By

S. L. Gunasekara

The resolution against Sri Lanka proposed by the International thug otherwise known as the United States of America has, predictably, been passed by the UNHRC. Similarly and equally predictably, the resolution to impeach Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was also passed by Parliament by a 2/3 majority.

Theoretically, where a person votes for or in favour of a resolution, by such act conveys his agreement with the factual basis on which the resolution is founded. However, was this laudable theory consistent with the facts in these two cases? I think not.

An examination of those who cast their votes for and against the resolution against Sri Lanka will show that United States and its existing ‘Client States’ and others who are likely to become its ‘Client States’ voted in favour of it and that among those who voted against it were many with axes to grind against the International thug.

Indeed, one `Client State’ and one block of `Client States’, namely the once `Great’ Britain and the European Union, who may even be termed the pet poodles of the International thug, who will follow its lead in anything or virtually anything, had agreed to support the resolution even before the draft thereof which was voted upon or even the earlier drafts had been published!! – they had, indeed, given their master the International thug a `blank cheque’ in respect of the resolution. All this goes to show that evidence does not count even in the so called highest councils of the world where those that counts are the parochial interests of the various countries that constitute them.

However, are we in a position to engage in any finger pointing or making accusatory pronouncements about the despicable conduct of these foreign countries? Those foreign countries were dealing with a resolution brought by their master, the International thug, against a small and impoverished foreign country in the Comity of Nations, namely, Sri Lanka.

To them, pleasing the International thug was clearly more important to their own countries than voting according to their conscience [if one existed] and doing that which is right.

On the other hand, in Sri Lanka we found supposedly ‘honourable’ Members of Parliament voting on a resolution for the impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake on party lines.

Despite the Constitution stating that a Judge of a Superior Court, namely the Chief Justice or any other Judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, may be removed from office only consequent to an address of Parliament “on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”. [Article 107(2) of the Constitution], most of those who voted, did do, entirely at the behest of the leadership of their parties for the time being.

Thus, the Constitution which every Member of Parliament whether ‘honourable’ in fact or not, swore to uphold and defend, provides for each Member of Parliament exercising his independent judgment in respect of whether misbehaviour or incapacity on the part of the judge in question (in this case, the Chief Justice) had been proved or not. In short it behoved each Member of Parliament to examine the evidence dispassionately and come to a finding on that evidence independently of all others.

However, there can be little or no doubt that no Member of Parliament in fact bothered about the evidence and/or whether there had been any “proved misbehaviour” by Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. So bad was the situation that just as much as the United Kingdom and the European Union pledged their support for the resolution brought by their master, the International thug, even before seeing it, so also, several Members of Parliament of the ruling party signed the resolution for the impeachment of the Chief Justice without even seeing the charges!

Further, the fact that their respective parties expected the Members of Parliament thereof who belonged to such parties (however temporarily) to abide by the decision of the party leadership and/or the dictates of the party whip and to abdicate their respective consciences (assuming that some existed) to such leadership or such whips, is more than amply borne out by the fact that the United National Party proposes taking disciplinary action against those Members of Parliament thereof who voted in favour of the impeachment resolution while the ruling party has made known the fact that it at least plans to take such action against those of its Members who abstained from voting.

If ever there was an intentional violation of the Constitution; a violation of all rules of fair play and justice, this was it – for the logical result of this kind of conduct vis-à-vis a resolution to impeach no less a person than the Chief Justice of the country and titular head of the judiciary would be that whatever the Constitution stated, the Chief Justice or a Judge of any Superior Court holds office only at the pleasure of the ruling party, and that he or she would be liable to be dismissed in disgrace NOT for proved misbehaviour or incapacity but purely and simply because he/she behaves honourably and would not bow down to the dictates of the ruling party.

Let us now revert to the resolution at the UNHRC. The events in India further bolster the argument that voting there was a matter of political convenience and not a matter of justice or a matter of voting upon the evidence. India which does not spare an opportunity of declaring its purported undying ‘love’ and purported enduring `affection’ for Sri Lanka with which it has had allegedly ‘friendly’ relations for thousands of years, voted for the resolution NOT on the basis of the evidence – for if India was honestly concerned with the evidence it could not possibly have failed to impeach itself and deafen all those present at the UNHRC with its MEA CULPAS (!!) for having trained, armed and equipped the terrorists to murder Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims and destroy property in Sri Lanka; it could not have failed to condemn if it had any concern for the Tamils or for any other segment of population of Sri Lanka, its own creation, the Tigers specifically and take action against them for slaughtering Tamils, Sinhalese and Muslims, at times indiscriminately in pursuit of their blood lust; for kidnapping Tamil babies and infants for slave labour in their terrorist cadres and abducting Tamil and Muslim adults for ransom.

Further, coming closer to the current date they could not have failed to condemn, and encourage the government of Sri Lanka to take action against, those Indian robbers who keep invading our territorial waters and robbing the fish that should feed our people and also constitutes the means of livelihood of the Tamil and Muslim fishermen of the Northern and Eastern Provinces in particular if they had any concern whatever for doing justice at least for the Tamils and Muslims of Sri Lanka.

India however showed its true colours when it was pressurised by Tamil Nadu’s, Karunanidhi and Jayalalithaa to vote in favour of the resolution – through fear of Karunanidhi’s threats to pull out of the government and through its great desire to gain support in Tamil Nadu and thereby pander to Jayalalithaa.

Morality is clearly a dirty or obscene word in today’s lexicon of nations and of politicians. Morality has today been overtaken by expediency and the overwhelming desire of people [both politicians and others] to acquire and/or remain in power.

This is so whether one looks at the international scene including those who voted for and against the resolution, the Indian scene where the Indians indulged in various antics vis-à-vis the resolution of the United States or the domestic scene where the government shamefully dismissed Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake with protests from the UNP, the sorrow of which could only have been that it had not been in a position to do the same thing to any judge who crossed its paths.

The wholly political nature of the impeachment exercise is further borne out by the rewards `dished out’ and strongly rumoured to be in contemplation of being dished out to those who supported the impeachment. The first of these was the very prompt political appointment of Razik Zarook P.C who formerly held political office under the UNP, as Chairman of the country’s premier bank.

It is strongly and credibly rumoured that among the rewards to be so dished out are even appointments to the Bench of the Supreme Court – i.e that not content with controlling the legislature and the executive, the Government now seeks to control the judiciary as well, by appointing its stooges/acolytes and hangers on to the Bench of the Apex Court and treating the Bench of even the Superior Courts like the Board of Directors of a State Corporation! The long delay in making an appointment to the Bench of the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Mr. Justice Imam lends credence to this rumour.

It is pertinent in this connection to recall a recent statement made by the purported leader of the UNP Ranil Wickemesinghe that the office bearers he desires in the UNP are those who are loyal to him – i.e. not those with loyalty to the country or the party but to him personally – these are but frightening shades of the fuehrerprinceps of the late Adolph Hitler which we find being practised, though not specifically articulated, by the ruling party.