Parliamentary Select Committee Report to Impeach Chief Justice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Parliamentary Select Committee Report to impeach Chief Justice Your committee appointed by the Hon. Speaker on 14th November 2012 under Standing Order 78 A (2) to investigate and report to Parliament on the charges mentioned in this resolution within one month from the commencement of your committee as stipulated by Standing Order 78 A (6), commenced its inquiry on the 14th of November 2012 and sat on eight occasions on the dates 14th, 16th and 23rd of November and the 4th , 5th , 6th , 7th and 8th of December. At the first sitting of your committee, the Chairman of your committee explained the procedure adopted by the Committee and Standing Order 78 A and Standing Order No. 78 A (6) in particular were brought to the notice of the Hon. Members. At the same sitting, the Committee further decided to transmit a copy of the resolution placed in the Order Paper of Parliament of 6th November 2012 to the Hon. Dr. Mrs. Shirani A. Bandaranayake and requested her to submit her defence in writing before the 22nd of November 2012, as per standing order 78 a (3). Your Committee further decided to request Chief Justice Hon. Mrs. Shirani A. Bandaranayake to appear before the next sitting of the Committee to be held on 23rd December 2012. The Committee also inquired her whether she was willing to appear before its next sitting on her own or through a representative. Your Committee sat on 16th November 2012. Your Committee discussed the letter dated 15th November 2012 sent by Neelakandan and Neelakandan law firm and concluded that under Standing Order 78 A (5), the right to nominate her representative was vested solely in the Chief Justice and that right could not be transferred to Neelakandan and Neelakandan law firm. Accordingly it was decided to inform her to submit a request, if any, to appear before the next sitting day of the Committee on 23rd November 2012, or nominate a representative, if any representative was going to appear on her behalf. The Hon. A.D. Susil Premajayantha, expressing his views about the article titled “The Select Committee divided over the acting Chief Justice” that appeared in “Ravaya” newspaper, emphasized the need to take necessary action against media reports that twist the proceedings of the Committee. The Chairman agreed to enlighten the Speaker on this and request him to take steps to issue a set of guidelines to the print and electronic media. The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, presenting a written statement emphasized that your committee should stick to principals of natural justice and the rule of law. The Hon. Rajitha Senarathna expressing his views on the above statement stated that at a previous occasion too, the Committee that probed allegations against a Chief Justice acted in this manner and that Parliament is supreme according to a ruling given by a former Speaker Hon. Anura Bandaranaike and the proceedings of the Committee should comply with the Standing Orders. Addressing the Committee, the Chairman opined that Members of Parliament are representatives of the people and the constitution had vested certain powers in the Parliament. He further stated that similar procedures are followed in Great Britain, India and the United States and the responsibilities vested in the Members of Parliament by the Constitution should not be belittled. Accordingly, your committee was of the view that a party outside the Parliament cannot be vested with powers to conduct such an investigation. Your committee met again on 23rd November 2012. On that occasion, the Secretary of the Committee marked the following documents. A list of all documents marked by the Committee at the investigation is annexed as Appendix 1 of this report. Drawing the attention of the committee to the documents tabled in the committee pertaining to the case SC 3/2012, Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva emphatically stated that these documents had not been lawfully presented. He further stated that it was not the accepted procedure of Parliament to table them in the committee after having them handed over to Parliament when the same had been addressed to the private addresses of the Members of Parliament. Pursuant to discussions on the matter, the Chairman decided that these documents could not be deemed as the documents of the Committee as they had not been duly presented. The Hon. John Amarathunga, the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, the Hon. Vijitha Herath and the Hon. Rajavarothiam Sampanthan expressed their disagreement with this decision.The Hon. Vijitha Herath and the Hon. John Amarathunga further stated that as informed by the Supreme Court, the proceedings of your committee should be suspended until the conclusion of the proceedings of the cases before the Supreme Court.Commenting on this matter, the Chairman opined that your committee had been appointed as per the powers vested in Parliament under Article 107 of the on Constitution and as setout clearly in the Standing Orders and that there were precedents in this regard and that the Committee had been given only a very limited period of time by the Parliament and as such the Committee could not deviate from the responsibility it had been entrusted with by Parliament. Expressing their views further, the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella and the Hon. Rajavarothiam Sampanthan stated that action should be pursued in such a way so as not to harm the mutual relationship with the Parliament and the Supreme Court. The Hon. John Amarathunge, the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella and the Hon. Vijitha Herath stated that they did not agree with the Committee's decision not to accept the determination by the Supreme Court. The Chairman again stated that your Committee should act in accordance with the Standing Orders and the Constitution and discharge the responsibility entrusted to it by the Hon. Speaker in an independent and impartial manner. Thereupon, the Hon. Dr. (Mrs.) Shirani A. Bandaranaike, Chief Justice, and Mr. Romesh de Silva, President's Council, were summoned before the Committee. Mr. Romesh de Silva, PC, who appeared for the Hon. Chief Justice, first thanked the Committee for the degree of courtesy accorded to them on their arrival at the Parliament. With Permission from the Committee, the following counsel were nominated to assist senior President’s Counsel Mr. Romesh de Silva, who appeared for the Chief Justice : Mr. Nalin Ladduwahetty, PC Mr. Saliya K. Peiris, Attorney-at-Law Mr. Sugath Caldera, Attorney-at-Law Mr. Riyaz Ameen, Attorney-at-Law Mr. Iraj de Silva, Attorney-at-Law Mr. Kandayyah Neelakandan, Attorney-at-Law Mr. Romesh de Silva, PC, submitted a certified copy of an order by the Supreme Court in Case No. 3/2012 and stated that a request had been made that the proceedings of the Committee be suspended on grounds of mutual trust between the judiciary and the legislature till the judicial action before the Court has been dealt with. The Committee discussed this at length and the Chairman decided that your Committee, which had been appointed in terms of the Constitution, had no power to suspend its proceedings. The Chairman informed that, according to the traditions of Parliament, the Hon. Chief Justice should take an oath at the first instance of her appearance before your Committee, to which Mr. Romesh de Silva, PC, who appeared for the Chief Justice, objected. However, the Chief Justice agreed to take the oath as amended when it was pointed out that the records of evidence show that on a previous occasion, the Chief justice who appeared before the Committee last appointed to hold a similar examination had taken the oath at the first instance of his appearance before that Committee, and accordingly the Hon. Chief Justice took the oath before the Committee. As Mr. Romesh de Silva PC, who appeared for the Chief Justice, asked for a period of six weeks to submit the case for the defence, the Committee considered it and decided to give him time till 30th November 2012 to submit the statement of defence and to hold the next meeting on 4th December 2012, and informed the defendant party that, in that meeting, they could make their submissions pertaining to the jurisdiction and bias, which they have cited as their preliminary objections. The Chairman informed the Committee that action would be taken through Secretary General of Parliament to send for documents necessary for the investigations of the Committee. After considering a request made by the senior counsel of the Chief Justice, the committee agreed to provide the minutes of evidence of the Committee on condition that confidentiality would be guaranteed. At the following meeting of the Committee on 04 December 2012, the Hon. Vijitha Herath stated that a mechanism should be formulated for the continuance of the proceedings of this Committee. At that moment, presenting a written statement, the Hon. John Amarathunga stated that some agreement should be entered into in relation to the matters like procedures of the Committee and the onus probandi. The Hon. Rajavarothiam Sampanthan explained that the standing orders and the rules related to the procedures of the Committee should be formulated by the parliament. Hon. (Dr.) Shirani A. Bandaranayake and the counsel were then called before the the Committee. President's Counsel Mr. Romesh de Silva informed the Committee that Counsel Saravanan Neelakandan, too, will appear before the Committee for his support at its next meeting in addition to the counsel already appearing before the Committee. Leave was granted for the aforesaid counsel to appear before the Committee. Making a request, President's Counsel Mr. Romesh de Silva stated that despite Standing Order 78 A(8) which provides that the proceedings of the committee shall not be made public until reported by the Committee, and since such right has been established in order to ensure the protection of his client, and since his client, Hon.