NIHAL SRI AMERESEKERE

F.C.A., F.C.M.A., Fellow C.M.A., C.G.M.A., C.F.E.

Associate, American Bar Association
Co-ordinator, International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities
Ex-Board Member, International Consortium on Governmental Financial Management

Returning to Sri Lanka after a short sojourn overseas, I learnt that the Government had hastily introduced an ‘Urgent Bill’ to enact the “Revival of Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilized Assets Act”. The Bill placed before Parliament on November 8, 2011, was passed on November 9, 2011, and certified by the Hon. Speaker on November 11, 2011, but so announced by him in Parliament only on November 22, 2011. (Google Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’ )

Article 122 of the Constitution enables laws to be enacted urgently, when certified as ‘Urgent’ in the ‘national interest’ by the Cabinet of Ministers, with the President referring the Bill to the Chief Justice for a Supreme Court Special Determination – ‘as to whether such Urgent Bill is inconsistent with the Constitution ?’ The Supreme Court has to make its Special Determination within 24-hours, or not exceeding 3-days.

The aforesaid Bill certified as ‘Urgent’ on October 19, 2011 by the Cabinet Secretary had been received by Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake on Friday, October 21, 2011, and listed by her over the weekend on Monday, October 24, 2011, having  noticed only the Hon. Attorney General, without any notice, whatsoever, to any of the parties affected, to be heard by a Supreme Court Bench, presided by her, with Justices P.A. Ratnayake and C. Ekanayake, who upon such exclusive Hearing, had made the Special Determination dated October 24, 2011, which had been tabled in the Parliament of Sri Lanka on November 9, 2011. Thus, it was an impossibility for any party affected to have known to have appeared in the Supreme Court on Monday, October 24, 2011. (Amazon Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’ )

As per Article 121 of the Constitution, any citizen is entitled, within one week, to challenge the constitutionality of a Bill, whereas such opportunity is denied in the case of an ‘Urgent Bill’, in terms of Article 122 of the Constitution, which the Cabinet of Ministers deems ‘Urgent’ in the ‘national interest’ and the President refers the same to the Chief Justice for a Special Determination of the Supreme Court, as to whether any provisions of such Bill is inconsistent with the Constitution – viz:

Special exercise of constitutional jurisdiction in respect of urgent Bills

“122.  (1)    In the case of a Bill which is, in the view of the Cabinet of Ministers, urgent in the national interest, and bears an endorsement to that effect under the hand of the Secretary to the Cabinet-

• the provisions of Article 78 (1) and of Article 121, shall subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this Article, have no application ;

• the President shall by a written reference addressed to the Chief Justice, require the special determination of the Supreme Court as to whether the Bill or any provision thereof is inconsistent with the Constitution. A copy of such reference shall at the same time be delivered to the Speaker ;

• the Supreme Court shall make its determination within twenty-four hours (or such longer period not exceeding three days as the President may specify) of the assembling of the Court, and shall communicate its determination only to the President and the Speaker

(2)    The provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 121 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to such Bill.”

Therefore, the Constitution provides an inbuilt safeguard in Article 123(3) of the Constititon, mandating that  an ‘Urgent Bill’ shall be deemed to have been determined as inconsistent with the Constitution, if any doubt thereon is entertained by the Supreme Court – viz:

Determination of the Supreme Court in respect of Bills

“123. (3)    In the case of a Bill endorsed as provided in Article 122, if the Supreme Court entertains a doubt whether the Bill or any provision thereof is inconsistent with the Constitution, it shall be deemed to have been determined that the Bill or such provision of the Bill is inconsistent with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court shall comply with the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article.” (Emphasis added)

In fact by the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution enacted on  May 15, 2015, Articles 30 and 31 thereof respectively repealed Articles 122 and 123(3) of the Constitution, whereby Parliament of Sri Lanka re-enforced the fact that an ‘Urgent Bill’ under Article 122 of the Constitution had been governed by Article 123(3) of the Constitution. – viz:

Repeal of Article 122 of the Constitution

“30.     Article 122 of the Constitution is hereby repealed.”

Amendment of Article 123 of the Constitution

“31.         Article 123 of the Constitution is hereby amended by the repeal of paragraph (3) of that Article.”

The aforesaid Special Determination of October 24, 2011 was replete with doubts entertained by the Supreme Court, with queries raised by the Supreme Court answered ex-parte by a Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for Hon. Attorney General Mohan Peiris, P.C., as amicus-curiae, in the absence of any of the parties affected. Thus the Bill, as per Article 123(3) of the Constitution, stood deemed, as constitutionally mandated, to have been determined as inconsistent with the Constitution. The Supreme Court was constitutionally estopped and debarred from having determined otherwise.(Google Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’ )

In fact, one of the startling questions raised had been pertaining to Article 157 of the Constitution, which expressly prohibits enactment of any law, in violation of International Treaties or Agreements passed by Parliament, except in the interest of ‘national security’, whereas the Special Determination of October 24, 2011, has permitted the same for ‘public purposes’, thereby overwriting or effectively amending the Constitution, which the Supreme Court was constitutionally debarred from doing.

The Bill itemizing 36 private entities as ‘under-utilized’ and one entity, Hotel Developers Lanka PLC, as ‘under-performing’, (whereas judicial power had already been invoked to re-structure the said Company), vested them with the Government, in essence, ad hominem legislation, which in a previous instance had been struck down as ultra-vires and invalid by the Privy Council in re – Liyanage and Others V. The Queen [1965] UKPC. Œ In the aforesaid instance of the said ‘Urgent Bill’, it had been sans any transparently evaluated selection process, violative of human rights, and without any notice to the parties affected, thereby denying them natural justice. Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake and the other 2 Justices had dismally failed to take cognizance of the foregoing, in making the Special Determination of October 24, 2011. (Amazon Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’ )

I, as a promoter and stakeholder of HDL, being unaware that the Bill was certified on November 11, 2011 by the Hon. Speaker, filed on November 14, 2011, a Fundamental Rights Application in the Supreme Court SC (FR) No. 534/2011, impugning the Bill, inasmuch as the Supreme Court in terms of Article 4(d) of the Constitution, was constitutionally bound to secure and advance fundamental rights, and not to abridge, restrict or deny such rights. (Google Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’ )viz:

Exercise of Sovereignty

4. The Sovereignty of the People shall be exercised and enjoyed in the following manner :-

(d) the fundamental rights which are by the Constitution declared and recognized shall be respected, secured and advanced by all the organs of government, and shall not be abridged, restricted or denied, save in the manner and to the extent hereinafter provided; and

Having been indisposed, together with my Application, I tendered a Medical Certificate, seeking to appear within two weeks. Five other parties had also previously filed Applications challenging this Bill. These Applications had been listed for Hearing on November 15, 2011, before a 5-Judge Supreme Court Bench, constituted by Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake. Disregarding my Medical Certificate, she had listed my Application, also to be heard the very next day, November 15, 2011. Significantly, the Supreme Court Registrar personally phoned urging me to attend Court. I declined to do so. (Amazon Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

At my request, the Registrar had submitted my Application, with the Medical Certificate, to the 5-Judge Bench, hearing the other Applications. The presiding Justice, N.G. Amaratunga had permitted me to seek another date to support my Application, whilst dismissing in-limine the other 5 Applications, with the Bill having been enacted into law upon being certified on November 11, 2011 by the Hon. Speaker, which however was announced to the Parliament only on November 22, 2011. Under Article 80(3) of the Constitution, Supreme Court became functus from entertaining any challenge to a Bill, which was thereafter an Act – viz:

When Bill becomes Law.

“80.(3)     Where a Bill becomes law upon the certificate of the President or the Speaker, as the case may be, being endorsed thereon, no court or tribunal shall inquire into, pronounce upon or in any manner call in question, the validity of such Act on any ground whatsoever”

Being unaware as aforesaid, that the Speaker had certified the Bill, I, on November 17, 2011 also submitted an Application SC (SD) No. 2/2011 challenging the Bill in terms of Article 121 of the Constitution, which Application was summarily rejected by Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, minuting in her Chambers that – “any party that had wanted to intervene should have done so at the time the Bill was taken before  the Supreme Court ”, notwithstanding she having  been well aware that such intervention had been made an impossibility as aforesaid. (Google Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

However, I was permitted to support my Fundamental Rights Application SC (FR) No. 534/2011 on November 25, 2011, before 3-Judges of the above 5-Judge Bench, presided by Justice, N.G. Amaratunga. At the very outset, submitting to Court, that I was unaware that the Bill had been certified into law, when I filed my Application on November 14, 2011, and that I became aware only when the Speaker made such announcement in Parliament on November 22, 2011, conceding that I am ousted from challenging a Bill that had become an Act, I sought a review and rectification of the Special Determination of October 24, 2011, which I submitted was not ousted under the above Article 80(3) of the Constitution. (Amazon Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

I stressed that the Supreme Court is vested with an inherent right to review and rectify its own Special Determination of October 24, 2011, and if rectified in terms of the mandatory provision of Article 123(3) of the Constitution, then the onus would lie on the Hon. Speaker and Parliament to decide, as what ought be done. The 3-Judge Bench, presided by Justice N.G. Amaratunga, who had previously dismissed the other 5 Applications on November 15, 2011, having been convinced of my such stance entertained my Application, and directed issuance of Notices on the Respondents, and permitted me, as requested, to tender an Amended Petition by December 16, 2011, which I complied with. The Registrar as directed issued Notices on the Respondents for January 26, 2012. (Google Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

Since I was seeking a review and rectification of the Special Determination of October 24, 2011, as I rightfully and lawfully might, made an Application on January 18, 2012, under Article 132 of the Constitution, for the Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake to constitute a Bench for such review, also seeking a Bench of 5 or more Judges – viz:

Sittings of the Supreme Court

“132.

(1)  The several jurisdictions of the Supreme Court shall be ordinarily exercised at Colombo unless the Chief Justice otherwise directs.

(2) The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be exercised in different matters at the same time by the several Judges of that Court sitting apart:

(3) The Chief Justice may –

• (i) of his own motion ; or
• (ii) at the request of two or more Judges hearing any matter; or
• (iii) on the application of a party to any appeal, proceeding or matter if the question involved is in the opinion of the Chief Justice one of general and public importance,

(4)  The judgment of the Supreme Court shall, when it is not an unanimous decision, be the decision of the majority.”

However, instead of constituting the same Bench, presided by her, which made such Special Determination of October 24, 2011 to hear my Application for a review, which was the normal practice in Sri Lanka, she on the contrary, directed my Application for review be heard on February 9, 2012 by the same Bench, presided by Justice N.G. Amaratunga, which had entertained my Application on November 25, 2011 and issued Notices on the Respondents. (Amazon Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

I made extensive submissions for nearly 1½ hours on February 9, 2012, tendering exhaustive Written Submissions affording clarifications, amply demonstratedly establishing that the Special Determination of October 24, 2011 could not stand, in that, Article 123(3) of the Constitution mandatorily had inherently deemed the said ‘Urgent Bill’ to have been determined as inconsistent with the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court stood functus to have determined otherwise. I cited the Case of the Chilean President Pinochet in the House of Lords, where one Committee of the House of Lords, set aside the Decision by another Committee, purely on grounds of alleged perceived judicial bias, disqualifying one Lord, on the premise that his wife was employed in a mere administrative capacity by Amnesty International, an Intervenient-Party. (Google Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

Obviously conceding the merits and correctness of my submissions, presiding Justice N.G. Amaratunga, intimated to me, that though in UK, another Bench could review and set aside a Decision of one Bench, the practice in Sri Lanka was that, the same Bench must review its own decision. I promptly drew attention to my above Application of January 18, 2012 under Article 132 of the Constitution for such review of the Special Determination of October 24, 2010 by Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, and whilst knowing such fact, that she, herself, had specifically directed that the Bench presided by Justice N.G. Amaratunga hears my Application for such review. (Amazon Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

Justice N.G. Amaratunga, having checked the record to verify my Application of January 18, 2012, taking me and those others present aghast, wittingly or unwittingly, ‘blurted-out’, with the other two Justices concurring, that they had been directed by Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake ‘only to hear me, but not to grant me Leave to Proceed’, whilst the matter was specifically listed on that day for Support for Leave to Proceed. (Hon. Ravi Karunanayake, then Opposition Member of Parliament, now Finance Minister was present in Court and witnessed what transpired). If such had been the case,  the question intriguingly looms large, as to why I was made to so strenuously make lengthy submissions in the very first instance, taking up valuable time of Supreme Court ? Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake had no right, whatsoever, to have directed another Bench, as to how it should decide upon hearing a Party. Was this not grave judicial misconduct on her part ? (Google Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

Confronted with such perverse intimation, I promptly tendered to the 3 Judge Bench, presided by Justice N.G. Amaratunga, a further pre-prepared Written Submission, containing ‘extracts’ from Supreme Court records, to demonstrate judicial bias and disqualification of Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, referring to a Petition filed on July 7, 2009 by P.B. Jayasundera, later amended, seeking to re-assume office, as Secretary Treasury, having been previously debarred by the Supreme Court from holding any public office, by reason of his conduct and actions in a privatization to John Keells Holdings PLC, annulled on July 21, 2008 as unlawful, illegal and fraudulent in SC (FR) No. 209/2007, and seeking to be relieved of the undertaking given by him to the Supreme Court by way of an Affidavit, having affirmed never to hold public office, directly or indirectly. (Amazon Books – ‘IMF, World Bank & ADB Agenda on Privatisation – Vol. 3: Colombo Port Bunkering Privatisation – Annulled as Illegal & Fraudulent by Supreme Court’ )

The above Application of P.B. Jayasundera was heard on September 24, 2009 by a 7-Judge Bench, presided by Chief Justice, J.A.N. De Silva, comprising, Justices Shirani Bandaranayake, Shiranee Tilakawardene, D.J. de S. Balapatabendi, S. Marsoof, K. Sripavan and P.A. Ratnayake. However, Justice Shirani Bandaranayake being the most senior Judge, played an assertive role at the said Hearing.

When it was unanimously decided as recorded in the Journal Entry of September 24, 2009 that the two main prayers (a) and (b) of P.B. Jayasundera’s Petition, seeking to vacate the previous Supreme Court Order prohibiting him from holding public office, and to be relieved of the undertaking given by him to the Supreme Court by Affidavit, could not be granted and was refused, it was Justices Shirani Bandaranayake who, giving a new dimension to the English language, urged that somehow relief be granted under incidental prayer (c) – “for such other and further relief ……. ”, with which only Justice Shiranee Tilakawardene dissented; whereas would not any such other and further relief could only have been granted, as supplementary or complementary to the main reliefs, which were refused, and would not the question also arise, as to whether the very main reliefs so refused, could have been indirectly so granted? (Google Books – ‘IMF, World Bank & ADB Agenda on Privatisation – Vol. 3: Colombo Port Bunkering Privatisation – Annulled as Illegal & Fraudulent by Supreme Court’)

Consequent to the privatization of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd., also handled, among others, by P.B. Jayasundera, having been annulled previously on June 4, 2009, as unlawful and illegal, in SC (FR) No. 158/2007, the Supreme Court having vested the same in the Government, directed that professionals be appointed to its Board of Directors. Subsequently, Justice Shirani Bandaranayake’s husband, Pradeep Kariyawasam, said to be holding a Diploma in Marketing, among others, had been approved on June 26, 2009 to be appointed, as a Director thereof by a Supreme Court Bench, presided by Justice N.G. Amaratunga, along with Justices K. Sripavan and P.A. Ratnayake. (Amazon Books – ‘IMF, World Bank & ADB Agenda on Privatisation – Vol. 4: Sri Lanka Insurance Privatisation – Annulled as Unlawful & Illegal by Supreme Court’)

Consequently in July 2009, coincident with P.B. Jayasundera’s Petition dated July 7, 2009 seeking permission of the Supreme Court to reassume Public Office, as Secretary Treasury, Justice Shirani Bandaranayake’s husband had assumed high profile political offices, as Chairman, Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd., and Director, Lanka Hospitals Corporation PLC. Subsequently in May 2010, he assumed high profile political office, as Chairman, National Savings Bank, a State Bank. In such circumstances, did not Justice Shirani Bandaranayake explicitly stand disqualified on grounds of ‘perceived judicial bias’, from subsequently hearing on September 24, 2009 the Petition of P.B. Jayasundera, and also from making the impugned Special Determination of October 24, 2011, for that matter from having heard any other Application impleaded against the Government ?  – vide the House of Lords Case re – Chilean President Pinochet. (Google Books – ‘IMF, World Bank & ADB Agenda on Privatisation – Vol. 4: Sri Lanka Insurance Privatisation – Annulled as Unlawful & Illegal by Supreme Court’)

Chairman, Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd., was a functionary under the Secretary Treasury,  and thus Justice Shirani Bandaranayake stood precluded from having heard on September 24, 2009 the Application of P.B. Jayasundera to reassume Public Office, as Secretary Treasury. I submitted to the Supreme Court on February 9, 2012 in my SC (FR) Application No. 534/2011 that such was far worse than the aforesaid ‘misdemeanor’ in the Case of Chilean President Pinochet in the House of Lords, which I had cited.

In my such further Written Submission, I cited the following ‘dicta’ from the dissenting Judgment of Justice Shiranee Tilakawardene, a Member of the aforesaid 7 Judge Supreme Court Bench – (Amazon Books – ‘IMF, World Bank & ADB Agenda on Privatisation – Vol. 3: Colombo Port Bunkering Privatisation – Annulled as Illegal & Fraudulent by Supreme Court’)

“Pursuant to a Petition filed by the 8^th Respondent Petitioner, (P.B. Jayasundera)  on 7^th July 2009, and twice amended by him on 21^st July 2009 and 31^st July 2009, this Application was listed before a Bench of 7 judges of the Supreme Court …… ”

“Court …… refuses the reliefs sought in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the prayer to the amended Petition dated 31^st July 2009. However the Court is inclined to grant other relief under paragraph (c) of the prayer to the amended Petition.”

“The Petitioner, (P.B. Jayasundera) amended the Petition on 21^st July 2009 without obtaining permission from Court to do so. More specifically, the supporting Affidavit made in connection with the amendment lacks a signature of a Justice of the Peace/Commissioner, such omission rendering invalid and false the jurat contained therein. The amended Petition dated 21^st July 2009, thus remained unsupported by a valid Affidavit, and, consequently, the said Affidavit should have been rejected in limine.

When this matter was taken up on 3^rd August 2009 a fresh set of papers were filed, consisting of a second amended Petition dated 31^st July 2009 and a purported Affidavit dated 31^st July 2009, once again without having obtained permission of Court. ”

Whilst Justice Shirani Bandaranayake condoned the foregoing, in my public interest Application SC (FR) No. 481/2009 then pending re – purported Oil Hedging Deals perpetrated on the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, she on the contrary on November 19, 2009, directed me to support by Motion to amend my Petition, and get prior approval of the Supreme Court, in terms of the Supreme Court Rules, and fixed the matter of Amending my Petition for Support on February 11, 2010. (Google Books – ‘Derivative / Hedging Deals by Citibank, Standard Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank, with Sri Lanka Government’s Petroleum Corporation  – Dubious & Illegal ?’ )

Furthermore, Rule No. 30(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, stipulates that in an Appeal or Application no party shall be entitled to be heard, unless without having previously lodged Written Submissions. (Emphasis added)

The Supreme Court Rules 1990

Published in the Gazette of the Democratic Socialist Republic

of Sri Lanka (EXTRAORDINARY)

No. 665/32 – FRIDAY, JUNE 07, 1991

PART II

GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING APPEALS AND APPLICATIONS

30. (1) No party to an appeal shall be entitled to be heard, unless he has previously lodged five copies of his written submissions (hereinafter referred to as “submissions”), complying with the provisions of this rule.

Though I, appearing in person on September 24, 2009, in this further Application by P.B. Jayasundera in SC (FR) No. 209/2007  was the only party who had filed Written Submissions, P.B. Jayasundera’s Counsel was afforded unlimited time to make repetitive Submissions before the 7-Judge Bench, which sat solely on the matter the whole day, and the Counsel for the original Petitioner too was permitted ample time. Ironically, I, the only person who was entitled to make Submissions, as per the aforesaid Supreme Court Rules, was granted a meagre limit of 10 minutes by presiding Chief Justice Asoka de Silva, with Justice D.J. de S.  Balapatabendi having futilely endeavored to prevent me from even making submissions. (Amazon Books – ‘IMF, World Bank & ADB Agenda on Privatisation – Vol. 3: Colombo Port Bunkering Privatisation – Annulled as Illegal & Fraudulent by Supreme Court’)

Ironically, Chief Justice Asoka de Silva, at the Ceremonial Sittings of the Supreme Court to welcome him, in his Address, inter-alia, stated thus – “I may be permitted to draw your attention to a verse in the Dhammapada – ‘A man is not a just Judge merely because he arbitrates cases hastily without proper care. A wise Judge would investigate and give his decision without being partial.’ ”  (Daily News June 12, 2009).  Chief Justice Asoka de Silva at the Opening Ceremony of a new Court  in Muttur  had stated – “As members belonging to a noble profession and responsible for maintenance of the rule of law and administration of justice, we must not tolerate any kind of corruption, nepotism, et al” (Daily News July 10, 2010)

In fact, at the hearing into the original SC (FR) Application No. 209/2007, I had appeared in person, as a Respondent, and had made extensive submissions, with exhaustive Written Submissions, to have successfully annulled on July 21, 2008 the perverse privatization put in issue in the said Case, the Judgment in which had severely castigated P.B. Jayasundera, consequent to which he was compelled to vacate Public Office. – (Google Books – ‘IMF, World Bank & ADB Agenda on Privatisation – Vol. 3: Colombo Port Bunkering Privatisation – Annulled as Illegal & Fraudulent by Supreme Court’)

Justice D.J. de S.  Balapatabendi’s son, then married to Chief Justice J.A.N. de Silva’s daughter, had accepted a political appointment, as the Second Secretary, Sri Lanka Embassy in The Hague, whereby would not both these Justices have been precluded, on grounds of ‘perceived judicial bias’, from having heard on September 24, 2009 the Petition of P.B. Jayasundera ? – vide the House of Lords Case re – Chilean President Pinochet. Ironically, Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, herself, after her impeachment, by Letter in May 11, 2013*, released to the media, addressed to the Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, setting out the aforesaid connection and facts between the two, alleged biased conduct on the part of Chief Justice, J.A.N de Silva and Justice D.J. de S. Balapatabendi. (Colombo Telegraph – *Full Text: Letter By Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake To DG Bribery Commission

5 Judgments (one jointly) were delivered on October 13, 2009 Žas per Decision made on September 24, 2009,  by 6 Judges of the 7 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, with a further inexplicable dimension to this ‘fiasco’  that the only dissenting Judgment of Justice Shiranee Tilakawardene of the 7 Judge bench of the Supreme Court had been cannibalized, changing the printing to a larger font, with new page numbers given to exclude two vitally pertinent pages therefrom, with the smaller original font, bearing the signature of Justice Shiranee Tilakawardene included as the last page, which commenced with an incomplete paragraph, whilst the preceding concocted page with the larger font ending with a completed paragraph, thereby lucidly disclosing such deliberate manipulation, into which, no inquiry, as warranted, was held consequent to my such discovery and complaint; I had obtained certified copies of both versions of the Judgment from the Supreme Court Registrar ! (Amazon Books – ‘IMF, World Bank & ADB Agenda on Privatisation – Vol. 3: Colombo Port Bunkering Privatisation – Annulled as Illegal & Fraudulent by Supreme Court’)

I discovered that two complete pages of the sole dissenting Judgment of Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane  had been omitted by the manipulation on the computer of the font type and size of the text. This had been done by changing the font to a ‘larger size’ viz – ‘Century Gothic Font’ of the first 15 pages, the text of the first 15 pages had thus occupied 17 pages, and the 16^th and 17^th pages of such ‘larger font’  viz – ‘Century Gothic Font’,  had been removed.

Thereafter, the first 14 pages of such larger font viz – ‘Century Gothic Font’ had been photocopied on the two sides of 7 sheets, and the 8^th sheet contained the photocopy of the 15^th page of such ‘larger font’ viz – ‘Century Gothic Font’ on the front side, and on the reverse of the 8^th sheet was photocopied the 16^th page of the ‘smaller font’ viz – ‘Calibri Font’, bearing the signature of Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane at the end. (Google Books – ‘IMF, World Bank & ADB Agenda on Privatisation – Vol. 3: Colombo Port Bunkering Privatisation – Annulled as Illegal & Fraudulent by Supreme Court’)

By such ‘manipulation’ two pages of the text of the sole dissenting Judgment of Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane had been omitted and issued by the Supreme Court Registry on 13^th October 2009, and based upon which, media reports had been widely published on 14^th October 2009 and thereafter, without having reported the important and relevant contents on the Constitutional limitations of the exercise of executive power by the President, which ought to have been reported in the media, in the very public interest; whereas by such ‘manipulation’ such important and relevant contents of the sole dissenting Judgment had been caused to be suppressed from being published in the media. (Amazon Books – ‘IMF, World Bank & ADB Agenda on Privatisation – Vol. 3: Colombo Port Bunkering Privatisation – Annulled as Illegal & Fraudulent by Supreme Court’)

It is by some coincidental destiny, that I came to know from a very close kinsman, resident in Kandy, of one of the 7 Justices, who was a Member of the 7 Judge Bench, that the day before the Judgments were delivered on Tuesday, October 13, 2009, the kinsman having come to Colombo had been residing at this Justice’s residence, and in the night of Monday, October 12, 2009 at about 7.00 p.m., this Justice had been summoned for an urgent nocturnal Meeting by Chief Justice Asoka de Silva, and therefore he had rushed-off immediately to the Supreme Court, carrying the Files pertaining to the above Case, presumably after the dissenting Justice had informed of the Dissenting Judgment.

Chief Justice Asoka de Silva in an interview reported under the Caption – ‘People need justice and fair play’ had, inter-alia, stated – “The judiciary must be strictly impartial and above board. There will be no room for ‘Gossip’ and ‘Telephone’ justice during my tenure. I will not allow influencing of any member of the judiciary directly or indirectly and they will be severely protected from undue influence from political or any other influence or incentives. Judges must be of ‘Good Character’ and standing before the people to be respected and believed by the public.” – (Sunday Observer – July 19, 2009)

Addl. Solicitor General, as amicus-curiae, for Attorney General Mohan Peiris, P.C., and D.S. Wijesinghe, President’s Counsel, appearing for Respondent Basil Rajapaksa, M.P., Minister of Economic Development on February 9, 2012 in my SC (FR) Application No. 534/2011 pertaining to the impugned Special Determination of October 24, 2011 on the aforesaid ‘Urgent Bill’, were taken aback and alarmed by the foregoing ‘disclosures’ made by me before the Supreme Court, and vehemently opposed my such further Written Submission being publicly made known, expressing apprehension of the precipitation of a public calamity and scandal, notwithstanding such disclosures having been made in the very public interest. Hence, presiding Justice N.G. Amratunga directed that the Written Submissions tendered by me be returned and taken out of the Court Record, thereby suppressing such perverse facts from public disclosure. (Google Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

Nevertheless, comprehensively recording the proceedings in the Supreme Court on February 9, 2012, annexing my above Written Submission and the further Written Submission, I tendered another Application on May 8, 2012 to the Supreme Court to review and reconsider the denial to me of Leave to Proceed as aforesaid, which was rejected in Chambers by Justice N.G. Amaratunga, without having heard me, and significantly, without disputing and/or refuting, what I had placed on record that he had intimated that ‘Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake had directed him and the Bench only to hear me, but not to grant me Leave to Proceed’. (Amazon Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

Subsequently, with the concurrence of the Leaders of all Political Parties in Parliament, by the Ruling pronounced on October 9, 2012 pertaining to Supreme Court Special Determinations, Hon. Speaker of Parliament, inter-alia, pronounced that the Supreme Court could give earnest consideration to re-visit erroneous Special Determinations, and to rectify bona-fide errors, ‘to make a vested right of a citizen effective, as intended in the Constitution’. In the context of such Ruling pronounced by the Hon. Speaker of Parliament, including the Supreme Court Proceedings of February 9, 2012, I promptly tendered on October 18, 2012, a further Petition in my Application SC (SD) No. 2/2011, annexing all Documents, urging the matter of the Special Determination of October 24, 2011 be re-visited and reviewed by the same Bench, which made the said Special Determination, for the same to be rectified, as mandated by Article 123(3) of the Constitution. (Google Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

Unlike in the previous instance of my Application for review of January 18, 2012, made under Article 132 of the Constitution, which had been correctly forwarded, as required, directly to the Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, however, in this instance, the listing Justice, K. Sripavan, prevented my Application for a review from being directly forwarded to Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake to be considered by her, in terms of Article 132 of the Constitution, read with Article 123(3) thereof. (Amazon Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

Instead, Justice K. Sripavan had taken upon himself to adjudicate upon the very matter in issue, specifically the interpretation of Article 80(3) of the Constitution. Sitting alone in Chambers on October 22, 2012, he without having heard me, and disregarding the above Ruling pronounced by the Hon. Speaker, Justice K. Sripavan had determined ex-parte that – “This Article (Art 80 (3)) must be interpreted according to its true purpose and intent as disclosed by the phraseology in its natural signification”, whereas constitutional interpretations, as per the Constitution, ought have been made by a Bench of the Supreme Court, generally as a precedent by 5 or more Judges, on an important matter, such as this !

Justice K. Sripavan, had gone on to further state that – “If a party perceives “judicial bias & disqualification” against a member of the Bench, such party should have raised objections at the time the Bill was taken up for hearing”. Such was an absurdity given the secrecy and haste disclosed hereinbefore in making the Special Determination of October 24, 2011 sans any notice to the public, and more importantly to the effected parties named in the said ‘Urgent Bill’ ! Given the averments in my Petition, in the context of certain circumstances, I would have objected to Justice K. Sripavan adjudicating on my Petition, but I had no such opportunity to have done so, since, he had dealt with the matter, by himself, in his Chambers.

The above was a matter, directly concerning the conduct of Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, which therefore ought to have been dealt with by her, herself, and not by Justice K. Sripavan, raising the lurking question, as to whether he too had been directed to so state, inasmuch as Justice N.G. Amaratunga, after he had entertained my SC (FR) Application No. 534/2011 on November 25, 2011 and had issued Notices on the Respondents, had been directed by her previously ‘only to hear me, but not to grant me Leave to Proceed’. In any case, this was not a matter to have been pointed out by any person, but warranted to have been realized and acted upon by Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, herself, which concerned her husband holding high profile political Public Offices as aforesaid. (Google Books – ‘IMF, World Bank & ADB Agenda on Privatisation – Vol. 3: Colombo Port Bunkering Privatisation – Annulled as Illegal & Fraudulent by Supreme Court’ / ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’/ ‘Politics, Justice & the ‘Rule of Law’)

Nevertheless, subsequently on the very next day, October 23, 2012, Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake had minuted agreeing with the perverse opinion of Justice K. Sripavan, with Justices N.G. Amaratunga, P.A. Ratnayake and C. Ekanayake, thereafter concurring therewith. Very significantly, the assertion made by me at the very first instance on February 9, 2012 of her judicial bias and disqualification, stood un-refuted, undisputed and therefore admitted and not denied by Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, herself. The foregoing conduct and actions by Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake and the above Justices had been with sheer disregard of the Ruling which had been previously pronounced on October 9, 2012 by the Hon. Speaker of Parliament, with the unanimity of all Political Leaders in Parliament, that Supreme Court could be re-visit to rectify bona-fide errors in Special Determinations, ‘to make a vested right of a citizen effective, as intended in the Constitution’. (Amazon Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’ / ‘Politics, Justice & the ‘Rule of Law’)

I, as one of the promoters and stakeholders of Hotel Developers (Lanka) PLC, the owning Company of Colombo Hilton, was a gravely adversely affected party, by the Special Determination of October 24, 2011 made ultra vires the Constitution, denying natural justice and flagrantly violating Article 17 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, since the said Company had also been surreptitiously included by certain interested parties to be so vested in the Government, under the guise of this ‘Urgent Bill’; whereas I, as rightfully and lawfully might, had invoked judicial power, to re-structure this Company in HC (Civil) WP Case No. 52/2011/CO, under and in terms of the Companies Act No. 7 of 2007, which judicial power, as a component of sovereignty, constitutionally was inalienable, as had been determined in October 2002 by a 7 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, which facts I had adduced in my Petition. (Google Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

I had previously instituted a litigation on grounds of fraud against the Japanese Consortium vis-à-vis the construction of the Colombo Hilton Hotel in D.C. Colombo Case No. 3155/Spl, and had succeeded, with the Supreme Court, inter-alia,  pronouncing in SC (Appeals) Nos. 33 & 34/1992, that I had a real prospect of success of proving the fraud, and accordingly, the Japanese Consortium was restrained from claiming and/or receiving any monies from Hotel Developers (Lanka) PLC or under State Guarantees given by the Government for such construction. I had subsequently proved irrefutable evidence of criminality before a Special Presidential Commission investigating into the said fraud, and such was not disputed by the Japanese Architects and was admitted by the UDA.  (Ameresekere v Mitsui & Co. Ltd., and Others [1992] LRC (Comm) ). (Amazon Books – ‘Colombo Hilton Hotel Construction – Fraud on Sri Lanka Government – Vol. 1 – Sri Lanka’s First Derivative Action in Law’ / ‘Colombo Hilton Hotel Construction – Fraud on Sri Lanka Government  – Vol. 2 – Criminality Exposed, but Perversely Covered-up’)

Had I pursued with my litigations, I would have most certainly succeeded and would have been a major stakeholder of Hotel Developers (Lanka) PLC today and not the Government of Sri Lanka. Nevertheless, due to diplomatic pressures exerted by the Japanese Government, the Sri Lankan Government urged me to settle and withdraw my litigations, based on contractual agreements entered into with me and the Sri Lanka Government, wherein on my insistence, I obtained on the fraudulent Claims made on the Japanese Loans under State Guarantees, a write-off of Jap. Yen. 17,586 Mn., in June 1995, then SL Rs. 10,200 Mn., which as at June 2016 amounts to a value of SL Rs. 89 Billion, and the re-scheduling of the balance Loan, which as at June 2016 amounts to SL Rs. 51.3 Billion, over a further period of 16 years, at a reduced rate of interest. (Google Books – ‘Colombo Hilton Hotel Construction – Fraud on Sri Lanka Government Vol. 3 – Settlement of a Fraud’ / ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

In September, 2014 the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited Sri Lanka, with screaming media headlines – “ABE ARRIVES WITH YEN 13B LOAN” (i.e. comparatively at June 2016 values SL Rs. 15.5 Billion) The above write-off obtained by me, comparatively as at June 2016 values amounts to over 5½ times the Loan given by the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and whereas what I had obtained was a complete write-off, and not a Loan to be re-paid.

Likewise, it ought be compared with the further Japanese Loan of SL Rs. 50 Billion granted by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in May 2016, when Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena visited Japan, as an Invitee for the G7 Summit.

A perverse highly questionable restraining order was made by Justice C.V. Vigneswaran of the Court of Appeal in March 1999, permitting payments to be made to the Japanese Consortium, whilst questionably restraining all other Conditions in the Settlement Agreements, including the further financial re-structuring of Hotel Developers (Lanka) PLC, and which Case was finally dismissed only in May 2014 – www.consultants21.com

As a consequence, Hotel Developers (Lanka) PLC was plunged into a pathetic financial plight, and the Government had to advance under State Guarantees to Hotel Developers (Lanka) PLC, SL Rs. 3,949 Mn., to pay part of the balance monies on the Japanese unwritten-off Loans, with the Government charging SL Rs. 8,149 Mn., as interest thereon, with interest exceeding the Capital, making a total Claim of SL Rs. 12,098 Mn., as at May 2011, upon which premise, Hotel Developers (Lanka) PLC had been included to be vested in the Government by this ‘Urgent Bill’ in November 2011; whereby, the Supreme Court without even having heard me, caused me irremediable mischief and irreparable loss and damage, with unjust enrichment and undue benefit conferred on the Government, and therefore  justifiably giving rise to the payment to me by the Government of just and equitable compensation, in that, this was my personal business, and such settlement had been under contractual agreements with the Government, that too, at the urgings of the Government. This was a personal litigation in a project I participated to develop, and not a public interest litigation, as my subsequent public interest litigations by which the Government and the public have immensely benefitted, as a consequence of my such endeavours, including costs incurred thereon. (Amazon Books – ‘Colombo Hilton Hotel Construction – Fraud on Sri Lanka Government – Vol. 1 – Sri Lanka’s First Derivative Action in Law’ / ‘Colombo Hilton Hotel Construction – Fraud on Sri Lanka Government  – Vol. 2 – Criminality Exposed, but Perversely Covered-up’ / ‘Colombo Hilton Hotel Construction – Fraud on Sri Lanka Government Vol. 3 – Settlement of a Fraud’ / ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’)

The foregoing facts, circumstances and sequence of events, well and truly constituted justifiable grounds for me to support the impeachment endeavour in 2012 of Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, consequent to subsequent interpretations of the Constitution made in August and October 2012 in relation to another Bill by 3 Judge Benches of the Supreme Court, both presided by Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, after her husband had been compelled to resign in May 2012 due to a public outcry from the post of Chairman, National Savings Bank, in the face of a scandalous annulled Share deal by the said Bank . In two Special Determinations made in August and October 2012, particularly the interpretation of the subject of Lands, vis-à-vis, the Provincial Councils had been diametrically different, as to how it had been interpreted in the Special Determination of October 24, 2011 by Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake.

On November 6, 2012, a Motion signed by 117 of the total of 225 Members of Parliament, containing several Charges against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament. The Hon. Speaker of Parliament in terms of the Constitution on November 13, 2012 appointed a Parliamentary Select Committee to investigate and report, which Report was tabled in Parliament on December 8, 2012, finding her guilty of 3 of the Charges. (Google Books – ‘Politics, Justice & the ‘Rule of Law’)

Setting out, inter-alia, the foregoing facts, circumstances and sequence of events, I tendered an Affidavit on December 5, 2012 to the Hon. Speaker, following up with my Letter of January 5, 2013‘,pointing out the non-compliance with his Ruling pronounced in Parliament on October 9, 2012, and raising the question, as to whether not the aforesaid Justices, who had supported / sided with  Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake stood disqualified from hearing Applications filed before the Supreme Court, relating to the impeachment process against Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake ?

The Parliamentary Select Committee Report of December 8, 2012 had recorded that my aforesaid Application dated October 18, 2012 in SC (SD) No. 2/2011 and Minutes made therein had been called for by the Parliamentary Select Committee on December 4, 2012 vide Column 1 on page 1437 of the said Report, and two days thereafter Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake and her Lawyers on December 6, 2012 had withdrawn from the proceedings before the Parliamentary Select Committee vide Column 2 on page 1505 of the said Report. (Amazon Books – ‘Socio-Political Realities – Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad hominem Legislation – Expropriation Law’ / ‘Politics, Justice & the ‘Rule of Law’)

The Parliament debated the Impeachment Motion against Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake on January 10 and 11, 2013, and passed the Resolution to remove her, with 155 Members voting for the Resolution, with 49 Members voting against, and 20 Members abstaining. Consequently on January 13, 2013, the President of Sri Lanka signed the Warrant removing her, as Chief Justice of Sri Lanka. (Google Books – ‘Politics, Justice & the ‘Rule of Law’)

In the circumstances of me publicly supporting the impeachment endeavour of Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, I was appalled at the several interferences and criticisms by uninformed international institutions, agencies and associations, reacting on hearsay, media hype and orchestrated publicity. Therefore, I addressed several Letters adducing relevant facts to the following parties, inter-alia, citing principles given hereinafter from the UN Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and Commonwealth Latimer House Principles. (Amazon Books – ‘Politics, Justice & the ‘Rule of Law’)

• UN Office for Human Rights
• US State Department
• European Union
• International Council of Jurists •
• International Commission of Jurists
• Commonwealth Secretary-General
• International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute
• Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales
• American Bar Association
• Commonwealth Lawyers Association
• Commonwealth Magistrates’ & Judges’ Association
• Commonwealth Legal Education Association
• Canadian Bar Association
• Law Council of Australia 
• All India Bar Association
• Asian Human Rights Commission 
• Asian Legal Resource Centre

Ironically, the US State Department in its 2010 Human Rights Report on Sri Lanka released on April 8, 2011, at Section 4 – Titled – ‘Official Corruption and Government Transparency’, at pages 25 and 26 thereof had, inter-alia, stated thus:

• “The law provides criminal penalties for official corruption; however, the Government did not implement the law effectively, and Officials in all three branches of the Government frequently engaged in corrupt practices with impunity”

• “In 2008 the Supreme Court found then Treasury Secretary P.B. Jayasundera guilty of a violation of procedure in the awarding of a large contract for the expansion of the Port of Colombo. The Court barred him from holding the Treasury position. In June 2009, after President Rajapaksa named a new Supreme Court Chief Justice, the Supreme Court allowed P.B. Jayasundera to proceed with a fundamental rights Case protesting the original decision. The Supreme Court then overturned the previous decision and allowed P.B. Jayasundera to be reinstated as Secretary of the Treasury.”

One of the three branches of the Government referred to above is the Judiciary, whilst the other two being the Executive and the Legislature. Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was then the senior most Judge in the Supreme Court, the apex Court of the Judiciary.  On May 18, 2011 on the heels of the US State Department Report, she was appointed as the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka.

As aforesaid, I had promptly made on January 3, 2013 extensive representations to the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales on a Statement dated January 2, 2013 released by them. My such representations were acknowledged by E-mail dated January 3, 2013 by their Project Co-ordinator Illari Aragon thanking me for the same, and confirming that my representations would be shared with their colleagues monitoring the situation in Sri Lanka.

Notwithstanding such representations, Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. had issued a Report on the impeachment of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice on February 27, 2013, as conducted for the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales by him, which was highlighted in the media as – ‘Eminent UK Jurist finds ex-CJ Shirani innocent’, and ‘urges Queen to not attend CHOGM in Sri Lanka’. I promptly addressed my Letter of March 5, 2013 to Geoffrey Robertson Q.C.

For reasons best known to him, Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. had chosen to ignore and had not dealt with my aforesaid representations of January 3, 2013 in his Report of February 27, 2013, and was unable to respond to my aforesaid Letter dated March 5, 2013. I had through my overseas connections been informed that Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. had been professionally engaged by LTTE / TGTE at the very same time, with statements attributed to him on the internet in that behalf, which serious conflict of interest had not been disclosed by him in his aforesaid Report.

Subsequently I received copy of Letter dated November 17, 2015 on a Letterhead of the Office of the Prime Minister Transnational Government of Tamil Elam, nominating Geoffrey Robertson Q.C., among others, to a Panel to monitor Trans National Justice Mechanisms in Sri Lanka. Was this not a clear case of bias and violative of professional conduct in the circumstances of which, the aforesaid Report of February 27, 2013, by Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. stood and stands unreliable and discredited ?

Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct

“A Judge shall perform his or her judicial duties without favour, bias or prejudice ”

“A Judge shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to a reasonable observer to be free therefrom”

“A Judge shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of the Judge’s assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason”

“In performing judicial duties, a Judge shall be independent of judicial colleagues in respect of decisions that the Judge is obliged to make independent”

“A Judge shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of Court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public ……”

Commonwealth Latimer House Principles

“Legitimate public criticism of judicial performance, as a means of ensuring accountability”

“Judges are accountable to the Constitution and to the Law which they must apply honestly, independently and with integrity ….. Judges may be constructive and purposive in the interpretation of Legislation, but must not usurp Parliament’s legislative function”

“The promotion of zero-tolerance of corruption is vital to good governance”

I fervently trust that the foregoing  international institutions, agencies and associations, taking due cognizance of the foregoing facts, circumstances and sequence of events, would examine, as to whether or not, Justice Shirani Bandaranayake and/or any of the aforesaid Justices, had transgressed the UN Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and Commonwealth Latimer House Principles, or as to whether these international institutions, agencies and associations would condone or condemn such conduct and actions ? In the interest of justice, I strongly exhort these international institutions, agencies and associations do so, inasmuch as, the foregoing matter had been misleadingly extensively dealt with by these international institutions, agencies and associations, as had been highlighted in the global media. (Google Books – ‘Politics, Justice & the ‘Rule of Law’)

SOURCE: Consultants 21 Ltd. – www.consultants21.com

Documents referred to in above

1. Special Determination + President’s Letter & Cabinet Memorandum + Urgent Bill
2. Bill Challenge Petition + Orders made in Chambers
3. Fundamental Rights Application + Written Submissions, including on Judicial Bias / Prejudice + Order
4. Application for Review of Fundamental Rights Application + Order
5. Application for Review of Special Determination + Orders made in Chambers
6. Affidavit + Letter to Speaker of Parliament of Sri Lanka
7. Ruling by the Speaker of Parliament of Sri Lanka
8. Letter by Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake on Judicial Bias / Prejudice + Recent News Report in LankaeNews
9. Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles + UN Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct
10. Judgments + Cannibalized Dissenting Judgment