MUCH ADO INDEED!

This is Sri Lanka. Judging by the shrill reactions to some developments that are supposed to be (...'supposed' being the operative word here...!) taking place in the judiciary, and with regard to the 13th amendment, there is going to be immediate calamity in the country.

But the panic, as usual is unfounded. Both the voluble Mr. Karu Jayasuriya of the UNP and Tilvin Silva of the long suffering Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna have pressed panic buttons saying that there are imminent moves to stifle the independence of the judiciary, and the latter has additionally made some sniffling sounds about the 13th amendment -- dated 1987.

Panic stations indeed! Why such a reaction is necessary is astounding in a country where nothing adverse can be done against the Chief Justice or any sitting judge of the Supreme Court without following the constitutional procedures that are more or less written in stone.

Moreover, there are constituent members of the coalition of the UPFA making repeated statements about the 13th amendment, but the government's position on the matter has been perfectly clear all along --- there are no plans to drop the 13th, and if the government does so, there will be a replacement piece of legislation that addresses all key areas that are addressed in this controversial Article in our constitutional document.

So, why the apocalyptic reactions to these two issues by an opposition which seems not to have heard the sage advice that the worst of our fears, usually, are imagined?

No Chief Justice can be impeached without a two thirds vote in favour of such a measure in the House. Has anybody stopped to ponder over what this hallowed term 'House' represents? The House of Parliament reflects the sovereignty of the people - the people are sovereign, and the House of Parliament comprises all elected representatives of the people. The framers of the constitution had a two thirds majority in mind for the impeachment of the Chief Justice with this reason being uppermost -- no removal of any judge of the Supreme Court leave alone the CJ can be carried out without reflecting the sovereign will of the people.

What then is this obscene hurry on the part of the Jayasuriyas the Tilvins and the like to say that there is an impending assault aimed at the independence of the judiciary? Can the President as executive remove the Chief Justice or any other judge of the Supreme Court? The answer to that is a resounding no.

The same goes for the 13th amendment. As much as no Supreme Court judge or Chief Justice can be removed without such an important move having reflected the sovereign will of the people, amending any part of the constitution has to go through a rigorous process, and apart from requiring a two thirds majority, crucial amendments to the constitution if so deemed, have to be referred directly to the people via a plebiscite -- what's referred to as a referendum in our constitution.

The upshot of all this is that nothing can be done without due process. With due consideration to that reality, the least that certain Jack-in-the-Box opposition types can do is not panic the people and sully the waters regarding things that are not bound to either sabotage democracy, or undermine due process of law.

In the meanwhile nothing or nobody can stop the evolving national discourse on the 13th amendment. This is a free country.

Everybody including the constituent coalition partners of the government have the right to say their piece about the 13th amendment to the constitution, without having to cope with cries of 'blue murder' from overreacting members of the opposition.

None of these things which the opposition says are going to happen -- the repeal of the 13th amendment or the impeachment of the Chief Justice -- can take place without rigorous debate within the House of Parliament, or outside of it. No doubt the fact that the Karus and the Tilvins can cry wolf about things that don't remotely threaten democratic process is in itself a sign that democracy exists --- and is alive and kicking in this now peaceful island. But just because there is the right to speak, it is dangerous to, Tilvin like, acquire a license to unsettle and panic the citizenry at the drop of a hat.