THE TRILLIUM DISASTER AND JUSTICE GONE WILD

By S.P.C

Part III of the Speech by Professor G.L. Peiris, Minister of External Affairs, in Parliament in the Committee Stage debate on the votes of his ministry titled '...these countries are not PERSONALLY ANGRY WITH US' is held back due to space constraints. It will appear on Tuesday, December 11, 2012.

The main charge on which the Chief Justice was found guilty was the misdoing with regard to the Trillium Housing scheme residence. Basically she has used a Special Power of Attorney to purchase a house from Trillium residencies, when it was known that properties could not be alienated from Trillium, which belonged to the Ceylinco group which was caught up in the Golden Key case.

Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake

The following was the text of the charge:

“1. Whereas by purchasing, in the names of two individuals, i.e. Renuka Niranjali Bandaranayake and Kapila Ranjan Karunaratne using special power of attorney licence bearing No. 823 of Public Notary K.B. Aroshi Perera that was given by Renuka Niranjali Bandaranayake and Kapila Ranjan Karunaratne residing at No. 127, Ejina Street, Mount Hawthorn, Western Australia, 6016, Australia, the house bearing No. 2C/F2/P4 and assessment No. 153/1-2/4 from the housing scheme located at No. 153, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08 belonging to the company that was known as Ceylinco Housing and Property Company and City Housing and Real Estate Company Limited and Ceylinco Condominium Limited and is currently known as Trillium Residencies which is referred in the list of property in the case of fundamental rights application No. 262/2009, having removed another bench of the Supreme Court which was hearing the fundamental rights application cases bearing Nos. 262/2009, 191/2009 and 317/2009 filed respectively in the Supreme Court against Ceylinco Sri Ram Capital Management, Golden Key Credit Card Company and Finance and Guarantee Company Limited belonging to the Ceylinco Group of Companies and taking up further hearing of the aforesaid cases under her court and serving as the presiding judge of the benches hearing the said cases”

In her answers the Chief Justice’s lawyers say 'that it may be relevant to note that after 6.5.2010 case No.262/2010 was taken up before the former Chief Justice Hon. Justice Asoka de Silva. The former Chief Justice Hon, Justice Asoka de Silva himself purchased a housing unit at Trillium residencies demonstrating that there was no impediment to purchase such a housing unit.

In summary then,

(1) the sale /purchase of housing units of Trillium residencies was permitted by order of the SC dated 6.5.2010 (Supreme Court bench consisting of Hon. Justice Thilakawardene, Hon. Justice Sripavan and Hon. Justice Imam);

(2) There was no restriction in the sale of housing units of Trillium Residences after 6.5.2010

(3) Our client became Chief Justice on or about 18.5.2011;

(4) The case was mentioned before our client for the first time on 13.10.2011;

(5) There was nothing wrong in the manner in which the case came before our client;

(5) The properties were purchased by our client’s sister and brother in law and not by our client; and

(6) Our client’s sister and brother in law did not receive any benefit whatsoever by our client hearing the case.'

To say that Asoka de Silva also bought a house though the case was heard before him was a preposterous defence because the fact that one judge may have done a wrongful purchase does not mean than other judge is exonerated of it!

The Chief Justice also has stated that she became CJ on a later date, that is after order was made regards Trillium, but the fact remains that she was a Supreme Court judge when the Trillium matter came up, and when she was made Chief Justice she was aware that hearing a case that was with another judge and later brought under her purview was wrong, as she was purchasing a house from the same Trillium company that was under review in the Celyinco (Golden Key) case.

She has also made the defence that the properties were paid for by her sister and brother in law but that does not cut any ice, for the simple reasons that she still bought the house and paid the monies for it!

Trillium Residences

Certainly, the Select Committee would have had due consideration of the fact that a judge should show utmost integrity, and should not leave room for any appearance of wrongdoing.

However, the fact that she did not really offer any defence and chose to walk out of the PSC proceedings, would also have gone against her as it went by default that the charges were true and correct.

The charge 5 was: 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 levelled 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; (19).’

This was one of the other main charges to which the Chief Justice of this country was made answerable. However, here too she chose not to defend herself, and in answer to this charge this is what she stated: that ‘no cases could be hard in court if this situation was taken into account. She also stated that there was in fact no charge made here!’.

But of course a charge was made - - and it was that she should have stepped down form her position, in the interests of justice and the appearance of justice, but did not do so. By that conduct she made it very clear that she is not interested about the appearance of rectitude and would remain in her position, even to the extent of influencing the decision that might be taken against her husband!

But the most damning thing it seems about the answer to the charges is that she and her lawyers took up the position that there is no wrongdoing here at all – and that there is no charge here in the first place. The Select Committee put paid to that assertion, finding her guilty on this score -- even though she was exonerated of some other charges for lack of proof.