Mar 18, 2013 | Advocacy, Events
The ICJ’s Director of the International Law & Protection Programmes today addressed an international conference on strengthening cooperation in preventing terrorism, held in Baku, Azerbaijan.
In a session focussed on measures to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, Alex Conte emphasised that it is only by avoiding the creation or maintenance of conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism – including human rights violations and lack of the rule of law – that a sustainable international effort can be achieved to combat terrorism.
Identifying numerous negative trends in the national implementation of counter-terrorism obligations, Dr Conte made concrete proposals towards international cooperation aimed at ensuring that national law and practice complies with human rights and the rule of law.
ICJ-BakuConference-Statement-2013 (download full statement in PDF)
Mar 14, 2013 | News
Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi should not keep his position on the Supreme Court after he was appointed today as the country’s interim prime minister so as to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.
“The Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi, has demonstrated a strong commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights in Nepal,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Director in Kathmandu. “To preserve the Nepali judiciary’s hard-won independence, the Chief Justice should step down from his post as soon as he assumes his position at the top of the Executive Branch.”
The Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi was appointed as Chairperson of the Council of Ministers – effectively the country’s Prime Minister – today.
The country’s four key political parties agreed on an arrangement whereby Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi will refrain from participating in his duties as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court while exercising powers of the Prime Minister conferred by the Interim Constitution, in brokering an election of the Constituent Assembly.
After the election is held, the agreement provides that the Chief Justice will resume his power and regular duties as Chief Justice.
In the interim, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court will act as Chief Justice.
“Appointing the serving Chief Justice to act as Chairperson of the Council of Ministers throws the country into uncharted constitutional waters,” Schonveld added. “This agreement obliterates the line between the executive and the judiciary.”
A petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Agreement is currently before the Supreme Court.
The interim Constitution of Nepal guarantees the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.
Article 106 bans sitting and retired judges from assuming any appointment in government service apart from a role in the national human rights commission.
To enable the Chief Justice’s appointment as Prime Minister, the President under the recommendation of the Council of the Ministers amended several provisions of the Interim Constitution, including Article 106.
These amendments were made in contravention of the requirements of the Interim Constitution, which calls for a mandatory two-thirds majority of Parliament.
Under international law and standards, including the United Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, States are required to ensure an independent judiciary at all times.
Under the Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct, judges must be free, and be seen to be free, from inappropriate connections with the executive and legislative branches of government.
The Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary stresses the importance of the independence of the judiciary in a free society observing the rule of law.
Judges must uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary by avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
CONTACTS:
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director, (Kathmandu); t: 977 9804596661; email: ben.schonveld(at)icj.org
Govinda Bandi Sharma, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor, Nepal (Kathmandu), t: +977 9851061167; email: govinda.sharma(at)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: Sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
Photo by Bikash Dware
Feb 15, 2013 | News
The ICJ, in collaboration with the Office of the Attorney General of the Union of Myanmar, held a two-day academic seminar in Naypyitaw entitled “The Prerogative Writs under the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar”.
At the event, which took place on 14 – 15 February 2013, opening remarks were given by His Excellency Dr. Tun Shin, Attorney General of the Union of Myanmar and Mr. Saman-Zarifi, Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific of International Commission of Jurists, to a total of approximately 40 public prosecutors and judges.
The aim of the seminar was to discuss and contribute to the application of the recently re-introduced prerogative writs, namely, habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, under Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution which came into force in early 2011.
The seminar allowed ICJ to not only gain a deeper insight into the current writ practices in Myanmar but also permitted the Office of the Attorney General to draw best practices from other countries, such as Australia, Philippines and Malaysia.
The topics addressed during the seminar were the importance of prerogative writs in ensuring justice and upholding the rule of law; specific international standards on the independence of prosecutors and their role in the justice system; how writ cases are handled, challenges faced by the prosecutors and the burden of proof; and the powers of the judiciary to promulgate its own rules to ensure fundamental rights, as in the case of the Supreme Court in Philippines.
Panelists included Justice John Dowd AO QC, former Chairman of the International Commission of Jurists; Justice Adolfo Azcuna, Chancellor of the Philippine Judicial Academy and former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines; and Mr. Andrew Khoo of the Malaysian Bar Council.
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 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
