By Chandrasena Maliyadde
Living up to the letter as well as to the spirit of this notion, the country has been submerged in a series of problems and challenges: Bridging budget deficits, containing widening trade balances, arresting slowing down growth, reducing the debt burden, facing long-drawn droughts followed by heavy rains causing flood havoc in 18 out of 25 districts and exam debacles are only a few to be mentioned. And, moreover, this is the Budget Season.
How many and how much was talked about these challenges? Hardly any from the opposition, trade unions, intelligentsia, professionals, international community did.
They all talked on one issue; that is the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice (CJ). Who decided the topic and who set the stage for the discussion?
None but the government. Even a weekly TV talk show which discusses economic issues and moderated by an economist was devoted for a discussion on on impeachment. In which other country, forces neutral or opposing (especially the opposition) focus their attention on a topic chosen by the government (impeachment) at the expense of a topic chosen by themselves (simmering economic issues) relevant to a majority during the crucial Budget period?
So, what was the impeachment? A process started to oust the CJ? Who appointed CJ? It was the President- the leader of UPFA. Who impeached CJ? It was the UPFA Members of Parliament. So UPFA Parliamentarians have no faith on a person appointed as CJ by their leader. Does it mean that they doubt his decision?
Then a series of terms we hardly hear such as Supreme Power of the Executive, Parliament Supremacy, Judiciary Independence, People’s sovereignty, Democracy etc. came out. They were alien to most of us laymen. Who uttered them? There were two main categories. Of course one category was competent professionals with legal knowledge and background. They were few in number. Hilariously, the other category (which was large in number) sans the legal knowledge and was ignorant and clueless of legal terms. Most of them even do not know where the lawyers and Judges are produced – Law College. They made statements, interpreted them, analyzed them and reached verdicts and conclusions. It’s natural you and I, ordinary citizens did not understand a word of what they said but were not surprised that they themselves were more clueless than us. Only contribution they made was to the environment through sound and air pollution shooting from both ends. Interestingly those with legal background held the view that the impeachment was not right while on the contrary the rest without legal background saw the impeachment right.
From very young days we have heard of “Court” (Usaviya) as the place where our grievances and complaints are heard and Parliament (Kaunsale) as the legislature which makes laws. But in a land like no other, there is more than one place where the cases can be heard. Parliament is not only a place which makes laws but is a laboratory for testing the application of laws they made. So, the impeachment law was made and being tested by the Parliament. Senior lawyers appeared for CJ contested the jurisdiction of Parliament to exercise the powers of a Court. As a twist of fate when the very same senior Lawyers contested this with regard to Court Martial instituted against General Sarath Fonseka judiciary held a different opinion.
When the country was arguing about containing the Executive power, 18th amendment to the Constitution was passed by the Parliament to enhance the power with the blessings of the Judiciary. The very same Judiciary is now dealt with that enhanced authority and the judiciary and the legal fraternity have launched a campaign against it. The delay in the ‘dawn of wisdom’ is as harmful justice delayed.
Parliament holds the view that it is supreme and the Judiciary has command over its supremacy. Not even a fly can move above it (not because it stinks). Majority of Parliamentarians argue for the supremacy resorting to a ruling given by late Anura Bandaranaike. When asked what the ruling is and in what context, mom is the word. Parliamentarians are arguing to establish its supremacy by disregarding a court request. When the Court offered supremacy on a platter through a ruling on the Appropriation Bill (that loans or negotiations for loans should only be done with the authority and the knowledge of Parliament) they disregard it. When the supremacy is challenged you ask for it; when it is offered you refuse it.
When it comes to supremacy of the Parliament, both the Government and the opposition MPs were united and shed their political differences. They all, except a few, argued that the Parliament is supreme proving that political blood is thicker than the voter (or is it the flood water). In the past there were occasions where Parliamentarians have been summoned, warranted, punished and stripped them off as MPs. Parliamentarians have sought redress from courts on civil, criminal and constitutional matters. Any new Bill/Act is referred by the Parliament to the Judiciary to determine its constitutionality. But this time the judiciary and rule of law were ridiculed in and out of Parliament.
A very senior elderly Doctor friend of mine once referred to a story. One of his colleagues had served in Kegalle Hospital in 1970s. Dr, N, M, Perera, the then Minister of Finance and this Doctor were close friends and used to meet regularly for a chat over a glass of beer. One morning when the Doctor was doing his ward rounds, NM had appeared. Doctor was somewhat surprised and asked “Yes NM What is up”? NM had responded that he came to visit a patient known to him. Doctor had reminded NM that the visiting hour starts at 12 noon. NM profusely apologized and retreated. That was the respect for rule of law. Mind you NM was not only a Parliamentarian but a constitutional authority. Well that was a different era and a different caliber.
Among the witnesses summoned by PSC there had been a sitting Supreme Court Judge. It was reported in media that this Judge has referred to what transpired in a pending court case and expressed a bit of emotional content related to this case. As a layman I do not know to what extent the proceedings of a pending case and emotions of the bench can be the public domain.
This is the third time an impeachment against a CJ is moved. Present CJ has shown manly courage. She achieved what the architect of 1978 constitution (JRJ) could not. JRJ said only thing he cannot do was making a woman a man and vice versa. But CJ did. She displayed the manliness in her.
It has been said that our rights will be preserved by the Judiciary. But lawyers and judiciary has resorted to coconut cracking and Bodi Puja. It appears that Judiciary itself casts some doubts of its ability and capacity. For last several weeks we heard of an independent judiciary, supreme Parliament, Authoritative Executive to ensure public enjoying the sovereignty and democratic rights. All what was discussed on platforms, in media and in many other places was not much relevant to majority of the public. The people’s interest was in access to socio economic opportunities, welfare, employment, affordable prices quick relief to damages caused by disasters etc. But, what is enshrined upon us by the Constitution is sovereignty which we are compelled to carry on our shoulders.
As a boy I used to ask stupid questions. One of my uncles told me Puthe! Don’t go on asking stupid questions as you will get stupid answers for them. Since then I avoided asking stupid questions. But this impeachment and the alien terms stated made me stupid prompting to ask a few stupid questions. What does it matter to me whether parliament is supreme or not? What does it matter to me whether Executive is powerful or not? What does it matter to me whether Judiciary is independent or not? What does it matter whether I enjoyed or not the sovereignty? While pondering with these stupid questions, my attention was drawn to measures proposed to overcome the present impasse. Some have proposed proroguing the Parliament while others have proposed taking a step backward. My stupid proposal is that take a confidential vote in the Parliament for and against PSC recommendations subject to no follow up investigations to find out who voted for and against.
Every segment of the population irrespective of ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, professional background and rank and file spoke about impeachment. The only segment which did not speak was general public (except a few trishaw drivers) who is in the majority. Is this an indication that the words uttered, terms used, hours spent, energy burnt, volumes written are irrelevant to the majority? Or is it that they are not sensitive to issues faced by the country? Or is it that others are not sensitive to peoples’ pulse?
One Minister said that the Law firm represented CJ at one time represented LTTE. May be he did not know that a professional would not represent only their kiths and kin unlike the politician. Another Minister said that the impeachment was a part of an international conspiracy hinting those who drafted, signed and handed over impeachment motion to the Speaker were international conspirators.
Who are the winners behind impeachment motion? Well Government was able to distract the attention to impeachment from real issues. Opposition was able to display their eloquence and oratory skills in discussing (irrelevant) non-issues and making their strong presence felt. Judiciary was able to muster the support of legal world to prove the existence of an independent judiciary. People came out as the biggest winner as the Government, Opposition and the Judiciary in unison re-confirmed that the people can continue to enjoy sovereignty and democracy which are internationally acclaimed human rights and guaranteed in our Constitution. People can afford to ignore trivial local issues such as rising cost of living, unemployment, poverty, abuse of women and children and washing off lives, assets and produce by the flood waters.
(Chandrasena Maliyadde is a Former Secretary to the Ministry of Plan Implementation)