Mr President, You Also Will Be Impeached!

(PARIS) - After all, local and international legal expert Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama has written a thorough article, End Of Constitutional Governance in Sri Lanka - Gadaffi Also Said ‘The People Love Me’. Nothing more to say.

But I would like to remind President Rajapaksa that one day, he, his family members and his collaborators who are part of many scandalous processes will also be impeached. It is difficult to predict when, but sooner or later, it will happen.

We are sure that neither Rajapaksa nor any of his family members can become life-time rulers of Sri Lanka. All know that the international community is waiting for a ‘regime change’ in Sri Lanka.

President Rajapaksa’s one time trusted Military General, Presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka, still claims that he won the last Presidential election. Every day he shows new evidence supporting his claim. This suggests that Rajapaksa is an Executive President by bullet rather than by ballot.

Rajapaksa cannot deny he is greedy for power and wants to contest in the next Presidential election. This is the reason he used his two third majority in parliament to amend the constitution, paving the way for him to stand for the 3rd time in a Presidential election. This is a mistake on his part which will lead to his downfall.

As I have predicted in the past, the Lady is preparing to stand in the next Presidential election. Even though she served for eight years and could not deliver what she promised to the people, presently she is the best challenge to Rajapaksa, whom she will replace.

There are many obstacles for Ranil Wickremasinghe or Sarath Fonseka to stand in the President election. But they will support the Lady and she will also be supported by the majority of the members in the SLFP as well. Always the deciding vote is from the North and East and it will be cast in favour of the Lady. The people in the North and East have already voted for the Military General who ruined their life. This doesn’t mean that Rajapaksa or the Lady is a Saint. They too, have both done horrendous damage to the people in the North and East – politically, economically, socially and culturally.

When the Lady wins the President election with the support of Ranil Wickremasinghe, Sarath Fonseka and all the others who oppose Rajapaksa’s family rule - are they going to allow Rajapaksa to have a peaceful life?

Those whom I mentioned above and also Rajapaksa’s one time good friend Mangala Samaraweera are part of this group. In fact, all these people may have problems about who will be Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Secretary of Defence. However, they are not going to spare Rajapaksa, his family and his collaborators. This is the history of the world.

Rajapaksa’s impeachment process against the Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake gave the international community food for thought about the judiciary in Sri Lanka. Regarding this process while the whole world, bar associations of many countries and many legal experts were opposing it, the Hero who demerged the North East, former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva supported the President. At the end of the impeachment, the President paid a courtesy visit to Sarath N. Silva’s home.

This is where the former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva’s verdict on the demerger of the North East becomes questionable. He seems to have a stony personality .

I am sure Rajapaksa is aware that Mangala Samaraweera has visited Europe recently and met with a few members of the Tamil diaspora. I do not know whether those members of the diaspora are aware that this gentleman is one of the people who are the cause of today’s devastating situation of the Tamils. When Mangala Samaraweera was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka, he went around the world spreading lies and deception, portraying the Tamil’s political problem as a ‘Terrorist problem’

In November 2001, I had personal experience of this liar Mangala Samaraweera who was then a Minister in Chandrika Kumaratunga’s cabinet. He produced a fake letter and told many lies in a press conference concerning me and a few others:

Daily News, 22 November 2001 - “Cabinet Spokesman and Urban Development, Public Utilities Housing and Sports Minister Mangala Samaraweera addressing a media conference at the Information Department auditorium at Narahenpita yesterday revealed details of a long standing conspiracy by the UNP and the LTTE to destabilize the government and the country.”

In fact, soon after this front-page lead news item appeared in the ‘Daily News’ of 22 November 2001, I contacted Dr. Jayalath Jayawardena, with an idea of suing Mangala Samaraweera. Dr Jayalath Jayawardena told me that, there is nothing to worry, as he has already filed a case for five million rupees as damage from Mangala Samaraweera. Once that is successfully done, I can file the follow-up case.

Today where are Mangala Samaraweera and Dr Jayalath Jayawardena? They both are together in a party, which Mangala Samaraweera claimed had a: “long standing conspiracy by the UNP and the LTTE to destabilize the government and the country”. What happened to Dr Jayalath Jayawardena’s case for five million rupees? This is politics, using others, sorry, the Tamils, for their benefit.

This is how President Rajapaksa has made use of Karuna, Pillayan, Douglas Devananda and many other Tamils. Where are they all today? They all did yeoman service to Rajapaksa’s Dutugemunu regime. Now these Tamils are ashamed to face the people. This fact has to be realised by the grassroots Tamil diaspora activists.

International customary law recognizes two categories of immunity: functional (or ratione materiae) and personal (or ratione personae).

Functional immunity is excluded for perpetrators acting in an official capacity. Practice by international tribunals and courts confirm - these institutions did not even recognize personal immunity – as demonstrated by the ICC when initiating a case against the sitting Sudanese President and by the Special Court for Sierra Leone when issuing an arrest warrant against Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia.

As regards domestic criminal jurisdiction, state practice tends to reject functional immunity, for certain categories of high-ranking individuals, including Heads of State, Heads of government and according to the ICJ, also Ministers of Foreign Affairs, as long as they are in office.

I conclude by saying: Mr President, please do wait for another few months or years.

What is Impeachment?

A criminal proceeding against a public officer, before a quasi political court, instituted by a written accusation called “articles of impeachment;” for example, a written accusation by the house of representatives of the United States to the senate of the United States against an officer.

In England, a prosecution by the house of commons before the house of lords of a commoner for treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanours, or of a peer for any crime. In evidence. An allegation, supported by proof, that a witness who has been examined is unworthy of credit.

–ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. The formal written allegation of the causes for an impeachment, answering the same purpose as an indictment in an ordinary criminal proceeding.

–COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT. The collateral impeachment of a judgment or decree is an attempt made to destroy or evade its effect as an estoppel, by reopening the merits of the cause or showing reasons why the judgment should not have been given or should not have a conclusive effect, in any collateral proceeding, that is, in any action or proceeding other than that in which the judgment was given, or other than an appeal, certiorari, or other direct proceeding to review it.

–IMPEACHMENT OF ANNUITY. A term sometimes used in English law to denote anything that operates as a hindrance, impediment or obstruction of the making of the profits out of which the annuity is to arise. Pitt v. Williams, 4 Adol. & El.885.

–IMPEACHMENT OF WASTE. Liability for waste committed ; or a demand or suit for compensation for waste committed upon lands or tenements by a tenant there of who. Having only a lease hold or particular estate, had no right to commit waste. See 2 Rl.Comm. 283; Sanderson v. .Tones, 6 Fla. 480. 63 Am. Dec. 217. –IMPEACHMENT OFWITNESS. Proof that a witness who has testified in a cause is unworthy of credit. White v.Railroad Co.. 142 Ind.