාර්ලිමේන්තු බලතල හා වරප්‍රසාද පනත බලපැවැත්වෙයි. තුන්වැනි මූලාශ්‍රය වන්නේ ඉහත කී පාර්ලිමේන්තු බලතල හා වරප්‍රසාද පනතේ හත්වැනි වගන්තිය ප්‍රකාරව එකී පනතේ සඳහන් නොවන යම් කාරණයක්‌ සම්බන්ධයෙන් බ්‍රිතාන්‍ය පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ සියලු සම්ප්‍රදායන් හා පූර්වාදර්ශ බලපවත්වන බවයි. මේ සියලුම මූලාශ්‍ර වලට අනුව සක්‌සුදක්‌සේ පැහැදිලි වන එක කාරණයක්‌ වන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ අභ්‍යන්තර ක්‍රියා පටිපාටිවලට මොනම හේතුවකටවත් අධිකරණයකට ඇඟිලිගැසිය නොහැකි බවයි. බ්‍රිතාන්‍ය පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ව්‍යවස්‌ථාව පිළිබඳව තේරීම් කාරක සභාව එහි 2006 - 2007 සැසිවාරයේදී ගත් තීන්දුව වූයේ මෙහි අනිත් පැත්තයි. ඔවුන් කියා සිටියේ අධිකරණය වගකිව යුත්තේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට බවයි. ඒ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව ජනතාව නියෝජනය කළ නිසාය.

බ්‍රිතාන්‍යයේ මුලු සම්ප්‍රදායේම ඇත්තේ අධිකරණය යනු පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට පහලින් ඇති ආයතනයක්‌ය යන්නයි. අපේ ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේද 4 (සී) වගන්තියට අනුව ජනතාවගේ අධිකරණ බලය ක්‍රියාත්මක වන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් ඇතිකරන අධිකරණ ආයතන වලින් බව ඉතාම පැහැදිලිව සඳහන් වෙයි. අධිකරණයේ මුළු හැඩයම තීන්දු කරන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසිනි. හෙට දිනයේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට අවශ්‍ය නම් රටේ ඉහළම අධිකරණයේ නම මහේස්‌ත්‍රාත් උසාවිය බවත් පහලම අධිකරණයේ නම ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය බවටත් නීතියක්‌ ගෙන ආවොත් එතැන් සිට බලපවත්වන්නේ එයයි. මෑතකදී බ්‍රිතාන්‍යයේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් අධිකරණයේ විශාල වෙනසක්‌ සිදුකරන ලදී. මීට කලින් බ්‍රිතාන්‍යයේ ඉහළම අධිකරණය වූයේ සාමි මන්ත්‍රී මණ්‌ඩලයේ කොටසකි. දැන් එය සාමි මන්ත්‍රී මණ්‌ඩලයෙන් එළියට ගෙන වෙනම ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයක්‌ මෙන් ක්‍රියාත්මක වෙයි. මෙවැනි සියලුම තීන්දු ගන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවයි. එම නිසා පාර්ලිමේන්තුව කළ යුත්තේ කුමක්‌ද යන්න ගැන අධිකරණයේ මොනම ආයතනයකටවත් තීන්දු ප්‍රකාශයට පත් කිරීමට හැකියාවක්‌ නැත. විශේෂයෙන්ම විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් අපේ ආණ්‌ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ 107 වැනි වගන්තියේ නීතියකින් (එනම් පාර්ලිමේන්තු පනතකින්) නැතිනම් පාර්ලිමේන්තු ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග වලින් ඒ සම්බන්ධයෙන් විධි විධාන යෙදිය යුතු බව කියා තිබෙන විට ඒ විකල්ප දෙක අතර තෝරා ගැනීම කළ යුත්තේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවෙන්ම පමණි. අද තිබෙන විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීම පිළිබඳ පාර්ලිමේන්තු ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග ඇතිකරන විට 1984 අප්‍රේල් මාසයේදී මේ කාරණය ගැන පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ පුළුල් ලෙස සාකච්ඡා විය. එකල සිටි විපක්‍ෂය කීවේ අපි මෙය පාර්ලිමේන්තු පනතක්‌ මගින් කරමුය කියාය. ආණ්‌ඩු පක්‍ෂය කීවේ එය ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග වලින් කළ යුතු බවය. අවසානයේදී ආණ්‌ඩුව එසේ තීරණය කර ඇත්නම් අපට එය ගැන කළහැකි දෙයක්‌ නැතැයි කියා විපක්‍ෂය ද ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග වලටම එකඟ විය. එකඟ වූවා පමණක්‌ නොව ඒ ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග වලට ඔවුන්ගේ ඇති යෝජනාද වෙනම ලේඛනයක්‌ ඉදිරිපත් කළේය. ඒ අනුව අද පවතින ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග සැකසුණි. මේවා වෙනස්‌ කරන්නැයි පාර්ලිමේන්තුව තුළ සාකච්ඡා කළ හැකි වුවද ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට පිටින් සිට පාර්ලිමේන්තුව කළ යුත්තේ අසවල් දෙය යෑයි තීන්දු දිය නොහැක.

මෙහිදී ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ තීන්දුව මා වැදගත් කොට සලකන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව ඒ අනුව ක්‍රියාත්මක වේය යන බලාපොරොත්තුව අනුව නොවේ. කතානායකවරයා මෙකී තීන්දුව එකහෙලාම ප්‍රතිෂේප කරනු ඇති බව මගේ මතයයි. නමුත් මෙහිදී මුළු රටම ඉතාමත්ම වුවමනාවෙන් සැලකිල්ලට ගතයුතු කාරණයක්‌ ඇත. ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය තම තර්කය ගොඩනැඟීමේදී පෙන්වා දී ඇති කාරණයක්‌ වන්නේ මේ රටේ මීට කලින් තිබුණු 1947 ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ 52 (2) වගන්තියට අනුව මේ රටේ ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය වැනි ඉහළ අධිකරණ වල විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ගෙන එනු ලබන යෝජනාවකින් ඉවත් කළ හැකි බවයි. එමෙන්ම 1972 ජනරජ ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ අංක 122 (1) වගන්තියට අනුවද රාජ්‍ය මන්ත්‍රණ සභාවේ ගෙන එනු ලබන යෝජනාවකින් විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කළ හැකි වූ බවයි. නමුත් 1978 ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ මේ ආකාරයට සරල ලෙස විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීමට නොහැකි වන ආකරයට නිශ්චිත ක්‍රියා පටිපාටියක්‌ නියම කොට ඇති බව ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය පෙන්වා දෙයි. එවැනි ක්‍රියා පටිපාටියක්‌ ඇතිකරන ලද්දේ 1978 ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ සම්පාදකයන්ට අධිකරණයේ ස්‌වාධීනත්වය රැකීමට තිබුණු වුවමනාව නිසා යෑයි ඔවුන් පෙන්වා දෙයි. ඔවුන්ගේ සෙසු සියලුම තර්ක ගොඩනගා ඇත්තේ 1978 ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ සම්පාදකයන්ට අධිකරණයේ ස්‌වාධීනත්වය තහවුරු කිරීමට තිබුණු මෙම වුවමනාව සාක්‌ෂාත් කර ගැනීමට ගතයුතු පියවර ගැන සඳහන් කිරීම තුළින්ය.

එය එක පැත්තකින් සත්‍යයකි. ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ 107 (3) වගන්තියට අනුව විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීම සඳහා ක්‍රියා පටිපාටියක්‌ පාර්ලිමේන්තු ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග වලට එකතු කිරීමට 1984 අප්‍රේල් මාසයේදී පවත්වන ලද විවාදයේදී විපක්‍ෂය නොයෙක්‌ තර්ක ගෙනහැර දැක්‌වූ විට එකල අගමැති ආර්. ප්‍රේමදාස මහතා පෙන්වා දුන්නේ අද විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් ක්‍රියා පටිපාටියක්‌ ගැන තර්ක කළද ඊට කලින් ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ කිsසිදු ක්‍රියා පටිපාටියක්‌ නොතිබුණු බවයි. එජාප ආණ්‌ඩුව විසින් ගෙන එන ලද ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග යෝජනාව පිළිබඳ වැඩියෙන්ම විරෝධය පෑ විපක්‍ෂ මන්ත්‍රීවරයා වූයේ සරත් මුත්තෙට්‌ටුවගමය. ඔහු කියා සිටියේ ඉන්දියාවේ තිබෙන ආකාරයේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට පරිබාහිර අධිකරණයේ සාමාජිකයන්ගෙන්ම සැදුම්ලත් ත්‍රිපුද්ගල කමිටුවක්‌ විසින් විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන්ට එරෙහිව ඇති චෝදනා විභාග කළ යුතු බවයි. මෙයට පිළිතුරු දෙමින් ප්‍රේමදාස අගමැතිවරයා පෙන්වා දුන්නේ මුත්තෙට්‌ටුවගම මන්ත්‍රීවරයා මෙවැනි අදහස්‌ පළකළත් ඔහුගේ මාමණ්‌ඩිය (එනම් බිරිඳගේ පියා) වූ ආචාර්ය කොල්වින් ආර්. ද සිල්වා 1972 ජනරජ ව්‍යවස්‌ථාව සකසන විට විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීම සඳහා කිසිදු ක්‍රියා පටිපාටියක්‌ නොතිබුණු බවයි. 1972 ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ 122 (1) වගන්තියට අනුව රාජ්‍ය මන්ත්‍රණ සභාවේ ගෙන එන යෝජනාවකින් කිසිදු විමර්ශනයක්‌ හෝ විභාගයකින් තොරව විනිශ්චයකාරවරයෙක්‌ ඉවත් කළ හැකි විය. එකල රාජ්‍ය මන්ත්‍රණ සභාවේ ඝනපූර්ණය වූයේ මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් 25 දෙනකු වූ නිසා මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් 13 දෙනකුට ඕනෑම විනිශ්චයකාරවරයකු ඉවත් කළ හැකි වූ බව ප්‍රේමදාස මහතා අවඥසහගතව කීවේය. එසේ කීමෙන් ඔහු පෙන්වා දුන්නේ එජාපය ගෙන එන මෙම ස්‌ථාවර නියෝග වලින් ඉතාම සාධාරණ ආකාරයට විමර්ශනයක්‌ පවත්වා විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීමට ක්‍රියා පටිපාටියක්‌ සකසන බවයි. ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය තම තීන්දුව පදනම් කරගෙන ඇත්තේද ඒ කාරණය මතය.

මෙහිදී අප සැලකිල්ලට ගතයුතු කාරණය මෙයයි. 1947 ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීම පිළිබඳව 52 (2) වගන්තියට අනුව තිබුණේ තනි වාක්‍යයක්‌ පමණි. ඒ විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් යහපැවැත්මෙන් සිටිනතාක්‌ කල් ඔවුන්ගේ ධුරය දරන බවත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ගෙන එන යෝජනාවකින් ඔවුන්ව එම ධුරයෙන් පහකළ හැකි බවත්ය. මේ කාරණයම 1972 ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ 122 (1) වගන්තියේ එලෙසම කියවුණි. මේ තනි වාක්‍යයේ වැදගත්කම අප කවුරුත් ඉතා හොඳින් තේරුම් ගත යුතුය. විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීමේ ක්‍රියා පටිපාටිය තනි වාක්‍යයකින් කියවුණු එම යුගයේදී මේ රටේ කිසිදු කරදරයක්‌ තිබුණේ නැත. එකල ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය පාර්ලිමේන්තුව කළ යුත්තේ කුමක්‌ද කියා තීන්දු දුන්නේ නැත. පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ කෙරෙන කටයුතු සම්බන්ධයෙන් ඔවුන් ඉදිරියේ වගඋත්තර දෙන්නැයි කියමින් කතානායකවරයා ඇතුලු පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන්ට සිතාසි නිකුත් කළේ නැත. නීතිඥවරුන් මහමග සටන් පාඨ කියමින් පාගමන් පැවැත්වූයේත් නැත. එකල අධිකරණයට ආත්ම ගරුත්වයක්‌ තිබුණි. ඔවුන් බැරි දේවල් වලට අත ගැසුවේ නැත. තමන්ට නියමිත කාර්යය පමණක්‌ ගරු ගාමිභීර ලෙස හා නම්බුකාර ලෙස කළේය. අද වනතුරු අධිකරණයට පොදු සමාජයේ ගරුත්වයක්‌ තිබුණේ නම් ඒ තනි වාක්‍යයෙන් විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීමේ ක්‍රියා පටිපාටිය නියමිත වූ කාල පරිච්ඡේදයේ ඔවුන් හැසිරුණු ආකාරය නිසාය.

විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් සිsටින්නේ නඩු ඇසීමටය. ඒ රටේ අපරාධ හා සිවිල් නඩුය. ඔවුන් සිටින්නේ දේශපාලන බලධාරීන් සමග පොර බැදීමට නොවේ. නීතිඥවරුන් සිටින්නේද තම සේවා යෝජකයන් උසාවියේ නියෝජනය කිරීමට මිස මහ පාරේ පොල් ගැසීමටවත් සටන් පාඨ කීමටවත් ආණ්‌ඩු පෙරලි කිරීමටවත් නොවේ. මේ බව අපි තේරුම් ගත යුතුය. ඒ කාරණා අයත් වන්නේ දේශපාලන විපක්‍ෂයටයි. එම ක්‍රියාදාමයට සහභාගි වීමට වුවමනාවක්‌ ඇත්නම් අධිකරණ පද්ධතියෙන් ඔවුන් ඉවත්ව දේශපාලන විපක්‍ෂයට එකතු විය යුතුය.

1978 ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ 107 (3) වගන්තියට අනුව විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීමේ ක්‍රියා පටිපාටිය අසාර්ථක වී ඇති බව මේ වන විට සක්‌සුදක්‌සේ පැහැදිලිය. මේ පාර්ලිමේන්තු තේරීම් කාරක සභා පත්කිරීම හා විමර්ශන පැවැත්වීමේ ක්‍රියා පටිපාටිය විපක්‍ෂය විසින් ආණ්‌ඩුවට එරෙහිව විරෝධය පෑමට තවත් අවස්‌ථාවක්‌ බවට පත් කරගෙන ඇත. මේ ක්‍රියා පටිපාටිය අපේ රටට හඳුන්වා දුන්නේ ඇමරිකානු ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ සම්ප්‍රදාය අනුවයි. විනිශ්චයකාරවරයෙක්‌ ඉවත් කිරීමට යෝජනාවක්‌ ආ විට ඇමරිකාවේ කොංග්‍රස්‌ මණ්‌ඩලයේ ප්‍රධාන දේශපාලන පක්‍ෂ දෙකම එහි ක්‍රියාදාමයට සහභාගි විය. ඇමරිකාවේ දේශපාලන සංස්‌කෘතියට මේ තේරීම් කාරක සභා ක්‍රියා පටිපාටිය ගැලපුණද අපට නම් ගැලපෙන්නේ නැති බව දැන් ඉතාමත්ම පැහැදිලිsය.

අප අපේ සම්ප්‍රදායේ මූලාශ්‍රයන් වලට ආපසු යා යුතුය. එනම් 1947 ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ හා 1972 ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීම සඳහා තනි වාක්‍යයේ සම්ප්‍රදායයි. එනම් කිසිදු තේරීම් කාරක සභාවක්‌, විමර්ශනයක්‌ හෝ වාර්තාවක්‌ ගෙන එන්නේ නැතුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ගෙන එන යෝජනාවක්‌ විවාද කොට අදාළ විනිශ්චයකාරවරයා ඉවත් කිරීමේ සම්ප්‍රදායයි. මෙහිදී අපි බරපතල ලෙස සැලකිල්ලට ගතයුතු කාරණය වන්නේ විපක්‍ෂය විසින් අපේ රට අනුගමනය කළ යුතු යෑයි කියන ලැටිමර් හවුස්‌ මූලධර්ම පොදුරාජ්‍ය මණ්‌ඩලීය රටවල් විසින් 1998 දී සම්පාදනය කරනු ලැබුවත් පොදුරාජ්‍ය මණ්‌ඩලයේ ප්‍රධානියා වන මහා බ්‍රිතාන්‍යයවත් එකී මූලධර්ම බ්‍රිතාන්‍යයේ ඉහළම අධිකරණය වන ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට ආදේශ කර නැති බවයි. මෙකී ලැටිමර් හවුස්‌ මූලධර්ම වලින් කියෑවෙන එක්‌ කාරණයක්‌ වන්නේ විනිශ්චයකාරවරයෙක්‌ ඉවත් කිරීමේදී ස්‌වාධීන හා අපක්‍ෂපාතී මණ්‌ඩලයක්‌ විසින් ඔවුන් විමර්ශනය කළ යුතු බවයි. 2005 දී මහා බ්‍රිතාන්‍යය මුළු අධිකරණ ක්‌ෂේත්‍රයම විශාල පරිවර්තනයකට භාජනය කරන ලදී. බ්‍රිතාන්‍යයේ 2005 ව්‍යවස්‌ථා සංශෝaධන පනත මගින් පහල අධිකරණයේ විනිශ්යකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීමට පෙර විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් හා වෙනත් පුද්ගලයන්ගෙන් සැදුණු ත්‍රිපුද්ගල කමිටුවක්‌ සඳහා ප්‍රතිපාදන සලසා ඇත. නමුත් මහා බ්‍රිතාන්‍යයේ ඉහළම අධිකරණය වන 12 දෙනකුගෙන් සමන්විත ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් සම්බන්ධයෙන් තවමත් ක්‍රියාත්මක වන්නේ නැති වාක්‍යයේ ඉවත් කිරීමේ පටිපාටියයි. බ්‍රිතාන්‍යයේ 2005 ව්‍යවස්‌ථා සංශෝධන පනතේ 33 වැනි වගන්තියෙන් කියවෙන්නේ ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ විනිශ්චයකාරවරයෙක්‌ යහපැවැත්මෙන් සිටින තාක්‌කල් එම තනතුර දරන බවත් ඔවුන්ව බ්‍රිතාන්‍ය පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ගෙන එනු ලබන යෝජනාවකින් ඉවත් කළ හැකි බවය. ඕස්‌ටේ්‍රලියාව වර්තමානයේ පොදු රාජ්‍ය මණ්‌ඩලයේ සභාපති වන අතර ඔස්‌ටේ්‍රලියානු ව්‍යවස්‌ථාවේ 72 (2) වගන්තියට අනුව ද විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කරන්නේ තනි වාක්‍යයකිනි. පසුගිය මාසයේ ඔස්‌ටේ්‍රලියාව විසින් අධිකරණයේ නොමනා පැවැත්ම හා නොහැකියාව (පාර්ලිමේන්තු කොමිසම්) 2012 අංක 188 දරන පනත සම්මත කරනු ලැබූවද එම පනතින් ඔස්‌ටේ්‍රලියානු පාර්ලිමේන්තුව බැඳී සිටින්නේ නැත. එය ඔස්‌ටේ්‍රලියානු පාර්ලිමේන්තුව ඉදිරියේ ඇති එක්‌ විකල්පයක්‌ පමණි. එම පනත අනුව විනිශ්චයකාරවරයකුට එරෙහිව ඇති දොaෂාභියෝගයක්‌ විභාග කිරීමට ත්‍රිපුද්ගල කමිටුවක්‌ පත් කිරීමට යෝජනා තිබුණද එවැනි කමිටුවක්‌ පත් කිරීමට පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ සභා දෙක තුළ වෙන වෙනම යෝජනා සම්මත කරගත යුතුය. එමෙන්ම මෙකී පනතට පිටින් වුවද ඔස්‌ටේ්‍රලියානු පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීමට කමිටු පිහිටුවීමට හෝ කිසිදු කමිටුවක්‌ පත් නොකර සිටීමටද සම්පූර්ණ අයිතිය ඇත. ඔස්‌ටේ්‍රලියාවේද ඒ අනුව තවමත් ඇත්තේ තනි වාක්‍යයේ සම්ප්‍රදායයි.

මේ සියලු කාරණා අපේ රටේ පාලකයන් ද සැලකිල්ලට ගත යුතුය. ඉදිරියේදී ව්‍යවස්‌ථාව සංශෝධනය වන විට විනිශ්චයකාරවරුන් ඉවත් කිරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් අප ආපසු යා යුත්තේ තනි වාක්‍යයේ සම්ප්‍රදායටය. ඇමරිකාවේ ක්‍රියාත්මක වන දොaෂාභියෝග ක්‍රියා පටිපාටිය මෙරටට ගෙන ඒමෙන් සිදුවී ඇත්තේ කටුස්‌සාගේ කරේ රත්තරන් බැඳීම වැනි දෙයක්‌ය යන්න පසුගිය මාස දෙක ඇතුළත ඇතිවූ සිදුවීම් වලින් අපට පෙනේ. එම නිසා අප අනාගතයේදී ගුරුකොට ගත යුත්තේ බ්‍රිතාන්‍යයේ 2005 ව්‍යවස්‌ථා සංශෝධන පනතේ ඉහත දක්‌වන ලද 33 වැනි වගන්තියයි.

සී. ඒ. චන්ද්‍රප්‍රේම

http://www.divaina.com/2013/01/07/feature01.html

Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

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