DOCSLIB.ORG

Socio-Political Realities Expropriation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Socio-Political Realities Expropriation Synopsis of Socio-Political Realities Ad Hominem Legislation Expropriation Law Amazon Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities - Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation - Expropriation Law’ http://www.consultants21.com/page-1-public-interest-litigations.php + Justification for Supporting the Impeachment of Chief Justice of Sri Lanka 2012 The Author has compiled this Book in two Sections. The First Section has been in relation to how a strong country, such as Japan, had exercised undue governmental pressures to cover-up a fraud perpetrated on the Government of Sri Lanka, a small country, in the construction of the Colombo Hilton Hotel, by reputed Japanese Companies. In this Second Section of the Book, the Author deals with an ad hominem legislation, named as ‘Revival of Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets Act No. 43 of 2011’, commonly known as the ‘Expropriation Law’, which had been hastily enacted by the Parliament of Sri Lanka, based on a perverse Special Determination made by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka on the constitutionality of this Bill; whereas the Constitution of Sri Lanka, itself, had mandated such a Bill, in the given facts and circumstances, to have been deemed to be determined to be Size - 8.25” X 11” – Pages 818 inconsistent with the Constitution, thereby having rendered the Supreme Court to be functus thereon. The Author has well and truly demonstrated, as to how the relevant Bill, pertaining to the said ad hominem legislation, named as ‘Revival of Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets Act No. 43 of 2011’, commonly known as the ‘Expropriation Law’, had been surreptitiously certified by the Cabinet of Ministers of Sri Lanka, as an ‘Urgent Bill’ and forwarded by President Mahinda Rajapaksa on Thursday, 20.10.2011 to the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka for a Special Determination on the constitutionality of such Bill, which had been received by the Supreme Court Registry on Friday, 21.10.2011, and Listed for Hearing by the Supreme Court on Monday, 24.10.2011, itself over the weekend ! – viz: Knowingly, no notice, whatsoever, had been given to the parties, whose interests had been directly affected by such ad hominem legislation, thereby denying them natural justice and their constitutional rights. Even the public of Sri Lanka had been denied the constitutional right to challenge the Bill before the Supreme Court at the Hearing into the Special Determination, since the Hearing had been hastily and secretively fixed for Monday 24.11.2011, over the weekend, with the Bill having been received in the Supreme Court Registry on Friday 21.11.2011. The Supreme Court Special Determination had been made by a 3-Judge Bench, presided by Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, comprising Justices P.A. Ratnayake and Chandra Ekanayake, who having heard a Deputy Solicitor General, on behalf of the Hon. Attorney General, who only had been noticed ! The Supreme Court Bench had raised several questions on ‘doubts’, to which clarifications had been afforded by the Addl. Solicitor General ! Nevertheless, in violation of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, the Supreme Court had determined the said Bill to be consistent with the Constitution, whereas the very entertainment of any ‘doubt’ in relation to an ‘Urgent Bill’, renders such Bill to have deemed to have been determined to be inconsistent with the Constitution, itself, in terms of Article 123(3) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, thereby rendering the Supreme Court functus thereon – (Emphasis Added) – viz : “123(3) In the case of a Bill endorsed as provided in Article 122, if the Supreme Court entertains a doubt whether the Bill or any provision thereof is inconsistent with the Constitution, it shall be deemed to have been determined that the Bill or such provision of the Bill is inconsistent with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court shall comply with the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article.” Consequently, the said Bill had been placed on the Order Paper of Parliament of Sri Lanka on 8.11.2011, and Debated on the very next day, 9.11.2011, and expeditiously certified into Law on 11.11.2011 by the Speaker of Parliament, Chamal Rajapaksa, a brother of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, but the announcement of such certification had been made to Parliament only on 22.11.2011 – viz: (Translated into English from Sinhala language) SPEAKER’S CERTIFICATE I wish to notify that the certificate on the Bill titled Revival of Underperforming Enterprises or Underutilized Assets has been placed on 11th November 2011 in terms of Article 79 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. By the aforesaid perverse Act, Hotel Developers (Lanka) Ltd., the owning Company of the Colombo Hilton Hotel had been the only Company scheduled to be vested in the Government of Sri Lanka, together with 77 other Lands. Such ad hoc takeover had been purely on the basis that the Government had advanced Rs. 12,000 Mn., to Hotel Developers (Lanka) Ltd., which had to be re-paid, and for which the Treasury by Letter dated 10.5.2011 had already given a period of 2 years ! This Rs. 12,000 Mn., had actually comprised only Rs. 4,000 Mn., of Capital, with the balance Rs. 8,000 Mn., having been interest accumulated exceeding the Capital ! – viz: Coincidently, the Author on 8.11.2011 had filed in the Commercial High Court of Sri Lanka, an Application under the provisions of the Companies Act No. 7 of 2007, to restructure and re- arrange the affairs of Hotel Developers (Lanka) Ltd., under the supervision of a judicial process. At the very same time, the Author had given notice of such invoking of the exercise of judicial power on 8.11.2011, itself, to the Speaker of Parliament, Chamal Rajapaksa. Deliberately disregarding such material fact, the Speaker of Parliament had permitted a Debate on the aforesaid Bill on the very next day 9.11.2011 for the passage of the Bill, and the hasty certification thereof into law on 11.11.2011, thereby vesting Hotel Developers (Lanka) Ltd., in the Government of Sri Lanka, whereby the legislature had usurped the judicial process, with the Speaker of Parliament permitting legislative power to be exercised overriding the exercise of judicial power ! Though such fact had been brought to the attention of the Speaker of Parliament of Sri Lanka by Member of Parliament M.A. Sumanthiran, Attorney-at-Law, he had been overruled thereon by the Speaker ! Having been unaware that the Speaker of Parliament had certified such Bill into law on 11.11.2011, since such certification had been disclosed by him only on 22.11.2011, the Author on 17.11.2011 had filed the Application in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Bill, particularly citing the foregoing Article 123(3) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, and pointing out the ‘impossibility’ for him to have done so previously, given the hasty and surreptitious manner in such Bill had been Specially Determined upon by the Supreme Court ! Appallingly, Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake had minuted on the above Application in Chambers, together with the concurrence of Justices P.A. Ratnayake and Chandra Ekanayake, stating that any party, who had wanted to intervene, could have done so at the time the Supreme Court had the Hearing on the Bill, and that once a Special Determination had been made, permission could not be granted to intervene in the matter. Whereas for all practical purposes to have so intervened was an ‘impossibility’ given the listing of such Hearing on Monday, 24.11.2011, given a weekend in between, with the Supreme Court Registry having received such Bill only on Friday 21.10.2011 ! A lurking doubt necessarily arises, as to why the Supreme Court did not realize such ‘impossibility’ in fixing the matter for Hearing over a weekend on Monday, itself ? With every organ of the State having been constitutionally bound to secure and advance fundamental rights, the Author on 14.11.2011 had filed a Fundamental Rights Application in the Supreme Court, as an affected party, who had been denied natural justice, citing, inter-alia, Article 17(1) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights – viz: “Article 17(1) (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property The Author had cited the following ‘dicta’ from a 7-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in a Special Determination made in October 2002 – viz: “The foregoing had been comprehensively dealt with in the Determinations made in October 2002 by a 7 Member Bench of Your Lordships’ Court, comprising then Chief Justice, Sarath N. Silva, and Justices J.A.N. De Silva, Shirani Bandaranayake, S.W.B. Wadugodapitiya, A. Ismail, P. Edussuriya and H.S. Yapa on the aborted 18th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution. The following extracts therefrom are cited: “Therefore, shorn of all flourishes of Constitutional Law and of political theory, on a plain interpretation of the relevant Articles of the Constitution, it could be stated that any power that is attributed by the Constitution to one organ of government cannot be transferred to another organ of government or relinquished or removed from that organ of government; and any such transfer, relinquishment or removal would be an “alienation” of sovereignty which is inconsistent with Article 3 read together with Article 4 of the Constitution”. “It necessarily follows that the balance that had been struck between the three organs of government in relation to the power that is attributed to each such organ, has to be preserved if the Constitution itself is to be sustained” “The transfer of a power which attributed by the Constitution to one organ of government to another; or the relinquishment or removal of such power, would be an alienation of sovereignty inconsistent with Article 3 read with Article 4 of the Constitution” “The power that constitutes a check, attributed to one organ of government in relation to another, has to be seen at all times and exercised, where necessary, in trust for the People.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wickrematunge V. Republic of Sri Lanka
    Communication to the Human Rights Committee Submitted Pursuant to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights AHIMSA WICKREMATUNGE for herself and on behalf of LASANTHA WICKREMATUNGE Victims ― v. ― DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA, Respondent INITIAL SUBMISSION Nushin Sarkarati Catherine Amirfar Carmen Cheung Natalie L. Reid CENTER FOR JUSTICE & Elizabeth Nielsen ACCOUNTABILITY Duncan Pickard One Hallidie Plaza, Suite 750 Alyssa T. Yamamoto San Francisco, CA 94102 Sebastian Dutz United States Samantha B. Singh DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 United States 8 January 2021 CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1 A. The Authors and Victims .............................................. 1 B. Request to Prioritize the Case ....................................... 1 II. FACTS ........................................................................................ 1 A. Country Context ........................................................... 2 B. The Victims’ Story ....................................................... 6 III. THIS COMMUNICATION IS ADMISSIBLE .......................... 15 IV. SRI LANKA HAS VIOLATED THE COVENANT ................. 18 A. Right to Life (Article 6) .............................................. 18 B. Right to Freedom from Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Article 7)...... 20 C. Rights to Freedom of Expression and Opinion and Non- Discrimination
    [Show full text]
  • The Issue About the Independence of the Judiciary in Sri Lanka INTRODUCTION the Procedure Adopted by the Mahinda Rajapakse Government to Remove Chief Justice Dr
    Position Paper Impeachment against Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake and the Issue about the independence of the Judiciary in Sri Lanka INTRODUCTION The procedure adopted by the Mahinda Rajapakse government to remove Chief Justice Dr. (Mrs.) Shirani Bandaranayke from the office of Chief Justice through an impeachment1 has turned a dissension in to a serious crisis that alters the balance of power in the constitutional order of functioning of the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary in Sri Lanka. Article 125 of the constitution that sets the However this construction of the constitution supreme law of the land, the judiciary is the only undermines the doctrine of separation of powers and exclusive institution empowered to interpret that requires the three institutions of the Executive, the provisions of the constitution. However, in this Legislature and the Judiciary to exercise state instance the legislature while disregarding the power subject to the checks and balances of the interpretation given by the Supreme Court also three institutions functioning independent of each refused to comply with the writ of Certiorari issued other. It has instead made governance subject to a by the Court of Appeal.2 duality of power exercised by the Executive and the Legislature. These checks and balances built in to The legislature contended that it [the legislature] the functioning of the three arms of the constitution was the sole repository of sovereignty of the would ensure good governance. The undermining people and hence was supreme and not subject of any one of these three institutions would have a to the authority of any other constitutional body.
    [Show full text]
  • Sri Lanka Law Reports
    DIGEST TO THE Sri Lanka Law Reports Containing cases and other matters decided by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 2007 VOLUME 1 Consulting Editors : HON S. N. SILVA, Chief Justice HON P. WIJERATNE, J. President. Court of Appeal (upto 27.02.2007) Editor-in-Chief : K. M. M. B. Kulatunga, PC Additional Editor-in-Chief : ROHAN SAHABANDU PUBLISHED BY THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Printed at M. D. Gunasena & Company Printers (Pvt) Ltd. Price: Rs. 50.00 JUDGES OF THE appellate COURTS 2007 SUPREME COURT HON. SARATH N. Silva, P.C. (CHIEF JUSTICE) HON. DR. SHIRANI A. BANDARANAYAKE, J. HON. J. A. N. DE Silva, J. HON. NIHAL JAYASINGHE, J. HON SHIRANEE TilakawaRDENA, J. HON N. E. DISSANAYAKE, J. HON A. R. N. FERNANDO, J. HON R. A. N. GAMINI AMARATUNGA, J. HON. SALEEM MARSOOF, J. HON. ANDREW M. Somawansa, J. HON. D. J. DE S. BalapaTABENDI, J. COURT OF APPEAL HON. P. WIJAYARATNE, J. (President Of Court of Appeal Retired on 27.02.2007) HON. K. SRipavan, J. (President Court of Appeal from 27.02.2007) HON. CHANDRA EKANAYAKE, J. HON S.I. IMAM, J. HON L. K. WIMALACHANDRA, J. HON. S. SRIKANDARAJA, J. HON. W. L. R. Silva, J. HON. SISIRA DE ABREW, J. HON. ERIC BASNAYAKE J. HON. ROHUNI PERERA J. HON SARATH DE ABREW J. HON. ANIL FOONARATNE, J. HON. A. W. A. SALAM, J. iii LIST OF CASES Abeyfunawrdena V. Sammon and Others ............................................... 276 Ananda V. Dissananyake ........................................................................ 391 Aravindakumar V. Alwis and Others ........................................................ 316 Arpico Finance Co.
    [Show full text]
  • To: Hon. Chamal Rajapaksa, M.P. Speaker of Parliament AFFIDAVIT I, NIHAL SRI AMERESEKERE of 167/4, Vipulasena Mawatha, Colombo
    To: Hon. Chamal Rajapaksa, M.P. Speaker of Parliament AFFIDAVIT I, NIHAL SRI AMERESEKERE of 167/4, Vipulasena Mawatha, Colombo 10 in the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, being a Buddhist, do hereby solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare as follows: I place before Your Honour the following facts in the context of the Parliamentary Select Committee having been appointed in terms of Standing Orders of Parliament under Article 107(3) of the Constitution, to investigate into a Resolution for the removal of Hon. (Dr) (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake, entertained on 1st November 2012 by Your Honour, as per Article 107(2) of the Constitution, and placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on 6th November 2012. The facts contained herein are also tendered to Your Honour in the context of the Application I made on 18th October 2012 to the Supreme Court in SC (SD) No. 2/2011 of which Your Honour was given notice in terms of the Constitution. I set out below a chronology of events on my endeavours to have the Special Determination of 24th October 2011 reviewed and re-examined to bring out the salient facts of relevance. 14.11.2011 - I filed Fundamental Rights Application SC (FR) No. 534/2011 upon coming to know that the Bill generally referred to, as the ‘Expropriation Bill’, had been tabled in Parliament th on 8 November 2011, without being aware that the Bill had already been certified into th law by Your Honour on 11 November 2011. With my aforesaid Application, I also tendered a Motion, seeking to Support my Application in the course of the ensuing week, attaching a Medical Certificate from the Cardiac Specialist, who has been treating me since 1994, recommending two weeks rest, since I was indisposed, having just returned from Morocco, after attending the Fourth Session of the Conference of State Parties on the UN Convention Against Corruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Sri Lanka Dissenting Judgment
    Supreme Court of Sri Lanka dissenting Judgment manipulatingly cannibalized to exclude two vital pages pertaining to conduct and actions by President Mahinda Rajapaksa ! After Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva retired on 6.6.2009, former Treasury Secretary, P.B. Jayasundera filed Application on 7.7.2009 through same Counsel, Faisz Musthapha, President’s Counsel, seeking to be relieved from the undertaking given by him to the Supreme Court by Affidavit dated 16.8.2008, that he will not hold any Public Office, directly or indirectly, or purport to do so, in any manner. Thereafter on 21.7.2009 and 31.7.2009 Amended Applications had been filed without having obtained the prior approval of the Supreme Court. The above Application of 31.7.2009 was hastily heard by a 7-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by new Chief Justice J.A.N. de Silva, and comprising Justices Shirani Bandaranayake, Shiranee Tilakawardane, S. Marsoof, D.J.de S. Balapatabendi, K. Sripavan and P.A. Ratnayake, and Order was made on 24.9.2009 stating that whilst refusing the main two reliefs in paragraphs a) and b) of the Petition of former Treasury Secretary, P.B. Jayasundera, that the Court was inclined to grant relief under the incidental Prayer c), by a majority decision, with Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane dissenting. Two complete pages of this sole dissenting Judgment of Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane had been omitted by the manipulation on the computer of the font type and size of the text of the original Judgment. This had been done by changing the font to a ‘larger size’ viz – ‘Century Gothic Font’ of the first 15 pages, the text of the first 15 pages had thus occupied 17 pages, and the 16th and 17th pages of such ‘larger font’ viz – ‘Century Gothic Font’, had been removed.
    [Show full text]
  • Establishing a Constitutional Court the Impediments Ahead
    ESTABLISHING A CONSTITUTIONAL COURT THE IMPEDIMENTS AHEAD CPA Working Papers on Constitutional Reform No. 13, January 2017 Dr Nihal Jayawickrama Centre for Policy Alternatives | www.cpalanka.org CPA Working Papers on Constitutional Reform | No. 13, January 2017 About the Author: Nihal Jayawickrama is the Coordinator of the UN-sponsored Judicial Integrity Group that drafted the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and related documents. He practised law before serving briefly, at the age of 32, as Attorney General and then as Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice from 1970-77. He was Vice- Chairman of the Sri Lanka Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly, a member of the Judicial Service Advisory Board and the Council of Legal Education, and a Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. Moving into academic life, he was Associate Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong (1984-1997), and the Ariel F. Sallows Professor of Human Rights at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada (1992- 1993). As Chairman of the Hong Kong Section of the International Commission of Jurists, he was one of the principal commentators on constitutional and human rights issues in the period leading to the transfer of sovereignty. Moving out of academic life, he was Executive Director of Transparency International, Berlin (1997-2000), and Chair of the Trustees of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, London (2004-2007). Since 2000, he has served on several UN expert groups, been a consultant on judicial reform and the implementation of UNCAC, and worked with governments and judiciaries in Asia and the Pacific, Africa, and Eastern and Central Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Sri Lanka's Assault on Dissent
    SECURITY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS SRI LANKA’S ASSAULT ON DISSENT Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. First published in 2013 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom © Amnesty International 2013 Index: ASA 37/003/2013 English Original language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for advocacy, campaigning and teaching purposes, but not for resale. The copyright holders request that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, or for reuse in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from the publishers, and a fee may be payable. To request permission, or for any other inquiries, please contact [email protected] Cover photo : Police use water cannon on peaceful demonstrators protesting against rising fuel costs in Colombo, Sri Lanka, February 2012. © AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena amnesty.org CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................7 Methodology ................................................................................................................10 The right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association in Sri Lanka........10 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Decisions of the Supreme Court on Parliamentary Bills
    DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT ON PARLIAMENTARY BILLS 2014 - 2015 VOLUME XII Published by the Parliament Secretariat, Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte November - 2016 PRINTED AT THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING, SRI LANKA. Price : Rs. 364.00 Postage : Rs. 90.00 DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA UNDER ARTICLES 120, 121 AND 122 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA FOR THE YEARS 2014 AND 2015 i ii 2 - PL 10020 - 100 (2016/06) CONTENTS Title of the Bill Page No. 2014 Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses 03 2015 Appropriation (Amendment ) 13 National Authority on Tobacco and Alcohol (Amendment) 15 National Medicines Regulatory Authority 21 Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution 26 Penal Code (Amendment) 40 Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) 40 iii iv DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT ON PARLIAMENTARY BILLS 2014 (2) D I G E S T Subject Determination Page No. No. ASSISTANCE TO AND PROTECTION OF VICTIMS 01/2014 to 03 - 07 OF CRIME AND WITNESSES 06/2014 to provide for the setting out of rights and entitlements of victims of crime and witnesses and the protection and promotion of such rights and entitlements; to give effect to appropriate international norms, standards and best practices relating to the protection of victims of crime and witnesses; the establishment of the national authority for the protection of victims of crime and witnesses; constitution of a board of management; the victims of crime and witnesses assistance and protection division of the Sri Lanka Police Department; payment of compensation to victims of crime; establishment of the victims of crime and witnesses assistance and protection fund and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 1. Athula Chandraguptha Thenuwara, 60/3A, 9th Lane, EthulKotte. (Petitioner in SC Application 665/12 [FR]) S.C. APPLICATION No: 665/2012(FR) 2. Janaka Adikari Palugaswewa, Perimiyankulama, S.C. APPLICATION No: 666/2012(FR) Anuradhapaura. S.C. APPLICATION No: 667/2012(FR) (Petitioner in SC Application 666/12 [FR]) S.C. APPLICATION No: 672/2012(FR) 3. Mahinda Jayasinghe, 12/2, Weera Mawatha, Subhuthipura, Battaramulla. (Petitioner in SC Application 667/12 [FR]) 4. Wijedasa Rajapakshe, Presidents’ Counsel, The President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. (1st Petitioner in SC Application 672/12 [FR]) 5. Sanjaya Gamage, Attorney-at-Law The Secretary of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. (2nd Petitioner in SC Application 672/12 [FR]) 6. Rasika Dissanayake, Attorney-at-Law The Treasurer of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. (3rd Petitioner in SC Application 672/12 [FR]) 7. Charith Galhena, Attorney-at-Law Assistant-Secretary of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. (4th Petitioner in SC Application 672/12 [FR]) Petitioners Vs. 1 1. Chamal Rajapakse, Speaker of Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte. 2. Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Eeriyagolla, Yakawita. 3. Nimal Siripala de Silva, No. 93/20, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08. 4. A. D. Susil Premajayantha, No. 123/1, Station Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. 5. Rajitha Senaratne, CD 85, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07. 6. Wimal Weerawansa, No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Judiciary Under the 1978 Constitution
    3 The Judiciary under the 1978 Constitution Nihal Jayawickrama The judiciary under the 1978 Constitution has to be assessed by reference to the constitutional framework within which it functioned, the period that preceded it, and the contemporary international standards. This chapter focuses on the superior courts of Sri Lanka; in particular, the Supreme Court. Judicial Independence At the core of the concept of judicial independence is the theory of the separation of powers: the judiciary, one of three basic and equal pillars in the modern democratic State, should function independently of the other two, the executive and the legislature. This is necessary because of the judiciary’s important role in relation to the other two branches. It ensures that the government and the administration are held to account for their actions. It ensures that laws are duly enacted by the legislature in conformity with the national constitution and, where appropriate, with regional and international treaties that form part of national law. To fulfil this role, and to ensure a completely free and unfettered exercise of its independent legal judgment, the judiciary must be free from inappropriate connections with, and influences by, the other two branches of government. Judicial independence thus serves as the guarantee of impartiality, and is a fundamental precondition for judicial integrity. It is, in essence, the right enjoyed by people when they invoke the jurisdiction of the courts seeking and expecting justice. It is a pre-requisite to the rule of law, and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. It is not a privilege accorded to the judiciary, or enjoyed by judges.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Orders Seizure of Cecille's Rs. 259 Mn to Pay GK Depositors
    Punish Muttuhettigama now, Polls Chief tells SLFP See Page 2 Rubella vaccine claims another child’s life See page 7 `Vol. 28 No. 281 Wednesday 14th October, 2009, 32 Pages Rs. 20 Registered in Sri Lanka as a Newspaper - Late City Edition by Amreen Ameen and Amira Cader A schoolgirl in Wariyapola died on South has Historic school Sunday after being given the rubella Defacing of match commences vaccine. spoken, Rubella vaccination has been sus- Sigiri Frescoes with heart-warming pended since Monday morning, follow- Page 15 Page 10 Page 13 again! ing the death of Asanthi Vasana, a 13- opening ceremony year-old student from Minuwangete Maha Vidyalaya, Wariyapola. Addressing a press conference yes- Tiger supects terday at the Epidemiology Unit, Deputy Director General (Public on trial Health) Dr. Palitha Mahipala, said Court orders seizure of Cecille's Continued on page 6 in Paris PARIS – Tamil Tiger PBJ not bound by rebels were charged in a Paris Court yesterday for Rs. 259 mn to pay GK depositors affidavit dictated extorting money from the Tamil Diaspora in France by Court - SC by Chitra Weerarathne to fund terrorist activities By a majority decision of the Supreme Court, six judges in Sri Lanka, according to he Supreme Court yesterday ordered the State reports. to seize forthwith Rs. 259 million, credited to yesterday agreed with the Initial reports said twenty Tthe Bank Accounts of Mrs. Cecille Kotelawala decision of Chief Justice two LTTE members were and transfer the money to the 'Dedicated Account', Asoka de Silva that there was charged but more are to to pay the aggrieved depositors of the Golden Key no legal impediment cast on PBJ be arraigned within the Credit Card Pvt.
    [Show full text]
  • Decisions of the Supreme Court on Parliamentary Bills (2016
    DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT ON PARLIAMENTARY BILLS 2016 - 2017 VOLUME XIII Published by the Parliament Secretariat, Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte July - 2018 PRINTED AT THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING, SRI LANKA. Price : Rs. 430.00 Postage : Rs. 90.00 DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA UNDER ARTICLES 120 AND 121 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA FOR THE YEARS 2016 AND 2017 i ii 2 - PL 10561 - 200 (2017/12) CONTENTS Title of the Bill Page No. 2016 Theravadi Bhikku Kathikawath (Registration) 07 Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) 16 Microfinance 20 Buddhist Temporalities (Amendment) 25 Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers 31 National Minimum Wage of Workers 35 Right to Information 38 Homoeopathy 51 Fiscal Management (Responsibility) (Amendment) 53 Value Added Tax (Amendment) 57 Nation Building Tax (Amendment) 65 Engineering Council, Sri Lanka 69 Value Added Tax (Amendment) 76 2017 Foreign Exchange 88 Registration of Electors (Special Provisions) 97 Code of Criminal Procedure (Special Provisions) (Amendment) 103 Inland Revenue 105 Provincial Councils Elections (Amendment) 124 Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution 126 Provincial Councils Elections (Amendment) 138 iii DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT ON PARLIAMENTARY BILLS 2016 (2) D I G E S T Subject Determination Page No. No. Theravadi Bhikku Kathikawath 0 1 / 2 0 1 6 , 07 -15 (Registration) 02/2016 and 07/2016 to provide for the formulation and registration of Kathikawath in relation to Nikaya or Chapters of Theravadi Bhikkus in Sri Lanka; to provide for every Bhikku to act in compliance with the provisions of the Registered Kathikawath of the Nikaya or Chapter which relates to such Bhikku; to impose punishment on Bhikkus who act in violation of the provisions of any Registered Kathikawath, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
    [Show full text]