Due process is at the center of ANY form of review, be it a disciplinary hearing at work, or at an arbitration tribunal and especially in a court of law. It is the first thing a law student learns when he begins his studies. So it is NOT confined to a Court of Law. It is this that appears to have been set aside in the haste of the PSC to find the CJ guilty. For that grave mistake, it is a shame that lawyers privy to the proceedings and the President who effectively instigated it, who is supposed to be a lawyer, have forgotten.
It is that single issue that is at the heart of the international outcry of condemnation of the proceedings by the PSC, which will go down in history as the fastest judgment ever given on EARTH. That implies that Kangaroo Courts have been more fair, leaving this verdict at the edge of decency.
There are two methods this Government can get away from further embarrassment. The first is for the Parliament to vote against the findings of the PSC, and thereby avoid the impeachment of the CJ. The Second is to prorogue Parliament, so that this requirement automatically dies without a hearing, and effectively lets the CJ off until the new parliament determines what course of action to take.
I would recommend the first, where the Parliament may use the lack of due process to nullify the findings of the PSC, without actually saying the CJ is not guilty. It just says that the PSC report cannot be relied upon due to the basic norms being ignored.
I also recommend that after this action is taken, that a New Bill be presented on the Rules of Appointing and Removing Judges of the Appeals Court and Supreme Court. The Govt. will regain much of the lost prestige if the rules are on the lines of the Bill presented by the CBK Govt. of the UPFA in 2000 that was not passed and which the UNP has agreed they will now support. Then as both parties are in agreement, it should pass unanimously. For good measure, I would recommend that the appointments of Judges is also included, along International lines of best practice, which will deflect any criticism this Govt. may get on this issue.
It need not be an Urgent Bill, which smacks of impropriety. It can instead be a normal bill which will then require the assent of the Supreme Court as it pertains to Changes to the Constitution, but I believe which also requires a two thirds majority, which due to opposition support could pass ‘Unanimously’. We can then prevent a reccurrence. However I doubt this Govt. will wish to limit their powers.