| Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena
( September 30, 2012, Colombo,
Sri Lanka Guardian) 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.