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.
Judging the independence of the Judiciary
An independent judiciary is a precondition for the survival of a democracy. Sovereign power lies with the people, and it is the courts’ responsibility not to permit laws that reduce it. The test applied here is how the bench was constituted to examine the Seventeenth Amendment.
ශ්රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය කොතරම් දුරකට ස්වාධීනද?
The editorial argues that Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva is serving the President’s political aims, as seen in government-related cases and the proposed 17th Amendment to change the electoral system. Unlike earlier amendments heard by the most senior judges, this bench excluded the four seniors and constitutional experts Mark Fernando, A.R.B. Amerasinghe and Ranjith Dheeraratne, and allowed a change that would give the alliance 201 of 298 seats and the JVP none without a referendum.
සම්මානය සහ අධිකරණයේ අර්බුදය
Ravaya received the Editors’ Guild’s Sepala Gunasena award for defending judicial independence. Ivan recounts the background: his and W.A.B. Jayasekera’s petitions to disbar Attorney General Sarath N. Silva, Ravaya’s exposure of magistrate Lenin Ratnayake and district judge Upali Abeyratne, the Bar Association’s call for inquiries that found both guilty, the lenient penalties, and the protests by lawyers and MPs before Silva was made Chief Justice in September 1999.