Shirani Bandaranayake the 54 year old first female Supreme Court Judge and the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka has been impeached by Parliament and now removed from office by President Mahinda Rajapaksa. In an article for the New York Times titled ‘Sri Lankan Parliament Impeaches Chief Justice’, Gardiner Harris states “…The chief justice’s fall from grace since that ruling [the court struck down provisions of a law that would have given greater power to the government’s economic development minister, Basil Rajapaksa, who is also the president’s brother]  has been dizzying, with the state-controlled media sharply criticizing her. Impeachment proceedings began in November. A parliamentary committee issued a guilty verdict against her in December, saying she had misused her power and failed to adequately declare her assets. Last week, an appeals court annulled the verdict and forbade further action by the Parliament against Chief Justice Bandaranayake. The Parliament’s willingness to ignore the court’s ruling and impeach the chief justice anyway set the nation up for a possible constitutional crisis. …Since President Rajapaksa dominates the Parliament, the impeachment effort is widely seen by many democracy advocates as an effort by the president and his family to further consolidate power and eliminate any impediment to their almost complete control. “The entire impeachment process is clearly politically motivated as a punishment to the chief justice for daring to apply the constitution in a way that went against the Rajapaksa administration,” Alan Keenan, of the International Crisis Group, said in an interview. The parliamentary committee found Chief Justice Bandaranayake unfit for office on charges of failing to disclose details of 20 bank accounts and intervening in cases before the court in which she had a financial interest. She was also alleged to have sought to protect her husband from corruption charges. She had protested the rapidity of the parliamentary proceeding and her inability to confront or cross-examine her accusers.”  Inspired by Gardiner Harris, New York Times ow.ly/gR6zH Image source Facebook ow.ly/gR67S Sri Lanka Chief Justice’s dizzying fall from grace (January 23 2013)Shirani Bandaranayake the 54 year old first female Supreme Court Judge and the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka has been impeached by Parliament and now removed from office by President Mahinda Rajapaksa. In an article for the New York Times titled ‘Sri Lankan Parliament Impeaches Chief Justice’, Gardiner Harris states “…The chief justice’s fall from grace since that ruling [the court struck down provisions of a law that would have given greater power to the government’s economic development minister, Basil Rajapaksa, who is also the president’s brother]  has been dizzying, with the state-controlled media sharply criticizing her. Impeachment proceedings began in November. A parliamentary committee issued a guilty verdict against her in December, saying she had misused her power and failed to adequately declare her assets. Last week, an appeals court annulled the verdict and forbade further action by the Parliament against Chief Justice Bandaranayake. The Parliament’s willingness to ignore the court’s ruling and impeach the chief justice anyway set the nation up for a possible constitutional crisis. …Since President Rajapaksa dominates the Parliament, the impeachment effort is widely seen by many democracy advocates as an effort by the president and his family to further consolidate power and eliminate any impediment to their almost complete control. “The entire impeachment process is clearly politically motivated as a punishment to the chief justice for daring to apply the constitution in a way that went against the Rajapaksa administration,” Alan Keenan, of the International Crisis Group, said in an interview. The parliamentary committee found Chief Justice Bandaranayake unfit for office on charges of failing to disclose details of 20 bank accounts and intervening in cases before the court in which she had a financial interest. She was also alleged to have sought to protect her husband from corruption charges. She had protested the rapidity of the parliamentary proceeding and her inability to confront or cross-examine her accusers.”

 

Inspired by Gardiner Harris, New York Times ow.ly/gR6zH Image source Facebook ow.ly/gR67S