Sri Lanka becoming major player on world stage:

Impeachment process set out in the Constitution – Bogollagama

Being adept in matters of state policy,
former Foreign Minister
Rohitha Bogollagama spoke to the Daily News
on his opinion on current affairs and developments
of the country.

Extracts of the interview:

Q: How do you analyse the current domestic and international affairs of post war Sri Lanka?

A: Basically Sri Lanka is now passing a transitional period after three decades of prolonged armed conflict which devastated the country’s profile, economy and lives of the people. Only three years have passed since the war ended. Sri Lanka is seeking its own rightful place internationally, and the international community in turn is measuring Sri Lanka in line with certain universally accepted norms.

The government has addressed several post conflict issues in a comprehensive manner. Over 350,000 people have been resettled, rehabilitated and restored in the areas they belonged to at the time of the conflict. International credit and recognition has come to the government because of this achievement. The livelihoods of the people affected by the terrorist conflict are being built. The infrastructure had been created.

There are direct bus services from Tangalle to Jaffna now. This links one end of the country to the other. These are progressive measures. No other country in the world has these comparisons to cite. People may not talk much about these achievements, because their lives have returned to normal in such a short period. People enjoy free movement. In no country will people be able to move about with such freedom if their human rights are stifled. In Sri Lanka, we have the rights of integration, movement, opportunity and equality. There is no discrimination. The international community has to measure the current developments and make an assessment on Sri Lanka. My view is that Sri Lanka’s profile is an exemplary one to the world to acknowledge and adopt.

When we concentrate on the political developments in the country, we have held the Presidential, General, Local Government and three Provincial Council elections in recent times. The majority of people have supported the government at these elections and the government had been able to win a majority of seats at almost all councils at provincial level. These had been free and fair elections and have added a lot of credit and value to the country's parliamentary system. So in that context, the political roadmap has been well fulfilled in terms of the democratic agenda for the country. Now there is a major debate on greater devolution. That will also result in a very positive dialogue for what is good and suitable for Sri Lanka.

There was a US led resolution at the UNHRC in Geneva last March seeking the full implementation of the LLRC report. That again is a domestic report that they are asking for its full implementation. As I recall, several delegations who visited Sri Lanka had discussed the progress of the LLRC report. The trajectory the government is setting for due implementation has been explained to all those parties who had been seeking the progress made on the LLRC. The Sri Lankan government has accepted the LLRC report and the meaningful implementation of that has been carried through.

The international community must now allow space for this due implementation in a manner that suits the country’s requirements and that of the people’s sentiments. Therefore, no forceful actions can result in encouraging such a process to be progressive. What is important is a respected dialogue to emerge between the stakeholders in Sri Lanka in relation to the trajectory of these implementations. The international community should be supportive of such meaningful steps because the international community has already conceded by the acceptance of the LLRC report itself that it is a domestic process.

Q: The impeachment motion against Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayake has become the talking point of the country today. What is your stance on this move?

A: This is entirely a Parliamentary process that is set out in the Constitution of the country, and Parliament has embarked on that at the moment. The report has now been published and made public. It will again be listed on the Order Paper in Parliament for debate. Once the motion has been carried through Parliament then the President of the country can take constitutional steps in relation to the findings of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) led by Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa. This is entirely a constitutional process.

Q: One of the main criticisms against the impeachment motion is that the Chief Justice was not given adequate time to reply to the charges made against her. What is your opinion in this regard?

A: The Constitution itself shows the procedure with regard to such a matter. Initially, a period of one month is given for the committee to come to the required findings. Secondly, if the committee needs further time to dispense with the matter before it, they had to seek an extension of time from the House.

When you examine why this constitutional provision has been made, it gives rise to several valid opinions and observations to be made. An impeachment only applies to the highest in the ranks,such as, the President, Chief Justice, Supreme Court judges and Court of Appeal judges. When charges are levelled against the highest in the land and particularly against those in the judiciary, one cannot allow these things to be kept in abeyance and in circulation to gather more unnecessary momentum, thereby tarnishing the image of the institution to which these honourable members belong to. So the authors of the Constitution had thought it best to have a limitation in terms of the time taken to decide on such a matter. Otherwise, the very functioning of the institution to which they become responsible will be severely affected. The entire governance in the country can be affected if such inquiries are to be kept on without an early determination and conclusion. Thereby this one month period had been put into effect.

I learnt from the media and other sources, PSC Chairman Anura Yapa and the report itself stated that in order to get time the party concerned (the CJ) did not remain within the proceedings. She abandoned the proceedings by walking out of the sittings. I have not been a member of this committee nor am I a Member of Parliament, but looking at it objectively, after walking out of the proceedings, how can she make any complaint of the lost opportunity to canvass the committee and to meet the ensuing developments as being mentioned now?

So in my opinion, if they were continuing to be present as part of the proceedings, the grounds for the complaint would have become more acceptable, because then one could have witnessed if there was any erosion of the principles of natural justice.

Q: The opposition members also staged a walk out from the PSC. How valid and sensible is this decision?

A: I have experience on working in some of parliamentary committees like the Committee on Public Enterprises. Therefore, I know the contribution the opposition members can make in the findings and the conclusions of a committee both substantially and procedurally.

The four learned opposition members of the committee, if they were holding the responsibility to discharge their duties for the due conclusion of the process, should not have ever staged the walk out. The PSC is not like a parliamentary sitting where you walkout today and come back the following day. By walking out, they have completely abandoned the opportunity to be part of a due process and to contribute well in terms of the process.

Therefore, I consider the members of the opposition have completely misdirected themselves in their responsibilities as members of the PSC. They have denied their respective political parties of a greater responsibility to be exercised when it comes to the PSC. The gravity of the matter is further compounded by the fact that the opportunity the opposition members had to submit a dissenting report has not even been submitted by them. They have undermined through their conduct the due process that the Constitution has provided for in matters of this nature.

Q: How do you think the impeachment motion affects the functioning of the judiciary and legislature?

A: The impeachment motion is a procedure created only to deal with not normal, but exceptionally high ranking persons because you recognise their value and distinguished status. When it comes to matters concerning their conduct there are two broadly defined issues that have been cited in the Constitution.

Under Section 107 of the Constitution the grounds are ‘misbehaviour or incapacity’.

Former CJ Neville Samarakoon was impeached under the JR Jayewardene administration purely on a statement he made in a private forum at a prize giving, which was considered inappropriate and unsuitable for a CJ to have made, and that statement amounted to an act of misbehaviour. That is how history speaks of Sri Lanka’s impeachments. That ended with his resignation. That shows the value of this highest office and how much it has been safeguarded. The constitution has created three organs, the executive, legislature and judiciary. There is separation of powers and parliamentary powers are confined to Parliament and judicial powers to the judiciary. So we should not embark on a debate on this issue because it is clearly defined. So many rulings are there by speakers in terms of the Parliamentary prerogative on its functions and the Constitutional responsibilities associated with Parliament. Otherwise, the sovereignty of the people conferred in Parliament through their representatives may get destroyed.

Q: What is your message to the public at this hour?

A: My observation of this entire issue and its developments is that the Constitution of the country and the procedures laid down in that must be respected.

This is an entirely a constitutional process. Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe had been a major advocate of the supremacy of Parliament, and that was upheld even in Speaker Anura Bandaranayake’s determination during the UNP reign when Ranil Wickremesinghe was the Prime Minister. The recent determination made by Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa too has followed in the same lines of the supremacy of Parliament. This is done in view of safeguarding of the Constitution and protection of the sovereignty of the people.

The Members of Parliament do not occupy their positions perpetually. Their period in office is limited to and time bound. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Members of Parliament to safeguard the Constitution as evident from the rulings hitherto given by the speakers of Parliament. Then even internationally, we will be respected for safe guarding the Constitution and the due process. The main stay of democracy will remain on the protection of Parliament and parliamentary rule.