ස්ත්‍රී දූෂක මහේස්ත්‍රාත්යළි අධිකරණ සේවයට
Ivan reports moves to reinstate magistrate Lenin Ratnayake, whom a Judicial Service Commission inquiry of Appeal Court judges Hector Yapa, Asoka de Silva and T.B. Weerasuriya found guilty on all four charges: two rapes of women connected to cases before him, and concealing his dismissal for fraud from the Insurance Corporation. He quotes the charges and the commission’s minutes, summarises the evidence of witnesses, and reproduces extracts of testimony from one victim and from the husband of another.
නීතියේ අනාචාරය
Ivan revisits the adultery case chemical engineer Jayasekera brought against Sarath N. Silva, then an Appeal Court judge. He shows how complaints to K. Palakidnar, Presidents Premadasa and Wijetunga went nowhere, how District Judge Upali Abeyratne’s handling of the case drew disciplinary charges that stalled once Silva became Attorney General and Priyantha Perera joined the Judicial Service Commission, and how Abeyratne was later punished lightly and promoted.
යුක්තියේ දෙවොල ගිනි ගනී
Ivan argues that judicial reform must come first and that a Judicial Service Commission reshuffled under the 17th Amendment will change nothing while the discredited Chief Justice stays. He traces magistrate Lenin Ratnayake’s career from an insurance-claim fraud at the Insurance Corporation, through patronage into the judiciary, to two rape allegations upheld by an inquiry committee, and accuses Sarath N. Silva, as Attorney General, of shielding his relative.
ලෙනින් රත්නායක, උපාලි අබේරත්න පරීක්ෂණ වාර්තා ගැන “රාවය” කර්තෘගෙන් අගවිනිසුරුට ලිපියක්
In a letter dated 27 August 2001 to Sarath N. Silva as chairman of the Judicial Service Commission, Ivan asks for the reports of the two committees that found Magistrate Lenin Ratnayake and District Judge Upali Abeyratne guilty. He sets out the history: Ravaya’s 1997 reports of a rape by Ratnayake and his earlier dismissal for fraud, Silva’s 1998 confidential report to G.L. Peiris, the Abeyratne divorce case, the Bar’s past presidents’ intervention, his disbarment complaint, and Silva’s appointment and the impeachment, and says he needs the reports for a case in Geneva.
ඇති කරන්නට යන ව්‍යවස්ථා ක්‍රමයට ආවේණික සීමා
Ivan welcomes the proposed Constitutional Council and five commissions but says they lack any mechanism to monitor holders of high office once appointed. He cites cases where no one acted: a complaint to Court of Appeal President Palakidnar about Sarath N. Silva, an alleged assault attempt by a Supreme Court judge, a High Court judge accused of abusing a young domestic worker, and Lenin Ratnayake still in service, and faults the Attorney General, Elections Commissioner and Auditor General, proposing an ombudsman-type body under the Council.
සරත් එන්. සිල්වා මහතා අධිකරණය කෙරෙහි ඇති කර තිබෙන විනාශය සුළුපටු නැත
As impeachment proceedings open, Ivan traces the crisis to Sarath N. Silva’s appointment while two disbarment complaints, one by Ivan himself, were pending, despite warnings from Chief Justice G.P.S. de Silva and senior lawyers. He recounts how Silva halted those inquiries, packed the bench hearing challenges to his appointment, narrowed fundamental rights jurisdiction, and was linked by phone records to Rohana Kumara, alleged mastermind of the Wijekoon murder, and to a fraudulent petition for the gunman Nupul Kumara.
සරත් සිල්වා රගපාමින් සිටින්නේ ද ලෙනින් රත්නායක රග පෑ භූමිකාව ම ය
Ivan retells how magistrate Lenin Ratnayake, dismissed earlier from the Insurance Corporation for fraud, hid his past behind a pious image, won support from monks, lawyers, local councils and Attorney General Sarath N. Silva, and was finally found guilty by the Hector Yapa inquiry. He argues that Chief Justice Silva is staging the same performance through bodhi pujas, Bar resolutions and a Malwatte statement, and sets out allegations about Silva’s private life, misuse of power in related litigation and a loan he never repaid.
නීතීඥ සංගමයට ප්‍රශ්න 6ක්
After lawyers Neil Dias, Chandrapala Kumarage and Sena Liyanasuriya urged the Bar Association to act against Ravaya, Ivan recounts how inquiries upheld Ravaya’s charges against Lenin Ratnayake and Upali Abeyratne and poses six questions: on Sarath N. Silva’s domestic life and judicial ethics, his appointment while disbarment petitions were pending, Abeyratne’s promotion, the trust land obtained while on the Vijaya Kumaratunga commission, his continuing trusteeship, and his ties to Rohana Kumara, a suspect in the Wijekoon murder.
අර්බුදය ගැන ආපසු හැරි බැලිමක්
Answering a reader who asks why Ravaya keeps writing about Sarath N. Silva, Ivan retells how his suspicions began with the Lenin Ratnayake affair: the rape allegation reported in 1997, police findings that Ratnayake had been dismissed from the Insurance Corporation for fraud, and a confidential 1998 report in which Silva as Attorney General shielded him. He describes the Bar’s past presidents’ resolution, the inquiries that found Ratnayake and Upali Abeyratne guilty, his own disbarment petition, and Silva’s appointment as Chief Justice, and calls for his removal.
අධිකරණයේ අර්බුදය හා නීතිඥ සංගමය
Responding to the Bar Association’s criticism of the Sunday Leader and Ravaya, Ivan names the lawyers said to have attended a meeting at Temple Trees where President Kumaratunga discussed the UNP’s election petition and asked that a judge she had accused of taking a bribe be removed from the bench hearing it. He recounts the Vinsendra Rajan fundamental rights case, Sarath N. Silva’s land request while serving on the Vijaya Kumaratunga murder commission, and his appointment as Chief Justice, and says the Bar must defend judicial independence.