The Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) that probed the charges contained in the impeachment motion moved on Chief Justice, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake yesterday (08) in its report submitted to Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa has found her guilty on charges 1, 4 and 5, and recommended there was strong evidence to removel of Dr. Bandaranayake from the Office of the Chief Justice.

The report, signed by Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa (Chairman), Ministers Nimal Siripala De Silva, Susil Premajayantha, Dilan Perera, Dr. Rajitha Senaratne, Wimal Weerawansa and Neomal Perera, has exonerated Dr. Bandaranayake on charges 2 and 3 stating that there was not enough evidence to pursue them. The report further added that charges 1, 4 and 5 were examined at length based on oral and written submissions and those were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Committee had been of the opinion that charges 1, 4 and 5 have been proved with substantive evidence and there was no necessity to examine other charges as charges 1, 4 and 5 were adequate and reasonable and quite bona fide in nature to recommend the removal of the Chief Justice in Office. Hence, the question of calling witnesses or evidence with regard to those charges was a futile exercise, the report further stated. In its final recommendation, the PSC has stressed that charges 1, 4 and 5 have proved the improper conduct of the Chief Justice, satisfying the PSC to recommend that she be removed from Office.

With regard to charge No.1, considering the evidence of Supreme Court Judge Shirani Tilakawardane, the PSC had found that the Chief Justice’s involvement in the Trillium Residencies purchase was improper. Substantiating this position, the report details out the evidence of Justice Tilakawardane, documents and written submissions with regard to that purchase.

In addition, it is stated in the report that an opinion to hear the Golden Key case by an independent bench had been ignored by the Chief Justice.
Instead, the Chief Justice had appointed a three member bench chaired by her to hear the said case. Hence, the PSC had accepted the evidence of Justice Tilakawardane as truthful beyond any reasonable doubt. The report further noted that Dr. Bandaranayake had acted in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution of Sri Lanka in that regard.

Charge no. 4 states that Dr. Bandaranayake had operated nine bank accounts in a branch of the NDB Bank and not declared the same in her assets declaration. The PSC claims that the Chief Justice had failed to furnish details of the NDB account and that had forced the committee to obtain such details from the NDB Bank. In its report, it had divulged full details of her accounts with the NDB Bank under her name, Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake. The report also spells out a graphic display of those accounts. One account, which is a Resident Foreign Currency (RFC) account, had been excluded by Dr. Bandaranayake in her annual declaration of assets. Furthermore, she had obtained a new account number for this account and had used her official designation as per the accounts document marked X2-1(8).

Another document pertaining to the NDB transaction too had been excluded from her declaration of assets and that is marked X2-1(19). The PSC in its report, had pointed out to the Assets and Liabilities Act No.1 1975 amended in 1988 by Clause 74 which states that Judges and public officers appointed by the President, public officers appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers, judicial officials, and scheduled public officers appointed by the Judicial Service Commission, and staff officers in ministries and government departments should compulsorily declare their assets by virtue of law. Clause 9 of that Act has been cited by the PSC to state that any such officer, who acts in contravention of any provision of that law, shall be guilty of an offense.

The PSC in its report had established its opinion that after considering the evidence and written submissions with regards to charge No. 4, it was proper to remove the Chief Justice from Office in terms of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. It had further recommended that charge No. 4 should be further investigated and the matter should be referred to the monetary intelligence unit of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. Charge No. 5 refers to a bribery and corruption case filed under the Bribery and Corruption Act 1994 Clause 19 where the husband of Dr. Bandaranayake, Pradeepa Gamini Suraj Kariyawasam is a suspect.

The PSC report further states that Dr. Bandaranayake as Chief Justice is vested with powers, privileges and prerogatives to remove, transfer, or replace the sitting judge hearing this case as in terms of the Constitution.She holds power over the Judicial Services Commission and could call for any court report, register or any other document pertaining to this particular case. The PSC has expressed its opinion that in the above circumstances, it is not appropriate for Dr. Bandaranayake to continue in the Office of the Chief Justice when her husband stands as an suspect in a bribery and corruption case as it would damage the concept of ensuring justice and the smooth operation of the case that is heard against her husband.

The Committee, considering the above facts, has stated that continuation of Dr. Bandaranayake in the Office of Chief Justice will not exercise justice and would also bring fear and suspicion in the minds of the public with regard to the judgement or determination that is expressed at the conclusion of the case against her husband.

The PSC further states that the continuation of a woman Chief Justice in Office when her husband stands as a suspect in a bribery and corruption case brings a scar not only to the Office of the Chief Justice, but also to the Judiciary and the nation at large. The argument raised by Dr. Bandaranayake in her response to the PSC had stated that if the government wanted to remove a judge in office it should file a criminal case before court to remove the judge in question. The PSC had stated that the response of Dr. Bandaranayake is unacceptable in terms and references embodied in the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

The PSC has also found that the twin apartment purchased in the name of Dr. Bandaranayake, her sister, and the brother-in-law had been planned to be sold in the stock market by her husband at a higher price through two entities that came under the Ceylinco Group of Companies. The PSC, having considered the above facts, perused evidence and written submissions has expressed opinion such content is satisfactory to prove the improper conduct of Dr. Bandaranayake and remove her from the Office of the Chief Justice.

Finally, the Committee has recommended to Parliament that charges 1, 4 and 5 are proved beyond any reasonable doubt to recommend the removal of Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake from Office. The Committee report, signed by seven members have categorically mentioned that charges 1, 4 and 5 are serious and adequate and those had satisfied the Committee to arrive at that decision.COURTESY:THE NATION