Letter dated 14 December 2012 - The International Criminal Law ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6 December 2012, when this request was repeated, the Chairman of the Select Committee stated that no oral evidence would be led to establish the allegations and, consequently, an opportunity to cross examine witnesses did not arise. It then became evident that the Chief Justice was expected to refute allegations that had not been supported by evidence. 22. Counsel for the Chief Justice requested the Select Committee to waive the secrecy provisions and conduct an open and public inquiry. He also requested that independent observers be permitted to watch the proceedings. Both requests were refused by the Government majority in the Select Committee. Withdrawal of the Chief Justice 23. Meanwhile, at various stages of the proceedings, two members of the Select Committee, both of whom are Ministers, hurled abuse and obscene remarks at the Chief Justice and her lawyers, and addressed the Chief Justice in a humiliating and insulting manner. It was quite evident that these Members had been mandated to ridicule and intimidate the Head of the Judiciary and the legal profession. In these circumstances, on 6 December 2012, Counsel for the Chief Justice stated that it was not possible to continue to accept the legitimacy of a body steeped in partiality and hostility towards the Head of the Judiciary. Accordingly, the Chief Justice and her Counsel withdrew from participating in the Select Committee. The Chief Justice did so reiterating that she was willing to face any impartial and lawful tribunal as was done in other commonwealth countries, and as was proposed in the draft constitution of August 2000, Withdrawal of the Opposition Members 24. On the same day, i.e. 6 December 2012, the four Members from Opposition Parties also withdrew from the Select Committee citing conduct demeaning the Chief Justice and callous disregard for the rules of natural justice on the part of the majority of Members of the Select Committee, all of whom were subject to the Government whip. In a three-page letter to Speaker Rajapaksa, they stated that they had raised five issues in the Select Committee: a) The absence of a clear direction regarding the procedure to be followed by the Select Committee. b) Whether documents were to be made available to the Chief Justice and her lawyers. c) The standard of proof that would be required. d) The need to arrive at a definition of “misbehaviour” Executive Committee members Majuka Fernandopulle-+9477344477,Achala Kumarasiri AAL-+94712080141 ,Kelum Kumarsingha- +94772994951,Supun Wickramaratne-+94774810515 Sadamal Rajapaksha-+94714197650,Thanuka Madawa-+94715527766, Dasanta Ihalage-+94719081380,Nuwan Bopege-+94718403608
e) Whether sufficient time would be made available to the Chief Justice and her lawyers to study the documents. f) None of these had been addressed. “We also requested a direction that the Chief Justice and her lawyers would be given an opportunity to cross-examine the several complainants who had made the charges against her. It was also our position that if, and only if, a prima facie case had first been made out against the Chief Justice that she could be asked to respond. None of these matters were addressed by your Committee. We also find that we are groping in the dark and proceeding on an ad hoc basis. . . . The lawyers appearing for the Chief Justice asked for time to study the documents. This was refused. Apart from the Chief Justice, we the Members of the Select Committee ourselves need sufficient time to study these documents. Furthermore the Chief Justice had not been provided with either a List of Documents or a List of Witnesses. . . . We also regrettably note that during these proceedings, the treatment meted out to the Chief Justice was insulting and intimidatory and the remarks made were clearly indicative of preconceived findings of guilt. We are therefore of the view that the Committee should, before proceeding any further, lay down the procedure that the Committee intends to follow in this inquiry; give adequate time to both the Members of the Committee and the Chief Justice and her lawyers to study and review the documents that had been tabled and afford the Chief Justice privileges necessary to uphold the dignity of the Office of the Chief Justice while attending proceedings of the Committee. If these matters are attended to, we feel that the Chief Justice should be invited to continue her participation in these proceedings. However, if the Committee is not agreeable to these proposals of ours we will be compelled to withdraw from the Committee.” 25. At a joint news conference held in the Parliament premises on 7 December 2012, the four Opposition Members - John Ameratunga (United National Party), Lakshman Kiriella (United National Party), Vijitha Herath (Jathika Vimukti Peramuna) and Rajavarothayam Sampanthan (Tamil National Alliance) explained why they had withdrawn from the Select Committee. They explained that there was no discussion about the standard of proof, no procedure, and no agenda. The objective of the Government was not to hold a proper inquiry. The signatories to the motion had not seen any documents. It was being said that they had signed on blank sheets of paper. The Government did not want an inquiry as it could not prove anything. The Government thought that the Chief Justice would step down when the charges were brought. When that did not happen, the Government was not ready for a proper investigation. They asserted that they did not wish to be party to a witch-hunt. What had happened was unprecedented in the country’s history. It was a deadly blow to the country’s entire judiciary. Submission of Report Executive Committee members Majuka Fernandopulle-+9477344477,Achala Kumarasiri AAL-+94712080141 ,Kelum Kumarsingha- +94772994951,Supun Wickramaratne-+94774810515 Sadamal Rajapaksha-+94714197650,Thanuka Madawa-+94715527766, Dasanta Ihalage-+94719081380,Nuwan Bopege-+94718403608
Page 1 and 2: YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION ;reK kS;S
Page 3 and 4: not be passed by Parliament until i
Page 5: e delivered to the Chief Justice, a
Page 9: Executive Committee members Majuka

Letter dated 14 December 2012 - The International Criminal Law ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?