SOCIO-POLITICAL REALITIES HILTON HOTEL FIASCO & AD HOMINEM LEGISLATION EXPROPRIATION LAW

Socio-Political Realities Hilton Hotel Fiasco & Ad Hominem Legislation ...

---

Sri Lanka , F. United Kingdom , C. A multi-disciplinary professional, exposed to private and public sectors, and a public interest activist, with wide international exposure. Not a legal professional, yet has appeared in person before the Supreme Court, successfully advocating public interest litigations.

He is a forensic accounting investigative specialist. Has dispassionately spoken out on matters of national and public interest.

Winkelen op rubriek

Ardently upholds the sacred precept, that public property is solely of the people, and managed in fiduciary trust by governments; transgression of which he has committedly combated. He emphasizes that 'economic terrorism' germinates 'armed terrorism', resulting in violation of human rights. Politicians vigorously campaign on election platforms, vociferously decrying fraud and corruption, vowing stringent action thereon. However, upon assuming office of government, get bogged down in the very quagmire of fraud and corruption, invariably peddled by powerful multinationals - as lucidly demonstrated through a series of other publications on his real life experiences thereon.

Would you like to tell us about a lower price? If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support? Author discloses non-enforcement of the rule of law, even by Attorney Generals, against those affluent and powerful, eventhough the rule of law is the cornerstone of democracy.

There is shocking revelation, of how Japanese Government, through Diplomats, pressurized to settle and cover-up a colossal fraud, blatantly perpetrated on a country and impoverished people, to prevent criminal prosecution thereof; even inducingly offering to negotiate with a terrorist organization, to resolve the issue of armed terrorism, ironically created by social injustice, including economic terrorism. Constitutional Minister, President's Counsel, charged for fraud utters blatant falsehoods.

Justice Minister and Foreign Minister, President's Counsel, both scholarly alumni of Oxford University, camouflages to whitewash fraud, taking duplicitous stances. How the country's highest judiciary deals with challenges to the perverse legislative process is revealing, with shocking disclosure of the Chief Justice's husband being given plum political office, with a scandalous controversy exploding in the public domain; just as the Author applies for a review of the pre-enactment Determination by Chief Justice for such Statute, as having been made per-incuriam and ultra-vires the Constitution, adducing additional grounds of perceived bias, upon wh.

Read more Read less. Here's how restrictions apply. Be the first to review this item Would you like to tell us about a lower price? Don't have a Kindle? Try the Kindle edition and experience these great reading features: Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review.

Account Options

Speaker on November 11, , but so announced by him in Parliament only on November 22, Attorney General, without any notice, whatsoever, to any of the parties affected , to be heard by a Supreme Court Bench, presided by her, with Justices P. Ekanayake, who upon such exclusive Hearing, had made the Special Determination dated October 24, , which had been tabled in the Parliament of Sri Lanka on November 9, Thus, it was an impossibility for any party affected to have known to have appeared in the Supreme Court on Monday, October 24, Determination of the Supreme Court in respect of Bills. Article of the Constitution is hereby repealed.

Article of the Constitution is hereby amended by the repeal of paragraph 3 of that Article. The aforesaid Special Determination of October 24, was replete with doubts entertained by the Supreme Court, with queries raised by the Supreme Court answered ex-parte by a Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for Hon. Attorney General Mohan Peiris, P. Thus the Bill, as per Article 3 of the Constitution, stood deemed, as constitutionally mandated, to have been determined as inconsistent with the Constitution. The Supreme Court was constitutionally estopped and debarred from having determined otherwise.

Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake and the other 2 Justices had dismally failed to take cognizance of the foregoing, in making the Special Determination of October 24, Having been indisposed , together with my Application, I tendered a Medical Certificate, seeking to appear within two weeks.

Five other parties had also previously filed Applications challenging this Bill. Disregarding my Medical Certificate , she had listed my Application, also to be heard the very next day, November 15, Significantly, the Supreme Court Registrar personally phoned urging me to attend Court. I declined to do so. At my request, the Registrar had submitted my Application, with the Medical Certificate, to the 5-Judge Bench, hearing the other Applications.

The presiding Justice, N. Amaratunga had permitted me to seek another date to support my Application, whilst dismissing in-limine the other 5 Applications , with the Bill having been enacted into law upon being certified on November 11, by the Hon.

JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPORTING THE IMPEACHMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE – Consultants21 Limited

Speaker, which however was announced to the Parliament only on November 22, Under Article 80 3 of the Constitution, Supreme Court became functus from entertaining any challenge to a Bill, which was thereafter an Act — viz: At the very outset , submitting to Court, that I was unaware that the Bill had been certified into law, when I filed my Application on November 14, , and that I became aware only when the Speaker made such announcement in Parliament on November 22, , conceding that I am ousted from challenging a Bill that had become an Act, I sought a review and rectification of the Special Determination of October 24, , which I submitted was not ousted under the above Article 80 3 of the Constitution.

I stressed that the Supreme Court is vested with an inherent right to review and rectify its own Special Determination of October 24, , and if rectified in terms of the mandatory provision of Article 3 of the Constitution, then the onus would lie on the Hon.

Speaker and Parliament to decide, as what ought be done. The 3-Judge Bench, presided by Justice N.

Amaratunga, who had previously dismissed the other 5 Applications on November 15, , having been convinced of my such stance entertained my Application, and directed issuance of Notices on the Respondents, and permitted me, as requested, to tender an Amended Petition by December 16, , which I complied with. The Registrar as directed issued Notices on the Respondents for January 26, Since I was seeking a review and rectification of the Special Determination of October 24, , as I rightfully and lawfully might , made an Application on January 18, , under Article of the Constitution, for the Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake to constitute a Bench for such review , also seeking a Bench of 5 or more Judges — viz:.

However, instead of constituting the same Bench , presided by her, which made such Special Determination of October 24, to hear my Application for a review , which was the normal practice in Sri Lanka , she on the contrary , directed my Application for review be heard on February 9, by the same Bench, presided by Justice N. Amaratunga, which had entertained my Application on November 25, and issued Notices on the Respondents.

I cited the Case of the Chilean President Pinochet in the House of Lords, where one Committee of the House of Lords, set aside the Decision by another Committee, purely on grounds of alleged perceived judicial bias, disqualifying one Lord , on the premise that his wife was employed in a mere administrative capacity by Amnesty International, an Intervenient-Party. Obviously conceding the merits and correctness of my submissions , presiding Justice N. Amaratunga, intimated to me, that though in UK, another Bench could review and set aside a Decision of one Bench, the practice in Sri Lanka was that, the same Bench must review its own decision.

I promptly drew attention to my above Application of January 18, under Article of the Constitution for such review of the Special Determination of October 24, by Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, and whilst knowing such fact , that she, herself, had specifically directed that the Bench presided by Justice N. Amaratunga hears my Application for such review. Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake had no right, whatsoever, to have directed another Bench , as to how it should decide upon hearing a Party.

Was this not grave judicial misconduct on her part? Confronted with such perverse intimation, I promptly tendered to the 3 Judge Bench, presided by Justice N. Jayasundera, later amended, seeking to re-assume office, as Secretary Treasury, having been previously debarred by the Supreme Court from holding any public office , by reason of his conduct and actions in a privatization to John Keells Holdings PLC, annulled on July 21, as unlawful, illegal and fraudulent in SC FR No. The above Application of P. However, Justice Shirani Bandaranayake being the most senior Judge, played an assertive role at the said Hearing.

When it was unanimously decided as recorded in the Journal Entry of September 24, that the two main prayers a and b of P.

JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPORTING THE IMPEACHMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE

Amaratunga, along with Justices K. Consequently in July , coincident with P. Jayasundera, and also from making the impugned Special Determination of October 24, , for that matter from having heard any other Application impleaded against the Government? Jayasundera to reassume Public Office, as Secretary Treasury. However the Court is inclined to grant other relief under paragraph c of the prayer to the amended Petition.

Jayasundera amended the Petition on 21 st July without obtaining permission from Court to do so.

Editorial Reviews

The amended Petition dated 21 st July , thus remained unsupported by a valid Affidavit, and, consequently, the said Affidavit should have been rejected in limine. When this matter was taken up on 3 rd August a fresh set of papers were filed, consisting of a second amended Petition dated 31 st July and a purported Affidavit dated 31 st July , once again without having obtained permission of Court.

Though I, appearing in person on September 24, , in this further Application by P. Ironically, I, the only person who was entitled to make Submissions, as per the aforesaid Supreme Court Rules , was granted a meagre limit of 10 minutes by presiding Chief Justice Asoka de Silva, with Justice D. Balapatabendi having futilely endeavored to prevent me from even making submissions. A wise Judge would investigate and give his decision without being partial. Jayasundera, consequent to which he was compelled to vacate Public Office.

N de Silva and Justice D.

• The Rim Valley Kids: The Lone Dog, The Cave And The Stone Frog
• Sew It - Small Crayon Tote Bag
• For The Love of Horses (Pegasus Equestrian Center Series Book 3)
• Billionaire Success Quotes & Profiles
• Dancing with a Saint