(HON) SHIRANI B, AND A BLAST FROM THE PAST

‘It is likely that the controversy over the Shiranee (sic) Bandaranayake issue will subside with time, and now it is only left for Justice Shiranee Bandaranayake to decide as to what she should do - whether to continue or stepdown, but it’s most likely that she would continue and she may well turnout to be a very prudent judge..’

This is the Sunday Times political columnist commenting on the Shirani Bandarnayake issue.

Nothing strange, one might wonder, under the current circumstances.

Except that this observation was contained in the Sunday Times Political Column of 24th November 1996.

This was when Shirani Bandaranaike was elevated to the Supreme Court bench, and the very people who are now saying that she should not be impeached, were convinced that her appointment was so flawed that it should be discussed at a special meeting of the Bar Council.

The political columnist further went onto say this:

‘The SLFP lawyers had a tamasha the previous week too as a fore-runner to the Saturday’s (16th November) Bar Council meeting.

It was held at the London Grill of the Hotel Oberoi, before last Saturday’s Bar Council meeting when a group of young lawyers began to sing Pel Kavi for more than 20 minutes and disrupted the proceedings.

The “Pel Kavi” protest came after their motion not to discuss a sitting Judge of a Supreme Court was defeated by a thumping majority by the opposite camp, and others ask whether it was an extension of the hangovers of the 5-star dinner they had on Thursday night.

The dinner at Oberoi was sumptuous with a mix of western and eastern cuisine. The menu included:

Asparagas and ham; smoked beef with horse radish; and smoked seer; lobster in lime - butter; chicken liner in Propte rolls; cut carna peas; chicken drumsticks with Barbeque Sauce; Batter fried Shrimps in Chillie Sauce; Vegetables and Pea Samosa in Tangerine Sauce; Angels in horseback; Ala Bonda.’

That essentially UNP led Bar Council at that time which did its utmost to stymie the appointment of Shirani Bandarnaike, is almost identical to the lobbyists in the Bar who are fulminating at the mouth today over the recent impeachment motion against the Chief Justice.

The above mentioned Sunday Times article states that when Neville Samarakoon was appointed to the highest judicial post in the land as the Chief Justice, many had doubts about the prudence of the appointment, but he turned out to be ‘a very independent highly respected personality who enhanced the dignity and status of the Supreme Court.’

The writer is comparing the appointment of Neville Samrakoon from the private bar, to the appointment of Shirani Bandarnaike straight from the groves of academe, and with no lawyer’s experience, and hopes that despite the controversy relating to her appointment, ‘She would turn out to be a respected personality who would enhance the dignity and the status of the Supreme Court.’

But this just did not happen, did it?

One of the key parts of the current impeachment document states: Whereas, Mr. Pradeep Gamini Suraj Kariyawasam, the lawful husband of the said Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake is a suspect in relation to legal action initiated at the Magistrate’s Court of Colombo in connection with the offences regarding acts of bribery and/or corruption under the Commission to Investigate into Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act, No. 19 of 1994;

‘Whereas, the post of Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission which is vested with powers to transfer, disciplinary control and removal of the Magistrate of the said court which is due to hear the aforesaid bribery or corruption case is held by the said Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake as per Article 111D (2) of the Constitution;

Whereas, the powers to examine the judicial records, registers and other documents maintained by the aforesaid court are vested with the said Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake under Article 111H (3) by virtue of being the Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission;

Whereas, the Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake becomes unsuitable to continue in the office of the Chief Justice due to the legal action relevant to the allegations of bribery and corruption leveled against Mr. Pradeep Gamini Suraj Kariyawasam, the lawful husband of the said Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs.) Upatissa. Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake in the aforesaid manner, and as a result of her continuance in the office of the Chief Justice, administration of justice is hindered and the fundamentals of administration of justice are thereby violated and whereas not only administration of justice but visible administration of justice should take place.’

It’s glaring that the Sunday Times political correspondent’s wish that Shirani Bandarnayake will be an upright respected personality was not met when the Chief Justice continued to stay in office, despite the fact that she has the ultimate power over the Magistrate that controls the bribery hearings concerning her husband's conduct in the NSB.

Those in the legal fraternity who are now fulminating against the impeachment, have refused to consider that their worst fears about Shirani Bandaranayke at the time of her appointment, appear to have come true.