Special page: ICJ 17th World Congress, 11-12 December 2012
Leading jurists gather at ICJ World Congress to work on international legal remedies to human rights violations.
Sri Lanka: Chief Justice’s impeachment hearing violates due process
The impeachment process against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake ignores international standards and practice, says the ICJ.
The ICJ urges the government of Sri Lanka to take immediate steps to uphold the independence of the judiciary and adhere to international standards and practice on the removal of judges.
Today, the Chief Justice and her team of lawyers walked out of the impeachment hearing in protest over the denial of a fair hearing.
Protests supporting and opposing the impeachment process erupted on Tuesday 4 December 2012 as the Chief Justice appeared before the Parliamentary Select Committee for the second time.
Over two hundred judges, several hundred lawyers, trade union leaders and a large number of religious dignitaries assembled to show their support for the Chief Justice.
Opposition members of parliament publicaly called on the Government to adhere to principles of fair trial and due process in the impeachment process.
Reportedly the Chief Justice has been denied the right to cross-examine potential witnesses and has not been provided full disclosure of the allegations against her.
The Parliamentary Select Committee has also denied the request for a public hearing and prohibited observers from attending.
“Parliament is pushing ahead with an impeachment process that fails to adhere to fundamental principles of due process and fair trial,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Director. “The Chief Justice’s impeachment is part of a relentless campaign waged by the Rajapaksa Government to weaken the judiciary. An independent judiciary is the principle check on the exercise of executive and legislative powers – vital to the functioning of a healthy democracy.”
As recalled by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers in a statement last month, international standards require that judges be removed only in exceptional circumstances involving incapacity or gross misconduct.
A cornerstone of judicial independence is that tenure of judges be secure.
“Any process for removal must comply with all of the guarantees of due process and fair trial afforded under international law, notably the right to an independent and impartial hearing,” Zarifi added.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its 2003 concluding observations on Sri Lanka, expressed concern that the procedure for removing judges under Article 107 and the complementary Standing Orders of Parliament was not compatible with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Parliamentary Select Committee, presiding over the impeachment hearings is composed exclusively of members of parliament, the majority of which are drawn from the Government coalition. No members of the judiciary are permitted to sit on the Select Committee.
Comparatively in India, an impeachment hearing is presided over by a three-member committee comprised of a Supreme Court justice, a Chief Justice of any High Court and an eminent jurist.
In South Africa, a judge may only be removed after a hearing by the Judicial Service Commission, a body composed of members of the judiciary.
In Canada, all removal proceedings are conducted by the Judicial Council, a body composed of 38 chief and associate chief justices of the superior courts and chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers warned against the misuse of disciplinary proceedings as a reprisals mechanism against independent judges.
The timing of the impeachment motion raises questions. The impeachment motion was initiated just days after the Chief Justice ruled against the Government on a controversial bill – the Divi Neguma Bill – before Parliament.
If the bill passed, the Minister of Economic Development (who is also the President’s brother Basil Rajapakse) would have had control over a fund of 80 billion Sri Lankan rupees (611 million USD).
Attacks on the judiciary have been escalating in recent months. In July 2012, Government Minister Rishad Bathiudeen threatened a Magistrate in Mannar and then allegedly orchestrated a mob to pelt stones at the Mannar courthouse.
In early October, the ICJ condemned the physical assault on the secretary of the Judicial Service Commission, Manjula Tillekaratne.
In early November, the ICJ issued a report, Sri Lanka’s Crisis of Impunity, documenting how the erosion of state accountability and judicial independence, has led to a crisis of impunity in Sri Lanka.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to take active measures to promote the independence of the judiciary and rule of law by adhering to international standards and practice in impeachment hearings.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66(0) 807819002; email: sam.zarifi@icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan@icj.org
Kenya: roundtable on LGBT human rights
On 6 December 2012, the ICJ and ICJ-Kenya convened a roundtable entitled “LGBT Human Rights” in Nairobi.
The event brought together members of the Kenyan bar with LGBT human rights activists for a full discussion of criminal and constitutional law and international human rights standards, as well as possibilities for reform through either judicial or parliamentary processes.
The event was opened by Lawrence Mute, a former national human rights commissioner, signatory of the Yogyakarta Principles, and winner of ICJ-Kenya’s Jurist of the Year award.
November ICJ E-Bulletin on counter-terrorism and human rights – no. 68
Read the 68th issue of ICJ’s monthly newsletter on proposed and actual changes in counter-terrorism laws, policies and practices and their impact on human rights at the national, regional and international levels. The E-Bulletin on Counter-Terrorism and Human...Arthur Chaskalson mourned
It was with great sadness that the ICJ learned of the death of its former President Arthur Chaskalson at the age of 81 this weekend.
A renowned human rights lawyer and a tenacious opponent of the apartheid government, Arthur Chaskalson was part of Nelson Mandela’s defence team in the 1963 Rivonia Trial, which saw Mandela and other ANC leaders sentenced to life.
He then helped establish the Legal Resources Centre, a non-profit organization seeking to use the law to pursue justice and human rights around South Africa. He ran the Centre from 1978 until 1993.
President of South Africa’s Constitutional Court (1994-2001), Chaskalson became Chief Justice of the same court from 2001 to 2005, after which he retired.
He was elected as an ICJ Comissioner in 1995 and served as President of the organization from 2002 to 2008.
In 2005, the ICJ convened the Eminent Jurists Panel, comprising eight leading international experts who spent three years conducting a worldwide investigation into the impact of counter-terrorism laws and practice on human rights globally.
Arthur Chaskalson chaired the panel, which held 16 hearings covering forty countries in all regions of the world.
Chaskalson also played a major role in the panel’s report, which concluded that many States had confronted the threat of terrorism with ill-conceived measures undermining the Rule of Law and human rights, which has proved to be an important reference for the post 9/11 era.
Uganda: the ICJ condemns the reintroduction of Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Parliament
The ICJ condemns the reintroduction of Anti-Homosexuality Bill in the Ugandan Parliament. The bill has passed out of committee and is expected to come to a floor vote in early December.
According to reports from civil society organizations in Uganda, the bill still contains the death penalty for acts of “aggravated homosexuality.”
In addition, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill criminalizes the promotion of homosexuality, which is defined to include all advocacy activities.
“Adopting the Anti-Homosexuality Bill would be a serious threat to the human rights and human dignity of LGBT individuals and organizations,” said Alli Jernow, Senior Legal Adviser at the ICJ. “Under the Bill, not only might someone face life in prison or the death penalty for being gay, but human rights defenders would also be prevented from speaking out to challenge the law.”
Under the Bill, anyone in authority, such as a teacher or medical professional, who fails to report an offence to law enforcement within twenty-four hours, is liable to three years’ imprisonment.
The ICJ says the bill is dangerous and deadly and urges Parliament to reject it.
Parliament must also reaffirm the rights to non-discrimination, privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of association for all Ugandans, the ICJ adds.
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill has already been used to justify a general clampdown on civil society in Uganda.
Meetings and workshops have been disrupted and advocacy groups working on human rights have been threatened.
In February 2012, the Minister of State for Ethics and Integrity, Simon Lokodo, shut down a capacity-building session for LGBT activists organized by Freedom and Roam Uganda (FARUG) at a hotel in Entebbe and threatened to arrest FARUG’s executive director Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera (picture above).
In June 2012, police raided a workshop for East African LGBT human rights defenders that had been organized by the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project and they detained participants for several hours.
Minister Lokodo also told the press that he was going to ban 38 organizations that were “sympathetic to LGBT people.”
“If adopted, the bill would clearly violate the human rights of all Ugandans,” Jernow added.
International human rights law, including treaties to which Uganda is a party, prohibit the criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct and forbid the imposition of the death penalty for non-violent conduct, including sexual relations between consenting adults.
International human rights law also guarantees the right of everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
Contact:
Alli Jernow, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor, t + 41 22 979 3823 ; e-mail: alison.jernow(at)icj.org
Recent News
Kyrgyz Republic: ICJ welcomes Constitutional Court ruling blocking reintroduction of the death penalty17 Dec 2025
UN HRC: ICJ Statement on the Human Rights Situation in Venezuela16 Dec 2025
FES-ICJ High-Level Conference: The role of civil society in the UN80 Initiative15 Dec 2025
Laos: After 13 years, renewed international action needed to ensure justice in Sombath Somphone’s enforced disappearance15 Dec 2025