CJ decides to stay

More responses likely including legal action against head of an apex bank Blame game in Government circles as to who drafted the resolution

Arriving some 15 minutes late for Monday's Supreme Court sittings, the usually punctual Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake declared from the bench "as you understand, I had to collect so many documents". She did not elaborate. Nor did lawyers present to represent clients in cases listed for that day raise any query.

There was little doubt it was a reference to the impeachment resolution 117 government parliamentarians handed over to Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa, the previous Thursday (November 1). It lists 14 charges which are given in the box story on this page. Further confirmation came when Kanakanayakam Kanag-Ishvaran, President's Counsel, marked his presence for a company of the Ceylinco Group in a case that was listed before her. "I am not going to hear this case," she said. Here again, though she did not explain, the first of 14 allegations against her related to a purported transaction involving that group. However, she will tomorrow hear a fundamental rights violation petition linked to Golden Key Finance Company (a member of the financially crippled Ceylinco Group). This is one among three cases, allegation number one claims, which were removed from another bench of the Supreme Court and taken up for hearing by Chief Justice Bandaranayake.

"Your Ladyship, we have just heard that a person holding high office has won a new tenure. Let us hope it would be the same with you," replied Kanag-Ishvaran. As he stood in the SC that Tuesday, the results of the US presidential election had just been announced. President Barrack Obama had won a second four-year term defeating his Republican rival Mitt Romney.

Chief Justice Bandaranayake seemed unruffled over the charges against her in the impeachment resolution. "I know he is innocent. If he has done wrong, he has to face jail. That is all there is to it," she told a confidante this week. She was referring to her husband, Pradeepa Kariyawasam, former Chairman of the National Savings Bank. He has been indicted before the Colombo Magistrate for "causing a loss of Rs 391,137,554.33 to the state" and for alleged corruption. The pending case and Bandaranayake's continuance in the office of the Chief Justice, one of the allegations in the resolution argues, would result in the "administration of justice" being hindered.

Last Sunday, she was in Kandy meeting the Mahanayake Theras. She explained to the Most Ven. Thibbotuwawe Siddharata Sri Sumangala Thera, head of the Malwatte Chapter and the Most. Ven. Udugama Sri Buddharakkhitha Thera, head of the Asgiriya Chapter, that she had done no wrong and would, therefore, defend herself and prove her innocence. A few days earlier, the two leading prelates, together with heads of the Amarapura and Ramanna Nikayas, had written to President Mahinda Rajapaksa urging him "to reconsider analytically the need for an impeachment motion."

Days ahead of her call on the two Mahanayakes, a three-judge Supreme Court bench chaired by Chief Justice Bandaranayake delivered two different determinations. The first was after four petitioners challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Divineguma Bill after it was gazetted on July 27. The SC then ruled that before the Bill was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, it should be passed by every Provincial Council. This is on the basis that the draft legislation was in respect of matters set out in the Provincial Council List (under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution) and shall not become law unless it has been referred by the President to every Provincial Council for the expression of their views. Whilst all other PCs expressed approval, the absence of an elected PC in the North raised a legal issue. Such approval was given by Northern Province Governor G.A. Chandrasiri. It was contested in the courts.

With that determination over, when the Bill was placed in the Order Book of Parliament on October 9, eleven petitions were filed before the SC challenging its constitutionality. The determination of the SC on these petitions was read out in Parliament by Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa last Tuesday. As reported last week, the government, however, seemed aware well ahead that the finding was not favourable to it. Hence, a day ahead of the SC determination being made public, Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa on Monday (November 5) summoned a party leaders meeting. Contrary to speculation, it was not to discuss either the resolution to impeach the Chief Justice nor the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee to probe allegations against her.

The subject was the Government's hurried efforts to persuade opposition leaders to agree to opening the debate on the Divineguma Bill the next day, Tuesday. It would appear that the Government did not wish to lose face on the matter. The main opposition United National Party (UNP) leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, who led his party delegation, was not in favour. He said that would not be possible until the Supreme Court determination was made public by the Speaker. Yet, the Government was determined to go ahead. It wanted to show that the Bill would not be withdrawn and the legislature was strong enough to go through with it. However, Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa told the Sunday Times that changes recommended in the Supreme Court determination would be taken into consideration. (See box story on this page.) The second reading of the Bill came after Speaker Rajapaksa announced the SC determination. Minister Rajapaksa made a speech followed by Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) parliamentarian Anura Kumara Dissanayake. The debate was thereafter adjourned indefinitely. The Government is keen to get parliamentary approval for the Bill as early as possible, even before the conclusion of the Budget debate next month. The Government will have to make some adjustments on the clauses the SC has held as unconstitutional. The schedule of sittings during the Budget debate is causing a delay. Moreover, the vote for the Bill will have to be scheduled on a date when all MPs are present to ensure there was a two thirds majority.

If the government's resolve to go ahead with the Divineguma Bill was firm, the Supreme Court was unequivocal in its determination to point out that it has "the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into or pronounce upon, the constitutionality of a Bill and its procedur-