THIS LOOKS BAD

Looking at what has come up in the impeachment papers that were tabled in Parliament on Tuesday, it has to be said that a great many people who made predictions about 'trumped up' charges and 'fabrications' designed to ensnare a judicial officer, will end up with a good deal of egg on their faces. Nothing is trumped up about 34 million worth of foreign currency stashed away and undeclared, for a person from whom the utmost in integrity is not just expected, but required.

The other charges are just as damning --- the undeclared local currency accounts, and the using of special powers of attorney to purchase a house from Ceylinco, the embattled enterprise regarding which the Chief Justice heard a fundamental rights case having altered the composition of the Bench, and presiding over it herself.

This leading article will not want to go through the gory details of all the charges involved --- it's reckoned that there will be many other writers doing that in other contributions elsewhere in this and other newspapers.

What can be said here is that integrity questions of such a fundamentally serious nature are not good news for a person who holds a job as important as that of the country's Chief Justice.

Thirty four million rupees is not peanuts, to use the benefit of pointed understatement. That this equivalent amount in foreign currency was hidden away in undeclared accounts is an integrity issue that should silence persons who say that this impeachment drive is all about subverting the power of the judiciary, and asserting executive authority.

Where did this foreign currency come from? If the stash was legitimately acquired, it was required that a declaration be made --- but 34 million worth in foreign currency is by any measure something that cannot be easily explained away, considering strict foreign currency regulations which require that anything upwards of 200 USD brought into the country has to be disclosed!

Those who raise the issues of 'why impeach?' and 'why now?' would also have to contend with the fact that motive is irrelevant in this instance, when such glaring issues of non-compliance figure about a person from whom the highest standards of rectitude are not only expected, but are constitutionally mandated.

In other words, every branch of government will use what could legitimately enhance its own authority, and if there are such massive chinks in the supreme judicial officer's armour, it does not matter what the ultimate intent is of the impeachment papers, as long as there are damning issues that make it impossible for the holder of office to continue in that position.

The DECLARATION OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES LAW amended subsequently by the DECLARATION OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT No. 74 OF 1988 lays down among other things, that, (a) Members of Parliament; (b) judges and public officers appointed by the President, public officers appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers, judicial officers and scheduled public officers appointed by the Judicial Services Commission and staff officers in Ministries and Government Departments are required to declare assets and liabilities - and certainly who is to say that a foreign currency stash equivalent to 34 million rupees does not qualify for full disclosure?

No doubt every person irrespective of stature or the power of office he or she holds is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and there is ample opportunity for the Chief Justice to plead her innocence with respect to these charges making up the Motion now before the legislature. But nobody can be heard to say under the circumstances that there is no prima facie case against her considering these revelations, and in the context of the assets and liabilities laws cited above.

Those who jumped the gun and stated in comments in the public print that 'the charges have not been revealed', are advised to eat their words, as the charges are now clearly stated in black and white, and they are by any reckoning, substantial.

Surely, they are not fabricated?! 117 responsible members of Parliament are not likely to pull this impeachable offence list out of a magician's hat. That there are such accounts with funds to the tune of 34 million and more, is incontrovertible.

What the Chief Justice has to prove, is that she did declare these assets at some time. She needs to have documentation to assert that fact. The public will be keen to know if by any chance, any such papers exist.