| by Harim Peiris
( September 27, 2012, Colombo,
Sri Lanka Guardian) It was the French philosopher and scholar, Baron
Montesquieu, who argued in his popular work, "De L’Esprite de Loix, the
importance of the separation of powers in a democracy, between the executive,
the legislature and the judicial arms of the state. The executive and legislative
powers of the state may be vested in a government, but the judiciary should act
distinct from and independent of the government of the day, to dispense justice
according to law, a key requirement for a society governed by the rule of law.
President Rajapaksa in Kilinochchi, on Tuesday, 25 Sep. 2012 |
It was therefore refreshing and
long overdue that the Courts and the Judiciary recently gave a stunning rebuke
to the executive. One hopes as the ensuring drama unfolds, that the judiciary
will not back down. In Sri Lanka, the Courts have been generally, more often
than not, reluctant to take on the executive and to seriously act as a
restraint on governmental excess. But refreshingly and reassuringly more
recently, the courts have seemingly been more ready to examine issues,
independent of executive convenience and government wishes. The current unusual
spat between the government and the courts seem to have arisen both due to the
Supreme Court’s determination on the "Divi Neguma Bill" and also due
to the interdiction of a judicial officer with known close links to government
insiders. This clash between the executive and the judiciary, specifically the
Judicial Services Commission (JSC) also arose in the context of a stoning and
attack on the Mannar Magistrate, allegedly by a Government Minister, who
received no censure or punishment, but rather only support from the government.
Government receives a rebuke
The Rajapakse administration
seemingly believes that there is no limit on the extent of its executive power.
Especially after the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, as one
political analyst noted, if there was any doubt that Sri Lanka has an elected
dictator system rather than an elected presidential system, then the 18th
Amendment removed the last vestiges of doubt in that regard. One key aspect of
the judiciary and especially a nation’s Supreme Court, tasked with safeguarding
constitutional governance is to clearly demarcate and indicate what is a legal
exercise of power according to law and on the contrary to define what is ultra
vires the constitution and hence null and void and of no force or avail in law.
One such act of executive excess was when the constitutionally created Judicial
Service Commission (JSC) comprising of the Chief Justice and two senior judges
of the Supreme Court and tasked with judicial oversight of the dispensation of
justice in the country was summoned for a meeting by the Executive to discuss
its work and functioning. Clearly the executive believed it was within its
purview to supervise and manage the Judicial Service Commission, much like it
manages the Police Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Public Service
Commission and all other such commissions now, post 18th amendment, clearly
subservient to the executive. The rather obvious exception of course had to be
the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Obviously the executive didn’t believe
so and summoned the JSC for a meeting regarding its affairs. The JSC had an
internal meeting amongst itself and decided quite rightly that it should not
attend any meeting regarding its own functioning, which is constitutionally mandated
to be independent of any government interference. The Bar Association of Sri
Lanka has strongly backed the Judicial Service Commission. Executive
interference with the judiciary is never acceptable in a democracy and is
sometimes not good for even the political well being of the executive as the
experience of Pakistan demonstrates.
Pakistan experience
Pakistan underwent a similar
experience a few years ago. Military hero retired General Pervez Musharaf was
the popularly elected civilian President of Pakistan when he overreached
himself and sought to dismiss Pakistani Chief Justice Chaudhry. Similar to the
Sri Lankan executive fiat to the JSC being ignored, the Pakistani Chief
Justice, refused to let himself be dismissed and considered the President’s
move as null and void of no force and avail in law. The Bar Associations of
Pakistan backed the Chief Justice fully, leading to street protests by lawyers
and bringing the work of the Courts to a standstill. President’s Musharaf’s
attempt to place the Chief Justice under some form of house arrest only
escalated the conflict and eventually it is now, former President General
Mushraff ruing his missteps in voluntary exile, while Chief Justice Ifthikar
Chaudhry continues to serve as the presiding judge of Pakistan’s apex Court.
The lessons from the South Asia
region then for Sri Lanka should well be to allow the judiciary to function
independently and impartially with integrity. However powerful and popular an
executive might be, the separation of powers between the executive and the
judiciary is essential for democracy, in Sri Lanka as well as elsewhere.