මතුවී තිබෙන අර්බුදයට විසඳුම ඇත්තේ කොතැනද?
Ivan likens the President’s effort to assemble a government to collecting frogs in a basket. Rejecting Rauff Hakeem’s demand for four independent commissions within 100 days, she turned to Ferial Ashraff, whose unconditional support is splitting the Muslim Congress and the National Unity Alliance. He proposes an all-party interim government with a democratic agenda: an independent judiciary, abolition or curbing of the executive presidency, a code of conduct for elected members, independent commissions, a right to information, media reform and agreed principles for ethnic coexistence.
ප්රජාතන්ත්රවාදයේ පැවැත්ම තීන්දු කෙරෙන මැතිවරණ
Ivan calls the October 2000 parliamentary election decisive for whatever democracy remains. The UNP introduced institutional violence but could at least retreat under pressure; the People’s Alliance won the North Western poll by open plunder without remedy. He welcomes unprecedented pressure from unions, temples, churches, the Elections Commissioner and EU observers, but argues the courts offer no recourse, since Sarath N. Silva took over Karu Jayasuriya’s rights case against ITN and Lake House and sent it to bodies tied to Mangala Samaraweera.
Will democracy survive at crucial elections?
For democratic politics this parliamentary election will be decisive: whatever democratic freedom is left depends on how it comes out. The Elections Commissioner means to act forcefully and the EU observers are working more systematically than before — and it remains to be seen whether that is enough.
අධිකරණ සේවා කොමිසම කොයිබටද?
The editorial accuses the Judicial Service Commission of leniency towards judges found guilty of serious misconduct, including Upali Abeyratne, who handled the case against Sarath N. Silva, and Lenin Ratnayake, while dismissing some 21 others, many without charge sheets or inquiries and apparently for political reasons. It notes the commission’s composition has been changed and says the judiciary is becoming a branch of the ruling party.
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.
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.
Prabhakaran is not our only threat
An answer to the problem of Prabhakaran can be found only if the collapse running through the whole political system can be stopped and the country’s political spirit revived by a successful reform. The threat named in the headline is not the one the country talks about.
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.
අධිකරණය කොයිබටද?
Ivan cites cases showing the judiciary’s decline: a Galle magistrate interdicted for fraud, judges accused of sexual abuse, a district judge found biased in a case against the head of the Court of Appeal, and a Chief Justice appointed while facing disbarment petitions. He explains the separation of powers, recalls J.R. Jayewardene’s purge of the Supreme Court and Neville Samarakoon’s resistance, the 1982 referendum ruling, and warns that without reform the executive will swallow judicial power.
Executive Gobbles up Judiciary
Why did the President, against every accepted norm of morality, appoint Sarath N. Silva to the vacant post of Chief Justice at a time when very serious allegations against him were being inquired into before the Supreme Court? And how will that act work on society and on politics?