on and fight

al compliance, before such Bill is placed on the Order Book of Parliament". This was re-iterated in last week's determination. The court held that a number of clauses of the Divineguma Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution. Hence, those clauses required a two thirds majority and a referendum, it said. On the reference of the Bill to Provincial Councils, the SC determination said "….obtaining the views of the Governor cannot be considered as the views of the Provincial Council of the Northern Province. The framers of the Constitution thought it fit to obtain the views of the elected Provincial Councils and not that of the Governor of that Province who is not elected, but only an appointee who holds office during the pleasure of His Excellency the President….."

On Tuesday, Opposition Leader Wickremesinghe led another UNP delegation for a meeting with Speaker Rajapaksa. At the party's parliamentary group meeting prior to the sittings of the House, he had been questioned why the UNP was not openly opposing the impeachment motion. Colombo District MP Sujeewa Senasinghe came down particular hard on his leader. This nearly disrupted the meeting, with Wickremesinghe saying he was not interested in protecting individuals, but the judiciary as a whole. An irritated Wickremesinghe lashed out at sections of the media as well yesterday, when he told Parliament that the media were harassing him on the issue at hand and went to the extent of asking the Speaker to issue guidelines to the media on how to report on the impeachment motion.

When they met the Speaker, Wickremesinghe was to ask him to put together a panel of lawyers from the private bar so it could be the legal resource team for the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) probing the charges against the Chief Justice. He said it would not be proper for the Attorney General to advise such a Committee since he was party to one of the cases that the SC had determined, besides the fact that the AG's Department now coming under the President's office. He also asked the Speaker to explain the judicial procedure that would be adopted in trying the Chief Justice before the Select Committee, and for an equal number of opposition MPs on the Select Committee as the government would have if the scales of justice were to be held in the balance.

According to UPFA sources, it is unlikely that Wickremesinghe's requests will be accepted. It is on the grounds that there were no precedents and selection criteria for such a panel were not easy. Speaker Rajapaksa was busy with his officials for the appointment of an eleven-member Select Committee, seven from the government and only four from the opposition.

It will be chaired by Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, a lawyer. Other members representing the government are Ministers Nimal Siripala de Silva (a lawyer), Susil Premajayantha (a lawyer), Dilan Perera (a lawyer), Rajitha Senaratne, Wimal Weerawansa and Deputy Minister Neomal Perera. The UNP has nominated two of its senior lawyer-parliamentarians, John Ameratunga and Lakshman Kiriella. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) is not likely to be represented in the PSC. Its parliamentarian Vijitha Herath told the Sunday Times, "We have not decided whether we would take part in the PSC proceedings. The composition of the PSC is questionable. It is loaded in favour of the Government as seven members will be from its side. It is not too difficult to gather what the outcome of the findings will be."

Tamil National Alliance (TNA) President Rajavarothayam Sampanthan told the Sunday Times, the party would take part. "Most of our MPs are out of the country and over the weekend we will decide on our nominee," he said.

Though the PSC is required to forward its findings to the House within one month after its first sitting, it could seek extension of terms through parliamentary approval. When the final report is ready, in terms of convention, a "cooling off" period of one month is allowed, before the House is called upon to act on the recommendations.

More details of the documents which Chief Justice was collecting emerged on Thursday. Early that day, she was in consultation with her legal counsel on matters relating to the charges in the resolution. Later in the evening, the law firm Neelakandan & Neelakandan sent out two-page letters to media outlets, both print and electronic, that have reported on the contents of the impeachment resolution. This is what it said: "Dear Sir "We are the lawyers for Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake. "Publicity has been given (reference is made to print or electronic media) regarding allegations against our Client.

"At present, we bring the following facts regarding her bank accounts and remittances to your attention and through you, to the Public.

"Our Client has been banking exclusively with the National Development Bank (NDB) since 2010. Our Client has declared all operative accounts that have assets in her declaration of assets and liabilities. The Bank has informed our Client that there are a few nonoperative accounts which contain zero balances. There may be nonoperative accounts in other banks which our Client operated prior to 30th October 1996, which our Client believes have been closed.

"Our Client was appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court on 30th October 1996. Since then no money whatsoever has been remitted to our Client from abroad or from this country save and except from her immediate family (inclusive of her sister) and her official remuneration.

"Our Client's sister and her husband, who are employed as professional engineers in Australia, reserved an apartment (for purchase by them) when they were in Sri Lanka. Thereafter from time to time, our Client's sister (through her Australian bank) remitted sums of Australian dollars for the purchase of the Apartment. This was later converted to Sri Lankan Rupees by the NDB. In Sri Lankan rupees it was approximately Rs 27 million. Our Client, by cheques, directly remitted to the seller in instalments a sum of approximately Rs 27 million. The Bank has confirmed these transactions.

"The sum of Rs 34 million mentioned in your news item is not accurate. The sum of Rs 19 million approximately mentioned in your news item is a part of the aforementioned purchase consideration of approximately Rs27 million. There was never a remittance of Rs34 million into our Client's account. "In the circumstance, in summary: (a) Our Client has declared all her operative bank accounts having assets in her declaration of assets and liabilities, and

(b) After her appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court our Client has not received any remittances from anyone in Sri Lanka or abroad save and except the remuneration as a judge and the remittances from her immediate family. "Thus clearly there has been no financial impropriety on her part. "Our client totally denies the other allegations and can easily refute them.

"Our Client instructs us to state that she will, as always, continue to duly and properly discharges her duties without fear or favour; she will do so, independently, impartially and fearlessly in accordance

Basil claims Divineguma Bill not linked to impeachment

Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa insists that the Divineguma Bill is in no way associated with the impeachment resolution on Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranaike. "We respect the Supreme Court ruling. We will amend the Bill wherever the SC has said changes are necessary and obtain a two-thirds vote." he told the Sunday Times. He said a referendum would not become necessary since the Government would follow the alternative mode suggested by the SC, he said.

Last week, Arundhika Fernando, UPFA's Puttalam District MP and a prime mover of the impeachment resolution told a seminar of Samurdhi beneficiaries that the move against the Chief Justice was because she had blocked the Divineguma Bill.

Minister Rajapaksa said one of the SC recommendations to obviate a referendum was to make provision for the Cabinet to appoint Zonal Heads of Department of Divineguma. The original provision was for the Minister to make such appointments.

Minister Rajapaksa accused both the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) of trying to drum up opposition for the Divineguma Bill. "The JVP did not want it in all parts of the country and the TNA in the North," he said.

Rajapaksa argued that the "Supreme Court determination helped us" and added that "we will accommodate most of the clauses where it has pointed out anomalies." He said some of the shortcomings had been caused during the drafting of the Divineguma Bill. with the Law."

The CJ's strong assertions denying financial impropriety further confirm a strong fact. Contrary to expectations by some UPFA leaders, she will not give up the high office. Not when her husband has been indicted for alleged misappropriation of state funds and corruption or pressured by an impeachment resolution. Even if the final outcome of the PSC would be clear, she appears to be wanting to place her own position on record before facing the threat of being forced out of office. Towards that end, she has responded to four of the 14 allegations (from 1 to 4), ones that cover financial inappropriateness and moral turpitude, the ones that could be termed 'the messy charges'.

Yet by contrast, the response of the legal fraternity over this issue seemed muted, until as recently as yesterday when the Bar Association after some shouting and fisticuffs at a rare meeting of the general membership was summoned and passed several resolutions asking, inter alia, the Government to reconsider the impeachment of the Chief Justice (See news story on Page 1).

When Minister Rishard Bathiudeen was accused of threatening the Mannar Magistrate Anthonypillai Judeson and mobs attacked the courthouse, lawyers struck work. Courts were shut down with the exception of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. A similar situation prevailed soon after the gang attack on the Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Manjula Tilakaratna. However, the impeachment resolution against the CJ has not drawn the same momentum, though it does not necessarily mean the legal fraternity is happy with the developments. The pro-ruling-party lawyers from the Kandy district were reportedly among the most vocal critics of the impeachment motion at the Bar Association General Meeting held yesterday.

Legal sources close to Chief Justice Bandaranayake revealed that she was considering not only more responses but also legal action. One such response under consideration, the Sunday Times was told is to state her position over references to her husband (Allegation 5). These sources said that this charge should not have been listed on grounds that the matter was sub judice. This is on the same basis that the Speaker had disallowed the issue relating to Pradeep Kariyawasam being raised in Parliament by UNP MP Harsha de Silva on the same grounds. These sources said the legal action contemplated was on a leading figure in an apex bank as well as others for allegedly violating banking secrecy. They had reportedly secured bank account details for the resolution in violation of laws governing banking secrecy.

On the other hand, apart from the fact that 117 UPFA parliamentarians have signed the resolution to impeach the CJ, the Government has also set in motion several measures.

In sections of the UPFA leadership, there was also some apprehension over what they called the "poor wording" of the resolution and erroneous references. One such is a reference to a New Law Report in 1992, which ceased to exist long before that. When one of the senior lawyers who is close to the President asked him, who had been responsible for the puerile drafting of the charge sheet, the President had mentioned the name of a newly appointed President's Counsel. Various 'suspects' were denying they were involved. One said he received only President Premadasa's impeachment motion and nothing followed. Another had an alibi of being in Geneva. The blame game went on. It is now established that the drafting was done in Sinhala and hurriedly translated into English. It was the English text that was released as the official impeachment motion.

State investigation arms are now going into different aspects of the 14 allegations. This is to help PSC members raise questions when sittings begin. The onus of proving the allegations falls on them. A dossier now being compiled lists a number of matters.

Another issue now under consideration is for a minister of a minority party in the UPFA to move a resolution in Parliament calling for the appointment of another Parliamentary Select Committee. This committee is to probe the conduct of (JSC) Secretary Manjula Tilakaratna. The minister has mooted the proposal on his own, according to UPFA sources. He is now canvassing support for the move.

Even if the proposed PSC concludes its findings in a month, it is unlikely any action against Chief Justice Bandaranaike will follow until early next year. By that time, the issue which is being closely followed by some western nations would have assumed greater importance. This is in the light of the 22nd sessions of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Follow up action on the US resolution would form the subject of important discussion. As our front page news story reveals today, the government will formulate its own priority agenda for reconciliation. How these will play out in the coming months no doubt would point the direction in which Sri Lanka is headed.