CPA’s FR Challenge To Mohan Pieris’ De Facto CJ Appointment – 5 Judges Bow Down & CPA’s Counsels Bow Out In Protest

July 25, 2013 

A fundamental rights case by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) challenging the controversial installing of Mohan Pieris as de facto Chief Justice, fundamental rights cases challenging the so called impeachment of Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake disregarding Appeal Court and Supreme Court rulings, and cases challenging the validity of the controversial Parliament Standing Order 78A which was used to remove Bandaranayake without following basic principles of Natural Justice were taken up today (25.07.2013).

Mohan Pieris

The cases were specially fixed before a bench of 5 judges chosen by Pieris. The judges were Saleem Marsoof (PC), Chandra Ekanayake, Sathya Hettige (PC), Eva S. Wanasundera (PC) and Rohini Marasinghe.

When the fundamental rights case by the CPA was taken up, counsel M. A. Sumanthiran told the court that like on the previous date, he points out that it is very wrong for Mohan Pieris (6th Respondent in the case) to pick some judges and leave others out in his own case. He said all judges must assemble and hear the case without the 6th Respondent playing any part in the process for hearing and deciding the case. Justice Marsoof said whatever it is, there is someone functioning as the Chief Justice and they have to obey his directives. Justice Hettige asked how many cases Sumanthiran has appeared in before Mohan Pieris. Sumanthiran responded that this is only because he is acting as de facto Chief Justice and not because he is legally the Chief Justice. But he said, it is very wrong for Pieris to play any role in the conduct of his own case, where he is a respondent party and has personal interest. This is the proper way to question and challenge the appointment, he added. He said that it is the duty of all Supreme Court judges to assemble and hear the case as it is their duty to do so. If any judges have any difficulty, he pointed out that under international standards and decided cases, they must come on the bench and state in public what their reluctance is. There must be transparency he said.

Deputy Solicitor General Shavindra Fernando objected to Sumanthiran’s request. Sumanthiran said if the judges want, he is even willing as a compromise to technically make an application to 6th Respondent Pieris (de facto CJ) that all judges must be allowed to sit by nomination, without any choice being made by him. However DSG Fernando appearing for the AG objected strongly to this request, saying Pieris alone must make a choice of the judges he wants for the case. The judges did not take the compromise proposal after DSG Fernando said that the judges might be found fault with if they ask CJ to nominate all judges.

Read More