An Interview with Mandana Ismail Abeywickrema
(Head of the parliamentary select committee (PSC) that probed the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, Environment Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa says the PSC was to extend its period till January 14th when the Chief Justice, her lawyers and the opposition political parties had decided to walk out on the 6th and 7th. “With good faith we wrote this report we don’t have anything against the Chief Justice. Whether we belong to the government or not we acted in good faith,” he said. Yapa added that everyone critical of the PSC probe should read the report presented by the Committee since it would lay to rest all criticisms levelled against it)
Following are excerpts of the interview:
Q: What is your view of the current situation over the impeachment of the Chief Justice?
A: I have nothing to say about it. As the PSC members and Chairman I think we have done the correct thing according to our conscience. We gave the Chief Justice and her lawyers 22 days. In fact if you take in to account the eight days before that period, they have had nearly 30 days to respond to the charges. Most of the charges were based on her own documents; that is her bank accounts, deeds of the Trillium house, some of the Supreme Court Judges decisions with regard to the Ceylinco cases and as the JSC chairman certain decisions taken regarding the JSC all that involved documentary evidence mostly. Most of these documents were in her possession and not in our possession. Knowing we have given 22 days she had replied only to some of the charges. Basically I believe that the walk out by the Chief Justice and her lawyers was a very bad move by their part. The UNP and the rest of the members could have waited and written a separate report, without doing so they too walked out. They should be blamed for this and not us.
Q: Do you say that the Chief Justice was given a fair trial since she was not given time requested to respond to these charges?
A: Well we had given her 22 days from 14th of November and we had altogether given her 30 days. But they asked for 6 to 7 weeks, which is beyond our authority. Only the parliament can authorize an extension to the said time period. They had taken four weeks to go through the documents where as we had only given them three weeks. If you go through the analyzed charges it involves her personal accounts, her personal dealings, her Supreme Court cases and JSC issues, which were all under her domain. She could have easily responded to these charges, I don’t agree with her at all that she didn’t have enough time to respond to it.
The PSC can extend the time period through the parliament. We were to extend the time period till 14th January 2013 and this decision was made on the 7th. Minister Vijitha Herath as the point of order in the parliament informed to extend the time period on 7th December and the PSC decided that they would extend the period from 8th December. But they walked out on 7th December before the period was extended.
Q: As the head of the PSC how do you stand by the report that was prepared only by the governing party, which is also the accuser in this instance?
A: Actually, we were not signatories of the impeachment motion. When we have been appointed by the Speaker we have to go to the inquiry with an open mind. The other members and I went with an open mind to the inquiry. When we saw the evidence by means of documents we had to write the report based on its contents and not our personal opinions. I urge you to read the contents of the report to find out whether we have made any mistakes or not. We were amply satisfied with the available information and we wrote that report without ill will or malice in our minds. We were quite confident and had only one thing on our mind the public’s trust that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should have and or whether it has eroded to certain levels. With good faith we wrote this report we don’t have anything against the Chief Justice. Whether we belong to the government or not we acted in good faith.
Q: With regard to the membership of ministers Dilan Perera and Wimal Weerawansa there were constant arguments…
A: The argument was regarding Minister Rajitha’s wife’s case where the Chief Justice and two other judges appeared and had given a different judgment against her. Actually the Chief Justice never appeared in Wimal Weerawansa’s case. She never heard or determined any of Wimal Weerawansa’s cases. So it is a question of biased rights in both the incidents that was my ruling. I gave my reasons for it.
Q: The PSC members did not sign the impeachment motion, but as the governing party it is the governing party that resolved to bring an impeachment motion against the Chief Justice…
A: The governing party can bring any kind of an impeachment motion. But when the speaker accepts it he has to be happy with the motion that these are charges that needs to be resolved by an appointed PSC. So there are lots of tests involved in this. We cannot file anything without reasons. In that case a question would not arise. We acted as the PSC and never had an ulterior motive to impeach the Chief Justice. Other than that there is no reason for us to do so.
We had given 22 days out of the 4 weeks and told them that once we hand over the documents if they disapprove any of it they could ask us and an inquiry would be carried out. We have done every possible thing. I believe that when we told them that the committee would take up the 1st and 2nd charges on 8th December they didn’t want to face those. She was given a chance to cross-examine the charges if the witnesses were there. If the documents were not available we had to bring in the people who handled those documents.
Q: With regard to the President’s recent remark with regard to the appointment of the independent committee to examine the PSC report, does it not indicate a lack of confidence towards the PSC?
A: No, I don’t think so. Because the members passed a motion in the parliament the next step is the president’s statement. The President will have to address the parliament and announce. During that time it is quite reasonable to get his advisors to go through the report. I perfectly agree with him, which does not mean that he has undermined our report; he has taken extra care when he has to take a decision as such. It is a democratic move.
Q: So the President has not undermined your report…
A: Not at all. We have fulfilled our responsibility, anyone can comment on that. There is no problem. I like to hear comments based on the findings of the report. No one is talking about the findings but is talking about various other things. Why does not anyone go to the bottom of the matters and question whether it is wrong or right? As a democratic society let the people decide based on all the information that is provided. I am waiting till the parliament publishes this document, so that everyone would be able to read it. I urge all of them to read the report and tell us whether the contents are wrong or right. If they try to speak about the real contents of the report they will not be able to answer. We are not small children or fools to put wrong things in the report.
Q: Has there been an instance in the past where a committee had been appointed to review a report presented by a PSC?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Does that mean the impeachment motion was presented without enough evidence?
A: All the evidence and documents were in her possession. However the members have somehow got it and they had the opportunity to go through them. In an investigation the Police come to know certain facts. In a CID inquiry how many times do they come with certain facts? They will produce that evidence later. Parliament member have gone through these documents in some manner. People can argue that it is good and all.
When Rajitha Senaratne was in the opposition he managed to get all the files and credit card bills that belonged to Mangala Samaraweera including his PIN number. Ask him from where he obtained them? There was a case against Mangala Samaraweera in the High Courts’ based on those documents. That’s how it works.
Q: It appears that there is a clash between the Executive, the Legislator and the Judiciary. What sort of an implication would it have on the country?
A: These are attempts by people with vested interests. If you go through the list of lawyers who are against it are either influenced by NGOs or they may have their own NGOs and some are opposition politicians. Their intention is to create a division between the Executive, the Legislator and the Judiciary. We are not going after other judges. We are not against other judges. There is no problem with regard to the judiciary and the executive or the judiciary and the legislator. These are wild allegations put forward by certain persons for their personal gain.
This is not the first time an impeachment was handed over. The then Chief Justice Nevil Samarakoon came to the parliament with Nadesan, when his charges were heard he took an oath and the charges were read and he said ‘no I have sent it‘. They are dignified people and are considered as extremely capable Sri Lankans. We do not see dignified persons. The two lawyers behind Chief Justice have made it a political drama. Now they may be thinking of toppling the government with the help of some lawyers. These are things that we are used to.
Q: Why was the impeachment motion presented now when the Supreme Court has delivered several controversial verdicts like in the Divi Neguma Bill?
A: Divi Neguma is one finding. If they were dissatisfied with the findings they should have asked the bench. These are not reasons these are charges. Don’t underestimate the government. The government MPs have taken a decision that this is the right time to come forward with regard to certain charges. There can be different procedures in the parliament. But this is the parliamentary procedure in Sri Lanka. We only want to find out whether the judge who is holding that position has earned the public confidence and trust. People expect that from a person with such authority. We politicians can canvas for votes and do various other activities, our degree is not that. The judicial authority should hold the public trust. They are holders of public trust, because they hear and determine cases of public trust.
As an example if you take the American system one of their judges were impeached by the house of representatives for accepting money and lunches from a lawyer’s company and was considered that he couldn’t hold the public trust.COURTESY:THE SUNDAY LEADER