The President who benefited from the justice of the courts four times must allow others also to have access to such justice -former CJ
(Lanka-e-News, Oct. 26, 2010, 10.50AM)
The former Chief justice (CJ)Sarath N Silva speaking on the occasion when he arrived at the signing of petition demanding the release of former Army Commander Gen. Sarath Fonseka at the Jayawardena center Colombo on the 25th said, the present President Mahinda Rajapakse to whom the courts had dispensed justice four times should allow others too to secure justice via the Courts.
Silva the former CJ said, by appointing military courts, filing charges, approving charges and ratifying verdicts, the President prepared the ground for the jailing of Fonseka. The chief of the commanding forces Mahinda Rajapakse is the President, Gotabaya Rajapakse , his brother is in charge of the Army operations while Chaamal Rajapakse the other brother of the President who is the speaker made sure that Fonseka ‘s parliamentary post is terminated. In other words, it is the brothers company which has orchestrated this whole jailing operation.This is why, it is all the more important that justice shall prevail in the case of Genera Fonseka, he emphasized.
The former Army Commander engaged in the war against certain sections of the Tamils of the North. Yet when he contested election s, majority of the Tamils, not only the northern even others across the country voted for him. The Tamils therefore regarded him as one who had won their confidence and love. He is therefore a genuine and dependable leader.
But this war hero who won the war for the whole country’s benefit was, in less than 8 months after the war ended abducted and jailed depriving him of all his fundamental rights. Fonseka was denied even the basic rights a most bestial criminal is entitled to. This was a gross violation of all the laws of the country. Even the rights what an ordinary citizen in this country is vested with under the constitution was not allowed to be exercised by Fonseka despite the fact that he was a true patriot who sacrificed his whole life while in the Army to defeat the deadliest terrorists, the former CJ pinpointed.
There are two reasons laid down in our constitution when an Army officer’s fundamental rights are lost upon his arrest.One is, if there is any service to be secured from him in war operations or if there is his need to maintain discipline in the Army. In such cases, his rights can be circumscribed. But, because Fonseka was a retired officer none of these grounds apply to him, and hence none can subordinate him. He is a civilian, the former CJ asserted.
The duties he performed were not just two penny half penny tasks. Yet, because of the disdainful treatment meted out to him, the whole world is looking down on us with contempt and ridicule, he added.
We are painting the picture to the world that it is only we who are following Buddha dhamma to the letter. But, I am ashamed to tell that it is in our country that the virtues and qualities of compassion, mercy and tolerance preached and followed by Lord Buddha are most disrespected.
I don’t say Fonseka should not be punished no matter what serious crime he has committed. Of course there are three charges against Fonseka in the military courts. But none of those charges is against him for causing loss or damage financially to anyone or to the Govt.
When he was in the tender Board he had acted bona fides and most honorably. The only charge against him was his not disclosing the relationship his son in law had with a Company in British Borneo. But, the punishment given to him was for dishonorable conduct assuming that the father in law should know of all what his son in law does. This is not a charge that can be leveled in this civilized world.
This why we urge the Rajapakses to do justice to Fonseka on humane grounds.
President is an individual who had always benefited from the justice dispensed by the courts. But for such justice from which he gained, he would not be in the position he is now in irrespective of the enormous services he claims he had done.
In 1980, at the Kalawana By elections petition , the Left party candidate Sarath Muthetuwegama whom Mahinda supported lost his parliamentary seat. Similarly his representative Mahinda Rajapakse who supported him also lost his civic rights. The charges were assassinating the character of the opposition candidate by false allegations. Mahinda Rajapkse challenged this decision in the Supreme (SC) Court. The two judge panel of the SC reversed the low court decision. This was the first of the court decisions which dispensed justice in favor of the President.
Thereafter, in the 1982 Belliatta by election, Mahinda was charged for murdering three persons in broad daylight by shooting. He was remanded with eye witnesss giving evidence. Later, the courts freed him because the evidence of the witnesses were contradictory. If the courts had decided otherwise , he would have been hanged.
In 2005, there was another case against him for defrauding the Tsunami funds collected under ‘Helping Hambantota’ Tsunami relief. At that juncture, in order to save him from arrest, the SC including myself moved to do justice to him. If the President has not received the benefit of the justice of the courts, he would not be the President of this country today.
This is precisely why we urge the President to grant the benefit of the justice of the courts to others too reminding himself of all his criminal involvements from which he was able to extricate himself because justice prevailed in the country under others.
This is why we ask the Rajapkses to act humanely and do justice to Fonseka, the former CJ Sarath Silva earnestly requested.
|
Because rulers are flagrantly violating laws, SL is headed towards becoming another Myanmar soon –former CJ
(Lanka-e-News, March 27, 2010, 6.00PM)
Former Chief Justice Sarath Silva speaking at a meeting of intellectuals and professionals at Anuradhapura memorial Hall said, if our rulers are continuing to violate the sacrosanct constitution and the laws of the country, Sri Lanka transforming into another Myanmar is not far off. If this trend is not arrested the same fate that befell Myanmar will befall here.
The celebrated Army Commander who won a war destroying the terrorists for the sake of the country and freed it, so that all citizens can live without fear and panic is himself put in jail. This is the type of ‘reward‘ a patriot can expect when the country’s rulers are traitorous, he pointed out.
Going by the manner in which this country is being governed, the country will be plunged into chaos and multiple crises by the month of August. The monumental human right violations in SL has drawn the attention of other countries including the United Nations, the former CJ lamented.
It is owing to this situation in the country that GSP + concessions were lost. Consequently, specially garment Industries are crashing with many thousands losing their jobs. The Govt. is already in a muddle not knowing how to resolve these grave issues. If this country is to be extricated from this dire economic straits, permanent and prudent solutions should be found, not stop gap measures, he observed.
|
Arrest of General Fonseka against Sri Lankan and International law – Former CJ
The arrest of General Sarath Fonseka is against Sri Lankan and the international law, said former Chief Justice Sarath N Silva at the formal occasion associated with the inauguration of the internet petition aimed at bringing pressure on the Sri Lankan Government to release General Fonseka.
Following is the complete text of his speech.
“ I see this arrest as a political one, aimed at imprisoning the hero who saved our nation from the LTTE menace. His arrest has been made with the intention of breaking his spirit, his will to go against all odds to serve this country. It is with responsibility that I state Sarath Fonseka is a political prisoner. There are certain provisions in our law concerning the arrest of a person. Now all of those provisions have been thwarted. The international community views us as a land where law does not exist. But on the contrary, we have a system of justice that is still valid – our Supreme Court was established in 1802, considered the first in this region. I had the opportunity to hold the post of Chief Justice in those hallowed halls of justice. I clearly state that we have a strong system of justice, one that has been recognized by the international community. “
“ The law of the land stems from the Constitution. Section 13 of the Constitution clearly states the conditions under which a person could be arrested. The second sub section under Section 13 states that the person arrested must be produced in a court of law within the time limits stipulated by law. Legal time frame as per the Criminal Procedure Code would amount to 24 hours within which the arrested person must be produced in court. When general Fonseka was arrested, none of these formalities were observed. Witnesses to this are Mr Somawansa Amarasinghe and former MP Sunil Handunetti.”
“According to the law, an arrest must be made in accordance with the criminal legal frame. The arresting police officer must inform the person being arrested concerning the reasons for the arrest. General Fonseka was not arrested according to the criminal law but dragged down a staircase, in the middle of a political discussion, treated worse than a common criminal.”
“ Since the arrest of General Fonseka was not made under the accepted law of the land, I call this arrest a political one. The law I talk about is not limited to the Constitution. That’s why I agreed to the internet based petition against the arrest of General Fonseka. This is a sacred part of the international law. At the end of the Second World War in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made with the intention of securing the rights of individuals. Section 09 of the Declaration states that an arrest must be made in accordance with the Constitution and the law of the land. Sri Lanka was one of the first signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and thereby, we are bound by it.”
“In 1978, Sri Lankan took part in the Human Rights Convention which in its Section 09 states the same thing. That is the accepted international law and that’s why we are appealing to the international community to take note of this arrest. This arrest has violated not only the Constitutional rights in Sri Lanka but also the internationally accepted law.”
“ Friends, international law did not commence after 1948 but in 1215 with the Magna Carta declared by the British under which rights are ensured. The book of law states that when an arrest of a person or the denying of the rights of a person is done it must be within the law of the land. This is therefore not to be taken lightly. Once again, the arrest of General Fonseka violates both Sri Lankan and the international law.”
“ Some state that this arrest was done with the Army Act but the Army Act does not supersede the international or the constitutional law. We must understand that. The Army Act comes under the Constitution and the International law. The Army Act exists to ensure discipline in the Army. Many may have many opinions but I state with accountability, as the former Chief Justice, that Section 13 of the Constitution clearly states that a person must not be arrested outside the law. Section 15 states that these basic rights can be used within limitations to ensure discipline in the Army. There are 03 points very adequately highlighted here. One states that in order to ensure the proper discharge of duties and their accepted code of conduct that Army personnel can be brought within the limits of the law. Which means that an officer serving in the Army can be brought under the law to ensure that he properly discharges his duties and maintains the accepted code of conduct within the Army. However, this does not apply to General Fonseka since at the time of his arrest, he was no longer serving in the Army. Therefore, Section 15 has been completely twisted and misunderstood in this entire episode. According to the Constitution, three conditions must be fulfilled in order for someone to be prosecuted under the law as stated in Section 15 – the person must be a serving officer of the Army, it must be within the Army’s accepted code of conduct and it must concern a violation of discipline. For an example, an officer of the Army refusing to go to war can be arrested within these conditions which limit one’s fundamental rights assured by the Constitution.”
“ It is unfortunate that those engaged in the law have not examined the law closely. We presented a Fundamental Rights Application on behalf of General Fonseka to Court but that has not been postponed until April 26th, following the conclusion of the General Election. We do not question the authority of the Supreme Court to postpone a hearing. However, Section 126 of the Constitution clearly states that a case concerning a Fundamental Rights Violation must be argued within 02 months of presentation. There have been occasions when that has been violated. However, we strived to conclude this soon but when it is postponed beyond the 02 month frame stipulated, anyone will assume that there is no justice in this land, which is indeed a tragedy.”
“ For the first time in the history of this country, the leader of a key political alliance that include over 30 former MPs, has to operate an election campaign while being in prison. Mrs Anoma Fonseka therefore has to carry the weight of the campaign and we wish her all the best. But more importantly, we call on everyone to light a lamp of hope in our hearts. We must spread the love of humanity – we must hope that truth in our action will triumph. We wish that General Fonseka will truly experience the freedom that he ensured for all of us.”
Arrestation du général Fonseka contre le Sri-lankais et le droit international -
L'ancien juge en chef
L'arrestation du général Sarath Fonseka est contre le Sri-lankais et le droit international, a déclaré l'ancien juge en chef N Sarath Silva à l'occasion de forme liées à l'inauguration de la pétition sur Internet visant à faire pression sur le gouvernement sri-lankais de libérer le général Fonseka.
Voici le texte intégral de son discours.
«Je vois cette arrestation comme une question politique, qui vise à emprisonner le héros qui a sauvé notre nation de la menace des LTTE. Son arrestation a été faite avec l'intention de briser son esprit, sa volonté d'aller contre toute la chance de servir ce pays. C'est avec une responsabilité que je Etat Sarath Fonseka est un prisonnier politique. Il existe certaines dispositions dans notre droit au sujet de l'arrestation d'une personne. Maintenant, toutes ces dispositions ont été contrariés. La communauté internationale nous considère comme une terre où le droit n'existe pas. Mais au contraire, nous avons un système de justice qui est encore valable - notre Cour suprême a été créé en 1802, considéré comme le premier dans cette région. J'ai eu l'occasion d'occuper le poste de juge en chef dans ces lieux sacrés de la justice. J'ai clairement affirmer que nous avons un système fort de la justice, qui a été reconnue par la communauté internationale. "
«La loi du pays découle de la Constitution. L'article 13 de la Constitution stipule clairement les conditions dans lesquelles une personne peut être arrêtée. La section deuxième sous vertu de l'article 13 stipule que la personne arrêtée doit être traduite devant un tribunal de droit dans les délais prescrits par la loi. Cadre légal temps, conformément au Code de procédure pénale s'élèverait à 24 heures dans lequel la personne arrêtée doit être traduite en justice. Lorsque le général Fonseka, a été arrêté, aucune de ces formalités ont été observées. Ce sont des témoins de M. Somawansa Amarasinghe et ancien député Sunil Handunetti.
"Conformément à la loi, une arrestation doit être faite en conformité avec le cadre juridique en matière pénale. Le policier doit informer la personne arrêtée concernant les raisons de l'arrestation. Général Fonseka n'a pas été arrêté conformément à la loi pénale, mais traîne dans un escalier, au milieu d'une discussion politique, traité pire qu'un criminel de droit commun. "
«Depuis l'arrestation du général Fonseka n'a pas été faite en vertu de la loi acceptée de la terre, j'appelle cette arrestation politique. La loi dont je parle que de ne se limite pas à la Constitution. C'est pourquoi j'ai accepté de l'Internet Based pétition contre l'arrestation du général Fonseka. Ceci est une partie sacrée du droit international. À la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale en 1948, la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme a été fait avec l'intention de garantir les droits des individus. L'article 09 de la Déclaration stipule que toute arrestation doit être faite conformément à la Constitution et la loi de la terre. Sri Lanka a été l'un des premiers signataires de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme et, par conséquent, nous sommes liés par lui. "
«En 1978, le Sri Lanka ont pris part à la CEDH qui, dans sa section 09 stipule la même chose. C'est la loi internationale a accepté et c'est pourquoi nous faisons appel à la communauté internationale à prendre acte de cette arrestation. Cette arrestation a non seulement violé les droits constitutionnels au Sri Lanka, mais aussi le droit internationalement accepté. "
«Amis, le droit international ne doit pas débuter après 1948, mais en 1215 avec la Magna Carta déclarées par les Britanniques dans lesquelles les droits sont garantis. Le livre de la loi stipule que lors d'une arrestation d'une personne ou le refus des droits d'une personne se fait elle doit être dans la loi de la terre. Ce n'est donc pas à prendre à la légère. Une fois encore, l'arrestation du général Fonseka viole à la fois le Sri-lankais et le droit international ".
«Certains affirment que cette arrestation a été faite avec la loi sur l'armée mais la loi sur l'armée ne remplace pas l'international ou le droit constitutionnel. Nous devons comprendre cela. La loi sur l'armée relève de la Constitution et le droit international. La loi sur l'armée est là pour assurer la discipline dans l'armée. Beaucoup de mai ont des opinions beaucoup, mais je constate avec une responsabilité, comme l'ancien juge en chef, que l'article 13 de la Constitution stipule clairement que nul ne doit être arrêté en dehors de la loi. L'article 15 précise que ces droits fondamentaux peut être utilisé dans des limites pour assurer la discipline dans l'armée. Il existe 03 points très bien mis en évidence ici. On prévoit que, afin d'assurer le bon accomplissement des tâches et leur code de conduite accepté que le personnel de l'Armée de terre peut être amenée dans les limites de la loi. Ce qui signifie que l'agent en service dans l'Armée peut être intentée en vertu de la loi pour faire en sorte qu'il s'acquitte de ses devoirs correctement et maintient le code de conduite reconnues au sein de l'Armée de terre. Toutefois, cela ne s'applique pas au général Fonseka car au moment de son arrestation, il n'était plus en service dans l'armée. Par conséquent, l'article 15 a été complètement tordue et incompris dans tout cet épisode. Selon la Constitution, trois conditions doivent être remplies pour que quelqu'un soit poursuivi en vertu du droit énoncé à l'article 15 - la personne doit être un agent au service de l'armée, elle doit être acceptée dans le code de l'Armée de conduite et il faut concernent une violation de la discipline. Pour un exemple, un officier de l'armée refusant de faire la guerre ne peut être arrêté dans ces conditions qui limitent ses droits fondamentaux assurée par la Constitution ".
"Il est regrettable que ceux qui sont engagés dans la loi n'ont pas examiné la loi de près. Nous avons présenté une demande droits fondamentaux au nom du général Fonseka devant les tribunaux mais qui n'a pas été reportée jusqu'au 26 avril, après la conclusion de l'élection générale. Nous ne remet pas en question l'autorité de la Cour suprême de reporter une audience. Toutefois, l'article 126 de la Constitution stipule clairement que une affaire concernant une violation des droits fondamentaux doit être soutenu dans les 02 mois de la présentation. Il ya eu des occasions où ce qui a été violé. Toutefois, nous nous sommes efforcés de conclure le présent bientôt mais quand elle est reportée au-delà du cadre de 02 mois stipulé, n'importe qui suppose qu'il ya pas de justice dans ce pays, qui est effectivement une tragédie. "
"Pour la première fois dans l'histoire de ce pays, le chef d'une alliance politique clés qui comprennent plus de 30 anciens députés, doit opérer une campagne électorale tout en étant en prison. Mme Anoma Fonseka a donc pour porter le poids de la campagne et nous lui souhaitons tout le meilleur. Mais plus important encore, nous appelons tout le monde à la lumière d'une lampe de l'espérance dans nos cœurs. Nous devons répandre l'amour de l'humanité - il faut espérer que la vérité dans notre action triomphera. Nous souhaitons que le général Fonseka sera véritablement l'expérience de la liberté dont il a assuré pour nous tous. "
|
|
The military Court trying General Fonseka has no legal validity – former Chief Justice
(Lanka-e-News, March 15, 2010, 5.40PM) Former Chief Justice Sarath Silva at a news conference today (15) said, there are no provisions in the Army Act to arrest, or to hold a trial against him in the military Court.
The former Chief Justice stated this based on his examination of the manner in which Fonseka was arrested, the subsequent actions against him and the inquiry fixed for 16th and 17th in the Military Court.
The conduct of the proposed trial in the Army Court only, following the arrest of Fonseka by the military police is a violation of the fundamental right of the General under S 13 (1) of the constitution. Likewise it is an infringement of the UN proclamation on civil and political universal human rights.
Action can be filed in a military Court within six months of retirement in relation to offences committed under the Army Act only against officers below the rank of the army Commander. In the Army Act, there are no provisions governing the action to be taken against an Army Commander.
Under the constitution, the power to appoint an Army Commander and removal of him is vested in the President. But, if any action is to be instituted against the army Commander, such action shall be only under the constitution and not under the Army Act, former CJ clearly emphasized.
The unlawful acts of arrest of Fonseka and attempts to produce him before the military Court, and the development on these bases is indeed a matter of fate if the General had co operated in this direction, the CJ lamented.This Society’s Democracy is eroded not at once, but gradually, insidiously and step by step. Because the Society for various reasons not taking action against the erosion of Democracy and following a silent policy, it can militate against their own citizens’ rights and engender the danger of losing the fundamental right to legal protection.
When the security barricades were removed during the war, there was a sudden and instant evacuation of Tamils from Lodging houses in Colombo and forcibly taking to the North. However the Supreme Court gave an order against the action and directed to bring them back to Colombo within 24 hours. If Gen. Fonseka as the Army Commander at that time had adhered to the orders of the Civil Court and acted accordingly, this Army behavior of unlawfully and forcibly acting against Fonseka, who is now a civilian may not have occurred, the former CJ pointed out.
|
Le tribunal militaire essayer général Fonseka n'a aucune validité juridique - ancien juge en chef
(Lanka-e-News 15 Mars 2010, 5.40PM) L'ancien juge en chef Sarath Silva lors d'une conférence nouvelles aujourd'hui (15) a dit, il n'existe aucune disposition dans la loi sur l'armée d'arrêter, ou de tenir un procès contre lui dans le tribunal militaire.
L'ancien juge en chef a déclaré ceci est basé sur son examen de la manière dont Fonseka a été arrêté, les actions ultérieures contre lui et l'enquête fixée pour 16e et 17e de la Cour d'ordre militaire.
La conduite de l'essai proposé à la Cour seule armée, à la suite de l'arrestation de Fonseka par la police militaire est une violation du droit fondamental de l'Assemblée générale sous S 13 (1) de la Constitution. De même, il constitue une violation de la proclamation des Nations unies sur les droits civils et politiques des droits humains universels.
D'action peut être déposée dans un tribunal militaire dans les six mois de la retraite par rapport aux infractions commises en vertu de la loi sur l'armée que contre les officiers jusqu'au grade de commandant de l'armée. Dans la loi sur l'armée, il n'existe pas de dispositions régissant les mesures à prendre contre un commandant de l'armée.
En vertu de la Constitution, le pouvoir de nommer un commandant de l'armée et l'enlèvement de lui est dévolu au président. Mais, si une action doit être intentée contre le commandant de l'armée, une telle action ne peut être ouvert en vertu de la Constitution et non en vertu de la loi sur l'armée, ancien juge en chef a clairement souligné.
Les actes illégaux de l'arrestation de Fonseka et tente de le produire devant le Tribunal militaire et le développement sur ces bases est en effet une question du sort si le général avait co exploité dans ce sens, le CJ lamented.This démocratie La société est érodée pas à une fois, mais progressivement, insidieusement et étape par étape. Puisque la société pour diverses raisons, ne pas agir contre l'érosion de la démocratie et en suivant une politique de silence, il peut militer contre les droits de leurs propres citoyens et à engendrer le danger de perdre le droit fondamental à une protection juridique.
Quand les barricades de sécurité ont été enlevés pendant la guerre, il ya eu une évacuation soudaine et instantanée des Tamouls du Logement maisons à Colombo et prendre de force dans le Nord. Cependant, la Cour suprême a rendu une ordonnance contre l'action et réalisé pour les ramener à Colombo dans les 24 heures. Si le général Fonseka que le commandant de l'armée à cette époque avaient adhéré aux ordres de la Cour civile et agit en conséquence, ce comportement de l'Armée de façon illicite et d'agir avec force contre Fonseka, qui est maintenant un civil mai ne pas avoir eu lieu, l'ancien juge en chef a souligné . |
|
General’s case begins: Judges not qualified to hear -Lawyers raise preliminary objections
(Lanka-e-News 17.March,2010 6.40AM) The Lawyers appearing for the former Army Commander and Chief of Staff Gen. Fonseka in the case filed against him based on three charges ,raised preliminary objections in the military Court when it was heard yesterday (16). They objected that the three Judges appointed to conduct the trial are not qualified and not competent to try General Fonseka.
This case was heard at the Colombo Naval Headquarters . The panel of judges comprised Major General H L Weeratunge , (President) ,Major General T R A B Jayatileke and Major General A L R Wijetunge.
When the lawyers who appeared for Gen. Fonseka raised the preliminary objections , the Counsel Sameendra Fernando who appeared on behalf of the Attorney General requested General’s lawyers to raise objections individually in respect of each judge .
Accordingly the General’s lawyers stated , the President of the Court , Major General H L Weeratunge is the brother in law of the Army Commander , his conducting the trial therefore will not be unbiased , and justice will not prevail.
Major General T R A B Jayatileke was an officer who was demoted for inefficiency by Gen. Fonseka when he was the Army Commander for not carrying out orders duly .
Major General T L R Wijetunge was found guilty of and punished for granting a tender illegally to the higher bidder. This incident occurred when Gen. Fonseka was the Army Commander and when tenders were called at the Army Headquarters.
The Judges panel had however overruled these objections and the Judges have read out the charges against the General, and asked from him whether he is pleading guilty or not . The General had pleaded not guilty.
The charge against General Fonseka under S 124 and S 102 (1) of the Army Act is that he has taken part in politics when he was in service as an Army Commander and as Chief of Defense staff .
The Lawyers for Gen. Fonseka while filing preliminary objection s, said the military Court has no power to hear this case , and this Court has been suddenly and hastily established . Consequently there was no time to meet the General and discuss the issues . Therefore more time should be granted , the Lawyers pointed out .
The Judges who gave permission to file their answers adjourned the Court until the 6th of April.
PC Rienzie Aresecularatne along with Nalin Laduwahetti, Sugath Kolder, Rishard Ameen, Sunil Watagala. Wasantha Batagala, Janith De Silva appeared for the General assisted by Lawyers of Paul Ratnayake legal Firm. Attorney at Law Lilantha De Silva appeared on behalf of the legal Firm.
Solicitor General Buwaneka Aluvihare and a group of Lawyers of the Attorney General’s Dept. appeared on behalf of the Army Commander
|
Cas général commence: pas qualifié pour les juges-avocats entendent soulever des objections préliminaires
(Lanka-e-News 17.March, 2010 6:40) Les avocats représentant l'ancien commandant de l'armée et chef d'état-major général Fonseka dans la requête déposée contre lui repose sur trois charges, ont soulevé des objections préliminaires à la Cour militaire quand il a été entendu hier (16). Ils se sont opposés que les trois juges nommés pour conduire le procès ne sont pas qualifiés et non pas compétente pour juger général Fonseka.
Cette affaire a été entendue au siège de la Marine de Colombo. Le jury comprenait le major-général HL Weeratunge, (Président), le général TRAB Jayatileke et le major général ALR Wijetunge.
Lorsque les avocats qui ont comparu pour le Général Fonseka soulevé des objections préliminaires, le Conseiller Sameendra Fernando qui ont comparu au nom du procureur général a demandé des avocats généraux à soulever des objections individuellement à l'égard de chaque juge.
En conséquence les avocats du général a déclaré, le Président de la Cour, le major-général HL Weeratunge est le beau-frère du commandant de l'Armée de terre, sa conduite de l'essai ne sera donc pas impartiaux, et la justice ne l'emportera pas.
Major-général TRAB Jayatileke C'était un officier qui a été rétrogradé pour cause d'inefficacité par le général Fonseka, quand il était le commandant de l'Armée pour ne pas exécuter les ordres dûment.
Major-général Wijetunge TLR a été reconnu coupable et puni d'un appel d'offres pour l'octroi illégalement au plus offrant. Cet incident s'est produit lorsque le général Fonseka a été le commandant de l'armée et quand les offres ont été appelés au siège de l'Armée de terre.
Le panel des juges a toutefois infirmé ces objections et les juges ont lu les accusations portées contre le général, et de lui demander s'il plaide coupable ou non. Le général avait plaidé non coupable.
L'accusation contre le général Fonseka sous S 124 et S 102 (1) de la loi sur l'armée, c'est qu'il a pris part à la politique quand il était en service en tant que commandant de l'armée et de chef du personnel de la Défense.
Les avocats de dépôt tandis que le général Fonseka objection préliminaire s, a déclaré le tribunal militaire n'a pas compétence pour entendre cette affaire, et cette Cour a été brusquement et hâtivement établis. Il n'y avait donc pas de temps à répondre aux générale et discuter des enjeux. Donc plus de temps devrait être accordé, les avocats ont fait remarquer.
Les juges qui ont donné la permission de déposer leurs réponses ajournée jusqu'à ce que la Cour le 6 avril.
PC Rienzie Aresecularatne avec Nalin Laduwahetti, Sugath Kolder, Rishard Ameen, Sunil Watagala. Wasantha Batagala, Janith De Silva est apparu pour la général, assisté par des avocats de Paul Ratnayake cabinet juridique. Attorney at Law Lilantha De Silva a comparu au nom du cabinet juridique.
Solliciteur général Buwaneka Aluvihare et un groupe de juristes du Département du procureur général a comparu au nom du commandant de l'Armée de terre |
|
What the military Court is trying to do is to be the plaintiff , the Jury and the Judge! -Former District Court Judge Kulatileke
(Lanka-e-News 14.March.2010 7.50AM) Two military Courts have been established to try Former Chief of defense staff General Sarath Fonseka on seven counts based on two charge sheets. These charge sheets have been served on Fonseka who is now kept in detention at the Naval Headquarters with inadequate facilities. The lawyers of the Opposition have pointed out that the forcible abduction of Fonseka , holding him in detention and producing him before a military Court to try him or filing a case against him in the military Court are illegal.
No less a person than the former District Court Judge P.D. Kulatileke explained to Lanka e news as follows :
In one charge sheet against the General , three accusation have been made . One charge is under S 124 of the Army Act.. The other two charges are under S102 , sub section one of the Act.
The indictment under S 124 is , while he was in the Army service and when he was the chief of defense staff , and a member of the security Council , during the period between Oct. 1st to Nov. 14th 2009, he has had discussions with Johnston Fernando on the phone which were damaging to the State sovereignty and integrity . The words , he used ‘ after providing the necessary evidence regarding the war to the American Govt. , I shall return placing the Govt. and the army in jeopardy. I will be coming back to contest as a candidate for the Presidential elections.. Be ready to receive me as a Hero at the Airport.’ has been included to incriminate Fonseka in the indictment.
What S 124 refers to is ,betraying the President or using words which are detrimental to the President . If he has made such a wrong he is guilty under the section .. But , his words which are incorporated in the indictment , by no means indicate he has committed such a wrong. Hence , how can you indict him under that section ?. Of course the General was the closest rival of the President at the last Presidential elections.
The charge under S 102 (1) is, during the above period , while having telephone discussions with Johnston Fernando , he had requested Johnston Fernando to propose his name as a Presidential candidate for the Presidential elections in February 2010 at the UNP Executive Committee meeting .
The X1 Charge has been served under the orders of Army Act 13/79 dated 27th December 1979 . Under that section , infringement of such an order is an offence punishable under the section 102 (1) .The next charge is based on the discussion the General had with Lakshman Seneviratne on politics. The charge against Gen. Fonseka in that regard is , he has acted in breach of the Army order 13/79 .
The Army order 13 / 79 clearly lays down that in the appointment of representatives to Deputy MPs group and other representatives to District Councils , except casting the vote , participation in politics is prohibited .. Similarly , becoming a candidate for an election or supporting a candidate for election is also prohibited under this order .
After SL secured independence , under the Dominion constitution known as the Ceylon constitution 1946 ; under order in Council section 7 , the Parliament was represented by the Parliamentary representatives and the Senate council . In the 1972 constitution , the Deputy MPs Council changed into the National state assembly, and the Senate was dissolved.. Consequently , under the 1978 constitution , the National state assembly became the Parliament. The Army orders were formulated on 27th December 1979.. By that time , the Deputy MPs Council and the National state assembly had ceased existence.. In that event , , the 13 /79 order made on 27th December 1979 is totally wrong. This order has also not been updated . There is nothing mentioned in this about the Presidential election . In the circumstances , , the charges two and three are being filed on which order and on what basis?. If General Fonseka has got associated with politics at all , it is only at the Presidential elections.
The appointment of the military Court has been on the order of the President Rajapakse.. The President was a rival of Gen. Fonseka at the Presidential elections. Hence, this Army Court has been established to punish a candidate who contested with him.. The appointment of such a Court on the directive of the President by letter dated 10th March 2010 is a violation of the principle of natural justice.
The present army commander is officially below the rank of Gen. Fonseka. Under the Army Act , there are no provisions to punish an Army Commander or an officer above that rank. Under the provisions the Chief officer is the Army Commander . Hence , in the final scenario ,the charge sheet has been served on Gen. Fonseka by the army Commander . The judges were appointed by the President and the President is making this appointment against his rival candidate who contested him at the Presidential elections. In other words , he has not only filed the case, but sitting in judgment and even passing judgment on it .
|
|
