IMPEACHABLE GLORY -- OR WELIAMUNA, SO TRANSPARENTLY THICK

So why is Weliamuna silent -- and more pertinently, why are the rest of the generally perky and rearing-to-go civil society paragons of virtue, silent about the fact that Weliamuna is silent?

Why isn’t the former head of Transparency International sending out a signature angry press release about the financial accounts of the Chief Justice that have come under public scrutiny due to intense exposure in the media?

If he thinks that there is no corruption involved or nothing irregular on the face of it in those accounts, why doesn’t the head of Transparency International say so?

Why instead, does the former head of Transparency International do the normally unthinkable, and stand with the person whose accounts have come under scrutiny -- and appear as her sidekick in public places when she leaves for instance to Parliament, to defend herself against impeachment charges?

Is the appearance of impropriety something that the former head of Transparency International wants to flaunt - - something that he wants promote, advertise and wear on his sleeve?

Certainly, it appears to be so. Apparently integrity goes by the board, when the head of Transparency International (former) wants to back somebody for a partisan political cause. The dictum is ‘our corrupt person, urm, may not be really corrupt …’

The questions is not whether the CJ is a guilty. The questions is that there is a prima facie case against her on the face of the documents that are now in the public domain.

There appears to be a terrible pattern of concealment in the accounts that she has used. The facts do not have to be repeated here. The Governor of the Central Bank in a radio interview said that persons who do this type of thing with their bank accounts are generally guilty of trying to conceal something.

He said so in his capacity as a regulator. In fact an expert is not needed to say it. It is rather obvious that there seems to be a pattern of concealment when accounts are drained totally of their funds at the end of a crucial or significant months. Generally, layman and expert alike is agreed on this; there is an on the face of it irregularity that begs for an investigation.

This is a high raking public official in an institution as sacrosanct as the Judiciary, under scrutiny.

If that is the case, why is the former head of Transparency International not calling for transparency on this issue?

Why is he on the contrary closing ranks with the person whose accounts are not in order?

There are no prizes for guessing why. Transparency International seems to be transparent only when it wants to be, and corruption is not exposed on the side that one’s bread is buttered - - if you know what this writer means.

All this venality on the part of the generally wolf like Transparency International czar, is on the grounds of preserving the independence of the Judiciary.

Oh really? The independence of the Judiciary, at the cost of the integrity of the Judiciary? And what independence of the Judiciary - - if there is no integrity in that Judiciary? If an office is tainted, isn’t the holder of that office subject to probable blackmail and other pressures? Can such a person be expected to be reasonably independent under the circumstances?

This therefore seems to be the most significant expose of the real nature of the civil society watchdogs and other vocal sentinels in our society, that often strike a holier than thou pose.

None of them thought it significant to expose or so much as underscore the less that savoury aspects of the dealings of a public official. This is a terrible indictment on the extent of their hypocrisy, and their double standards.

Weliamuna, a dollar paid operative who rakes in millions annually in terms of foreign funds, is in fact a bit of a fraud, eh? He exposes corruption and calls for people’s heads, when he sees that these people are valuable victims in his own political games, right?!

But catch corruption happening on his side of the political barrier – and he turns a blind eye to it entirely. Even if it concerns an institution in which the highest of integrity standards are expected, something Weliamuna cannot be ignorant of, as a lawyer.

A civil society constantly crying for good governance, and high standards of probity has been collectively caught with its pants down on this issue. None of them have come forward to either defend or condemn the Chief Justice of this country on the issue of the ugly financial papers.

If they think there is nothing wrong on the face of it - - they would have thought to exonerate her. But since this is not possible, they have maintained a deafening silence.

That speaks volumes for the standards of integrity of this pathetic agglomeration of hypocrites and slick operators.