| News |
||||
| Legal
activists seek early probe on CJ "Judicial accountability is materially different from executive or legislative accountability due to public expectations of independence, integrity, impartiality and ethical standards being qualitatively higher in the case of the judiciary in contrast to the other organs of the State. It is, therefore, imperative that the erosion of the moral authority and the public faith reposed in the institutions of justice is immediately stemmed by recourse to a fair and transparent process of a resolution. "Concerns have been expressed regarding the intention of the government in bringing the notice of a resolution at a time when the government was facing the prospect of an opinion or decision by a divisional bench of the Supreme Court presided over by the Chief Justice in the reference made to that Court by the President regarding her constitutional powers over the defence of Sri Lanka. "These concerns strengthen the need for the pending allegations against Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva to be expeditiously inquired into and conclusions of finality reached with regard to whether the Chief Justice is responsible for alleged acts of misbehaviour, or if he is not, that he is cleared of such allegations. It is important to draw a distinction between the timing of the impeachment motion and the issue of whether the serious concerns with respect to the current Chief Justice should be investigated and suitably addressed. "It is vital, however, that the impeachment process is fair, independent and objective. The procedure currently in place under the provisions of Article 107 of the Constitution and Standing Order 78A of Parliament for the impeachment of superior court judges leaves much to be desired. This provided for a Select Committee of Parliament to, in effect, sit in judgment on the conduct of a superior court judge. This is seen as a politically partisan process which is in itself detrimental to the independence of the judiciary. It is therefore proposed that a new Standing Order 78A be introduced in order to set up a judicial tribunal of inquiry possessing the suitable degree of objectivity and integrity that could investigate and report on questions of misbehaviour or incapacity of judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. "Recent events further raise concerns regarding the propriety of 'strike action' resorted to by court staff and members of the minor judiciary, affecting the rights of litigants, with particular reference to enjoining orders and bail applications involving the right to liberty." The preamble to the association's constitution, which was adopted at its inaugural meeting on November 8, 2003, states that the association has been formed due to continuing ineffective responses of existing legal and other institutions in Sri Lanka to issues concerning the judiciary, the legal system and the Rule of Law in Sri Lanka. This has led to grave concern among members of the public, widespread public disillusionment with the lack of adherence today in Sri Lanka with the Rule of Law and devaluing of the institution of the judiciary and erosion of the institutions that ensure the unbiased and impartial enforcement of the laws of the land. The Association, which is voluntary in nature, is jointly headed by senior attorney-at-law E.D. Wickremenayake and President's Counsel Nehru Goonetilleke. The other officials are: Vice presidents: President's Counsel Desmond Fernando, legal academic Rohan Edrisinha, Marga Institute's Executive Vice Chairman Basil Illangakoon and former civil servant Francis Pietersz. The Council
members: Attorneys Suranjith Hewamanne, Basil Fernando, Shammil
Perera, K.S. Ratnavele, Narendra Kumar, former diplomat Stanley
Jayaweera, former senior superintendent of police Tassie Seneviratne,
former Commissioner of Prisons C.T. Jansz and former civil servants
Susil Siriwardene and RMB Senanayake. |
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved. |
