Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

18 October  2019

SRI LANKAN JUDICIARY & IN LIMINE DISMISSAL

[The Court observed that the Petitioners had not stated a word about the delay in filing the Petition, but impliedly expected the Court to believe that they came to know about the question of GR’s dual-citizenship through a Daily FT news item that appeared on 05 August 2019.  The Court observed that if there was an unreasonable and unexplained delay, the Court could dismiss a Writ application in limine ] C. A. Chandraprema – in his Island article ‘Why the Viyangoda - Thenuwara petition against Gota failed’

 

The following was published by Sri Lanka Guardian at http://www.slguardian.org/2019/10/sri-lanka-court-publishes-reasons-full.html - as part of the Petitioners in the above matter:

 

The 1978 Constitution provided as follows in terms of Presidential Immunity:

[35 (1). While any person holds office as President, no proceedings shall be instituted or continued against him in any court or tribunal in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him either in his official or private capacity. ]

The above immunity has been upheld in the amended constitution. Hence how did the Courts accept a petition that included ‘Hon President Mahinda Rajapaksa’ as the 6^th Respondent???

The following by Reporter Chandraperuma gives us an indication of the (dis)order in the judicial mind:

[At the outset, the Court pointed out that Counsel representing all parties agreed that the Court would pronounce its order on 4 October 2019, and deliver reasons on a subsequent date. (The reasons were delivered accordingly, on 15 October)]

To reason after the judging  is to place the cart before the horse – i.e. outcome before law / vehicle before the driver. If it was just a question of typing – then the reasons ought to have been delivered on the following working day.

Immunity is provided so that a governor is not punished by the governed under a structure that is different to the one through which the governor became head. The status of a child should never be higher than that of the parent – in the family home. That confirms the respect of the existing structure established and/or maintained by the parent. If the child  seeks to be higher – then the child must earn that status from her/his own children – away from the parental structure.  This ceiling is essential in a structure that confirms sovereignty. Restructures happen when the senior tends to become dependent on the child.

The simple rule could be exercised at the Registrar’s level. But this has not been facilitated. Instead – the Judiciary  has stated that SLPP ought to have been a Respondent:

Has the Judiciary not used its ‘discretionary powers’ to think about the Political Party and thereby polluted the ‘pure stream of Independence of the Judge and therefore of Justice?’ 

Discretionary powers are valid only when the law does not cover the highest level of the said activity – in this instance the certification of the Citizenship by a brother – outside due process. Due processes are the media through which the Energy / Heritage of elders in Administration flow through to those who have inherited the system. The effect of dismissing the petition is to limit the structure of the Administrative Department responsible – to the level of family relationships and the common belief developed through such relationships. One does not need high level laws to develop family relationships. One does – to develop workplace relationships beyond one’s biological circles. The discretionary powers of the Judiciary ought to have been used towards such development. Otherwise the intellectual capacity of the Judiciary itself would be limited to benefit its side of Judicial politics.

As I keep saying in relation to a family disputes – between two branches of different cultures – where I am not treated as the common head - I would take my side without discriminating whether my side is right or wrong. Likewise I would expect the other side to do likewise. This helps escalate the matter to the higher level – than if we did not take sides. Those who do take sides are not eligible to be judges and therefore lack the authority to use discretionary powers – even to state reasons. The Judiciary obviously have sided SLPP politicians. Hence their decision would be valid only within such families.

That is the way of politics. When majority voters support such leaders – all that minority has to do is to believe beyond the biological/country  circles – and mind merge with those beyond the local borders. THAT then becomes their natural group. This requires deep investment and often sacrifice of existing benefits. But we grow taller and taller through intellectual connections – until we are taller than the majority stacked vertically. Once we forego almost all we have – we are in the area of Absolute power as per our soul-purpose. From then on it is the Truth that leads us. THAT was how Tamils became Equal Opposition in Sri Lankan Parliament. All we have to do is to continue to invest in the intellectual pathway and maintain our belief based connection to current voters. The rest would be done by the system of Dharma.