Centre for Policy Alternatives on 23 February, 2013 Guide to UN HRC Resolution on Sri Lanka (March 2013)
In the lead up to the 22nd Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UN HRC) from February 25th to March 22nd 2013 there is significant reference in the media and public spaces to the Resolution on Sri Lanka which was passed at the UN HRC in March 2012. Nonetheless, there is limited awareness as to the actual content of this Resolution. CPA has put out this guide in order to provide an explanation on the Resolution and developments related to it.
Download the PDF here.
Or read below.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 21 February, 2013 Language and Humanity
We were embroiled in a devastating war for thirty long years. Our habit of not honouring the Tamil Language deems to be the cause for such war. At the beginning , due to the suppression of demands, demonstrations and agitations, the resolving of the problem was assigned to gun powder. Through this, we have destroyed the human, material and intellectual resources which belonged to all races of our country is an unusual way. But the worst of all is that we have eliminated our humanity.
The war has ceased. But the causes for eruption of war has not ceased. Hence, at least the necessary wisdom should now prevail. As an initial and a sustainable step, Sinhala and Tamil languages should be treated in an equal and justifiable manner. I think that this booklet will provide the necessary guidance in this regard.
My highest regards are due to Mr. Lional Guruge of the Community Participation Programme Division, Centre for Policy Alternatives who encouraged me in this endeavour.
S.G.Punchihewa
###
Download the book here.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 21 February, 2013 Tamil Language Rights in Sri Lanka
After my schooling in Jaffna and Colombo and my under graduate studies in Colombo, I was recruited to the Ceylon Civil Service in April 1959, not long after Sinhala was made the only Official Language. I retired in April 1995, a few years after the passage of the 13th and 16th Ammendments to the Constitution, which introduced Tamil also as an Official Language. In the intervening 36 years, I served a total of 11 years in Badulla, Mannar, Batticaloa and Jaffna Districts. Badulla was bilingual but the other three Districts were predominently Tamil Speaking.
In the course my work I became very much aware and sensitive to the language problems of the people. This little monograph is the outcome of the awareness I gained in the course of my duties and subsequent research.
I have often travelled in the hill country and past Haputale Church with a lovely view, sometimes stretching out south to the Indian Ocean. That Churchyard contains the ashes of W.S. Senior whose haunting verses titled The Call of Lanka are included in this monograph.
I wish to gratefully acknowledge the help given in different ways by Lionel Guruge, Asoka Herath, Kamaladevi Sasichandran & Lanka Nesiah to bring out this monograph. My special thanks are due to the Editor of The Island who published a series of four articles by me on this subject in the course of March 2012. This monograph is based on those articles.
Devanesan Nesiah
April 2012
###
Download the publication here.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 8 February, 2013 Note on the Divineguma Bill
Media reports in December 2012 indicated that the Divineguma Bill (referred to here as the Bill) is to be taken up for a vote by Parliament in January 2013. This note has been prepared by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA),with the objective of raising key issues related to the Bill and their consequences, if the Bill is enacted in its present form.
CPA raised these issues in 2012, in both petitions filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Bill and in awareness raising material produced in all three languages.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 6 February, 2013 Centre for Policy Alternatives and another Vs. D. M. Jayaratne and others. SC FR 23/2013
A Fundamental Rights application was filed by Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director on the 15th January 2013, seeking a declaration by the Supreme Court that the Parliamentary Council (which includes the 1st to 5th Respondents) established by the 18th Amendment to the Constitution cannot make observations to the President with regard to the appointment of a Chief Justice until the incumbent Chief Justice (Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake) is removed from office through a lawful process or until she reaches her age of retirement. On the same basis the petitioners further sought a declaration by Court that former Attorney General Mohan Peiris (the 6th Respondent in the case) cannot accept the post of Chief justice or engage in the functions of that office.
On the day the matter was filed the 6th Respondent was appointed as the Chief Justice in terms of the provisions of the 18th amendment to the constitution. The case was fixed for support for interim relief and leave to proceed on the 6th of February 2013. On the 28th of January2013, a motion was filed by the Attorney-at-Law for the Petitioners requesting a full bench, excluding the 6th Respondent to hear and determine this case.
On 6th February the counsel for the Petitioners raised Objections to the 6th Respondent’s involvement in the matter. The matter was fixed to be mentioned on 5th March 2013. When the matter was taken up on 11th of July 2013, before a bench of 5 judges, the Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that all Supreme Court judges should be appointed to hear the case. The Attorney General’s Department objected to the said submission and the case was re fixed for the 16th July 2013 before the same bench.
On 16th July 2013, The counsel appearing for the Attorney General’s Department stated that in terms of the Constitution the ‘Chief Justice” has to appoint judges hear any particular case. On the 25th of July 2013, the Counsel for the Petitioner withdrew from appearing in the case on the basis that no person can judge a case in which he has an interest (Nemo Judex in causa sua) which is a basic principles of Natural Justice. In these circumstances court issued notice on the Petitioners and their registered Attorney-at- law to appear before court on 26th September 2013. The Petitioners through a motion filed on 18th September 2013 informed court that they do not wish to further participate in the disposal of this case.
The judgment was delivered on 24th March 2014, the 5 judge bench upheld the preliminary objections raised by the learned Attorney- General on the 16th July 2013. The application filed by the Petitioners was dismissed without costs. The court was on the view that,
- any of the relief prayed for by the Petitioners cannot be granted in these proceedings in view of the immunity of the President contained in Article 35(1) of the Constitution; as the 6th Respondent has been appointed as the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka by a warrant issued by the President in terms of Article 107(1) of the Constitution.
- any of the relief prayed for by the Petitioners that would have the effect of removing the 6th Respondent from office ;cannot be granted, as he has been appointed in terms of Article 107(1) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 22 January, 2013 Regrettable, not surprising: Interview with Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu on impeachment of Chief Justice
The appointment of Mohan Peiris as Chief Justice is regrettable, though not surprising, in the backdrop of growing authoritarianism and undermining of the county’s Constitution, says Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director, Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) in an interview with Ceylon Today.