The 1575 page report of the Parliamentary Select Committee that probed Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranaike following a resolution signed by 117 MPs to impeach her has now been officially released.

The lengthy report contains proceedings, minutes and volumes of documents which were made available by different state agencies or individuals. They were related to the 14 charges preferred against her.

Since the start of sittings until closure, the PSC sittings were cloaked in secrecy due to parliamentary privileges. Now that the Committee is defunct and its report has been placed in the public domain, an account of the PSC proceedings which began on November 14 and continued till December 8 reveals different facets. It shows how opposition MPs took exception to the conduct of business at different stages and how legal counsel for Chief Justice Bandaranayake raised objections. For reasons of clarity and to avoid repetition, some parts have been edited without in any way affecting the factual content. Other parts, though with repetitions or errors, have been reproduced since changes will not project the actual account. Here is what it says:

The Parliamentary Select Committee appointed by Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa on November 14 under Standing Order 78 (a) “to investigate and report to Parliament on charges mentioned in this resolution within one month from the commencement,” commenced its inquiry on November 14. It sat on eight occasions on November 14, 16 and 23 and December 4, 6, 7 and 8.

At the first sitting, the Chairman of the Committee (Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa) explained “the procedure adopted by the Committee and the Standing Order 78 (a) and Standing Order 78 (a) 6 in particular.” At the same sitting, the Committee decided to transmit a copy of the resolution placed in the Order Book of Parliament of November 6 to Mrs Shirani A. Bandaranayake and requested her to submit her defence in writing before November 22, as per standing order 78 (a) (3). The Committee “further decided to request Chief Justice Hon. Mrs. Shirani A. Bandaranayake to appear before the next sitting” to be “held on 23rd December (sic).” Note: The month should read as November since there were no PSC sittings on that date. “The Committee also inquired her (sic) whether she was willing to appear before its next sitting on her own or through a representative.”

The Committee sat on November 16. The report says, “Your Committee discussed the letter dated 15th November 2012 sent by Neelakandan and Neelankandan law firm and concluded that under Standing Order 78 A (5), the right to nominate her representative was vested solely in the Chief Justice and that right could not be transferred to Neelakandan and Neelakandan law firm. Accordingly it was decided to inform her to submit a request, if any, to appear before the next sitting day of the Committee on 23rd November 2012, or nominate a representative, if any representative was going to appear on her behalf.”

“The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, presenting a written statement emphasized that your committee should stick to principals (sic) – Note: should read as principles – of natural justice and the rule of law. The Hon. Rajitha Senarathna expressing his views on the above statement stated that at a previous occasion too, the Committee that probed allegations against a Chief Justice acted in this manner and that Parliament is supreme according to a ruling given by a former Speaker Hon. Anura Bandaranaike and the proceedings of the Committee should comply with the Standing Orders.

“Addressing the Committee, the Chairman opined that Members of Parliament are representatives of the people and the constitution had vested certain powers in the Parliament. He further stated that similar procedures are followed in Great Britain, India and the United States and the responsibilities vested in the Members of Parliament by the Constitution should not be belittled.

Accordingly, your Committee was of the view that a party outside Parliament cannot be vested with powers to conduct such an investigation.”

The Committee met again on November 23. The Secretary (who is also Secretary General of Parliament) marked documents which are included in Appendix 1 of the report.

The report adds: “Drawing the attention of the Committee to the documents tabled in the Committee pertaining to the case SC 3/2012, (Note: It relates Supreme Court’s recommendation to be prudent not to go ahead with the PSC until cases before them were heard) Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva emphatically stated that these documents had not been lawfully presented. He further stated that it was not the accepted procedure of Parliament to table them in the Committee after having them handed over to Parliament when the same had been addressed to the private addresses of the Members of Parliament. Pursuant to discussions on the matter, the Chairman decided that these documents could not be deemed as the documents of the Committee as they have not been duly presented. The Hon. John Ameratunga, the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, the Hon. Vijitha Herath and the Hon. Rajavarothiyam Sampanthan expressed their disagreement with this decision. The Hon. Vijitha Herath and the Hon. John Ameratunga further stated that as informed by the Supreme Court, the proceedings of your Committee should be suspended until the conclusion of the proceedings of the cases before the Supreme Court.

“Commenting on this matter, the Chairman opined that your committee had been appointed as per the powers vested in Parliament under Article 107 of the Constitution and as set out clearly in the Standing Orders and that there were precedents in this regard and that the Committee had been given only a very limited period of time by the Parliament and as such the Committee could not deviate from the responsibility it had been entrusted with by Parliament.

“Expressing their views, the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella and the Hon. Rajavarothiyam Sampanthan stated that action should be pursued in such a way so as not to harm the mutual relationship with the Parliament and the Supreme Court. The Hon. John Ameratunga, the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella and the Hon. Vijitha Herath stated that they did not agree with the Committee’s decision not to accept the determination by the Supreme Court. The Chairman again stated that Your Committee should act in accordance with the Standing Orders and the Constitution and discharge the responsibility entrusted to it by the Hon. Speaker in an independent and impartial manner.

“Thereupon, the Hon. Dr. (Mrs). Shirani A. Bandaranayake, Chief Justice and Mr. Romesh de Silva, President’s Counsel were summoned before the Committee. Mr. Romesh de Silva, PC, who appeared for the Hon. Chief Justice, first thanked the Committee for the degree of courtesy accorded to them on their arrival in Parliament. With permission from the Committee, the following counsel were nominated to assist senior President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva, who appeared for the Chief Justice: Mr. Nalin Ladduwehetty PC, Mr. Saliya K. Peiris, attorney at law, Mr. Sugath Caldera attorney at law, Mr. Riyaz Ameen attorney at law, Mr. Iraj de Silva, attorney at law and Kandayyah Neelakandan attorney at law.

“Mr Romesh de Silva, PC, submitted a certified copy of an order by the Supreme Court in Case No 3/2012 and stated that a request had been made that the proceedings of the Committee be suspended on grounds of mutual trust between the judiciary and the legislature till the judicial action before the Court has been dealt with. The Committee discussed this at length and the Chairman decided that your committee, which had been appointed in terms of the Constitution, had no power to suspend its proceedings. The Chairman informed that, according to the traditions of Parliament, the Hon. Chief Justice should take an oath at the first instance of her appearance before Your Committee, to which Mr. Romesh de silva, PC, who appeared for the Chief Justice objected.

“However, the Chief Justice agreed to take the oath as amended when it was pointed out that the records of evidence show that on a previous occasion, the Chief Justice who appeared before the Committee last appointed to hold a similar examination had taken the oath at the first instance of his appearance before that Committee, and accordingly the Hon. Chief Justice took the oath before the Committee.

“As Mr. Romesh de Silva, PC, who appeared for the Chief Justice, asked for a period of six weeks to submit the case for the defence, the Committee considered it and decided to give him time till 30th November 2012 to submit the statement of defence and to hold the next meeting on 4th December 2012, and informed the defendant party that, in that meeting, they could make their submissions pertaining to the jurisdiction and bias, which they have cited as their preliminary objections. The Chairman informed the Committee that action would be taken through the Secretary General of Parliament to send for documents necessary for the investigations of the Committee. After considering a request made by the senior counsel of the Chief Justice, the committee agreed to provide the minutes of evidence of the Committee on condition that confidentiality would be guaranteed.

“At the following meeting of the Committee on 4th December 2012, the Hon. Vijitha Herath stated that a mechanism should be formulated for the continuance of the proceedings of this Committee. At that moment, presenting a written statement, the Hon. John Ameratunga stated that some agreement should be entered into in relation to the matters like the procedures of the committee and the onus probandi. (Note: The Latin term refers to the burden of proof, the onus; the duty of a party in a legal proceeding to prove an assertion of fact). The Hon. Rajavarothiyam Sampanthan explained that the standing orders and the rules related to procedures of the Committee should be formulated by the Parliament.

“Hon. (Dr.) Mrs Shirani A. Bandarnayake and the counsel were called before the Committee. President’s Counsel Mr Romesh de Silva informed the Committee that Counsel Sarvanan Neelakandan, too, will appear before the Committee for his support at its next meeting in addition to the counsel already appearing before the Committee. Leave was granted for the aforesaid counsel to appear before the Committee.

“Making a request, President’s Counsel Mr. Romesh de Silva stated that despite Standing Order 78A (8) which provides that the proceedings of the committee shall not be made public until reported by the Committee, and since such right has been established in order to ensure the protection of his client, and since his client, Hon. Chief Justice, had advised him to waive such right, the public and the observers be given the opportunity to observe the proceedings of the Committee accordingly.

“The Hon. Rajavarothiyam Sampanthan, the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella and the Hon. Vijitha Herath expressed their support for the aforesaid stance. Giving a ruling on the matter, the Hon. Chairman expressed the inability of the Committee to act in contravention of Standing Order 78B(8). Raising his objection President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva objected to the methodology adopted by the Committee in sending for documents necessary for the committee. Responding to this, the Hon. Chairman informed that the methodology usually adopted by the Committee in terms of the Parliamentary Practice had been adopted by this committee in that regard. Hon. Chairman briefed the Committee of the documents that had already been sent for by the Committee.

“The Committee sat on 05 December 2012. The Chairman informed the Committee that the future meetings of the Committee could be discussed. The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella and the Hon. Rajavarothiyam Sampanthan stated that it had been the convention of the parliament not to have sittings or committee meetings after the budget debate and that they had already made personal arrangements for this period. The Hon. Vijitha Herath stated that four members who represent the opposition had already made a request in that regard. The Committee, after deliberation, agreed to continue the proceedings of the Committee until 12th December and then take a decision on the future meetings of the Committee.

“The documents received by the committee so far were distributed among the members and the Hon. Chairman informed the Committee that these documents had been legally obtained by the Secretary General of Parliament. In addition to that, the Hon. Neomal Perera requested the committee that the assets reconciliation statements and receipts and payments accounts details of Hon. Chief Justice, her husband and her son should be obtained.

“The Committee resumed sittings on 06th December 2012. The Hon. Rajavarothiam Sampanthan, the Hon. John Ameratunga, the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella and the Hon. Vijitha Herath informed that they had informed the Speaker of their inability to participate in the affairs of the committee from 08th December 2012 to 08th January 2012 (sic) (Note: should read as 2013) and requested not to have committee meetings during that period. In response to that Hon. Chairman informed that as per the decision taken on 5th December 2012, permission for an extension of time should be sought from Parliament after having the maximum possible meetings in the month of December. Thereafter, Chief Justice Hon. Dr. (Mrs.) Shirani A. Bandaranayake and her panel of lawyers including senior counsel were invited to the committee.

“Hon. Chairman of the Committee, making an announcement, rejected the verbal submission by the senior counsel of Chief Justice on bias and tabled his order in that regard. At this stage, the Secretary of the committee read out the list of all the documents that had been received by the Committee so far and the copies were provided to senior counsel for the Chief Justice. Here, the senior counsel for Chief Justice stated that time was required to study these documents and in order to take a decision in this regard the committee suspended its activities briefly and carried out a discussion only with the participation of the members of the committee.

“Subsequently the Committee convened and the Hon. Chairman of the Committee informed the senior counsel for the Chief Justice that the investigation into the first and second charges mentioned in the resolution against the Chief Justice would be conducted at 1.30 p.m. on the following day, when submissions could be made and witnesses could be sent for to disprove the aforesaid charges and if the witnesses required for that were nominated they could be called before the Committee. On that occasion, Mr. J. Romesh de Silva, the senior counsel for the Chief Justice objected to the decision and the panel of lawyers walked out of the Committee along with the Chief Justice informing that they would not participate in the proceedings of the Committee any further due to the fact that the defence was not provided sufficient time and precise information with regard to the procedures of the Committee was not made available. Your Committee reconvened on 07th December 2012. The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella and the Hon. Vijitha Herath expressed their objections regarding the fact that minutes of the Committee held on 06 December 2012 were not made available on that occasion.

“The Hon. John Ameratunga made a written submission to the Committee and inquired the Chairman (sic) whether the Committee would consider the facts mentioned therein and provide the Chief Justice sufficient time and request her to appear before the Committee again. The Chairman of the Committee informed that it was clearly evident as per the letter forwarded by the law firm Neelakandan and Neelakandan to the Hon. Speaker that the Chief Justice would not appear before the Committee again. On that occasion, the Hon. John Ameratunga, the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, the Hon. Rajavarothiam Sampanthan and the Hon. Vijitha Herath walked out of the Committee.

“The Hon Dilan Perera making a request from the Committee reminded that it has been decided to investigate into the first and second charges of the aforesaid resolution of 6th November 2012. On that occasion the Committee decided to send for witnesses” Its decisions had been arrived at after hearing the witnesses and perusing the documents, the report claimed.COURTESY:SUNDAY TIMES