When justice is dead, can the nation survive?

By Our Political Editor

(March 15, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) These days the discussions on the military trial of the retired General Mr. Sarath Fonseska, was also the common candidate for the opposition for the last election is naturally taking place as the so called trial is fixed for 18th of March. All kinds of cynical remarks are heard about this trial. Some say "why not add the death sentence also as the punishment?" another adds "why not have summary execution also, then this whole joke will be complete…"

What is being held as a trial is just a complete farce. First of all the very trial directed against the common candidate of the opposition who has won the largest number of votes after the president even going by the official counts is itself the highest evidence against the bonafide of the whole process. The question that naturally comes is why is this indecent hurry? Sri Lanka's judicial process is never known to be in a hurry. It is perhaps its greatest defects that the trials take as long as ten or more years. Perhaps trying to avoid that kind of long delay is not objectionable. However trying to hurry it up only for this particular case against the man known of the greatest opponent, does not add any kind of credibility to this process. The fact there is a parliamentary election to be held in which the retired General is also a popular candidate has also added to creating a cynicism in this whole affair. The memory of the way the former opposition leader Srimawo Bandaranayake was dealt with brings in memories of revenge of the political regime, against its prominent political opponents, which reaffirms the idea of this whole affair being an attempt to suppress political opponents.

Added to all these is the fact that this is not a trial at all before the civil courts, which is the way that even more serious allegations have been dealt with in Sri Lanka. Perhaps one of the claims is that it has already established a system that is capable of delivering a fair trail within the country. Country boasts of a civilian court system, beginning already in the early 19th century, with the first ever Supreme Court established in the Asian region. Over the years, the education of the judges, the lawyers and the staff of the judicial cadres have taken place and the idea of going through fair trial is a generally accepted expectation within the country. There had been enormous setbacks against the fair trial principles, introduced through political trials of sort. However, they were brought to the extent of reducing the trail of one before a court martial. The very idea of having a court martial have suggested the idea that this is the attempt to find the way out of facing the country's judiciary and the judicial process itself. Had the questions of legality of the whole process would have been raised in open courts with the possibility of these being judged by persons of judicial training and not by persons who are thought capable of being manipulated within the military system. The whole affair may seen as completely manipulated from the top by the political leadership does not leave any room for any kind of credibility of the judicial aspect in the whole process.

Perhaps that is also the very purpose of this trial. The political authorities are clearly telling its opponents not to expect us to deal with problems of political opposition in terms of any judicial process. Already within the country, dealing with people through forced disappearances and other kinds of direct violence is very much a part of daily life. That is the way lives of ten of thousands of people have been dealt with already. Within that set up, the authorities do not feel that they have an obligation to provide a trial at all. Perhaps the very idea of the trail avoiding any other forms of accidents, which would have ended this whole affair in a different way which itself results in the possibilities of a public repercussions both locally and internationally. What is needed is some kind of a semblance of a trial but without giving the possibility of that playing into the hands of the local opposition or into the hands of the international opinion makers who could have utilised the occasion to expose the whole process.

Thus, the very process is manipulated and the verdict is already predictable which all points to the fact of the complete absence of justice.

The question that is left is when justice is so violated in a country is it possible for its survive any longer as a organised society based on the respect of any kind of rule of law. The total abandonment of the rule of law principle is at the very heart of this process. The law is no longer a guide to anything including to a fair trial. Everything can be determined from the top including the manner in which a person may face a trial. Thus, there is no room any longer for any essential elements of justice.

The repercussions of this situation is going to be deep and the price the nation will have to pay for this kind of absence and abandonment of justice in a such a total pattern is unavoidable if one is going to be guided by any kind of knowledge of history. Therefore, what is frightening is not the way justice is denied to a particular individual, but the whole concept of justice is brought to ridicule before the whole nation.