Editorial

Premalal Jayasekera, the Opposition and the 19th

Summary

Premalal Jayasekera, without saying a word or lifting an arm is undressing a lot of people. And he’s ripping the 19th to shreds in the process.

The Opposition is up in arms over the court order permitting Premalal Jayasekera to attend Parliament. Jayasekera was recently sentenced to death over the fatal shooting during the 2015 presidential election in Kahawatte.

Jayasekera has a history. He has a reputation and not a very good one either. People have to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, yes. And yet offering nomination to someone with such charges doesn’t look good, keeping in mind, as mentioned above, that allegations are cheap and it would be silly to pencil out anyone and everyone who are accused of this, that and the other.  He was nominated. He was voted in. Blame also the nominators and the electors, then!
But it is not as simple as that.
Well, Jayasekera was convicted. He was sentenced. He appealed. He petitioned court regarding attending parliamentary sessions. Court ruled that he could.  

Now, here’s a question for the SJB: who appointed the judge(s)? Well, the worthies who gave determinations were appointed subsequent to the 19th Amendment being passed. The ‘independent’ Judicial Services Commission was part of the appointing process. This Commission was essentially appointed by the Constitutional Council, chaired at the time by the then Speaker, Karu Jayasuriya. The Constitutional Council was UNP-heavy and politician-heavy, following the deliberate and disgusting constitutional tinkering project of the yahapalana regime.

The judges owe much to this Constitutional Council, whose existence owes to the yahapalana regime.  The determination that allows Jayasekera to attend parliament, then, is a yahapalana baby, a 19the amendment baby and a UNP/SJB baby. If it is grotesque, then the three-headed father is responsible.  

If the 19th was the god-given mother-of-all-great-amendments that the SJB claim it to be, then the SJB has to acknowledge that the judge who they accuse (in not so many words) or erring owes his position to an error in the 19th.

Why is the SJB reluctant to take issue with the judge? Because ‘our guys appointed him’?  Fear of earning the wrath of the court? Is it because the SJB is neck-deep in cheap politicking like all other political parties, despite its high-flown rhetoric of being different?

Premalal Jayasekera, without saying a word, is undressing a lot of people. And he’s ripping the 19th to shreds in the process.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.