( December 07, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) We
have made our position clear regarding these matters. It is the duty
of the Select Committee to maintain the highest standards of fairness in
conducting this inquiry, said the team of the opposition in a letter to the chairman of the Parliament Select Committee on the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice.
The Chairman
Select Committee on the Chief Justice
Sir,
We the undersigned Members of the Select Committee wish to place on record the following matters:
In the course of the deliberations of the Committee, the following matters had been raised by us:
• The absence of a clear direction regarding the procedure to be followed by the Select Committee.
• Whether documents were to be made available to the Chief Justice and her lawyers.
• The standard of proof which would be required.
• The need to arrive at a definition of “misbehavior”.
• Whether sufficient time would be made available to the Chief Justice and her lawyers to study the documents.
We have also requested a direction whether 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 can be asked to
respond.
None of these matters have been addressed by your Committee.
We also find that we are groping in the dark and proceeding on an ad hoc basis.
In
addition we wish to note that over 300 documents were received by the
Committee and handed over to the Members only on 5th December, 2012 and
those were handed over to the Chief Justice only at 4.30 pm on 6th
December, 2012.
We understand that there are several more documents to be produced.
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 will 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.
The sequence of events can be set down as follows:
When the motion was filed, there were no documents provided with it
The Inquiry started on 14th November 2012 without either a list of witnesses or a list of documents.
After three sittings the Secretary General was instructed to call for the documents from the Banks and other institutions.
What is obvious here is that when the Impeachment Motion was filed none of the signatories could have seen any of the documents.
It is regrettable that the Committee is ignoring
salient provisions of the law and requirements of Natural Justice in the
conduct of this Inquiry.
• Article
12(1) of the Constitution which guarantees equality and equal
protection of the Law and Article 13(5) the presumption of innocence.
• Article 7 of the Human Rights Declaration guaranteeing equality before the law.
• Item
17 and 20 of the United Nations Basic Principles of the Independence of
the Judiciary which guarantees to every judge the right to a fair
hearing and an independent review of removal proceedings.
It is also a matter of note that the Chief Justice has not been afforded the courtesies and privileges due to her office.
We
have made our position clear regarding these matters. It is the duty
of the Select Committee to maintain the highest standards of fairness in
conducting this inquiry.
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.
Afford the Chief Justice privileges necessary to
uphold the dignity 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.
………………………… …………………………
John Amaratunga, MP R. Sampanthan, MP
………………………… …………………………
Lakshman Kiriella, MP Vijitha Herath, MP
