සරත් සිල්වාගේ පුහු තර්ක
Former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva used interviews in Mawbima and Ceylon Today to recast himself and to claim that Ivan’s campaign against him grew out of a grudge from the 1971 insurrection trial. Ivan answers point by point: Silva was the most junior of five prosecutors, and Ivan’s lawyer in later cases was the lead prosecutor; the fight began when Silva, as Attorney General, shielded Magistrate Lenin Ratnayake. He recounts his challenge to the Attorney General’s criminal defamation indictments, rejected by Justice Mark Fernando but upheld by the UN Human Rights Committee, and the pending Supreme Court inquiry when Silva was made Chief Justice.
අල්ලස් දූෂණ, දේශපාලනය හා යුක්තිය පසිඳලීම
At a Transparency International seminar Ivan asked Bribery Commission chairman S. Ananda Coomaraswamy why the commission had cleared Mangala Samaraweera over a Rs. 500,000 credit card from a state body. He contrasts the commission with former commissioner Neelum Gamage, who resisted pressure from President Wijetunga over Wack Silva, and argues that politicians enriched by corruption will never accept an independent commission. A second section criticises the legal community’s belated alarm at Mark Fernando’s early retirement and describes the decay of the judiciary under Sarath N. Silva.
හිරේ සිටිය යුත්තේ කව්ද?
After a bench headed by the Chief Justice rejected Tony Fernando’s revision application against his one-year sentence for contempt, Ivan argues that the bench included judges Fernando had named as respondents, that the judgment identifies no contempt beyond raising his voice, and that it is Sarath N. Silva who belongs in prison. Further sections contrast the Constitutional Council’s published character criteria, drafted by H.L. de Silva, with the Chief Justice’s conduct and criticise delays in appointing the Judicial Service Commission.
බොරුවෙන්ම ජීවත් වන රට හා ව්‍යවස්ථා සභාව
Ivan argues that the Constitutional Council, demanded by civil society to curb presidential appointments, was hollowed out from the start. He details how Jayampathy Wickramaratne’s draft of the 17th Amendment removed the seniority rule for the Judicial Service Commission to protect Sarath N. Silva, how the Speaker signed the unamended bill, and the injunction against the Speaker over the impeachment. He adds that the Council, made up only of lawyers, has set up just two commissions while the President blocks appointments such as Ranjith Dheeraratne’s.
ඔලුවෙන් සිටුවා ඇති ස්වාධීන කොමිෂන්
Ivan argues that the government’s proposed 18th Amendment, shielding the Constitutional Council from fundamental-rights suits, ignores the real flaw in the 17th: Jayampathy Wickramaratne’s redraft for the President left her the power to nominate holders of key posts. He recounts the civil-society origins of the reform and the JVP and UNP roles in its passage, notes Priyani Wijesekera as its first victim, and proposes public vetting of Council members, barring them from legal practice and letting the Council investigate complaints against senior judges.
කටයුතු සිදුවෙමින් තිබෙන ආකාරය ඛේදජනකය
The CID found Rs 50 million in treasury bill certificates in one bank locker of a former powerful minister, reportedly holding Rs 1 billion in such securities, and earlier probed Rs 450 million linked to a former service chief. Questions also surround Rs 540 million allocated to a rubber company project on the President’s cabinet paper, whose chairman is her close associate. The editorial rejects her claim of immunity from inquiry and urges the government to enforce the law against large-scale plunder.
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.
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.
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.
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.