Last week, there was good reason to believe that Sri Lanka’s judiciary is finally being freed of the shackles of political interference.
To begin with, the Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence on R. Duminda Silva, former parliamentarian and two others for the murder of four persons, including, Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra, presidential advisor and father of parliamentarian Hirunika Premachandra.
The murder was committed in 2011 and death sentence imposed in 2016. The appeal to the highest court in the land has now been concluded seven years after the incident. Given the death penalty has been confined to legislation and not been implemented (though there has been some recent discussion regarding its implementation), Silva is now destined to a life behind bars unless, of course, a future President grants him a pardon, a possibility that cannot be overlooked.
It is significant that the victim of Silva’s wrath was Premachandra. He was not from a rival political party; both of them belonged to the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA).
In fact, Premachandra was a presidential advisor. The reason why Silva bore a grudge against Premachandra was because they were engaged in a political turf war in the electorate of Kolonnawa. If such was the impunity with which Silva could act against Premachandra- a presidential advisor, no less- one can only imagine how he would have dealt with those from rival political parties.
Silva’s conduct at the time was emblematic of the disregard for the law displayed by those in high positions in that regime- and he has now got his just desserts. Presiding over the Supreme Court which delivered the verdict was retiring Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, in what was one of his last acts as Chief Justice.
And, it was the appointment of his successor that was another cause for optimism for the country’s judiciary. There was much speculation about who would succeed Chief Justice Dep.
There have been many so-called ‘traditions’ in appointing Chief Justices. The two most accepted traditions are either the appointment of the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court or the appointment of the Attorney General.
The appointment of the Attorney General as Chief Justice, while an accepted tradition, has at times been frowned upon because it is easy to ‘parachute’ someone into the Attorney General’s position and then appoint him or her as Chief Justice. The last instance this occurred was when Mohan Peiris was appointed as Chief Justice by then President Mahinda Rajapaksa and it would be fair to say, Peiris didn’t exactly distinguish himself on the bench.
However, as a result of these perceived ‘traditions’, the names of Attorney General Jayantha Jayasuriya and Supreme Court Justice Eva Wanasundera were mentioned as likely possibilities. However, President Maithripala Sirisena opted to appoint Justice Nalin Perera as the Chief Justice. The appointment was welcomed in the judicial circles because Chief Justice Perera was the first career judicial officer to be appointed to the post in thirty years, after J. R. Jayewardene appointed Parinda Ranasinghe as Chief Justice in 1988.
Of course, Justice Eva Wanasundera would have reason to be disappointed. Appointed to the Supreme Court in 2012, she is the senior most justice in the court and has acted as Chief Justice previously. President Sirisena, in his two previous appointments of Chief Justice, had always appointed the senior most justice of the court in appointing Chief Justices K. Siripavan and Priyasath Dep. Besides, Justice Wanasundera has seen two justices junior to her in the Supreme Court being elevated to Chief Justice: Mohan Peiris and now, Nalin Perera. If indeed President Sirisena acted with bona fide intentions in appointing Justice Nalin Perera as Chief Justice, this saga is far from over. Chief Justice Perera is the fifth senior most justice in the Supreme Court and will be retiring next year- and then, the issue of appointing a Chief Justice will arise all over again.
Finally, the judiciary was in the news this week for another interesting development: the acquittal of former Minister Johnston Fernando and two others on charges of misappropriation of funds. The Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) had charged that Fernando, a former Minister of Trade in Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Government, his private secretary Mohammad Shakir and former Chairman of the Sathosa Nalin Fernando with having misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3.8 million from the Lak Sathosa branch at Yanthampalawa from July 1 2013 to September 30 2013. The case was dismissed by Kurunegala High Court Judge Menaka Wijesundera after it emerged that the evidence against the accused was contradictory, with some witnesses stating they were instructed to act under duress by the FCID.
Fernando, formerly from the United National Party (UNP) is now a firm loyalist of Mahinda Rajapaksa and a leading campaigner for the Joint Opposition (JO). He hails from the Kurunegala district which is also the adopted electoral district of Rajapaksa in Parliament.
If anything, this judgment proves two factors: first, that the judiciary is indeed independent and that it is not a cat’s paw of the incumbent Government. Therefore, the JO need not entertain fears that they will be subjected to witch hunts by the Government. If that does occur, it will come undone at the courts of law, as it did with Fernando. Secondly, the fiasco over the evidence in this trial is damning evidence that the authorities haven’t still got their act together in prosecuting those responsible for alleged wrongdoings during the previous regime- or, as the JO would claim, they did nothing wrong when they were in the government, and this is all persecution and prosecution for political gain.
Amid all the doom and gloom about the economy and about where the country is heading one could be pardoned to see a silver lining in these developments involving the judiciary.
If the judiciary continues to maintain its independence, it augurs well for the nation and we can look forward to a culture of accountability and responsibility- instead of the culture of impunity that prevailed a few years ago.