Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

02 November  2019

WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF TAMILS?

Each time we complete our experience by identifying with the truth at that point – our work and sacrifices that led to the discovery of that truth  become the foundations of our further travel. Fundamental Rights – Natural or written - confirm this. It is therefore disappointing to note the following report which reveals frivolous and vexatious claim by a Sri Lankan Lawyer:

[A Fundamental Rights (FR) petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking an interim injunction against the signing of certain agreement with the U.S.  including the MCC, ACSA and SOFA by the government of Sri Lanka. 

The FR petition has been filed by Attorney-at-Law Darshana Weraduwage while the Attorney General, President Maithripala Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Foreign Affairs Minister Tilak Marapana and Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera have been named as respondents. ] – Adaderana article ‘FR petition filed against signing of MCC agreement’

Article 35 (1) of the Sri Lankan Constitution provides as follows:

[ 35. (1) While any person holds office as President of the Republic of Sri Lanka, no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the President in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, either in his official or private capacity: Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be read and construed as restricting the right of any person to make an application under Article 126 against the Attorney-General, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, in his official capacity]

A lay litigant who lacks knowledge of law but is deeply distressed enough to  believe that it is her/his right to sue the members of a government could be accepted as being genuine in making such an application. But when a lawyer does so it questions the validity of that person’s legal status itself. It also confirms the lack of professionalism within the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.

During last year’s Constitutional Crisis – the immunity of the President was also examined by some of us. That was a completed experience to us which empowers us from within. That becomes our karmic base for the next stage.

Yet Sri Lankan lawyers seem to be oblivious to this requirement. On 18 October 2019, I demonstrated this through my article headed ‘SRI LANKAN JUDICIARY & IN LIMINE DISMISSAL’, in relation to the Dual Citizenship matter heard by the Court of Appeal :

[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???]

No law expert  in my email list demonstrated any interest. This includes Mr Sumanthiran and Mr Wigneswaran who claim to serve the Tamil community. One may ask the question ‘what if they did not read your articles?’ My response to that is that – ‘One or both of  us is not being true to ourselves. Since I am true to myself – I conclude that these lawyers are not true to themselves and therefore their stated profession’ .

As if to confirm my feelings on this – our daughter Uma said this morning that her daughter’s friend who lost her father recently had gone off food but that she ate the cutlets that I make regularly for my grandchildren which Uma had shared with that family during their mourning  period. I felt deeply touched by this. It confirmed to me the value of my investment in Australian children of that age (11 years) as if they were my grandchildren. That feeling of deep satisfaction meant that that child was also my grandchild. That is how truth spreads itself.

If therefore lawyers who hold/held senior positions were committed to the ethics of their profession – they would contribute to the truth in practice of law to make the common Sri Lankan mind more healthy.  Obviously the above two law experts fall well short of that standard needed in self-governance.

But again the system of truth drew my attention to the work of fellow Chartered Accountants led by Nihal Sri Ameresekera. The Financial Times presented Nihal’s work as follows under the heading  - Nihal’s new book exposes “Settlement of colossal fraud on Sri Lanka Government”

[………………………………………….. Ameresekere discloses that in his crusade to combat fraud and corruption at the highest levels in society, he was confronted with the reality of the Government of Sri Lanka’s indifference to the enforcement of the rule of law and the upholding of its commitments under the UN Convention Against Corruption; and that ironically on the contrary, he had to face malicious capricious actions, with vexatious litigations, compelling his Application to Court to Wind-up the Company, resulting in the Government of the present Executive President, arbitrarily and surreptitiously enacting ad hominem legislation to, inter-alia, acquire the company!]
 

As a junior, I voted for Nihal to become President of the Student Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka. That was independent and against the ‘block’ vote that went to Nihal’s opponent Rajakulendran. Nihal won – by a slim margin (9 votes as per my recollection) . Connecting to Nihal’s above mentioned work – confirmed to me that even as a student – I had an independent mind. It also confirmed to me that the Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka of my generation were committed to professional ethnics than lawyers – then and now.

When we know the truth of someone who is disorderly and as per that truth – they do not see any reason to change – we need to become their distant relatives. That restructured position confirms how we read them. That structure becomes our protective armour/kavasam from the negative energies in these folks.   Those who are bound to us by faith are also protected by that armour.

When we vote against corrupt politicians – as per our own experience and / or that of someone of respect in our home-group, we invoke that protective armour around our mind.

As per Tamil Guardian report headed ‘Sinhala candidates ignored our demands - C V Wigneswaran’, Mr Wigneswaran stated :

 “Though we set out all of these requests, we find that… almost all the other Sinhalese candidates have rejected or did not want to even discuss it or open the file even and have a look at the problems that we have” 

This confirms dependence on Central Government to resolve the problems of Tamils.  

Also - Mr Wigneswaran is reported to have stated in his public statement dated 29 October 2019:

[So, under those circumstances we have decided that we will not ask our people to vote for a particular person, but allow a free vote with regard to our people, let them decide, whomever whom they want to vote for, one.]

This confirms Unitary structure. If Mr Wigneswaran truly believed in the fundamental rights of Tamils to govern themselves – he would have confirmed this by himself becoming a Presidential candidate. It is almost certain that he would not have become President but the pattern of voting would have confirmed whether majority Tamils believed in his policies – including about genocide. Likewise, if Mr Wigneswaran had actually practiced the law in Administration of Court proceedings – he would have engaged with victims  who have demonstrated such investment. When we vote through belief – we vote for ourselves in that position in our own local environments. The true value of that vote then spreads naturally to the whole. THAT is the purpose of devolution. Mr Wigneswaran obviously does not believe that he is President of Tamils.

In the paper published by Consultants 21 Ltd. – under the heading ‘Vexatious Litigations’, the following is stated about Mr Wigneswaran:

[The Court of Appeal by its said Judgment, written by Justice C.V. Wigneswaran, after hearing only the Revision Applications Nos. 721/98, 728/98 and 738/98 on the matter of the grant of Interim Orders i.e. Restraining Orders, most shockingly dismissed, without any hearing, whatsoever, the Leave to Appeal Applications, which were never taken-up. That alone well and truly demonstrated that Justice C.V. Wigneswaran had a hidden agenda. Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted Special Leave to Appeal highlighting such perversity. Prejudice caused by Minister of Justice & Deputy Minister of Finance, G.L. Peiris, now Minister of External Affairs In the said Judgment, Justice C.V. Wigneswaran, as morefully set out here in below, had extensively quoted and relied on the false, baseless, malicious and mala-fide Statements, which had been made by the Minister of Justice & Deputy Minister of Finance, G.L. Peiris, later Minister of External Affairs, which Statements had been proven to be false, and made spitefully in the context of Minister of Justice & Deputy Minister of Finance, G.L. Peiris, having been a party personally adversely affected by a Condition in the Settlement Agreements, as a former Member of the Securities & Exchange Commission of Sri Lanka…………………… Appallingly, Justice C.V. Wigneswaran on an Application made by S. Sivarasa, President’s Counsel, supporting the Contempt Application of Cornel & Co. Ltd., concurred that the Contempt matter would be withdrawn, if the matters affecting Cornel & Co. Ltd., were settled - was this not an instance of sheer abuse of the process of Court, blatantly condoned by Justice C.V. Wigneswaran akin to a ‘gun being held against the head’ ?]

It is obvious that consciously or subconsciously – Mr Wigneswaran has ‘identified’ with the Rajapaksa regime. Since Mr S Sivarasa PC is Australian in addition to being Sri Lankan, it is important that the Australian Diaspora of Sri Lankan origin regulates is thinking through Common Values to develop a strong and self-sustaining heritage for our children.

Attorney-at-Law Darshana Weraduwage is confirmed to have teamed up with Mr Nagananda Kodituwakku in a previous matter – reported on 03 May 2017, by Lanka Business Online:

[The Supreme Court decision came after taking up three petitions filed by Parliamentarian Bandula Gunawardane, Attorneys-at-law Darshana Weraduwage and Nagananda Kodituwakku before court under section 121 (1) of the constitution.]

Is the current case an attempt to draw attention to Presidential Candidate - Mr Nagananda Kodituwakku? In any case, it leads an orderly mind to conclude that under such leadership one ought to expect more disorder in Legal Administration which decides outside the parameters of law. Such opposition as per our true experience is healthy for our own minds.