Wednesday 9 January 2019

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

09 January 2019

Speaker of Lankan Parliament confirms Vested Interest

"Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." – Lord Chief Justice Hewart in R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy.

In the above matter, as per Wikipedia - ‘the clerk to the Justices was a member of the firm of solicitors acting in a civil claim against the defendant arising out of the accident that had given rise to the prosecution. The clerk retired with the justices, who returned to convict the defendant.
Despite the Justices confirming through affidavits that they did not consult with the Clerk, Justice Hewart ruled that there as breach of fundamental principles:

The question therefore is not whether in this case the deputy clerk made any observation or offered any criticism which he might not properly have made or offered; the question is whether he was so related to the case in its civil aspect as to be unfit to act as clerk to the justices in the criminal matter. The answer to that question depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done.

In terms of Natural Laws – the clerk was part of the court as an institution and when he was with the justices – there is free flow of thoughts in the subconscious mind and the subconscious mind. That common belief is what makes us a sovereign / independent group. Relativity within that group as per the depth of belief would provide reliability to the outcomes / judgments produced by that group. An external mind would   naturally infect other minds in that group to the extent of that common belief. Hence the need to exclude those with vested interests.

My Australian experience in this regard is described as follows through article dated 27 June 2017:
Christians Foremost?
…………The Conflict here in Australian mind is whether we qualify to call ourselves self-governing when we continue to ‘show’ Christian values above Common values when dealing with secular issues. During my participation in a Court hearing on the basis of Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Justice Gyles asked me towards the end of the hearing whether according to me the alleged racial discrimination was Conscious or Subconscious? I said ‘subconscious’. Then Dr. John Griffiths (not sure if he is the one who later became the judge of the Federal Court) who represented the other side jumped up and stated words to the effect that his client was young and her career would be adversely affected by a ruling against her. When judgment was delivered to ‘dismiss’ me – I went to St Mary’s Cathedral nearby and cried.  The more I got to know the Australian Judiciary – the more disappointed I became. I was also able to better appreciate the challenges faced by Indigenous Australians in a White man’s world even when they express themselves through the White man’s rules.......]

Had Justice Gyles not asked me the question ‘whether according to me the alleged racial discrimination was Conscious or Subconscious?’ – I would have concluded that he did not understand the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the fundamentals of Equal Opportunity. Justice Gyles did. But when Dr John Griffiths jumped up and activated the legal fraternity (I was self-represented) strings – vested interest was injected into the mind of Justice Gyles.
I consider on the basis of my own experience – that the Speaker had erred in his decision to award the Leader of Opposition position to Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa . He is seen to have erred on the basis that he and Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa are both  Sinhalese Buddhists and Mr Sampanthan who ‘lost’ the position is Tamil Hindu. We all have ‘vested interests’ due to our common beliefs. When these are apparent when the victim  is  of a different belief – we need to ‘show’ that we overrode such natural influences. Like President Sirisena, Speaker Jayasuriya also shows lack of professional  investment in the provisions of law. The laws of the Parliament render it official structure and therefore reliability to internal relationships. Without such common belief based relationships – we are mere individuals. As individuals we are not supported by the Common member of Parliament, developed through all investors from its inception.

What is ‘shown and seen’ is the Truth of this individual and not the speaker of the Parliament.
If  TNA – especially Mr Sumanthiran does not first move a no-confidence motion against the Speaker and follow the same process he did in the case against President Sirisena’s decision  - he would be confirming the rumours that he has joined the UNP. We need to ‘see’ the confirmation of independence.

No comments:

Post a Comment