~

Judge Abrew who disgraced judicature and himself says ‘Yahapalanaya apita bamboo gahannadha?’ Masses outraged by Eva and Abrew (Bonnie and Clyde) verdict : Judiciary tops should appointed by the Commonwealth countries..!

(Lanka-e-News- 16.May.2015, 11.00PM) ‘Yahapalanaya apita bamboo gahanadhei’ (what can good governance do against us) was the question asked by supreme court (SC) judge  Sarath Abrew when he met some Judges after delivering the outrageously illegal  order prohibiting the arrest  of Gotabaya Rajapakse  , according to reports reaching Lanka e news inside information division.

Judges for independence of judiciary who did not wish to reveal their names expressing their views to Lanka  e News revealed, the judges Eva Wanasundara and Sarath Abrew who heard the fundamental rights petition of Gotabaya have acted diametrically contradictory to the laws behaving like Bonnie and Clyde (notorious criminals of the past), and therefore degraded and disgraced the SC on a scale  unprecedented in the history of SL.

The grounds in support of this are : 
 
A two judge bench cannot hear such a petition as it  is mandatory that there should be a three judge bench. On the day of the hearing when the third judge Buvaneka Aluvihara withdrew from the case , and refused to hear it, what judges Eva and  Sarath ought to have done is , put on hold the trial until the third judge was replaced. Eva and Sarath by not abiding by that requirement had  villainously abused the powers of the sacrosanct bench.

The interim order given prohibiting the arrest of Gotabaya from 14 th May until 6 th October is untenable in law.. Such an interim order lasting 5 months had never ever been issued  in SL’s history of the  of the judicature. Apparently Eva and Sarath  have by this verdict shamelessly betrayed their ignorance of the fundamental laws  despite holding lofty positions in the judicature , whereby they have insulted the bench , for in such a petition , a prohibition order is tenable only for 14 days.  It is only after hearing the counter submissions of the other party to the case , can it be decided whether the order  should be restricted or extended. In the circumstances it is a glaring fact that Eva and Sarath have done a most deplorable and  disdainful strip tease  act on behalf of the rogue , the accused , while the entire nation was earnestly expecting most honorable official conduct from them upholding the sacrosanct judiciary and  its independence. Of course strip tease acts are enjoyed by one and all , more so when they are  performed before crooks ands criminals , regardless of the age of the performers.
 
The lawyers for good governance are of the opinion that this case can be heard by a five judge bench again by a motion filed by the AG .Besides , the other judges say , Eva and Sarath who prostituted their official positions by meeting with Rajapakses secretly before the day of trial at the premises of Ali Sabry , lawyer , have been meeting with the Rajapkses even before time and again. Mahinda Rajapakse was having very close association with Eva and Sarath since their Law College days, these judges added .

In addition, of these two judges who had made a most disgraceful sale of honor through professional villainy , Abrew has additionally  a most  putrid  antecedence  that disqualifies him  from being  a judge : he is tainted with charges of sexual molestation committed on his domestic servant ; assaulting a police officer who was in his security detail ; and behaving most degradingly and  aggressively in a market  place unbecoming of a judge .Mahinda Rajapakse notorious for exalting criminals and crooks suppressed all his wrongdoings .

The government of good governance too by not conducting an investigation into these past criminal records of his  despite being  a judge had  allowed these Rajapakse crooks and cronies  to continue flourishing in their favorite occupation of selling the lofty judicial profession and sublime national interests  at the altar of their self centered sordid ambitions and opportunistic gains .

Sarath Abrew is such a shameless judge by birth that when he was moving from  the appeal court to the SC, of the 99 cases he heard in the appeal court he had not prepared even a single report  on the 99 cases . Consequently , these cases have to be heard again , it is learnt. The Judicial service commission had not taken any action against him because he was a  most faithful bootlicking stooge of the Rajapakse regime  which all along considered bootlicking the regime  and sniffing their loin clothes as the best qualification a   public official must have irrespective of the latter’s crookedness , criminalities and treacheries which are most  detriment to the country and people.

Sadly , the present judges of the appeal court and SC are mostly lickspittles  and lackeys of Rajapkses and appointed by the Rajapkse regime. The judges for good governance have therefore pointed out , when this is the deplorable state of affairs in the judicature , the administration of true justice and upholding the rule of law to safeguard law abiding citizens of the country has become a major issue. The cooks and cronies of Rajapakses are not only having their way but even their say because the Rajapakses had systematically overturned  the legal Institutions  and processes so much so that the country is now at the brink of anarchy.

As a solution to this , the disconcerted and disgruntled judges who are wishing  that the government of good governance will rectify this grave situation , say, like how SL judges are appointed to the SC of Fiji Island , the judges appointed as president of the appeal court or as chief justice or to the judicial service commission of SL temporarily at least should be by the Commonwealth countries 

When such judges are appointed , as they will have no association with SL politicians , at least until an independent judicature is established in SL following the revival of the  independent judicial commission , a legal foundation based on judicial independence can be put in place  . the legal luminaries and lawyers for a lawful as opposed to a lawless SL asserted

---------------------------
by     (2015-05-16 19:27:28)

We are unable to continue LeN without your kind donation.

Leave a Reply

  5 discussion on this news

Throw Eva and Abrew out! They are judges who favour criminals!
-- by jay on 2015-05-17

Okay if the third judge was appointed what is the difference - two judges are already support the ruling
-- by Rabok on 2015-05-17

this is high treason. MS / RW no more vacillating.immiediate / drastic action is imperitive. The nation deserves nothing less.
-- by P.R.Kotalawela on 2015-05-17

it was JR Jayawardana UNP who closed the supreme court of Sri Lanka for nearly a week & moved an impeachement motion against the CJ chief Justice Neville Samarakoon to leave judiciary after JB Industies case. The UNP regime with the approval of Ranil Wickramsiinghe forced the then chief justice out. During the UNP regime thousands of alleged supporter of JVP including Rohana Wijeweera was killed. Judges were hooted by UNP thugs.These people now talk about independance of Judiciary. Menik Divelas daughter was the first office of UN who never went to office but studied at the University.The influence used by UNP regime on the Judiciary to get the 13th Amenment passed is a known secret. Justice wanasundara was never appointed cheif justice but a junior was promoted over and above others.No investigations or commissions on these matters up to date.To blame justice Eva Wanasundara who was well qualified to Supreme Court is highly unjustified.She is known & respected by the country as a fair and independent judge.An interim order only not to arrest a person untill it is decided by the court is the general law principle.Authors donot say the issue before the court was that there is a special unit of police not under IGP is doing an investigation which is illegal. Same happend during the unp regime.No where else in the world a special unit is created outside the ordinary police for witch hunting. If there are culprits or offenders why cant the police handle it unless some people decide that the entire police force is favouring some one.As some one says that they must make presentation to Commonwealth why did the UNP failed to introduce Privy Council back and advise india too to do it as it is part of soverignty of this country
-- by KAT on 2015-05-18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nuVnYSJLwY have a look at ghana experience SPEECH DELIVERED BY THE HON. LADY CHIEF JUSTICE, MRS. JUSTICE GEORGINA T. WOOD, AT THE 2014/2015 Posted by GBA SPEECH DELIVERED BY THE HON. LADY CHIEF JUSTICE, MRS. JUSTICE GEORGINA T. WOOD, AT THE 2014/2015 ANNUAL GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION ON MONDAY, 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 AT CAPE COAST Honourable Attorney General and Minister of Justice President of the GBA and other Executives Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Members of the Executive and Legislative arms of government present Vice Chancellor of the University of Cape Coast Learned Members of the GBA Nananom Invited Guests Members of the Media Ladies and Gentlemen I am very happy to be part of this year’s Annual Conference of the GBA as I have been in the past. I also deem it great pleasure to be handed the mantle to deliver the opening address for the commencement of this year’s Annual Conference under the theme “Insulating State Institutions from interference for effective realization of their mandate, the Role of Regulatory Bodies”. I am happy for the opportunity to address you on any topic of choice as indicated in the invitation letter. While we examine the various mechanisms for promoting and strengthening state institutions to deliver on their mandate, I believe that as main actors in the justice system, we also need to take stock of our performance and improve on the areas that we have defaulted in order to deliver more effectively on our mandate. It is always my honour to be among members of the bar. I thus think that the subject I have chosen to speak on which is: “TOWARDS A MORE EFFECTIVE JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM: THE ROLE OF THE GBA” is indeed very apposite and in sync with the theme for this conference. To start with, I would like to take this opportunity to appreciate the efforts of the leadership of the GBA for successfully organising this year’s Annual Conference. I also want to express my heartfelt thanks to the members of the Association for their continuing support to my administration as Chief Justice. The year in review has been a testing one for the administration of justice as the very polity of our country faced the challenge of deciding on the thorny issue of governance and leadership. We came through it. For, as a people, we believe in the rule of law and our commitment to that proved our strength as the parties complied with the verdict and joined ranks in national development. It is on this note that I wish to warmly welcome you to this year’s conference. It is my fervent hope that this year’s conference will devise strategic action plans to further strengthen the GBA especially, as a major partner in justice delivery. I must admit that the growth, development and stability of any organisation depends on effective and strong institutions; the pivot upon which the organisation thrives. The GBA is no exception. It is therefore imperative that members of the GBA in collaboration with other stakeholders take measures to strengthen each other for peaceful coexistence and to bridge the social, economic, cultural, and financial gaps within the Ghanaian society. The legal profession is presently at the cross-roads. From the nagging question bordering on the upholding and enforcement of legal ethics to the fast changing pace of legal education evolution, we in the profession are living witnesses and participants of exciting but professionally perilous times. Throughout history, moments of challenge have always presented an opportunity for advancement and new ways of doing things. As the head of the judicial branch of government, I find myself in the rather difficult position of generally superintending the administration of justice whose actors span the spectrum of judges, lawyers, and litigants. Given the special nature of this assembly, my first thoughts are to limit myself to matters of concern to the GBA qua GBA. But the well known biblical injunction in Matthew 7:5, which counsels the removal of logs from one’s eyes before seeing clearly to remove the speck from another’s, constrains me to also briefly draw attention to those flaws within the judicial institution, especially as they interrelate with the issues relating to the GBA, which I intend to highlight. I will thus seize the moment and opportunity offered by this platform to briefly draw attention also to the judiciary on the need for a radical turnaround as we strive to build a strong legal system well positioned to contribute to the development of our great nation. Since the year 2000, various reform initiatives introduced by succeeding Chief Justices have been intended to advance the cause of justice and to better deliver on our mandate as an institution dedicated to promoting justice. Regrettably, in spite of these reform initiatives, institutional cultures, tendencies and individual mores have remained resilient and resistant to change. Allegations, I repeat allegations of corruption continue to embarrass the administration of justice in Ghana. From members of the Bench to Bailiffs and everyone in between, court officials and administrative appendages have been accused of corruption. Although we have a credible and strong Judicial Council, whose membership is very much alive to its constitutional responsibility as the disciplinary authority for members of the bench and other judicial officers in particular, and whose members are totally unafraid to sanction officers caught in any misconduct, sadly, those who make these accusations have refused to provide proof when called upon to do so. But it is important for us in the judiciary to bear in mind that, when judges are accused of accepting bribes, the general public has little patience to investigate before concluding. It is in the light of the perceptual aspects of justice that we need to be careful in our dealings with lawyers and litigants. Allowing lawyers or parties to have private conference with judges without the benefit of the other lawyer(s) or parties being present creates dangerous perceptions of collusion and partisanship. It has become routine for Bailiffs to demand payments from lawyers and litigants before proceeding to effect service on particular processes. These are in addition to complaints of other instances of alleged corruption at the court registries whose incidence we intend to check vigorously as we enter the new legal year. As a reminder, the Judicial Council has not reneged on its duty to crack the whip appropriately on errant Judges and Staff. As a start, beginning from this legal year, I will propose that no process should remain unserved (short of proving non-service) for a period not more than 5 days following from the date on which it was filed, with the hope that your clients will, in appropriate cases, direct service. Any breach of this directive is expected to attract commensurate penalties, when brought to our notice. As we strive to attract investments into Ghana, the Judiciary must lead in that effort. Economic development cannot thrive in a regime in which there is scant or no respect for rule of law. Respect for contracts can only be enforced if parties can count on the just and expeditious enforcement of mutual and reciprocal rights. Where we fail in this regard, we create and augment the prevalence of uncertainty and chaos. Our forebears bequeathed an institution which was respected for its competence and commitment to principles. Thus, not only are we obliged to continue in that track, we indeed have a higher calling to do more. The needs of our time are greater and the opportunities for excellence are equally good. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the many complaints against our services. The painful menace of delay in the administration of justice stemming from rampant adjournments and stagnation in the development of cases has led to the frustration of many a litigant. Together with the bar, I intend to reinforce the effect of case management techniques in our courts. But let no judge wait on me. I challenge our judges to take up the responsibility of managing their courts. On the other hand, the Bar should take active interest in the “sharp practice” tendencies of some of their members, a situation that continues to undermine the administration of justice and delay cases. Increase in the number of lawyers has also implied that the number of miscreants joining the fold has also increased. This is evidenced, particularly, in the number of complaints made against lawyers whether formally or otherwise. For the General Legal Council, as the chief regulatory body, it is an opportunity to administer appropriate penalties and punishment while reiterating and reinforcing the standards of legal practice in general. However, I dare say, that the issue of professional ethics and general standards of legal practice should be of more and immediate concern to the Bar as a corporate assemblage of lawyers. The general decline in standards at the Bar indeed transcends the issue of ethics. There is a visible decline in the quality of advocacy and legal professionalism at the Bar. From the poor choice of diction to the quality of lawyers’ briefs, the characteristic mark of good advocacy from the Bar is slowly but gradually becoming a thing of the past. This issue is further compounded by the failure on the part of lawyers to uphold high ethical standards and good professional behaviour through productive hard work which demands quality research. Regrettably, some lawyers have routinely failed to show up in court while their clients’ cases are called. Others have indulged in over-charging of clients while failing to properly advise them. Ours is a profession that has survived centuries of bad press, negative and generally untrue rumours. The reasons for this survival lie in the sacrifices made by our forebears having to uphold a respectable image. In the context of the problems outlined above, we risk losing the battle on image building. We need to act now. I therefore entreat the Bar to as a matter of urgency, organize mandatory courses in legal ethics for all lawyers as a condition for the renewal of their licences for the next and upcoming licensing year. For statutory and constitutional reasons, this power can be deemed to have been exercised by the General Legal Council and I implore you to cooperate with it for this purpose. Next, I will address you on an issue I have spoken to you about in the past but which remains burning and unsolved. It continues to be a blotch on the conscience of the legal profession and to a limited extent, the Bench, to the extent that we turn a blind eye to its prevalence. While money has sadly come to define success in legal practice, I wish to counsel you against professional vanity – for we must move towards an understanding of the difference between business lawyers and lawyers’ lawyers. For we, together with other well meaning Ghanaians see in this generation of contemporary legal practitioners, a group that is adept at making money but lack a sense of mission: That mission which sets you apart from the typical businessman whose daily goal is profit oriented. We are lawyers, a profession that calls itself noble and likewise others. Wherein lies our nobility if our overarching consideration in our professional life is money? Wherein lies our nobility if the litmus test of our success is the financial reward we stand to gain from every little or drop of service we render? Nelson Mandela of blessed memory, noted this when he said, “What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead”.[1] I, like many of you, lament the continued failure of the Bar to assert its authority on the obligation to render a modicum of legal aid to the indigent in our society. The fact that only three in ten criminal defendants or accused persons are represented by lawyers is a major slur on our professional conscience – a situation that cannot and should not be allowed to persist any longer. Our prisons are choked with remand prisoners and a judge’s task is further complicated by accused persons who appear before him without representation and who consequently fail to make an application for bail. If I have spoken passionately about the subject, it is because of the position l occupy as Chief Justice. As the lead justice, I find it intolerable that our justice system continues to condone the injustices suffered by our people as we capitalize our services. My Learned friends, distinguished Executives of the Bar, I invite you to seize the mandate and challenge offered by the issues I have raised. Just as I suggested in addressing the waning ethical standards among our young lawyers especially, may I suggest that a minimum number of pro bono services offered by a lawyer/firm should be made a mandatory requirement for the renewal of licenses. After all, legal education has always been subsidized and the obligation to give back to society is an integral part of your calling and one in respect of which I remind you today. Finally, the strengthening of any organisation starts with the individual members and other components of the organisation. I therefore urge members of the GBA to imbibe the virtue of self-discipline and industry. Without self-discipline in all spheres of your endeavours, GBA will degenerate and loose its pride of place in our body polity. In a similar vein, I encourage members to actively engage themselves with the activities of the Association. I therefore commend the leadership of the Bar for introducing social events including health walks as a means of building networks and cohesion among its membership while promoting healthy lifestyles. This organization must be proud of its achievements. Having been at the forefronts of political activism and the fight for freedom from political injustice, you have come a long way in contributing to national development. It is not a fluke that the constitution recognizes the Association as the only non-state organ or agency tasked with a constitutional mandate. I implore you to continue upholding your areas of strength while overcoming your deficits. As Chief Justice, I remain thankful for your support ever since I assumed office and I hope to count on you to till the end. “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, ”as the word of God states, let us think on these things I have shared with you and apply them as we continue in the march of progress as proud advocates for the rule of law and justice for all! With these few remarks, Mr Chairman, permit me to declare this year’s Annual Conference of the GBA duly opened! I truly wish you success in the coming year. May we be found as faithful stewards even as the Almighty God continues to bless the work of our hands. Thank you!!
-- by Upali Jayatilaka on 2015-05-22

News Categories

    Corruption

    Defence News

    Economy

    Ethnic Issue in Sri Lanka

    Features

    Fine Art

    General News

    Media Suppression

    more

Links