24 September, 2020

Blog

De Facto CJ Mohan Pieris Stopped Further Inquiry Into A FR Application Yesterday

Chief Justice Mohan Pieris stopped further inquiries into a Fundamental Rights application yesterday, stating that the courts do not have the technical competence to go into the issues raised in the case. This decision was made in a case filed against the Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation. The BBC Sinhala service reported that the Chief Justice further went on to state that the lawyers should not file cases relating to all problems within Sri Lanka. The lawyers, he stated, should advise the clients to negotiate these problems with the relevant government institutions and to come to settlements instead of bringing these cases to court. He reiterated that the courts do not have the competence to deal with many technical issues that arise in these cases.

This decision by the Supreme Court to discontinue a hearing of a Fundamental Rights application purely on the basis of absence of technical competence is the first occasion on which the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has made such a decision. The constitution requires that once a Fundamental Rights application is filed, the courts should examine the merits and, if there is a case to be dealt with, the court should issue notice to respondents and fix it for hearing. After the lawyers file all the papers and make their submissions at this final stage, the court is expected to make a determination on the issue. This is the first occasion on which the court has refused to follow the constitutional provisions on the basis that the court has no technical competence to go into the issue.

Mohan Pieris

This decision by the Chief Justice will seriously undermine the position of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court judges are expected to have the competence to adjudicate on all matters that are placed before them on the basis of the law in Sri Lanka. The Chief Justice is reported to have said that the lawyers should take up these cases with the relevant public institutions and negotiate and settle these matters.

Distinction between litigation and negotiations

The litigation process begins with a party that is of the view that his/her rights have been violated by a government authority and that s/he should have recourse to the law in finding redress for the violation. Referring such a matter back to the negotiation table takes the whole issue outside court. The jurisdiction of the court is sought by the litigant on the basis that s/he has certain entitlements by way of the law. He comes to court on the basis that the court will ensure that his entitlements would be respected by the public authority. He refers the matter to a decision by the court and not to a decision by the public authority, that, in the first instance, has violated his/her rights.

By depriving litigants who contest the matter before the courts, the rights of the litigants are being violated in a serious manner. Once the court decides that it will not go into this matter and will not allow the normal legal process to take place, a citizen is placed outside the due process of law.

The result is that the litigant is left to the good will of the public institution and, if the public institution is not willing to correct the wrong that it has done, the matter ends there. This will provide enormous power to the public authorities to violate the rights of citizens as these authorities will know that the courts will not entertain applications relating to violations by them, on the basis that the courts lack competence of deal with these matters. The likelihood of the authorities more blatantly violating the rights of the citizens is a possible consequence of this decision by the Supreme Court.

Undermining the role of lawyers

The lawyers’ role is to advise the clients who seek their professional services on the law relating to the issues raised by the clients and, when the clients request that they wish to take the matters to court, to assist them in that process. The lawyers’ role is seriously undermined if lawyers are expected to tell the clients not to seek their remedies in the courts but to engage in private negotiations with the public authorities instead. A lawyer is not a mere middleman.

The lawyer’s role is determined in terms of the legal process and in terms of the redress that is made available by law to the persons who feel that their rights have been violated or that their entitlements have not been respected. The relationship between the lawyer and his/her client is based on the understanding of the grievances of the clients. If the grievance of the client is based on his understanding of the law, the lawyer’s duty is to advise him on the availability or non availability of a legal redress before a court of law. If, on a proper understanding on the law, the client wishes to proceed to court, the lawyer is under obligation to assist him/her. The lawyer’s role is not to advise their clients to give up their legal entitlements. If the lawyer’s role is reduced to the position of having to advise clients to give up their legal entitlements and to encourage the clients to enter into a private negotiation process with the authorities, that is a fundamental metamorphosis of the role of the lawyer. This way the lawyer becomes a middleman to go in between public authorities and his/her clients. The public authorities may well tell the lawyer that s/he has no business to come before them.

The problem of competence on technical matters

On many matters that come before a court of law, whether it is on issues of fundamental rights or issues relating to civil litigation or criminal litigation, there are many matters on which the courts may not have the full knowledge of all the issues that may be raised. The law in all countries has found the solution to this problem. The solution lies by way of expert opinions that may be placed before the courts. The courts could request expert advice to be placed before them by way of evidence and then the court would make their decisions on the basis of the expert opinions placed before them. While the courts may not have technical knowledge about a particular subject, they are expected to have the intellectual capacity and the knowledge of the law and therefore to be able to decide on the expert evidence that is placed before them.

If Chief Justice Mohan Peiris’ position is that the courts cannot have the intellectual capacity and the adequate knowledge of law to deal with the expert opinions placed before them on technical matters, then the issue is not about the absence of knowledge on technical matters but absence of competence on matters that the courts cannot claim absence of competence on. The courts are not entitled to claim absence of competence of the intellectual capacity to deal with the evidence before them or claim that they do not have the adequate legal knowledge to deal with the issues raised by experts on the issues placed before them.

Abdication of the function of the judiciary

If the courts decide that they lack technical competence and that therefore they will not entertain the applications made by citizens seeking legal redress on their grievances, that is a clear abdication by the courts of the functions they are supposed to perform.

When judges are appointed to the Supreme Court, the assumption is that they do have adequate legal grounding and adequate intellectual capacity to deal with all evidence placed before them, including the evidence placed before them by experts. Courts have the right to ask the necessary questions when such evidence on technical matters is given, and to obtain the necessary explanations so that they will be able to adjudicate on those matters. Besides seeking the advice of experts, the courts are also entitled to request from the lawyers who appear before them to place before courts the necessary explanations relating to the issues that the courts are dealing with. The lawyers are by their very profession obliged to provide guidance to courts on the relevant issues that arise in court.

A question that needs to be dealt with by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka

The issue of the Chief Justice declaring that lawyers should go to public authorities rather than coming to court is a matter that the Bar Association should seriously take up with the Supreme Court. By placing their position on the basis of law, the Bar Association should clarify the legal position on this matter. Whatever decision that the Supreme Court takes must be based on the law. If the court makes decisions that are not based on the law, then the courts themselves would be violating the rule of law. The Bar Association needs to take this up as this is a matter that affects the procedure established by the law as well as their own professional standing before the courts and before their clients. In doing so, the Bar Association should take into consideration the questions of corruption that may enhanced by this decision to refer cases back to public authorities for them to be the final arbiters of cases.

When cases are field, a public authority can be one of the parties. The citizen is the other party. Between these two parties there is a contest. What the decision of the Chief Justice means is that one of the parties is given the power to be the final arbiter on this issue.

The Bar Association needs to clarify the legal situation on the technical competence of courts. There is enough practical knowledgefrom the world over on how the courts have dealt with the issue of technical incompetence on some particular subjects. This matter should be brought to the Supreme Court and the matter should be clarified in this way.

In fact, the Bar Association is entitled to take this matter not only for negotiation with the Supreme Court but also by way of litigation in the courts themselves. As this is a matter of enormous legal importance relating to the procedure established by law, the Bar Association need to settle the matter finally and, if necessary, by litigation.

As Sri Lanka is a party to the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there is also the space for the litigant in this case as well as the Bar Association to take up this matter with the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

*A Statement by Asian Human Rights Commission

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    Perhaps, the De Facto CJ must have been sick of following Duminada’s miracle in the media and finally decided that it is pointless to seek such technical expertise…

    • 0
      0

      Has he got the technical skills to evaluate if Duminda is still living?

      • 0
        0

        Lankan:
        It might be more appropriate to ask this piece of ….. whether he has located Ekneligoda yet.
        This man is deserving of the fate of a Ceaucescu for what he has done and is continuing to do the rule of law (what’s left of) in this MIRACLE OF ASIA!

      • 0
        0

        In the UK there is always a tribunal sitting which is cheaper than going to courts where specifically the technical matters(Leasehold Valuation Tribunal then Lands Tribunal) are trashed out which judges are not competent and then it can go forward to courts for the decision.

  • 0
    0

    Courts can always summon experts in the field to give their opinion. The Judiciary is not expected to rule on technical matters which are already stated in bylaws, statutes, standards etc. This is a very serious case where the Cheat Justice is saying he is not competent to hold his post and asking people to go elsewhere.

    • 0
      0

      How come expertise being brought in ?, this CJ being a Catholic believes Mary was a virgin, never thought of any expertise being brought in to determine how a virgin become pregnant & give birth to a Child?

      Don’t expect any better from this guy.

  • 0
    0

    From where this antics come to benches.

  • 0
    0

    /The Cheap Justice may not have the competency to find out and investigate facts, none of us are shocked about this stand of his. But my question is, does the Judiciary have the technical competency to investigate and determine that a killing is a murder? What is the difference between these two situations? All over the world “expert witnesses” are brought in to assist the courts, why not in Sri Lanka. This Cheap Justice has proven beyond any ones doubt and to the dismay of the citizens of Sri Lanka and above all utter disgust of the world judicial community that the President has appointed a most unsuitable person as the illegal Chief Justice. What a shame.

    • 0
      0

      Dear Mr. Park,

      “This Cheap Justice has proven beyond any ones doubt and to the dismay of the citizens of Sri Lanka and above all utter disgust of the world judicial community that the President has appointed a most unsuitable person as the illegal Chief Justice.”

      Let me look at this from a different view point. The CJ, whether “de facto or not” has been truthful about his technical competence and may have thought that him being the CJ that the technical competence of other judges of the appellate courts of Sri Lanka, is below his.

      Being a professional I am of the view that matters requiring technical competence of other professionals are always referred for arbitration or the SC can call expert opinion. Now I am confused that the SC has deviated from this practice and has created a precedence for the rest of the world to quote in similar cases.

      Does the Executive President has powers quash his judgment if it is very bad in law and order a retrial? Prez MR may be more knowledgeable than me because he is a lawyer.Law is a profession recognized by the OPA and the BASL is among the professional bodies in the fold of the OPA. I am told that the BASL has a large number of members in the OPA forum. It would be interesting to hear from both the BASL and the OPA on this issue.

      Regards

      The Professional

  • 0
    0

    What is the role, then, of an amicus curiae? Or has that too been abolished in Sri Lanka?

  • 0
    0

    The de facto CJ appeared to have judged the other supreme court judges by his own standard. What a pity to have a CJ, de facto or otherwise, who is not competent enough to handle an FR case !

    • 0
      0

      i agree to all that has been said. WELCOME TO SRI LANKA A LAND LIKE NO OTHER.

  • 0
    0

    Is this due an incompetent person is asked to a job? Why can’t the incompetent leave it in the hands of competent and go home for a suitable position.

  • 0
    0

    That is true. A person who has no experience might not has ‘the technical competence’.

  • 0
    0

    The most unusual case of a Head of the judiciary obstructing the course of justice
    Bensen

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.