Deputy Chairman of Committees Chandrakumar Murugesu takes the Chair.
M.A. Sumanthiran (TNA): This adjournment motion would help us to erase the doubts in the minds of the people on the procedures followed in appointing the Chief Justice. It is the President who can appoint and remove the Chief Justice. However, before removal, there should be a Parliamentary Council appointed and a letter sent to the President by Parliament. It there is no such motion, then such appointment becomes null and void.
In the case of Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, there was no motion to remove her from the post of Chief Justice. It was solely to appoint a PSC for the matter. The Speaker put to vote what was on the order paper. What is valid is what is mentioned in the order paper.
Otherwise, what would happen when we pass motions on the order paper and then later say that what was passed was something else. That should not happen.
On the other hand, the reinstatement of Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was mentioned in the President’s 100 day programme. The people gave a clear mandate to carry out the 100 day programme.
The meeting of the Bar Association held recently, was attended by over 3,000 professionals. This was an unprecedented number, since the very appointment of de facto Chief Justice Mohan Peiris, the professionals in the legal system protested. We refused to accept him as the Chief Justice. We pointed out that the removal of Shirani Bandaranayake was sheer injustice. She was kept out by force. The entire civil society and lawyers praised the reinstatement of Shirani Bandaranayake. In reality she was not duly removed from office.
Wimal Weerawansa (UPFA): The arguments which the opposition members present now were even presented on the day of the passing of the motion. The Speaker then gave a clear verdict on that matter. So, these arguments are not valid. We have to adhere to the ruling of the Speaker.
It cannot be challenged by the Executive. If the impeachment had a defect, then the government could have redirected the matter to Parliament. It is not ethical to change the decision of Parliament by the Executive. If there had been a mistake in Parliament, it should have been corrected by Parliament itself. What we are objecting to is not the individual who is holding the position. We are objecting to the bad precedent set by the government. What the government did was unconstitutional. This is bad example.
Urban Development, Water Supply and Drainage Minister Rauf Hakeem: I was the Justice Minister when Mohan Peiris was holding the position of the Chief Justice. Therefore I am bound to make a speech that would not contradict the collective responsibility. When I was in the previous Cabinet, I could work closely with Leftist leaders like D.E.W. Gunasekara and Vasudeva Nanayakkara. They knew my candid opinion on that matter and I too was aware of their positions in that regard. There was no vacancy to appoint Mohan Peiris as the Chief Justice. The Executive is the appointing authority of the Chief Justice.
Now it is time for us to revisit the Latimer House principles. As the Chair to the Commonwealth Heads of Government, the President is bound to follow the Latimer House principles. The vacancy for the post of the Chief Justice only occurred with the retirement of Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake.
The revision of Standing Orders is necessary to ensure that this type of chaos does not happen in the future. There was no address to the President in the letter sent to him asking to remove Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. Therefore, all that happened subsequently becomes null and void.
Vasudeva Nanayakkara (UPFA): I was against Mohan Peiris being appointed the Chief Justice. I even wrote letters to the Speaker asking not to do this appointment. If there had been an impeachment against Mohan Peiris, I would also be one of the witnesses. I speak no word on behalf of Mohan Peiris.
But I speak on behalf of the Parliament. The due process should be followed in removing a Chief Justice. What the Prime Minister says is a legal fiction. This opens doors to anarchy. This challenges the Supremacy of Parliament and people. I understand your problem. The Prime Minister does not have the majority support. Therefore, he cannot present a motion in Parliament with the expectation to pass it. Let us put this debate to vote. If he loses, then the Prime Minister should resign as he does not have the majority support.
Ajith Kumara (Independent): The rulers take the law into their hands. This was obvious at the previous impeachment of Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. Even at this point, this fact is seen again.
There are attempts to arrest Kumar Gunaratnam. The government invited those who migrated due to political injustice and revenge to come back. Kumar Gunaratnam was one of them.
Foreign Affairs Deputy Minister Ajith P. Perera: The biggest blow to the judiciary happened due to the procedure taken to remove Shirani Bandaranayake. Parliamentary traditions and ethics were violated during this process. No doubt the Parliament should be Supreme. However under the existing circumstances there is no Supremacy to Parliament. We have to strengthen Parliament by executing the 100 day programme.
Even though Opposition Leader Nimal Siripala moved an adjournment motion today, he himself has given his consent to the appointment of K. Sripavan as the Chief Justice at the Parliamentary Council. The new appointment has been approved with consensus at the Parliamentary Council. So how can he object to the process now? There are two sides in the opposition. One led by Nimal Siripala de Silva, which is the legitimate one and other led by MP Dinesh Gunawardena. We only recognise the opposition led by Nimal Siripala de Silva.
Mohan Peiris came to the airport to welcome the Pope without an invitation. The opposition said it supports the 100 day program in which one pledge is to reinstate Shirani Bandaranayake in the office of Chief Justice.
Mohan Peiris heard the case against his wife and his brother-in-law. It is wrong. He had gone abroad more than 50 times during this period.
Chief Opposition Whip W.D.J. Seneviratne: The Supremacy of the Law has commenced to erode. The Wattala Pradeshiya Sabha chairman was assaulted recently. A no-confidence motion will be moved very soon against the Law and Peace Minister.
Today the matter is not the case of the wife is heard by the Chief Justice, he is a director of a company etc. But if the process of the removal of Mohan Peiris from office of the Chief Justice is correct or incorrect, the same argument was brought when the impeachment was being debated.
The Speaker then ruled out that the intentions of the motion is understood. He said that this motion is enough to include the motion in the order paper to move impeachment under sections 107(2) read with 107(3) of the constitution. But today after two years, the issue has been created by the fact Mohan Peiris was removed from the office.
The members in the government voted for the motion. Hundred and fifty five members voted in favour. Those who reinstated Shirani Bandaranayake in the office of the Chief Justice have misled the Executive.
R. Yogarajan takes the Chair.
Anura Priyadarshana Yapa (UPFA): Today we are not debating about persons, but of the Supremacy of Parliament which is affected and the Speaker’s decision has been challenged by this act.
The Committee was set up to inquire in the charges of Shirani Bandaranayake. The Counsels of Shirani Bandaranayake walked away and she was found guilty on three counts.
We have to discuss and come to a clear decision on this situation as future Parliaments or Executives could repeat the same.
The act of removal of Mohan Peiris is an irreparable damage caused to the Judiciary of our country.
DEW Gunasekara (UPFA): We have experience in three impeachments against Chief Justices. One was against Neville Samarakoone, Sarath N. Silva and Shirani Bandaranayake. Now this matter of the so-called removal by the President. However, it is miserable that the process is not applied to the removal of the 44th Chief Justice.
However, I state that the Supremacy of Parliament cannot be submerged by the incident related to reinstatement of Chief Justice 43 and removal of Chief Justice 44. The corrective measure should be taken by Parliament. The Executive cannot act arbitrarily.
Highways and Investment Promotion Deputy Minister Eran Wickramaratne: As per the resolution passed in connection of Shirani Bandaranayake, it was not addressed to the President and was not to remove her. So this process is flawed.
The Committee deprived natural justice of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. We struggled to this day to mete out justice to Shirani Bandaranayake.
Pradeep Kariyawasam, husband of Shirani Bandaranayake was appointed by the Finance Minister, the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa. It was done to control the Chief Justice. But it did not happen. The king’s fury sees no limit and acted against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake.
However, a matter between the Executive and the Judiciary cannot be solved by the legislature.
However there is a new beginning for us now as an eminent and a most Senior Justice has been appointed to the office of the Chief Justice.
Professor Tissa Vitarana (UPFA): I clearly state we would corporate only with the progressive changes and proposals of the 100 day program. The removal of the Chief Justice by the President is a violation the Constitution, Parliamentary proceedings and sovereignty of Parliament and people, as the Executive, the President has arbitrarily taken the decision to dismiss Chief Justice 44. The 44th Chief Justice was duly appointed by the Executive President.
This removal is against the principal you were advocating of good governance and reducing the power of Executive.
Mahindananda Aluthgamage (UPFA): I condemn the behaviour of the Prime Minister on the day he made this statement. He threatened to imprison the opposition members.
Is it good governance? We promised to support the 100 day programme. But we can’t support and be assaulted.
Thilanga Sumathipala (UPFA): Although the President has the powers to appoint the Chief Justice he has not been vested powers to remove a Chief Justice.
We cannot accept what happened recently in connection with the office of the Chief Justice. This act has damaged the Supremacy of Parliament and challenges the Speaker’s powers.
Lalith Dissanayake (UPFA): The Prime Minister spoke of good governance.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees Murugesu Chandrakumar takes the Chair.
Lalith Dissanayake: The government cannot implement any of its proposals without the support of the Opposition. The chair of Chief Justice was polluted by reinstating Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake in the post, as there are proved charges against her. If the government had wanted to make her entitled to the pension, they could have done so by some other means. Taking revenge on us or our supporters is not good governance.
Justice Deputy Minister Sujeewa Senasinghe: We pledge to enforce law irrespective of political or party differences. The law will be equal to everybody. If the charges are proved the culprits will be punished. MP Tissa Attanayake has a charge on forging documents. Let the criminal law proceed properly.
I repeat that the motion passed on January 2011 did not indicate anything on the removal of the Chief Justice or any proved charge of her misconduct. The motion was merely to appoint a PSC. Therefore, the entire process is unconstitutional and against Standing Orders.
Therefore, we had to correct the mistake. President Maithripala Sirisena took the decision with his political maturity and expert legal advice with the pure intent of making a better tomorrow. We gave a chance to Mohan Peiris to settle the matter peacefully.
Mohan Peiris has many charges against him. He humiliated the judiciary. Our duty is to implement the law properly and we are dedicated towards it.
Dilan Perera (UPFA): MP Sujeewa Senasinghe said the fault was at the motion that was passed in Parliament. However, when the motion was before the House, some MPs pointed out the same issue and the Speaker suspended the House and came up with a ruling.
The motion was passed with a two thirds majority and the Speaker announced that the motion to remove Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake from the post of Chief Justice was passed. If Mohan Peiris was unsuitable to the post, the government should have used the due Parliamentary procedure. If Shirani Thilakawardena was the successor to Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. I bet the government would not remove her in this way. The black marks on Mohan Peiris should not be applied to the post of the Chief Justice.
The removal of Mohan Peiris was a bad precedent as it would become a trend. We take up an important debate, but the Prime Minister is absent.
Justice Minister Wijedasa Rajapaksa: I thank the Opposition for asking a debate on this matter. We respect democracy and the right to express dissenting opinions. The Prime Minister could not attend the sittings today since several diplomats have called on him. However, he agreed to facilitate the debate as the opposition wanted an earlier date.
There had been defects in the procedure followed at the impeachment of ex-Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. It was passed with heated debates. We started Parliament sittings this year with new hopes.
Let us unite and work for a better future of the country. It is our duty as policy makers to implement what is good for the country. Some opposition MP hurt our feelings today, but we endure them in the name of democracy. We are endeavouring to build a new political culture. Please do not disrupt this process.
The legal advice given to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa was flawed. The letter sent to the President on January 11, 2013 had a serious defect. Nowhere in it, had it being indicated that a resolution was passed to remove the Chief Justice.
It only asked to appoint a PSC. Therefore the supremacy of Parliament had not been challenged by the corrective measures that we had taken.
The letter to the President was written after the passing of resolution. Without a resolution to remove ex-Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, the President cannot remove her. We have no personal favourations or grudges on Shirani Bandaranayake or Mohan Peiris. We wanted to correct the flaws in the legal procedure. We gave a chance to Mohan Peiris to take up a diplomatic post and retire honourably.
There are serious charges against Mohan Peiris. The entire administration of Law College was in chaos in the past years. The students came to meet me after I assumed duties and we solved most of those problems.
However, the judgements given by Mohan Peiris would not be affected in any manner as that provision is clearly mentioned in the Constitution itself. None of the Judgements will be invalid or null.
There were over 130 judges of courts at the welcome ceremony of Shirani Bandaranayake. This implies that the legal fraternity overwhelmingly welcomed the move by the government.
I will look into the complaint on threatening a judge. I was not aware about it. We have no political favourations in these kinds of issues.
I invite all Parliamentarians to unite to fulfill the aspirations of the people. Let us unite and implement the 100 day programme.
Opposition Leader Nimal Siripala de Silva: Even our ambition is to support your 100 day endeavour. However, when our party members are increasingly harassed, it becomes difficult for us to support.
Wijedasa Rajapaksa: I am sure that the President would not hesitate to take action against the offenders involved in those incidents.
Nimal Siripala de Silva: We have faith in the President. But the culprit involved in the Wattala Pradeshiya Sabha incident was given bail within 24 hours.
Wijedasa Rajapaksa: I admit that there had been a few unfortunate incidents. But we are dedicated to prevent this situation.
The House was adjourned till 1 pm on Thursday.