ජේ.ආර්.ගෙන් ඉගෙන ගැනීම
Ivan argues that the government won the battle over the Chief Justice at a ruinous cost, leaving constitutional interpretation and the writ jurisdiction hollow. He faults the judges and lawyers for fighting like a political party, recalls the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear his own challenge to Sarath N. Silva’s appointment, and draws a close parallel between Mahinda Rajapaksa’s removal of Shirani Bandaranayake and J.R. Jayewardene’s stripping of Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s civic rights, warning that Jayewardene’s drive for unchangeable power ended in Black July, two insurrections and his own humiliation.
සටන් කිරීම හා අවසාන සටන
Challenged by a friend who says he has turned from a fighter into a preacher, Ivan explains that his aim now is not a change of government but a change of the political system, which needs the support even of those tied to the evil. Prompted by Ravaya’s 25th anniversary, he lists the eight real battles of his career — against the parliamentary privileges law, the 17-year UNP government, criminal defamation, for the assets law, against two court decisions, an outside Elections Commissioner, a retiring President’s taking of state property, and the limits of book publishing — and says he lost only one, blaming K.N. Choksy’s concession in court. His ten-year struggle with Sarath N. Silva ended without result, he argues, because the Bar, media owners, parties and senior judges such as Mark Fernando stayed silent; Silva never used contempt law against him, which Ivan attributes to the remnant of conscience he appealed to.
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.
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.
චන්ද්රිකා + රනිල් ඒකත් ජයසිරී මංගලම්
With the 19th Amendment blocked, Ivan sees a stalemate that could push Chandrika Kumaratunga and Ranil Wickremesinghe into a temporary political marriage: he to protect the peace process, she to halt inquiries into corruption and crimes linked to her security division and to secure her family’s political future. A second section argues she has turned to wrecking the peace process and defends talks with Prabhakaran. A third questions Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva’s handling of complaints against himself and his alliance with Hemantha Warnakulasuriya.
අන්තෝ ජටා-බහි ජටා
Ivan links four events of one week: charges finally filed against former railway general manager Wack Silva, first exposed by Ravaya in 1992; the removal of magistrate Lenin Ratnayake; a seminar on judicial independence addressed by Lord Brennan, Rohan Edrisinha and Ranil Wickremesinghe; and the launch of his book ‘Nonimi Aragalaya’ on the judicial crisis. He recounts the husbands of the two abused women, one later murdered after testifying, and lists unanswered questions about Sarath N. Silva, Upali Abeyratne and the inquiries.
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.
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.
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.