Suriname: unacceptable delays and uncertainty in trial of former President Bouterse and others

Suriname: unacceptable delays and uncertainty in trial of former President Bouterse and others

a_president_bouterseThe ICJ today expressed its concern at further delays in the trial of President Desiré Delano Bouterse and 24 others, who are accused of the murder of thirteen civilians and two military personnel in 1982.

The ICJ further expressed its dissatisfaction with the continued uncertainty on the applicability of an Amnesty Law that could threaten the status of the trial.

No public statement has been made by the Suriname Military Court since the judges hearing the matter decided to suspend the trial of President Bouterse in May 2012 and leave it to the public prosecutor and an undesignated court to decide whether President Bouterse and the other accused should benefit from the country’s Amnesty Law.

“It is unacceptable that there have been no pronouncements in this case since the last hearing over eight months ago,” said ICJ Secretary-General Wilder Tayler. “Justice has been denied for more than three decades and it is in everyone’s interests, both the accused and the families of the victims, that this trial should proceed without further delay”.

President Bouterse had been accused of having been present on 8 December 1982 at the military barracks of Fort Zeelandia, where 15 political opponents were allegedly executed.

Reports published by various organizations at the time, including by an ICJ affiliate, indicated that several of the victims had also been subjected to torture. At the time, Bouterse was leading a military government in Suriname.

On 19 July 2010, Desiré Delano Bouterse was elected President of Suriname, taking up office on 12 August 2010. On 4 April 2012, despite some contestation, an amendment to the existing Amnesty Law of 1989 was adopted by the country’s Parliament, purportedly granting amnesty to President Bouterse and others for the murders that allegedly took place in 1982.

As the ICJ noted in its report of 29 May 2012, there are a number of unresolved questions regarding the legality of the Amnesty law.

Read also:

Suriname: independent observation mission to the trial of President Desiré Delano Bouterse

Sri Lanka: appointment of new Chief Justice undermines Rule of Law

Sri Lanka: appointment of new Chief Justice undermines Rule of Law

mohanpeirisThe 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

 

ICJ condemns impeachment of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice

ICJ condemns impeachment of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice

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’

 

Bar Association of Sri Lanka calls for a two-day strike to protest impeachment motion

Bar Association of Sri Lanka calls for a two-day strike to protest impeachment motion

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

Translate »