Impeachment of Shirani Bandaranayake

Shirani Bandaranayake, the 43rd Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, was impeached by Parliament and then removed from office by President Mahinda Rajapaksa in January 2013.

[13][14] In 2011 President Mahinda Rajapaksa appointed Bandaranayake as Chief Justice, succeeding Asoka de Silva who retired on 17 May 2011.

[41][42] An impeachment motion against Chief Justice Bandaranayake signed by 117 UPFA MPsA was handed to Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa on 1 November 2012, the day after the Supreme Court's determinations on the Divi Neguma Bill were passed to the president.

[43][44] Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa revealed the 14 chargesB against Bandaranayake on 6 November 2012 which included failing to disclose financial interests, abuse of power and disregarding the constitution.

[60] The Supreme Court (N. G. Amaratunga, Priyasath Dep and K. Sripavan) ruled on 1 January 2013 that the PSC had no power to investigate allegations against the chief justice and the impeachment was therefore unconstitutional.

[73][74] After the impeachment motion passed Parliament, Bandaranayake indicated that she would not leave office, citing the Supreme Court ruling declaring the PSC unconstitutional.

[87][88] Bandaranayake vacated her official residence at 5.30pm on 15 January 2013 and issued a statement in which she insisted she was still the legitimate chief justice and that the charges against her were all "blatant lies".

[102] It is reported that the government is hoping that a fuller bench of the Supreme Court will reverse the 1 January 2013 ruling that the PSC was unconstitutional.

[103] The International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) had established a four-member delegation headed by former Chief Justice of India J. S. Verma to visit Sri Lanka on a fact-finding mission about the impeachment.

[106][107] The Sri Lankan government defended the visa withdrawal, stating that the delegation was intent on interfering in the country's sovereignty.

[110][111] Opposition politicians, lawyers, judges and other civil society groups criticised the impeachment as an attempt to curb the independence of the judiciary and concentrate powers with President Rajapaksa.

[114] After the impeachment motion had been passed opposition MP Mangala Samaraweera claimed that Sri Lanka had become a dictatorship: "Up to yesterday at least we kept up appearances of being at least a nominal democracy.

[115] 41st Chief Justice of Sri Lanka Sarath N. Silva expressed disappointment over the appointment of former Attorney General Mohan Peiris.

[117] At a press briefing on 18 January 2013 United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay expressed deep concern about the impeachment which had "further eroded the rule of law in the country and could also set back efforts for accountability and reconciliation".

[118][119] Pillay went on to describe the "flawed" impeachment as a "gross interference in the independence of the judiciary and a calamitous setback for the rule of law in Sri Lanka".

[118] Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma issued a statement on 15 November 2012 in which he expressed concern about the impeachment, stating that Sri Lankan constitutional provisions regarding independence of the judiciary must be respected.

[120] Sharma issued another statement, on 11 January 2013, which stated that "The Commonwealth, collectively, is profoundly concerned about this situation" and urged the Sri Lankan government to pause and carefully consider the ramifications before taking any decision on impeachment.

[125][126] The statement went on to urge the Sri Lankan government to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and ensure the safety of Bandaranayake.

[125] Canada - Foreign Minister John Baird issued a statement on 11 January 2013 condemning Parliament's interference in the judiciary, describing the impeachment as "highly politicized, lacking basic transparency and respect for the guarantees of due process and fair trial".

[127] United Kingdom - The Foreign and Commonwealth Office issued a statement on 11 January 2013 in which the British government expressed deep concern about the impeachment process, noting that "The motion to impeach the Chief Justice runs contrary to the clear rulings of Sri Lanka’s highest courts and the proceedings appear to contravene basic principles of fairness, due process and respect for the independence of the judiciary and the Commonwealth Latimer House Principles".

[129] The department issued another statement, on 7 December 2012, which urged the Sri Lankan government to "guarantee due process, and to ensure that all investigations are conducted transparently and in accordance with the rule of law".

[136] The ICJ then issued a statement on 11 January 2013 which condemned the impeachment, stating "Sri Lanka’s parliament and executive have effectively decapitated the country’s judiciary in pursuit of short term political gain.

[137][138] On 15 January 2013 ICJ issued a statement which condemned Mohan Peiris' appointment as chief justice, describing it as a "further assault on the independence of the judiciary" and called for Bandaranayake's re-instatement.

[141][142] On 28 January 2015 the government of Sri Lanka, having removed all obstacles for Bandaranayake to hold her position as the 43rd Chief Justice by the President Maithripala Sirisena, on the grounds that her 2013 impeachment was unlawful and as such the appointment of Mohan Peiris, her successor, was void Ab initio.