"Ranil's statements a blow to the judiciary"
The statements made by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe with regard to the Supreme Court ruling on former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa's fundamental rights petition, is a severe blow to the independence of the Judiciary, the rule of law and good governance, ... Opposition Leader Nimal Siripala De Silva claimed. Rajapaksa had filed a fundamental rights petition challenging the operations of the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID), to which the Court had given an interim order halting the arrest of Rajapaksa until 6 October when the case will be heard next.
Ceylontoday, 2015-05-18 02:01:00
Read 91 Times
"Ranil's statements a blow to the judiciary"
The statements made by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe with regard to the Supreme Court ruling on former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa's fundamental rights petition, is a severe blow to the independence of the Judiciary, the rule of law and good governance, ... Opposition Leader Nimal Siripala De Silva claimed. Rajapaksa had filed a fundamental rights petition challenging the operations of the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID), to which the Court had given an interim order halting the arrest of Rajapaksa until 6 October when the case will be heard next.
It is reported that though there was initially a three-member (Justice Eva Wanasundara, Justice Sarath Abrew and Justice Buwaneka Aluvihare) bench, since one of its members (Aluvihare) stepped down, the remaining duo had requested Chief Justice K. Sripavan to appoint another Justice to the bench or to have the case tried before another three-member bench.
Thereafter, as per orders by the Chief Justice, in accordance with Article 126 of the Constitution, the case had been heard before the two initial Justices assigned.
Thereafter, as per orders by the Chief Justice, in accordance with Article 126 of the Constitution, the case had been heard before the two initial Justices assigned.
De Silva informed Wickremesinghe that according to Article 126 of the Constitution it was permissible for the Supreme Court to hear fundamental rights cases and that the Attorney General had not challenged the right of the Apex Court to issue an interim order during the petition's proceedings.
President Maithripala Sirisena had stated that the said judgment was an example of the independence of the judiciary under his rule, he remarked.
An experienced politician like Wickremesinghe therefore challenging and ridiculing the ruling is extremely sad, De Silva observed
No comments:
Post a Comment