By Ameer Ali –

Dr. Ameer Ali

“The crisis of modern democracy is a profound one. Free elections, a free press and independent judiciary mean little when the free market has reduced them to commodities available on sale to the highest bidder” ~ Arundati Roy

Restoration of Judiciary independence was one of the key pledges by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) and his National Peoples Power (NPP) in their respective election campaigns and Sri Lankan voters put them in power with an unassailable mandate. Systematic political interference in the country’s judiciary not only made people to lose confidence in it but also made the country’s parliamentary democracy a mockery. Under JR constitution that interference in addition to the unlimited Presidential powers brought judiciary’s reputation to its nadir. The concept of separation of powers was defenestrated. It was in that parlous state of affairs AKD’s and NPP’s resolve to restore judiciary’s independence promised relief not only to the legal community particularly but also to citizens at large.

Also, there is another reason why this restoration is mandatory. President AKD unlike his predecessors is seriously embarking on a mission to achieve ethnic reconciliation without denying or destroying ethic identity. This means unless citizen Arumugam or Abdulla has the confidence that that they would be treated equally in front of law as citizen Appuhamy there is no hope for any ethnic reconciliation. Therefore, for democracy to remain vibrant and meaningful to all ethnic and religious communities, independence of Judiciary should remain sacrosanct. Unfortunately, it appears that there are elements still lingering within the system that are trying to sabotage these noble pursuits. This is why removing those elements before they destroy the country should be given priority in the AKD-led Clean Sri Lanka campaign. Two recent developments in relation to legal treatment received by two personalities from two religious communities, one a Buddhist monk and the other a Muslim Moulavi show how saboteurs are operating to create chaos and bringdown the government.

The notoriety of Galagodatte Gnanasara Thero, a rabble rouser and black sheep within the Maha Sangha is too well known.  He is the General Secretary of the supremacist Bodu Bala Sena which spearheaded a Muslim hate campaign after the civil war and during the reign of Rajapaksas. It was Gnanasara’s hate speech in Aluthgama in 2014 that led to the anti-Muslim riot there which spread later to other parts of the country. In 2016 he was sentenced to six years imprisonment for intimidation and contempt of court but was pardoned and released by President Maithripala Sirisena in 2019. This character was appointed later as the head of a Presidential Task Force by Gotabaya Rajapaksa to make recommendations for implementing the controversial One Country One Law. In January 2025 Gnanasara was again sentenced to a nine-month jail term for making another Islam-hate remark in July 2016 at Kirilapone but came out on bail on 25^th February with a paltry fine of just Rs. 1,500 – the cost of 15 cups of tea at present.  What a joke! It may be that the judge had no alternative as law enforcer but to release him after listening to arguments from the defence and under existing legal provisions. Gnanasara has virtually become a tourist visiting prisons. If that is the case, there is something anomalous in the existing laws and parliament should pass appropriate legislations to remove such anomalies. The President or his ministers should not intervene to change the judgement.   

Unlike the case of Gnanasara Thero the experience of Moulavi Qiyasdeen of Horowapothana at the hands of another law enforcer is nothing but horrifying. A Moulavi is a religious functionary in a mosque. This gentleman with his wife and children had taken his blind father in a self-driven vehicle to the hospital for treatment. On the way a police constable riding in his official motorbike from Kekirawa had stopped the Moulavi, perhaps on suspicion of breaking some traffic rule, and instead of issuing a notice of offence and taking him to the court had beaten and slapped him in front of his family and the victim is now reported to be taking treatment in the hospital.  According to the Moulavi the constable was smelling alcohol when he shouted. If that was true, the constable must have been drinking while on duty.   

Sequentially, Gnanasara’s release took place before the Moulavi incident. The constable would have known that the Thero went to prison because Muslims took him to court for insulting their religion. Therefore, one cannot dismiss the possibility that this Buddhist constable might have beaten the Moulavi to vent his anger at the Muslim community, which means his action was racially motivated. This is the danger that the country and government are facing at present. One cannot forget how during the anti-Muslim riots in Rajapaksa era certain soldiers and policemen were just watching the horror without stopping the rioters.

Opposition parties are still seething with anger and disappointment at the aragalaya generation for rejecting the old order and replacing it with a new one led by a team of young politicians who in the eyes of opposition are a bunch of inexperienced parvenus.  The old guards are looking for any opportunity to exploit to their advantage so that the life span of this government could be cut short. To them therefore insiders like the racially prejudiced constable are an asset.  They can be used as tools to create chaos. Sooner the government identifies such saboteurs operating from within and get rid of them better for peace and prosperity with ethnic reconciliation.