Petitioner seeks to nullify Appeal Court writ

A petition was filed before the Court of Appeal citing that the Court of Appeal or any other courts could not be called upon to interfere in the process of investigating allegations against the Chief Justice as the entire proceedings of the impeachment motion was constitutional.

The petition, thus has requested to nullify the writ application in the Court of Appeal which sought the prohibition of the proceeding of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) appointed to investigate the conduct of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake.

The petitioner was Sri Lanka Freedom Party Trade Union Association General Secretary Chandrasena Weerasinghe.

The authority to investigate over the impeachment motion had been handed over to Parliament in which the people’s supremacy is

represented.

The power had been bestowed upon Parliament to investigate over judges. A Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) probe was incompatible with legal and constitutional provisions and the entire process carried out by the PSC was to decide whether a Justice needed to be impeached.

The PSC had been appointed by the Speaker through a resolution of Parliament, under Standing Orders as per with the Article 107/3 of the constitution. The petition has referred that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to investigate matters before Parliament. The Court of Appeal could not entertain a writ against the PSC and make a reference to the Supreme Court, which in turn would not have jurisdiction over Parliament. Article 140 of the Constitution had given similar powers to the Sri Lankan Parliament, the petition noted. It further added that the matters of Parliament could not be interfered with by any court. The PSC was an extension of Parliament and comprised members of Parliament.

The Parliament has a separate autonomy of its own to regulate its affairs, he said. The exercise of judicial power in the process of impeachment has no involvement with the Court of Appeal. If the court would involve in the process it would be a great blow to the the sovereignty and executive power of the people will be questioned.

Once a resolution was passed by Parliament, the President had to dismiss the judge concerned. Power had been given to the Parliament to remove the judge. Even the entire Parliament could sit to conduct an investigation, the petition argued. The petitioner said that the Court cannot determine the constitutionality of the Standing Order 78 A 2, 38A (3), 78 A(4) and 78 A (5).

The power to remove a judge was with the parliament. The petition has stated that the CJ had known the legal factors of the impeachment motion which was being investigated by the PSC. But she walked out the PSC knowing the implications of it. It was totally a drama. She left with another idea.

The petitioner explained that he came forward with the petition due to the controversial conduct of the CJ, who enjoyed her position at the top of the judiciary. The average people have the legal right to question the CJ’s behaviour as the post deserved the highest respect of the people.

“I forwarded this petition for the sake of people’s right and benefit”, he said. The controversial purchase of Trillium apartment housing scheme was witnessed when she held the supreme post of the legislature and consequently taking over the hearings of Ceylinco case was also done with her consent, it further said. The petition had named CJ Shirani Bandaranayake, Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa, PSC members and Parliament General Secretary as the respondents. The petition was filed by attorney Bandula Wellala.