අර්බුදය ගැන ආපසු හැරි බැලිමක්
Answering a reader who asks why Ravaya keeps writing about Sarath N. Silva, Ivan retells how his suspicions began with the Lenin Ratnayake affair: the rape allegation reported in 1997, police findings that Ratnayake had been dismissed from the Insurance Corporation for fraud, and a confidential 1998 report in which Silva as Attorney General shielded him. He describes the Bar’s past presidents’ resolution, the inquiries that found Ratnayake and Upali Abeyratne guilty, his own disbarment petition, and Silva’s appointment as Chief Justice, and calls for his removal.
අධිකරණයේ අර්බුදය හා නීතිඥ සංගමය
Responding to the Bar Association’s criticism of the Sunday Leader and Ravaya, Ivan names the lawyers said to have attended a meeting at Temple Trees where President Kumaratunga discussed the UNP’s election petition and asked that a judge she had accused of taking a bribe be removed from the bench hearing it. He recounts the Vinsendra Rajan fundamental rights case, Sarath N. Silva’s land request while serving on the Vijaya Kumaratunga murder commission, and his appointment as Chief Justice, and says the Bar must defend judicial independence.
එජාප බැරී බැරී රෝගයට පිළියමක් සොයාගත යුතුය
Ivan likens the UNP’s dealings with the People’s Alliance government to a hereditary serf’s timidity before his lord. Though the Elections Commissioner, religious leaders, PAFFREL, the election-violence monitors and EU observers found the October 2000 poll unfair, the UNP chose to ‘let bygones be bygones’ and filed half-hearted petitions. He recalls, from Prins Gunasekera’s book, how Sirimavo Bandaranaike withdrew as petitioner against the 1982 referendum, leaving Rohana Wijeweera to file, and asks why the UNP stayed silent on Sarath N. Silva’s appointment and on the 1999 presidential poll.
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.
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.
එදා ජේ.ආර්. කල දේම අද චන්ද්රිකා කරයි
Ivan compares the government’s rush to enlarge Parliament to 281 seats with 168 elected by first-past-the-post, avoiding a referendum through a court ruling, with J.R. Jayewardene’s attempt to keep Abeyratne Pilapitiya in Parliament after losing the Kalawana election petition. Then the Supreme Court ruled that adding even one seat required a referendum and Sarath Muttetuwegama took the seat. He estimates buying the nine UNP votes needed for two-thirds would cost about Rs 180 million.
ආණ්ඩුවේ සිහින ලෝකය සහ යථාර්ථය
Ivan explains the government’s plan to switch to a first-past-the-post system by using the urgent-bill procedure to obtain a Supreme Court ruling that no referendum is needed. He argues the court cannot allow a change to the constitution’s foundations without one, recalls the distortions of the 1970 and 1977 results that led to proportional representation, and notes that minority parties, the UNP and the JVP oppose it, so the government will have to face the election under the existing system.
වයඹ ඡන්ද පෙත්සම්වලට සිදුවූයේ කුමක්ද
Ivan examines the dismissal of all petitions on the 1999 North Western provincial election at the preliminary objection stage for failing to show specific effects on the petitioners. He notes that K.N. Choksy and H.L. de Silva argued the reverse positions from the 1988 presidential petition, argues that the court should have treated the case as one of popular sovereignty, and faults the Elections Commissioner, who annulled nine polling stations and knew of 236 stuffed boxes, for not seeking a fresh poll.
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.