Jan 30, 2013 | News
The Nepali government must ensure that the case of the 2004 killing of journalist Dekendra Thapa (photo) can proceed without further political interference, the ICJ said today.
“Political interference into an ongoing criminal investigation constitutes a fundamental attack on the rule of law in Nepal,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Nepal Country Representative. “The Government must ensure that there are no further attempts to subvert the course of justice.”
On 11 January, Nepal’s Attorney General, Mukti Pradhan, sent a written instruction to the local police and prosecutor not to move forward with the investigation and prosecution.
In response to a petition challenging the instruction, on 16 January, the Supreme Court ordered both Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai and the Attorney General not to intervene in the ongoing investigation.
The Home Ministry subsequently ordered the transfer of officials involved in the investigation, and the Prime Minister himself has made public statements calling for the suspects to be released pending the much-delayed formation of a promised truth commission.
“It is now the obligation of the justice system to ensure due process and the right to a fair trial,” Rawski added. “This is an opportunity for Nepal to illustrate the political will exists to address past human rights violations, and that the country’s judiciary can provide justice for the victims while protecting the rights of the defendants.”
Dekendra Thapa was allegedly tortured and buried alive by Maoist cadres in 2004 during the country’s decade-long civil war, which ended in 2006.
The case was finally submitted to a District Court yesterday (January 28, 2013) by the District Attorney of Dailekh in Mid-Western Nepal. The Dailekh District Attorney has charged nine people alleged to be involved.
Five of the suspects have been arrested and produced before the district court.
“Dekendra Thapa was one of the thousands of civilians whose deaths have gone without proper explanation or justice,” said Rawski. “Thanks to the courageous decision of the local authorities to proceed with this case, there is now an opportunity for the Nepali justice system to begin answering the demands for justice.”
Contact:
In Kathmandu, Frederick Rawski, ICJ Nepal Country Representative : t +977-984-959-7681
In Bangkok, Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director: t +66-807-819-002
Photo credit: Dhurba Basnet
Jan 15, 2013 | News
The appointment of former Attorney General Mohan Peiris (photo) as Sri Lanka’s new Chief Justice raises serious concerns about the future of the Rule of Law and accountability in the country, the ICJ said today.
Mohan Peiris has served in a variety of high-level legal posts in the past decade, always playing a key role in defending the conduct of the Sri Lankan government.
He served as Sri Lanka’s Attorney-General from 2009 to 2011. Since then he has served as the legal adviser to President Mahinda Rajapakse and the Cabinet.
“During his tenure as Attorney-General and the government’s top legal advisor Mohan Peiris consistently blocked efforts to hold the government responsible for serious human rights violations and disregarded international law and standards,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director.
“Mohan Peiris’ appointment as the new Chief Justice, after a politically compromised and procedurally flawed impeachment, adds serious insult to the gross injury already inflicted on Sri Lanka’s long suffering judiciary.”
The International Commission of Jurists, in its recent report on impunity in Sri Lanka, highlighted Mohan Peiris’ lack independence as Attorney-General, noting the alarming number of cases involving prominent politicians that were withdrawn during his tenure.
In November 2011, as Attorney General, Peiris told the UN Committee Against Torture in Geneva that political cartoonist Prageeth Ekneligoda, believed to have been subjected to enforced disappearance in January 2010, had actually left Sri Lanka. In June 2012, Peiris admitted to a court in Colombo that this claim was groundless.
“ICJ condemns this appointment as a further assault on the independence of the judiciary and calls on the Sri Lankan government to reinstate Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. If there are grounds for questioning the Chief Justice’s actions, they should be pursued following due process and a proper impeachment process.”
CONTACT:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Bangkok, t:+66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme, Bangkok, t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
NOTE:
In a statement today (see below), Justice Bandarayanake strongly denied all the charges against her and asserted her status as the legal Chief Justice of Sri Lanka’s supreme court. She said: “The accusations leveled against me are blatant lies. I am totally innocent of all charges…Since it now appears that there might be violence if I remain in my official residence or my chambers I am compelled to move…”
Sri Lanka-CJ final speech-2012 (full statement, in pdf)
Read also:
ICJ condemns impeachment of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice
Sri Lanka’s Parliament should reject motion to impeach Chief Justice
Impeachment of Sri Lankan Chief Justice: Government must adhere to international standards of due process
Jan 11, 2013 | News
The ICJ condemned the decision of Sri Lanka’s parliament today to impeach the country’s Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake (photo).
“Parliament’s impeachment motion has defied the rulings of the country’s Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, and thus thrown into chaos the entire system of checks and balances in the country,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific director.
“Sri Lanka’s parliament and executive have effectively decapitated the country’s judiciary in pursuit of short term political gain. As an immediate matter, this has precipitated a legal and constitutional crisis of unprecedented dimensions; but just as worrying are the consequences of this action, which severely erodes accountability and the rule of law in a country already suffering from decades of impunity.”
The impeachment decision now goes to President Mahinda Rajapakse, who precipitated this crisis initially. Under Article 107 of the 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka, a Chief Justice can only be removed by an order of the President after a motion supporting the removal is passed by a simple majority of Parliamentarians.
The impeachment process against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake has been widely criticized for ignoring international standards and practice. On 6 December 2012, the Chief Justice and her team of lawyers walked out of the impeachment hearing in protest over the denial of a fair hearing. On 1 January 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment procedure in Parliament was not constitutionally valid, finding that such procedures could only be established ‘by law’ enacted by Parliament.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has publically vowed that it will not welcome a new Chief Justice and the Lawyers Collective has called on the Supreme Court and the superior judiciary to not recognize the newly appointed Chief Justice.
“President Rajapakse should refuse to appoint a new Chief Justice, and instead call on Parliament to enact a new law – through a transparent and democratic process – to govern the impeachment process. Any such law must comport with international standards on judicial independence and guarantees of due process and fair trial,” Zarifi added.
CONTACT:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Bangkok. t:+66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme, Bangkok. t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
See also previous ICJ press releases:
Sri Lanka’s Parliament should reject motion to impeach Chief Justice
Impeachment of Sri Lankan Chief Justice: Government must adhere to international standards of due process
Sri Lanka: new ICJ report documents ‘Crisis of Impunity’
Jan 10, 2013 | News
Like the ICJ, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) issued a statement strongly condemning the impeachment of Chief Justice Bandaranayake.
The BASL called on its members to refrain from attending Court or engaging in any professional duties on 10 and 11 January 2013 in protest of Parliament’s decision to move forward with the impeachment process. The statement is reproduced below:
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka strongly, unequivocally and with no reservations whatsoever condemns the decision to take up for debate the impeachment motion against her Ladyship the Chief Justice Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake based on the findings of the Parliamentary Select Committee which was quashed by the Court of Appeal and determined to be unlawful by the Supreme Court. The Bar Association has decided to call for all its members (in 78 Branch Associations) to refrain from attending to any Professional duty in protest on the 10th and 11th of January 2013 to express our deplorable condemnation.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka further urges H. E. the President of the Republic, Hon. Speaker and the leaders of all political parties representing the Parliament to honour and respect the determination of the Supreme Court which in terms of the Constitution of our country is vested with the sole and the exclusive jurisdiction as regards to Constitutional Interpretation and Determinations.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka is seriously concerned about the negative and eroding impact that any action of the legislative and executive organs of the government to disrespect and dishonour such determination would have on the Rule of Law in this Country.
Sanjaya Gamag
Secretary
Bar Association of Sri Lanka
On 10 November 2012, the BASL held a Special General Meeting and passed a resolution expressing ‘grave concern about the impeachment and the independence of the Judiciary’ urging the President and Speaker of Parliament to ‘reconsider’ the impeachment or alternatively to adopt a transparent and accountable procedure.
On 15 December 2012, the BASL passed a further three resolutions calling on the President of Sri Lanka to again reconsider the impeachment or alternatively enact a procedure for impeachment which guaranteed the right to a fair trial. The BASL warned that if the rule of law or fair trial rights were not observed in the impeachment process, the Sri Lankan Bar would not welcome a new Chief Justice.
On the same issue: Sri Lanka’s Parliament should reject motion to impeach Chief Justice
Jan 9, 2013 | News
Members of Sri Lanka’s Parliament should reject the impeachment motion to remove Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, that will be put before Parliament on 10-11 January 2013, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ call comes after a three-member panel of the Supreme Court, in a decision issued on 1 January 2013, ruled that the impeachment procedure in Parliament was not constitutionally valid, finding that such procedures could only be established ‘by law’ enacted by Parliament. The Standing Orders governing the current impeachment investigative process are not considered ‘law’ under the Constitution of Sri Lanka.
“The assault on the independence of the Sri Lankan judiciary in recent months has brought Sri Lanka to the brink of a constitutional crisis,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “If the impeachment motion is passed in Parliament in defiance of decisions of the country’s judiciary, it will signal a massive breakdown in the rule of law and checks and balances.”
The ICJ stresses that in a democratic society operating under the rule of law, the principle of judicial review is paramount and judges have the ultimate authority to determine what the law provides.
Following the Supreme Court decision, the Court of Appeal quashed the findings of the Parliamentary Select Committee on 7 January 2013, claiming the PSC lacked authority to make such a finding.
In response to the Supreme Court decision, President Mahinda Rajapakse announced his intention to create a four-member panel on 7 January 2013 to review the Parliamentary Select Committee Report and comment on its constitutional validity. The identities of the panel members have not been revealed.
“Creating another ad hoc committee on an arbitrary basis to pronounce on the validity of the impeachment process in Parliament – a process already held to be improper by the apex Court – aggravates the insult to the judiciary and deepens the constitutional crisis,” Zarifi said. “Judges are not above the law, and should be subject to impeachment if they have engaged in serious misdeeds, but the faulty process used by the Parliamentary committee violated basic notions of due process and truth-seeking.”
Last month, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka unanimously passed a resolution calling on the President to reconsider the impeachment, warning that if principles of rule of law were disregarded in the removal process, the Bar would not formally welcome the new Chief Justice.
“This current crisis threatens to leave Sri Lanka with little or no means to hold State officials accountable for serious human rights violations,” Zarifi added. “This government has shown itself committed to imposing a climate of impunity in Sri Lanka. The Parliament should stop the country’s sad slide away from the rule of law.”
The ICJ released a 150-page report in early November 2012 focusing on impunity in Sri Lanka and highlighting the recent attacks on the judiciary as a key factor that has led to the erosion of State accountability mechanisms.
The impeachment process against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake has been widely criticized for ignoring international standards and practice.
The ICJ in an earlier statement called on the Government of Sri Lanka to adhere to international standards and practice in the impeachment hearings.
The ICJ reiterates its call 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 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
BACKGROUND:
The impeachment motion was initiated just days after the Chief Justice ruled against the Government on a controversial bill – the Divi Neguma Bill, under which 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) with minimal accountability.
Attacks on the judiciary have been escalating since July 2012. A 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 2012, the ICJ condemned the physical assault on the secretary of the Judicial Service Commission, Manjula Tillekaratne.
On 6 November 2012, a motion to initiate impeachment proceedings was brought against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. The motion contained fourteen charges relating to the non-disclosure of financial assets and improper conduct of a Chief Justice. On 8 November 2012, the Chief Justice’s lawyers responded to four of the fourteen charges, claiming that all operative bank accounts had been disclosed and only those accounts which were closed or held no funds were not declared.
On 6 December 2012, the Chief Justice and her team of lawyers walked out of the impeachment hearing in protest over the denial of a fair hearing.
On 8 December 2012, a majority of the Parliamentary Select Committee comprising government representatives found the Chief Justice guilty of four charges out of the fourteen allegations. The Committee’s released its findings despite the Supreme Court’s request in late November 2012 that hearings be delayed until it could determine the constitutionality of the proceeding.
Photo by vikalapa
