26 August, 2019

Blog

Shadow Boxing With The Independence Of The Judiciary

By Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena –

Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena

President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s indignant retort to newspaper editors this week that he did not attempt to interfere with the independence of Sri Lanka’s judiciary has all the hallmarks of the classic ‘swing and swerve’ tactics adopted by his administration. In other words, this refers to its now entrenched policy of swinging out at an individual or institution and then adroitly swerving sideways to avoid consequences while engaging in the most palpable if not absurd falsehoods to serve its purpose.

Ambiguities in the Presidential utterances

Sweetly reasonable as the President’s words may appear to be, closer dissection of what he said by those of us who care to utilize our mental faculties to do so, exposes clear ambiguities. For example, the thrust of his explanation was that he had requested a meeting with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to ‘discuss with them some matters such as training, welfare, allocations from the forthcoming budget,’ (The Island, September 27th 2012).

But are we then required to believe that the JSC and its unfortunate Secretary who is now reportedly to be inquired into by the Government for matters that remain shrouded in secrecy (as reported in that same newspaper), would have taken leave of its collective and individual senses to publicly complain that ‘it is regrettable to note that the JSC has been subjected to threats and intimidation from persons holding different status’ merely over a pedestrian discussion on training et al? Surely this is to strain our credulity too far, to put it in the most understated terms?

Note that the JSC statement, specific details of which became public over last weekend, did not mention a Presidential request to meet the JSC. This request was merely circulated through public rumor and it is certainly good to know that confirmation of the same was provided by the President himself later on in the week, despite the unconvincing explanation advanced as to the reasons therein.

Due credit to the JSC for going public

The JSC statement mentions political displeasure over disciplinary action initiated by the Commission in regard to the conduct of a judge. The undertones of this displeasure though not mentioned in the statement but commonly talked about, are the close linkages maintained by this judge with the administration. The JSC appeared compelled to issue the statement following repeated attacks on the body and on its Chairman, the Chief Justice in the state media. Meanwhile the Bar Association, as it is wont to do, issued statements and resolutions.

It also (as some would quip, in the manner of the normal response of the United National Party to any matter of public importance), constituted a committee to determine if the media attacks on judges constituted contempt. These steps would, of course, prove quite useless if no constructive action is taken substantively by the Bar to meet what is a definitely a clear and present danger to what remains of the independence of the country’s judiciary.

But to return to the JSC statement which is at the centre of the current controversy, it is interesting that (as reported) the Cabinet has discussed the possibility of initiating disciplinary action against the JSC Secretary purportedly over some allegations unconnected to the instant dispute.

As commonsense would have it, a peculiar stretch of the imagination is not required to link this threat to the statement issued under his hand but as explicitly ‘instructed’ by the Commission itself. So now does the Cabinet contemplate moving thereafter against the members of the JSC, including the Chief Justice? More likely, this threat may be taken as a clear warning to the JSC that it should only go thus far and no further. This entire exercise of shadow boxing with the independence of the judiciary is highly contemptible. And whatever may be said, the JSC should certainly be given due credit for going public with the situation that it was facing even if such a course of action may have been inevitable given the nature of the attacks launched by the state media against the judges.

Lines of challenge drawn at basic points

As was warned in last week’s column, the lines of challenge between the administration and the judiciary are now drawn, not at the point of high constitutional jurisprudence regarding the protection of civil liberties as was the case in the past. Rather, the judiciary is required to defend itself over lamentably basic issues regarding the interdiction of a junior judge, a rampaging Minister and a determination on the procedural steps that ought to be followed in regard to a Bill pertaining to matters impacting on the functioning of provincial councils. These developments show the extent of deterioration of Sri Lanka’s independence of the judiciary, proving that all those incurable optimists who believed that the country’s systems would survive basically despite the extensive politicization of the last decade, terribly wrong.

As again was said last week, when former Chief Justice Sarath Silva held iron sway over his Court during 1999-2009, an initial courageous reaction by the Bar, by the associations of judges (retired and sitting), by legal intellects of the day and by the citizenry at large including the media who should have understood that the judicial system of Sri Lanka was being disemboweled before their very eyes, may have prevented the worst of the excesses during that time. However, what prevailed was a deafening and shameful silence, by and large. The basic importance of safeguarding the judiciary’s independence from internal and external threats was cynically dismissed as unworkable, impractical and impossibly idealistic.

Regressing into the Dark Ages

This has not been the case elsewhere in this region. It is to India’s credit for example, that idealists still exist in the legal community in that country which is why it has been able to, despite tremendous strains, protect the notion of public respect for judges. India’s Houses of Parliament are now considering a draft law on judicial accountability which brings in much of these vital concerns into the public sphere for discussion. In contrast, Sri Lanka has regressed into the Dark Ages, metaphorically as well as literally.

This Presidency and this administration is merely taking the disemboweling of judicial governance, which commenced most notably in 1999, forward as it did with the conscious ignoring of the 17th Amendment and the conscienceless enacting of the 18th Amendment. We have none to blame for this most astounding crisis that Sri Lanka now faces in regard to the fundamental integrity of its democratic systems of governance but ourselves.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    Kishali:
    Don’t you think that old line from Shakespeare would be applicable to the Presidential denials: “Methinks the lady doth protest too much?”

  • 0
    0

    The lawyers should join with FUTA to form a common front for regime change since the rot in governance has gone too far. Keep up the great work Kishali and be of good courage!

    • 0
      0

      Recent election results clearly illustrate the people’s choice for governance. In spite of that astounding result, Pretugamis and their backers, the pretenders of democracy want the lawyers to join FUTA and form a common front to effect a regime change.

      Do they want to change the government in an undemocratic way to strengthen democracy, bring justice or law and order? We’ve seen what Pretugamis, JVP and their carders had done twice to this country. They always knew they cannot come to power through elections. And that’s why they wanted to promote chaos, commotions and lawlessness as means to grab power.

      We believe aim of Pretugamis, JVP and LTTE and their backers at the last Presidential elections had been the same. They formed an unholy alliance with arch enemy, the UNP to back politically naive Fonseka who knew not the basics of democratic governance. The fact that all of them distance themselves from Fonseka and they are unlikely to touch him even with a barge pole today say it all. If they think they can dupe Sri Lankans once again by sitting together, they are sadly mistaken.

      Many in this new alliance wanted to emulate the outcome of the so-called IC coined sham word ‘Arab spring’ here. But average man in Sri Lanka knows that the so-called IC and its mercenaries imposed ‘Arab spring’ has become a bitter winter for inhabitants of all those countries.

      In spite Rajapakse and his government have very many a short coming, people continue to thank him profusely for not just winning the war but also improving living standard of the ordinary man in Sri Lanka at a rate way above the world average.

      Is there anyone to replace him?
      Leela

      • 0
        0

        Leela, so just because the Raja ‘won the war’ (actually it was sarath Fonseka who did that) we are supposed to genuflect and hand the country over to him?

        Maybe you but certainly not me and hundreds like me. Just because there is no opposition does not mean that we should all just accept these rogues plundering the country and thuggishly intimidating everybody, including the judiciary.

        So your question ‘is there anyone to replace him’ does not make sense and is a sad apology for defending a despot. We should press for the Presduency to be abolsiehd and the balace of power to return thru a Westminister syste of government where there will be many who can replace the Rajapaksas. And the country will prosper instead of being robbed by the Medamulana robber barons.

      • 0
        0

        Leela, your comments sound to be inconsistent. I have read somewhere your comments were against MR and thugs.
        Here you have added supportive views.
        What is wrong with you ? These are the result of being brainwashed by lanken state media ?

        If you are alert to the news thesedays, assuming that you are not insane – I believe, you and everything right thinking one would feel, these buggers only continue their abusive governance further. Serious issues like getting on with judiciary is being treated with frivolity today.

        The question that Hirunika raises today

        http://www.dailymirror.lk/top-story/22368-i-am-still-the-same-hirunika.html

        – why the MP- Duminda De Silva´s is being prolonged in the parliament while entire nation is asking today SHOULD BE AN ALARMING ISSUE THAT OPPOSITION LEADER SHOULD LEAD A DIBATE IN THE PARLIAMENT.

        • 0
          0

          it should be why Duminda´s term is prolonged in the parliament if his condition is not improving ?

          Lawyers, professionals and all other senior politicians of the country should raise this question – then this can become an example to other false crime investigations that they carry out today under MR AND HIS MINSTERS.

  • 0
    0

    There is a contrast hbetween shadow boxing and the real boxing.
    That line is faint to blnkered mares.

    • 0
      0

      @ blinkered dicky bird who is too cowardly to put his/her real name, are you too ignorant to understand the skillful use of words and phrases?

      Or are you so touched on the raw by what is said that you can only say something feeble about a contrast between shadow boxing and real boxing?

      But then, neutered horses cannot really be expected to understand the value in language that hits hard and hits right!

  • 0
    0

    I believe that representatives of the legal profession sitting in offices of government agencies and in the judicial arm of government have to bear some of the responsibility for the degeneration of the judiciary’s independence.

    Members of the judiciary have been political appointees at various stages and have therefore conceded their independence to political patronage.

    This writer also would do well to provide some perspective on these developments and incorporate the complicity, if one will, of the constituents of the judiciary in the degeneration of their independence from political will, for his discourse to be deemed fair or balanced.

    • 0
      0

      @Lasantha, are you unable to read English? Pure and simple?

      I am asking this out of sheer surprise. Can’t you see the frequent references in Kishali’s column to the past (even in this column itself as well as in other instances), where she looks at what Sarath Silva did (under CBK) and also refers to the UNP times? This refers to the complicity of the judges and the lawyers in the loosing of their own independence. Just in case you still can’t understand!

      So this is EXACLY that same element that you say in your rubbishy comment that the ‘writer should do well to focus on’ in order to be fair and balanced.

      Please spare us your pompous advice!

      And by the way, you appear not be able to see pictures as well as words! It should not be ‘his discourse’ but ‘her discourse’. The writer is of the female gender as the picture in CT shows!

      I have two requests to you. First, READ CAREFULLY IN THE FUTURE. This applies to everything. Second, do apply your criticisms to your own writings. We would be better off then.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.