UNP members impartial - John

Sandasen Marasinghe, Irangika Range and Disna Mudalige

The UNP members in the Parliamentary Select Committee appointed to investigate the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayake are impartial, UNP MP John Amarathunga said.

He stated that there is a rumour that the UNP members are supporting the members who moved the motion and he denied the rumour, stating it was baseless. He also stated that they were performing the business in the committee protecting the dignity of the judiciary.

He made this observation at a press briefing at the Parliamentary Complex yesterday to explain the UNP’s stance in respect to the procedure followed by the Select Committee.

He said that he was making the statement as a member of the PSC. He added that a document was tabled by him and the other UNP MP Lakshman Kiriella at the PSC, on December 4, reiterating the position taken by the UNP in respect to the procedure followed by the Select Committee and provided the same to the media yesterday.

The document provided to the media:

This Committee was appointed under Standing Order 78A to inquire into 14 charges contained in the Resolution signed by 116 Members of Parliament against Chief Justice, Dr Shirani Bandaranayake.

The Chief Justice has replied by her letter dated November 20 and another letter dated November 20, through her lawyers.

In addition, written submissions have also been made in respect of the charges.

The replies and the written submissions can be summarized as follows:

1. Denial of the jurisdiction of the Select Committee.
2. Questioning the right of the Select Committee to exercise judicial powers.
3. Denial of the charges.
4. Calling for documents.

The Select Committee has jurisdiction to go into this matter. The question that arises is in regard to the next step.

The Committee has to determine the procedure as to how the charges are to be proved, before the Select Committee can proceed any further. In Neville Samarakoon’s case there was only one charge and the facts were admitted. Only the issue of law remained to be determined.

In Neville Samarakoon’s Case, the first Select Committee commenced its sittings on April 17, 1984 and held its meetings on 3rd, 29th May and 15th June and 6th, 20th July, 1984 over approximately 3 months.

In the Second Select Committee the Resolution was placed on the Order Paper on 5 September, 1984. The Committee commenced its deliberations on 11th September, 1984 and held fourteen meetings on the 11th, 8th, 25th and 28th September, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 17th October and 2nd, 20th and 27th November, 1984 approximately another 3 months.

From beginning of the First Committee to end of the Second Committee, the process took more than 6 months.

As was discussed, the Committee must determine how to proceed. The Chief Justice or her lawyers must be provided an opportunity to cross-examine witness and the documents collected.

It is only then that the Select Committee has to determine whether the Chief Justice is required to disprove the charges.

Furthermore what is the standard of proof that is required. The Select Committee in Neville Samarakoon’s case held that the standard of proof required is very high.

In addition the Committee must adhere to the definition of ‘misbehaviour’ as specified in the Neville Samarakoon’s Second Select Committee Report.

It is also a matter of note that late Speaker Hon. Anura Bandaranaike in his landmark ruling noted:

“Members of Parliament may give their minds to the need to introduce fresh legislation or amend the existing Standing Orders regarding Motions of Impeachment against Judges of Superior Courts.”

These are some of the matters that the Committee has to address its mind to.