Prorogation of Parliament not the only way out says UNP Impeachment crisis:

by Zacki Jabbar

The prorogation of parliament was not the only way to overcome the crisis resulting from the impeachment inquiry against the Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranyake, the UNP said yesterday.

Senior UNP MP, Kabir Hashim, when asked what his party’s position on the call by certain sections of the UPFA to prorogue parliament to overcome the Impeachment crisis was, said that the UNP had not been consulted and the party leaders had not met to discuss the issue.

"We cannot comment on the merits or demerits of prorogation without being officially consulted", Hashim said, adding that it was not the only way out of the political and legal crisis that has engulfed the country.

It’s not impeachment per se but the process adopted by the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) which inquired into the 14 allegations against the CJ that had to be addressed. President Mahinda Rajapaksa by stating that he would be seeking a second opinion on the PSC’s findings had already subscribed to the majority view in the country that the process was flawed. The President had the power to prevent a head on clash between the legislature and the judiciary, he noted.

Hashim said that the prorogation would not end the dispute. It had to be preceded by the government admitting that the PSC had erred in the procedures adopted. Then it would clear the way for a free and fair inquiry into the allegations against the CJ.

Hashim, said that the Bar Association and many judges and magistrates had publicly criticised the procedure adopted by the PSC. That view was also endorsed by a majority of civil society. So the Rajapaksa regime should listen to reason even at that late stage, he said.

The PSC report signed by seven government members said that the CJ was guilty of three of the five charges it had examined, while there was insufficient evidence to determine her guilt or otherwise in respect of the other two charges. The four Opposition members on the committed had walked out in protest half way through the sittings claiming that the Chairman had not acceded to their request to grant the CJ more time to answer the allegations.

Given the gravity of the charges on which the CJ had been found guilty and time available for investigation was limited, it was not necessary to examine whether there was substance or not in the other charges, the report further stated.