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.
Conscience Benumbed
In this article, Victor Ivan argues that decades of mass violence and rampant political corruption have paralyzed the collective conscience of Sri Lankan society. Drawing heavily on the psychological trauma outlined in Prof. Daya Somasunderam’s book Scarred Minds, Ivan asserts that the psychological damage seen in the Tamil community is reflective of a wider distortion affecting all Sri Lankans—victims, perpetrators, and witnesses alike. Using the commercialization and resulting decline of Sri Lankan cricket as an analogy for the state of the nation, the author critiques how governance has become a mechanism for public plunder. Specifically, Ivan highlights the failure of the 17th Amendment, pointing out that constitutional safeguards and independent commissions (such as the Elections, Police, and Bribery Commissions) have been deliberately sabotaged or stalled by the President, with little to no resistance from the judiciary, the political opposition, or a benumbed public.
ශෘද සාක්ෂිය හිරී වැටීම
Drawing on Daya Somasundaram’s ‘Scarred Minds’, Ivan argues that two decades of mass violence in north and south have numbed the whole society’s conscience. He attacks FM radio stations for feeding the public trivia, likens the ruin of other sports and then cricket itself to the decay of an ageing, politicised bureaucracy, recounts how the 17th Amendment was distorted and is blocked by the President, and reminds Ranil Wickremesinghe of his broken promise of the rule of law.
ඒකාධිපතියන් රටට අවශ්ය නැත
The editorial accuses the President of abusing her powers under the distorted 17th Amendment. She has kept Priyani Wijesekera, the most senior and qualified candidate, as only acting Secretary-General of Parliament despite the 14-day limit on acting appointments, and passed over Justice Mark Fernando, whose ruling that presidential immunity ends with the term of office she resented, when naming an acting Chief Justice. It calls on all parties to correct the amendment.
ව්යවස්ථාව සමග වළ කජු ගැසීම
Ivan traces how politicians have toyed with the constitution: the authoritarian features of J.R. Jayewardene’s 1978 charter, rushed through as urgent; Chandrika Kumaratunga’s broken promise to abolish the executive presidency and her transitional clauses keeping her in power; the 2000 attempt to pass a new constitution by buying UNP votes; and the distortion of the 17th Amendment by Jayampathy Wickramaratne. He notes the Speaker signed the wrong draft, leaving commissions in legal limbo, and argues the proposed 19th Amendment is too narrow.
අනාගැනීම
Ivan argues that Ranil Wickremesinghe wasted his mandate at its peak by not negotiating terms of cohabitation, letting the President keep her choice of IGP, ambassadors, governors and service chiefs. Now she asserts that no one may investigate her or dissolve Parliament but herself. He says the government cannot pursue her Rs 2,445 million vehicle spending while protecting Treasury Secretary Jayasundera, and that her offer to abolish the presidency entirely is a time-wasting trap.
අගවිනිසුරුට, ලෙනින් රත්නායකට එරෙහිව අල්ලස් කොමිසමට පැමිණිල්ලක්
In a formal complaint dated 30 July 2002, Ivan asks the Bribery Commission to investigate magistrate Lenin Ratnayake for concealing his dismissal from the Insurance Corporation for claims fraud when becoming a lawyer and magistrate, and Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva for abusing office to protect his relative: misleading the justice minister in a confidential report, suppressing the Supreme Court inquiry into himself, derailing prosecution through an illegal one-man inquiry and withholding the three-judge committee’s findings. Numbered exhibits are listed.
Debilitated, but not too bad
For all the serious and inherent limits of the Seventeenth Amendment, the fact that a Constitutional Council and a system of independent commissions have been enacted is a very important step. It was the JVP’s intervention that got even this debilitated version through.
17 වැනි ව්යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය හා ශ්රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය
Ivan argues that constitutional amendments should not be rushed or sent to court before the public sees the draft, citing N.M. Perera and faulting Batty Weerakoon and Jayampathy Wickramaratne. He contrasts the seven- and nine-judge benches that reviewed earlier amendments with Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva’s small benches that left out Mark Fernando, A.R.B. Amerasinghe and Ranjith Dheeraratne, and objects to his ruling that ITN, Lakhanda and Lake House, as companies, fall outside the Elections Commission’s powers.
තරමක් අංගවිකලයි ඒත් නරකම නෑ
Ivan welcomes the 17th Amendment but lists its flaws: no public debate, no published draft, brief review by a three-judge bench, and passage without a final draft before Parliament. He faults the UNP’s weak first draft and lack of vigilance, credits the JVP for securing the reform but says it accepted a presidential nominee on the Constitutional Council and backed Jayampathy Wickramaratne’s plan to drop Mark Fernando and A.R.B. Amerasinghe from the Judicial Service Commission. The government, he says, kept the council, the Chief Justice and state media within its reach.