By Chula Goonasekera –

It was not long ago that we, as a nation, witnessed a political culture in which various actors sought to influence or interfere with the judicial process. Politicians competing for power, together with sections of the media, attempted to expose alleged wrongdoing by citing circumstantial evidence and publishing secretly recorded conversations. While some of these revelations may have served the public interest, they also raised important questions about the boundaries between transparency, media freedom, and due process.

However, what is happening today, often in broad daylight on state media channels, private media channels, and social media platforms, is equally concerning. Individuals come forward to explain, analyse, and sometimes even repeat statements made by victims, plaintiffs, the accused, witnesses, and providers of evidence during ongoing judicial proceedings. Such practices risk influencing public opinion before the courts have had the opportunity to examine the evidence fully and fairly.

These developments are puzzling and raise concerns about our public representatives—not so much for what they say, but for what they do. In many developed countries with robust legal systems, strict rules exist to minimise bias during judicial proceedings. The media may report on ongoing cases, but there are often clear restrictions on publishing material that could prejudice a fair trial. Violations can amount to contempt of court or other legal offences, depending on the jurisdiction. Such safeguards are intended to uphold the fundamental principle that every individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty and to protect the integrity of the judicial process.

Therefore, despite frequent claims that our judiciary is highly regarded, the constant bombardment of information from state, private, and social media is a worrying trend for anyone who wishes to see an unbiased, independent, and fair judicial process. Public commentary and sensational reporting have the potential to influence perceptions, create prejudice, and undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

What is particularly surprising is that some lawyers themselves appear to engage in this process. One must ask whether they are unaware of their professional and ethical responsibilities or whether they knowingly disregard them. Lawyers, as officers of the court, have a duty not only to represent their clients but also to uphold the integrity of the justice system. At the same time, it is important to recognise that media restrictions vary from country to country. Many democracies permit reporting on ongoing cases but impose limits designed to protect the fairness of judicial proceedings.

This trend is not conducive to our country’s recovery or to strengthening public trust in democratic institutions. A fair and independent judiciary, protected from undue influence and public pressure, is an essential pillar of any society that aspires to justice and good governance.

If we look forward to a respected and robust judicial system in this country, then citizens must honour the legal requirements already in place. This responsibility extends to government institutions, the media, individual citizens, and members of the legal profession alike. The judiciary, too, should clearly define and enforce the boundaries of acceptable conduct for the public, the media, and politicians of all persuasions, particularly during an ongoing judicial inquiry. Trials should take place in courts of law, not in the court of public opinion.

The demand for human rights, justice, and accountability has been a powerful force generated by the people over many years. However, these aspirations cannot be realised if the very same people disregard legal safeguards in order to promote populist narratives that may compromise ongoing investigations or judicial proceedings. The Ministry of Justice, together with the judiciary and other relevant institutions, should take the lead in ensuring that the rule of law is upheld impartially, irrespective of the identity, political affiliation, or status of those involved.

There is a Sinhala idiom that says, “If the fence itself eats the paddy, who can protect the harvest?” The saying reminds us that when those entrusted with safeguarding a system become participants in undermining it, restoring public confidence becomes exceedingly difficult. The same principle applies to the administration of justice. If those expected to protect the integrity of the judicial process fail to do so, the consequences will be borne not only by the parties involved but also by society as a whole.