A lawyers’ organisation has said that remarks made in Parliament about Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena breached the House’s own rules, and has criticised the opposition for not objecting to them.
Lawyers for Public Mandate made the case at a joint media briefing in Colombo on Wednesday, NewsFirst reported.
President’s Counsel Mohan Weerakoon condemned what he called derogatory remarks made in the House by a Matale district MP relating to material published on websites about the Chief Justice. Weerakoon said Standing Order 82 strictly forbids the discussion of courts or judges in Parliament.
Lawyers at the briefing argued that ignoring a breach of that rule undermines public confidence in both the judiciary and the wider governance structure.
Criticism aimed at the opposition
Gamini Nallaperuma, also speaking for the organisation, directed his remarks at the opposition rather than at the government. He said an opposition leader should challenge claims made by members of their own side when those claims are wrong, instead of going along with them.
He said he was disappointed by the current leader’s silence over the remarks made by MP Rohini Kavirathne, and treated that silence as implicit endorsement. NewsFirst did not name the leader in question and did not report any response from the opposition or from the MP.
The same remarks, two opposite demands
The briefing is the second intervention in as many reports arising from the same set of parliamentary statements, pointing in the opposite direction.
Earlier on Wednesday the National Trade Union and Civil Front asked the Bribery Commission to investigate the allegations raised in the House by Kavirathne and fellow opposition MPs Dayasiri Jayasekara and Ajith P. Perera, which concern the Chief Justice’s assets and delays in recovering compensation over the X-Press Pearl disaster. That group wants the claims tested by an inquiry. Lawyers for Public Mandate argues they should not have been aired in Parliament at all.
Neither position has been ruled on. The allegations remain unproven.
Context
The exchange lands while the higher judiciary is already at the centre of a political argument. More than 37 petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court against the 22nd Amendment Bill, which would raise the retirement age of judges. Former Bar Association president Saliya Peiris has argued the bill should not be enacted, while the Association’s current president and secretary have petitioned for a referendum.
As of Wednesday night, no other verified Sri Lankan newsroom had filed its own report of the briefing.
