PSC
offers the CJ an inquiry without witnesses
|
by Basil Fernando
( December
7, 2012, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Parliamentary Select Committee
(PSC) inquiring into the allegations against the Chief Justice, Dr Shirani
Bandaranayake in a surprising and shocking move informed her that during this
inquiry no witnesses would be produced and therefore there would be no room for
cross examination.
Cartoon Courtesy: The Sunday Times |
An
'inquiry' without witnesses naturally cannot be an inquiry at all. The essence
of an inquiry is to place before the accused the witnesses who are making
allegations thus giving the opportunity of cross examination on any such
witness. There is no other way to find the truth behind any matter by any person
who sits as an impartial judge than to listen to the witnesses and to see how
they fare when they are cross examined on what they have said in evidence.
This
really raises the question about the PSC. Are they a body who has already made
up its mind about the allegations and are sitting there just to listen to what
the CJ has to say about the allegations? If they have already made up their
mind about the allegations they have no right to sit as judges.
Verdict
first -- trial later
The
PSC inquiry is a reminder of the story of Alice in Wonderland where the verdict
is made first and then when reminded, that there was no trial with a request
"for just a little trial" the queen replies, the verdict first and
the trial later.
The
PSC inquiry is not just funny but only a ritual setup before the verdict is
announced to the parliament for a vote. The task of the PSC is just to hook up
a finding to be placed before the parliament which will decide the matter on
the basis of a hand count.
'Peoples'
Power' -- a comic programme in the SLBC
While
this is proceeding in this manner there is also a comic show which is staged
every morning in a programme entitled 'Peoples' Power' broadcast through the
SLBC. Under the pretext of reading the headlines in newspapers a commentator
who is a former editor of several newspapers that has been unceremoniously
dismissed from his position tries to interpret the news in a truly sycophantic
fashion. The main point is to say how right the government is and how wrong
everybody else is.
To do
that the commentator chooses not to mention any of the factual information
around the news item he is discussing. For example in discussing the walkout of
the CJ from the PSC proceedings the commentator does not inform the public the
reasons as to why the CJ and her legal team decided to take that path. He does
not tell his listeners that the PSC proposed an inquiry with witnesses and
cross examination.
Instead,
rhetorically the commentator asked if any person walks out of a judicial proceeding
whether it would not amount to contempt of court. In fact, if any judge in Sri
Lanka were to announce that in the trial he was about to conduct no witnesses
will give evidence and that the affected person has no opportunity for cross
examination no litigant would commit contempt to court if he refused to
participate in such proceedings. The precondition of participation is that
there is a real trial where the basic norms of fairness would be observed. The
commentator of course does not ask his question from anyone else who may have
given him the explanation as to condition under which people are under
obligation to participate in judicial proceedings. Instead he himself gives the
answer and that is the monologue that the listeners are forced to listen to.
The
commentator also does not follow any of the ethics that are expected to be
observed when accusing persons which this commentator quite liberally does.
None of those persons are called upon to reply to his accusations. Like the PSC
this commentator running the programme 'Peoples' Power' does not believe that
he has any duty to be fair.
Strangely
in today's programme (December 7) the only person whose opinion the commentator
called for was a member of PRA a onetime underground death squad. This former
member of PRA is the Erskine May that this commentator relies on regarding
parliamentary practices.
What
all this indicates is not just funny but the lowest depth to which the
government has reduced all political discourse, whether it is about conducting
an inquiry for the removal of the highest judicial officer in the country or
about the manner in which the state media is used for providing their version
of the information to the people.
That
lowest depth is no surprise. In a country where no inquiries are conducted into
well-publicised murders which are perceived by the public as political
assassinations, where enforced disappearances are allowed and even allegations
of rape against the ruling party politicians do not amount to a scandal, and where
prisoners are shot down inside the prisons, where every kind of financial fraud
goes without accountability and where lawlessness has become the norm that is
the lowest depth that society can descend to.
But
that is no matter, nothing is treated as shocking and even the Chief Justice of
the country is treated worse than a common criminal (in fact, the common
criminals enjoy rather a privileged place).
For an E-Book
which includes documents and information on the impeachment proceedings place
see here.