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.
ඉරාක යුද්ධය
The editorial welcomes a Supreme Court ruling, on a Batticaloa voter’s petition over 55,000 people in an LTTE-held area being prevented from voting, which ordered compensation from the army commander and censured the Elections Commissioner, recalling that the President was allowed to vote from her residence in 1999. It argues that senior officials such as the Elections Commissioner and Attorney General, who served ruling parties and stood by during Tony Fernando’s jailing, have done more harm than politicians.
වඳින්න ගිය දේවාලය හිසේ කඩා වැටීම
The editorial protests that the Supreme Court sentenced a fundamental rights petitioner, an English teacher with a heart condition, to a year in prison for contempt without charge, legal advice or a chance to defend himself, on a bench that included the Chief Justice, a respondent in the case. It condemns the silence of the media, human rights groups and the legal community while international bodies react with shock.
ටෝනිට සිදුවූයේ කුමක්ද
Ivan traces Tony Fernando’s long search for redress after his employer refused to meet his private hospital bills following a workplace accident, through the Labour Commissioner, Human Rights Commission, Ombudsman, Speaker and Supreme Court, until the Chief Justice jailed him for a year for contempt and he was beaten in prison. He argues that Sarath N. Silva has placed close associates at the head of every institution of redress, including the human rights and bribery commissions, the Public Trustee and the prisons, forming an octopus-like net.
අධිකරණය කොයිබටද?
The editorial says the judiciary now produces the kind of horror stories once heard from the underworld: death threats against the two district judges who petitioned against the Chief Justice and against Desmond Fernando, posters against the judges on Supreme Court premises, and a petitioner jailed and beaten. Police have named Rohana Kumara, a notorious criminal and associate of the Chief Justice, as behind the threats, and a former prisons commissioner as among those behind the posters, while lawyers, rights groups and the government stay silent.
Rule of Law and the Judiciary
One of the three pillars of the modern democratic political system is the judiciary. When the legislature consisting of representatives elected by the people enacts policies, the instrument that implements those policies is the executive.
මනාලයා නැතිව පැවති මගුල
An international workshop on strengthening judicial credibility, attended by chief justices of nine countries and opened by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe at the Colombo Oberoi, went ahead with the Sri Lankan Chief Justice’s chair empty amid a Free Media Movement protest. The piece notes comments by Justice Bhagwati and Justice Kirby, and describes media lobbies that shielded Lenin Ratnayake and now protect Sarath N. Silva, including an editor barred by his management from criticising the Chief Justice.
අඳුර ආලෝකයක් කරගත නො හැකි ද?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the 19th Amendment needs both a two-thirds majority and a referendum, which only the President can call, opening a new political crisis. Ivan notes the irony of the 1978 constitution now hampering its UNP authors while the SLFP and JVP defend the executive presidency. He calls for an interim all-party government to agree on constitutional, electoral and party reforms, the ethnic question and national policies, followed by a clean election.
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.
අගවිනිසුරුගේ ඊළග රංගනය
The government thinks it can find the votes to curb the President’s power to dissolve Parliament, but Ivan notes she controls the urgent-bill route and the Chief Justice decides constitutionality. Sarath N. Silva may protect her as before or switch to the new rulers, and either choice harms the country; he criticises the justice minister’s wish to use the Chief Justice as she did. A second section faults the Elections Commissioner and Auditor General for saying they cannot refer offenders to the Bribery Commission.