22 November, 2019

Blog

The Country Has Two Chief Justices, I Don’t Accept Either – Sarath Silva

By Colombo Telegraph

For the first time in its history, the country has two Chief Justices, which further damages the Judiciary, says former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva. “I don’t accept either” said Sarath N. Silva when asked whether he thinks there are two Chief Justices at the moment and who is he willing to accept as Head of the Judiciary? “I believe there should be an entirely new person. I supported the Government on the question that the Chief Justice should answer and the Courts proceedings were hasty. My perception is that in this situation the Government should have considered the most senior person in the Supreme Court. This is why I say I don’t recognise either. If the Government wants Mohan Pieris as the Chief Justice and if it is hell bent of getting him, let them get him. But at least give a breathing period till the judicial system can settle down.” he further said.

Sarath N. Silva

Sarath N. Silva made above remarks in an interview with Daily FT journalist Chamitha Kuruppu.

Sarath N. Silva said;”With due respect to him, more than anything else, Mohan Pieris was seen as a Government spokesperson, especially at international forums and especially in matters relating to the United Nations Human Rights Council. This is a very serious situation. A Government spokesman will naturally have to oppose any allegations of human rights violations. There is nothing wrong in getting former Attorney General Mohan Pieris to defend the Government’s stand. He has been doing this since he was the Attorney General, which I believe is not correct. That should have been a diplomatic exercise, not an Attorney General’s exercise.”

We reproduce below the interview in full;

Q: How would you describe the present situation with regard to the country’s judicial system?

A: I see this as a turbulent period. This is something we have never experienced before. For the first time in the history of this country, we have two Chief Justices. The person who was purportedly removed also claims to be the Chief Justice. There is also a new appointee made hot on the heels by the President.

This whole process has been fast tracked from both sides. The Government also fast tracked this process. They lost no time in presenting the motion of impeachment and taking action. On the other hand, the lawyers and other public who supported the Chief justice also fast tracked. They went immediately to Courts. It is like a battle of two fronts.

I have absolutely no stake in this business but what I see as an independent observer is that both sides want to overtake the other. The Courts made a request for Parliament to stop, but Parliament went on regardless, as a result of which this whole thing got fast tracked.

There are certain charges that were presented. That was a matter of discipline. There has to be an inquiry. All these facts are documented. The Government need not fight shy of an inquiry. If the documents make out the charges they are supposed to make out, then there should be no need for an expeditious process.

On the other hand, it is the duty of the Chief Justice to explain. You can’t continue to hold office when there are such questionable matters. I am not saying for a moment that she is guilty of everything what is said. But I have perused that there are certain things that should be necessarily answered.
Under the system as it prevails this answering should have taken place in the Select Committee. We can’t change the procedure now. This procedure has been there from 1984. Now at this moment the Government can’t remove the Standing Orders and enact a new law because that law won’t have retrospective effect. Therefore that is also not a feasible solution. In my view, with great respect to the Courts, what was said in the Courts is not feasible. You can’t now enact a law and then start this same procedure; it is impossible. Normally it would be prospective; it applies to the future.

There were two distinct positions; Courts saying that there should be a law and Parliament saying that we can continue. The outcome is that we are in a situation of having two Chief Justices, which is a sad thing for the Judiciary and for the independence of the Judiciary. I believe that even at this late stage some remedial action should be taken.

Q: What are your views on the appointment of Mohan Pieris as the Chief Justice?

A: This is a hasty appointment. Appointing a person from outside as the Chief Justice cannot be accepted. With due respect to Mohan Pieris, he was a person who was in the Attorney General’s Department for about 15 years, then retired under a retirement scheme. When he retired he was a Senior State Counsel of the Attorney General’s Department. When someone retires under that scheme he should not assume public office. But somehow he was appointed Attorney General by the President.

At that time there was no Constitutional Council. So his appointment was challenged immediately by persons and case was pending. Then they enacted the 18th Amendment, which regularised this appointment. So the 18th Amendment really helped Mohan Pieris and the then Chief Justice Asoka Silva because his appointment was also made without the approval of the Constitutional Council. It is in such circumstances that Mohan Pieris continued as the Attorney General.

With due respect to him, more than anything else, Mohan Pieris was seen as a Government spokesperson, especially at international forums and especially in matters relating to the United Nations Human Rights Council. This is a very serious situation. A Government spokesman will naturally have to oppose any allegations of human rights violations. There is nothing wrong in getting former Attorney General Mohan Pieris to defend the Government’s stand. He has been doing this since he was the Attorney General, which I believe is not correct. That should have been a diplomatic exercise, not an Attorney General’s exercise.

Now the general perception is that Mohan Pieris is a person who defends the Government. In that situation, when the Government promptly appoint him as the Chief Justice, the perception is that the Government is now expecting him to continue defending them. I am not saying these are essentially the facts, but this is the perception. However, an ordinary person will pursue this as an effort on the part of the Government to install the person who is favourable to them, especially in respect of alleged violations of human rights at the helm of the Judiciary.

Now that perception is very difficult to erase. We have in our system a cardinal principal of law that ‘justice will not only be done, but must be seen to be done’. These perceptions are very important. When you get a person who has been defending you against allegations of human rights as the person who is now going to decide on that, the perception is that the Government is having its man as the final arbiter. That is the serious thing I am concerned about.

These challenges and counter challenges will go on. But from the Government’s point of view, some serious action must be taken if it is going to redeem its position in the international arena. I saw the Canadian Prime Minister himself has made certain observations. Now these are alarm bells that the Government should be concerned about. You can’t be in war with the international community all the time.

Q: A new Chief Justice has already been appointed. How can the Government rectify this?

A: That is exactly why I said the Government has fast tracked this. I don’t approve that. The rectification is the most difficult situation. Mohan Pieris has rushed to accept this appointment. That is not a wise thing to do. On Tuesday I saw these ugly scenes on television when Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was not allowed to leave her residence. That is something that is not meted out even to the lowest level of employee. You have to give some time to leave with some respectability.
This Government must stop dealing with the former Chief Justice in this shabby manner. I think it is necessary to speak to her even at this stage and find out a dignified exit for her, which I hope should be voluntary. Then of course recreate these whole steps.

Now there is a Court order and the Government can’t just ignore that. I don’t agree with some of the findings of the Courts but we are duty bound as citizens to honour the verdicts of the Courts. Finally we have to accept the order of the Courts.

Q: Do you also think there are two Chief Justices at the moment? Who are you willing to accept as Head of the Judiciary?

A: I don’t accept either. I believe there should be an entirely new person. I supported the Government on the question that the Chief Justice should answer and the Courts proceedings were hasty. My perception is that in this situation the Government should have considered the most senior person in the Supreme Court. This is why I say I don’t recognise either.

If the Government wants Mohan Pieris as the Chief Justice and if it is hell bent of getting him, let them get him. But at least give a breathing period till the judicial system can settle down.

Q: Who are these suitable people who are fit to be the Chief Justice?

A: There are very senior judges. Justice Shirani Thilakawardena, who was an experienced officer in the Attorney General’s Department. She was a High Court Judge for a long period, Judge of the Court of Appeal, President of the Court of Appeal, and Judge of the Supreme Court for several years. So is the record of Amarathunga, who is there for just for a few months. So is the record of Saleem Marsoof, if we go by seniority. They are highly competent and highly educated persons. So is the record of Siripala. So we have people from all races. With this wide array they should have followed the seniority principal. Then no one can find fault.

There are incidents where they appointed the Attorney General to the position. That is how I came in. I came in a situation of a normal retirement. But today the ideal situation would have been to take the most senior person so that each one would have had one year or a few months. Then the Judiciary would have started flowing in its normal streams without causing these ripples, which have become whirlpools.

Q: Are you saying the Government still has the possibility to appoint a more suitable person for the post of Chief Justice?

A: Now what is going to happen is that they are going to file action in defence of this. This is where they question the authority of the person holding office. That is a remedy that is available.
Earlier there was no remedy against Parliament but there is remedy against the holder of the office. Now they are on a fairly safe track. In that proceeding at least some settlement can be entered into and then the verdicts of the Court can also be honoured. Then we can regularise this process.
Someone has to take a step back. The former Chief Justice also should realise that she cannot go on claiming to be the Chief Justice. With this kind of public exposure, now she cannot grace that office.

Q: Do you accept the manner in which the legal fraternity was involved in this entire struggle?

A: They are being quite emotional. May be they are well-intentioned. They want to uphold the independence of the Judiciary. I have no problem about that. But sometimes they are also taking hasty action. You must reflect on the broader picture.

I have been reflecting on the broader picture and I have been subject to heavy criticism. Some are saying that I am trying to accept office from the Government. I will never accept any office. Not from the Government, nor from the private sector, and not from anybody. However, I feel that a settlement should be arrived at within the framework of the law. If the settlement comes through Courts, then it is an excellent situation.

Now they are filing cases. They will keep on filing cases. In one of these cases there should be some settlement and Court will make an appropriate order on that. Then the ideal situation is that the appointment be made based on seniority. Let Mohan Pieris also come to the Supreme Court if he wants, but not as the Chief Justice at this present juncture.

Q: Are you saying Mohan Pieris should not have accepted this appointment?

A: Yes, he should not have accepted this appointment. You must give time for the former Chief Justice to leave. You don’t rush into office like that.

The former Chief Justice has to clear her chambers. She is not a person who retired under normal circumstances. Dr. Bandaranayake had no time to wind up. There must have been judgements to be signed. My ideal choice is that Dr. Bandaranayake should hold office and take leave and an acting person could have carried out the duties until things settle down. Later on Mohan Pieris or someone, on deep reflection, should assume this office. Instead of that, what have been done is entirely wrong.

Q: You were involved in this process from the beginning. People didn’t only question your involvement, but they also criticised the fact that you adopted different stances on various instances. Your comments?

A: At the beginning I was opposed to the impeachment process. Then I met the President after a long time. I told him and made a request not to do this. Then the President said there are serious charges against Dr. Bandaranayake. Then I told him that they should talk to Dr. Bandaranayake and I left at that. After meeting the President, addressing the media I said that the general perception is that the impeachment motion seems to be a result of the Z score judgement and Divi Neguma Bill. That was my reservation.  But when the charges came I found that Dr. Banadaranayake had some matters to answer. These are documented. So her explanation must come. She must answer. She must take a positive stance whether she is prepared to answer this or otherwise if she has a doubt on that to come to some adjustment.

I was not in favour of collateral proceedings in the Judiciary at that time. I felt that there cannot be proceedings in both places. Then there was bound to be a clash. That was the principal stand I took at that time. And that went on. Events overtook everything else. So hurriedly this was passed. And then I felt it was time for reflection. This was the time I felt the Government had acted hastily, imposing this whole thing on former Chief Justice Dr. Bandaranayake. She took some precipitous actions.
In appointing Mohan Pieris as the Chief Justice, the Government took even more precipitous action. That I don’t endorse at all. As and when an issue arises, I respond. I strongly believe that some kind of solution must be evolved, so that finally there should be a settlement – not only a political one, but also a judicial settlement.

Q: This entire process has caused a lot of damage to the judicial system in the country. How would you describe the future of the judicial system?

A: The immediate future is disturbed. Public perception is badly damaged. This is why I say there should not only be a political solution. So far there has only been a political solution. There should be a legal and judicial solution. Everybody must take a step back and allow wiser counsel to prevail. My ideal suggestion is that a breathing period should be given, so that the former Chief Justice can wind up her affairs but not function as Chief Justice.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    Sarath silva is the CJ who ruined the judiciary. When the impeachment was going on, for reasons best known to him supporting MR he said that the process was legal and constitutional. He expressed no concerns on fair play or reasonable opportunity not being given to Shirani CJ to defend herself. At the end he said Shirani is no more the CJ. In that context how can he say that Sri Lanka has two CJs. In his view if the ouster was legal as per the Constitution Shirani is no more the CJ and Sri lanka only has Mohan Peiris as CJ. I cannot fathom Sarath Silva’s statement that Sri Lanka has two CJs.
    Srinath

  • 0
    0

    Sarath SILVA should be able to define the two terms ha has used to attribute the Peiris as government spokesman and defender of the government because we are totally confused the role played by Sarath Silva regarding the impeachment process. Can he admit that the both of you are goons of the government who are playing the same game in different grounds. Any way SF and alliance are very fortunate to comprehend the perception of Sarath early otherwise they will be in trouble trusting of this type of blunders.

  • 0
    0

    This idiotic man diserve hanging in public for the enormous damage he inflicted to the integrity of the Judiciary.

    • 0
      0

      This moron ex-CJ had his pants down most, if not all, of the time !!!

  • 0
    0

    Reader Anghie speaks of the Gedera Gana Yaman incident.I believe everyone is entitled to space in his/her private life that shall not be violated in a free society. When this, together with ethics and morals, involves an important official whose conduct and public behaviour comes into conflict with those essential features, he is subject to public opprobrium and scorn. But the yardstick by which one is judged is the quality, content and devotion to his/her allotted functions – the proof of the pudding as it were. SS, I dare say, came out well there although, doubtless, he often travelled un-necessarily beyond his appointed area. Bill Clinton travelled a similar path and, in retrospect, is looked upon today throughout the world well and beyond his obvious aberrations. Sarath Silva, judged on the good, bad and the ugly during his tenure, I make bold to say, will survive in the public image. That what we says and writes even today is watched with interest and seriousness works in his favour.

    Senguttuvan

    • 0
      0

      Reader Senguttuvan, I do not give a damn what all the Silvas have done to this country. As you say everyman is entitled to his privacy. However mine has been violated by some person cowardly enough to use my name. I have made no comment at all on this forum.

  • 0
    0

    He is hurt that his favourite Shirni Tilakawardena was not made CJ. SNS campaigned against CJ SB to get her ousted for ST to be the new CJ. That did not work as he expected. Now don’t cry over spilled milk.

  • 0
    0

    SarathNSilva does not have the moral right to pontificate about this issue. His flawed judgments contributed greatly towards saving Mr and giving corrupt MPs the chance to cross over. I’d any CJ should have been impeached it should have been him. He was reported to the UN and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of Judges Param Coomaraswamy recommended he be removed.

  • 0
    0

    I think CT lost its control. Otherwise surely CT should not have asked to comment from the Sarath N Silva on judiciary who was the main culprit to distort the image of the Judiciary in the past.

    I feel ashamed of CT for this post.

    • 0
      0

      Umma baby, read it first before comment.

  • 0
    0

    This guy was the CJ from back door and worst judge and biggest enamy to the nation who validated the crossovers of the MPs. Whole nation is suffering because of this man.

    • 0
      0

      I say this lordship court cases that supreme court should not have handled. For example, why in the world, supreme court should decide the petrol prices in the country ?

      MPs changing sides should have considered as a political decision decided by the voters and not the supreme court judges.

  • 0
    0

    So, what I understand, instead of filling the holes in the constitution, Mahinda Rajapakse got rid of the CJ who said that the Divineguma bill was not fitting to the constitution. Not only that, Mahinda Rajapakse appointed a new CJ whose corruptions are only second to this lordship.

    So, what is the point MR’s buying of opposition MPs and making it a govt that easily can get 2/3rd votes in the parliament.

    In comparison to other some of these CJs the fired woman CJ should have been the least corrupt because one allegation against her was making account out of money when the tax period comes. The govt did not try to close the gaps that there were in the system either in the case of the constitution or in the case of alleged corruptions of the Female CJ, instead got rid of the CJ and made the system full of more holes now.

  • 0
    0

    This person has lost his right to give an independent assessment from the time he backed the Government to impeach the CJ and be parliament called supreme over the judiciary. As a former CJ who avoided an impeachment for bad law decisions, infidelity and taking personal revenge misusing his position the Colombo Telegraph should not have interviewed people of such low calibre.
    He is responsible for taking out the people’s rights by legalising the the candidacy of elected persons who crossed over from the party they got elected from, chanellimg of foreign aid recieved by the country for redevelopment of tsunami affected areas to personal coffers as in Hambantota scheme and being spokesperson of the government when the government trampled the judiciary and established the dictatorial rule.

  • 0
    0

    Thoththa Baba Sarath Silva speaking. You have used the judiciary to cause the biggest and the most irreparable damage to this country.
    You are as dishonest as every single grey hair in your head. At least
    now, give the country a chance without trying to jockey for position.

  • 0
    0

    Dear Editor, I have NOT made any comment on this item of news. Someone has been using my name.Please verify with me if this happens again!!

  • 0
    0

    This [Edited out]. Such a worthless shit!

  • 0
    0

    Tell me one right thinking man who will
    agree with what this so called learned
    idiot Sarath Silva. If you do, I will give
    you 100 others who dont. He thinks Sri Lankans
    are a bunch of brainless asses who are ready
    to believe whatever he says. When he was on
    the bench it was different. We had to do what
    he said because he was Chief (cheap) Justice.
    He now wants a job from MR. So does his other
    sidekick and bootlicker Nihal Amerasekera. Both
    are qualified opportunists. He also also waiting
    for a new job. Wait for a couple of weeks and
    see what happens.

  • 0
    0

    sARATH n sILVA DESPITE THE GRAVE HARM HE HAD DONE TO THE judiciary AND COUNTRY IN GENERAL VIA HIS NOW INFAMOUS VERDICTS SUCH AS LEGALIZING THE CROSSOVER MPs IS STILL NOT A WRITE OFF WHERE LEGAL OPINION IS CONCERNED.HIS COMMENTS ARE SENSIBLE AND PROVE A POINT.

  • 0
    0

    This Sarath Silva should do just one thing: Committ suicide for the calamity he has caused the nation. The other Silva who came after him should follow suit.

  • 0
    0

    Dear Hewa-Maddumage,

    There was this old story from the Wild West (US) during the depression years. A farmer told another of a neighbour wanting to commit suicide
    due to the prevailing bad times. The man said “Now, look here, pal,
    we are buddies. So go right ahead and use my tree” The moral of the story is – what are friends for, after all??? As to carrying
    out your proposition, we might not need 2 trees – one will accommodate
    both windbags.

    Senguttuvan

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.