Pillay's statement lacks objectivity, biased, marred by erroneous
facts – External Affairs Ministry Acting Secretary
External Affairs Ministry Acting Secretary Kshenuka Seneviratne
yesterday accused UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navaneetham
Pillay of acting beyond her mandate and transgressing basic norms which
should be observed by a discerning international civil servant by
bringing into question the constitutional governance of a sovereign
state.
Seneviratne was alluding to the statement delivered by Pillay at the
OHCHR press briefing on January 18. External Affairs Ministry Acting
Secretary Kshenuka Seneviratne in a letter addressed to Pillay states:
Navanethem Pillay |
Ms. Navanethem Pillay,
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights,Geneva.
Dear High Commissioner,
“The Government of Sri Lanka notes, with deep regret and concern,
your statement delivered at the OHCHR Press Briefing on 18th January
2013 where reference has been made to Sri Lanka. At the outset, I wish
to reject categorically the contents of this statement, as it lacks any
semblance of objectivity, steeped as it is in bias, marred by erroneous
facts and further compounded by the inappropriate tenor of its language,
all of which are indicative of unequal and invidious treatment of Sri
Lanka.
“To me this is reminiscent of the action taken by Mr Hanny Megally
following the visit of the OHCHR team to Sri Lanka in September 2012,
when he deviated from the accepted practice, by de-briefing third
parties, even before briefing you, in your capacity as High
Commissioner, or the Permanent Representative of the country concerned.
It may also be recalled that when the latter pointed out the impropriety
of this unacceptable conduct of Mr. Megally at that juncture, you
accepted our Representative's submission. However, your action in
resorting to unwarranted comments with a series of innuendos on an issue
which is entirely a domestic matter for Sri Lanka, and that too without
first engaging with our Permanent Representative or the delegation of
Sri Lanka in Geneva, demonstrates yet again the deviation from
established procedure, amounting to blatant interference in an issue of
a sovereign country.
“With regard to the impeachment of the former Chief Justice, the
Government of Sri Lanka as a sovereign country has followed the due
procedure that is set out in the Constitution of our country. This
procedure is indeed in conformity with principles which govern
disciplinary proceedings against judges contained in the Basic
Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary endorsed by the UNGA in
1985.
“I wish to point out that it was following submission of the motion
signed by 117 (out of 225) Members of Parliament, that the Speaker
constituted a Parliamentary Select Committee to examine the issues
involved in the allegations made against the former Chief Justice.
Subsequently, the Report of the Select Committee was submitted and the
matter was debated for two days in Parliament, with the active
engagement of Opposition political parties. Thereafter, once the
resolution to impeach the former Chief Justice was passed in Parliament
with a majority of 106 votes (155 voting for and 49 against) the
required address was made as our law requires to H.E. the President. It
was only thereafter that the former Chief Justice was dismissed from
office.
Following this constitutional act, the former Chief Justice withdrew
from her Chambers and official residence on her own accord. Your
contention regarding the removal of the former Chief Justice from her
Chambers and residence is, therefore, erroneous. It may also be noted
that Sri Lanka prides itself on a Parliamentary democratic tradition and
a judiciary of the highest standard. Moreover, the Constitution of the
country enshrines adequate safeguards to ensure the independence of
these vital arms of a functioning democracy, which are upheld by the
Government of Sri Lanka.
“The content of your statement sadly demonstrates that neither you
nor your office has the understanding of the provisions of Sri Lanka's
Constitution, and the related procedures for the removal of judges of
the superior courts. These provisions have been applied on several
occasions in the past. For your information I annex a copy of the speech
made by the Minister of External Affairs, Professor G.L. Peiris, on 10th
January 2013 in the Parliament of Sri Lanka which sets out the legal
framework within which the impeachment process was carried out and
responds to opposing views on its legality.
Your assertion that “Sri Lanka has a long history of abuse of
executive power” is offensive to this nation, and is clearly beyond your
mandate. In this regard, you have transgressed the basic norms which
should be observed by a discerning international civil servant, by
bringing into question the constitutional governance of a sovereign
State.
“With regard to your reference to the new Chief Justice Hon Mohan
Peiris, you are undoubtedly aware that he has been a member of the Sri
Lanka delegation to the Human Rights Council sessions, originally in his
official capacity as the Attorney General of the country, to handle
legal issues required for our engagement in Geneva, which is not an
uncommon practice amongst States. Subsequent to Hon Peiris relinquishing
the office of Attorney General, based on his experience and expertise in
the field, he was appointed Legal Adviser to the Cabinet of Ministers
and therefore continued to serve in the Sri Lanka delegations to Geneva.
It was by virtue of the offices he held at the time, which has direct
relevance to the issues at hand, that Hon. Peiris served on the Sri
Lankan delegation to the Human Rights Council Sessions. “It is most
unfortunate that you have chosen to raise concerns about the
independence and impartiality of the new Chief Justice just as he
commences his term in this high office. In my view, this is reflective
of the complete bias and negative mindset manifested and nurtured by
parties inimical to Sri Lanka and with vested interests. By such an
allegation, you have sought inexcusably to undermine the Office of Chief
Justice.
Further, this position articulated by you is a prejudgement on your
part, which has been a sustained practice adopted by you, in relation to
Sri Lanka. Regrettably, this cavalier statement brings into question the
standards of impartiality and equality expected of the UN System.
“With regard to the allegations of death threats and acts of
intimidation against lawyers, you may wish to note that any complaints
received in this regard by the law enforcement authorities are being and
will be investigated. The Government of Sri Lanka is fully committed to
upholding the rule of law and has been continuously taking steps to
achieve this objective.
“ I wish to state that Sri Lanka has engaged with the UN System
consistently and transparently, and therefore expects reciprocity from
your office. No doubt you would appreciate that it is imperative to base
this engagement on the fundamental right of States to be treated
equally. A statement of this palpably biased nature could hurt the
engagement between Sri Lanka and the UN System.
“I look forward to our continued engagement in keeping with the
principals I have set out in this letter”.
Yours sincerely, Kshenuka Senewiratne, Acting
Secretary
|