Sri Lanka clarifies on impeachment move against CJ

Updated - November 16, 2021 09:53 pm IST

Published - November 09, 2012 06:30 pm IST - COLOMBO

Clarifying for the first time on what led the Sri Lankan Parliament to move a motion of impeachment against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayeke, a senior aide of the President said that it was her husband’s “dealings” and various other improprieties that forced the hand of the government.

A group of ‘young backbenchers’ in Parliament had brought to the notice of President Mahinda Rajapaksa a few acts of the Chief Justice “some time back.” Only when the number of acts began getting out of hand did the executive and the legislature take up the issue, he said. There were many bank accounts “many more than what is there in the charge sheet,” and she did not declare any of these, he alleged. The Chief Justice has denied these allegations.

“The impeachment is not because she is seeking to abort our work,” the senior aide said, and pointed to how the government dealt with the judgement on the Divineguma Bill as an example. The Supreme Court held that some portions of the Bill, which centralises powers within a Ministry, had to be passed by a two-thirds majority and one provision had to be approved through a referendum. Also, a crucial aspect on the Ministry holding the finances and spending it was held as unconstitutional. The SC said that all money should be handled through the Consolidated Fund.

The Sri Lankan government abided by the judgement, and made it clear that it will seek the required parliamentary approvals for the Bill. Also the finances will be routed through the Consolidated Fund. “In doing all this, the government has acted as per the provisions of the Constitution. Is it not fair to expect the judiciary to act in a similar manner?” the aide asked.

He said that it was “improper” for the Chief Justice to hear cases at a time when impeachment proceedings had been moved against her.

Sarath Silva, A former Chief Justice, who himself was a victim in an earlier impeachment proceeding, has said that there was nothing wrong in this case. “Chief Justice or no Chief Justice, one cannot have improprieties and that is fundamental. That is why I have no objection against this case,” The Sri Lankan Financial Times quoted him as saying.

Mr. Silva said that the charges against Chief Justice Bandaranayeke included financial improprieties. “The crucial matter is that there is a case of bribery against the Chief Justice’s husband. I feel the Chief Justice should have been well advised to take leave during that period and allow that case to go on. Or some such mechanism should have been resorted to in discussion with the President to avoid such a situation,” he said.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.