News
A professional, apolitical Bar Association
View(s):We are setting an example to civil society which must stand up fearlessly for what is right: Upul Jayasuriya
By Namini Wijedasa
From his very first hour as President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), Upul Jayasuriya courted controversy.
He invited the 43rd Chief Justice (CJ) Shirani Bandaranayake to the BASL’s annual convocation- at which he was officially inducted, and excluded 44th CJ Mohan Pieris.
Mr. Jayasuriya’s detractors are gleeful. They predict with quiet satisfaction that he will divide and politicise the Bar, maybe even face a no-confidence motion. Others admire his guts. In a letter, S.L. Gunasekera, one of the most senior member’s of the profession, enthused that, happenings at the convocation had re-kindled in him the pride he had once had about being a member of the Bar. He warned Mr. Jayasuriya that the knives will now be out to slit his throat, and encouraged him to face the dangers with fortitude.
The criticisms don’t rattle him, Mr. Jayasuriya told the Sunday Times last week. He accepts the accolades with grace. As for repercussions: “We have to wait and see.” And he smiled.
“One thing must be said,” he emphasised. “This is not an affront to the present person. I hope he will understand that in that context. I have my personal regard for him as a friend. His wife was in my batch. I have shared his happy and sad occasions with a lot of feelings.”
The decision to invite Mrs Bandaranayake – and to leave out Mr. Pieris, was unanimously approved at the Executive Committee meeting held before the convocation. This group comprises of 24 Zonal Vice Presidents, six Executive Committee members elected by the BASL at the meeting, the Secretary, the Deputy, the Treasurer and President. “What I did,” Mr. Jayasuriya asserted, “was what I had to do. There was a message from the profession. That message had to be implemented. If I did not do that, I can’t face the profession thereafter.”
Now, he said, settling into his swivel chair, “The convocation is in the past. I’m looking forward.” Not only was the Bar a powerful lobby, lawyers had the will and courage to take decisions independent of their political affiliations – whether elected or appointed to office.
The challenges were many. “It’s a turbulent situation in the country, where the rule of law is concerned, the dignity of the profession and, finally, what is right and wrong,” Mr. Jayasuriya averred. “We are setting an example to civil society, which must stand up fearlessly for what is right.”
Still, the middle path was important, he said. And that’s what he intended to tread, whilst giving effect to the wishes of the Bar. That was not something he was willing to compromise on. He had met thousands of members during his campaign for BASL presidency, and he “knew their pulse”. His was not a personal victory, but was a clear message from the bar to the government that what it did to impeach Chief Justice 43 Bandaranayake and install CJ 44 Peiris was wrong.
Finding jobs for junior lawyers was of paramount importance. It is said the bar was getting overcrowded; it was not feasible for everyone to practise in courthouses. BASL will start a dialogue with the private sector to facilitate careers in management for young lawyers.
The Association will improve its communications system, upgrade its web page and use short messages (SMS) to gather opinions of lawyers- especially from the provinces, on subjects such as proposed legislation. The Bar could then be of better use to Parliament and policymakers.
The BASL newsletter will be revamped to include, not only judgments, but news from courthouses around the country, snippets, jokes and problems that lawyers and litigants face, so that, the authorities would be sensitised. There will be legal aid programmes. Employee associations and trade unions will be offered assistance in negotiations, etc.
And there will be no “politics”. “We don’t want to dabble in politics,” Mr. Jayasuirya insisted. “It’s taboo for the Bar Association. We will talk about issues on a professional basis.” If, for instance, the BASL takes up the matter of “people who should be charged, not getting charged”, its objective would be to create public discussion, to start everyone talking about it. There was nothing wrong with that.
“I know,” said Mr. Jayasuriya confidently, “how to separate political and professional obligations.”
A profile of delivering on what is entrusted
Upul Jayasuriya says there are no lawyers in his family– not even in his extended family. His father is from Galle and his mother is from Moratuwa. He attended Royal College “from beginning to end”.
He entered Law College at 17 and passed out at 21. He joined the Attorney General’s (AG) Dept the following year. He was the first lawyer to be seconded by the AG’s Dept as Legal Consultant to the Greater Colombo Economic Commission, a precursor to the Board of Investment.
In 1982, he took over as Chairman, State Trading Tractor Corporation. Within a year, he received an award for turning the loss-making corporation into a profitable one. He has also served as Chief Executive of the Oils and Fats Corporation and of Ceylon Chocolates.
He unsuccessfully contested the 1994 Parliamentary election from the Democratic United National Front (DUNF). He has previously held the position of Secretary, Bar Association of Sri Lanka.
Lawyers alone insufficient; media, other professions, civil society too have a role to play
You invited CJ 43 to the Bar Association’s annual convocation and excluded CJ 44. Why are you politicising the Association?
None of them were politicians, so it wasn’t a political decision. It was a professional decision based on two judgments- one from the Supreme Court and the other from the Court of Appeal. There is also Article 107 of the Constitution, which requires Parliament to address the President for the removal of a judge.
By the Court of Appeal judgment, the Parliamentary Select Committee report was quashed. And Parliament’s address to the President was to appoint a Select Committee to probe the charges (against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake).
In that situation, the President gets no power to remove a judge. And in those circumstances, if another judge is appointed, that is not within the law. As lawyers, not only judges, we have to respect the judgments and uphold the Constitution, to which we have sworn allegiance in our oath.
Your decision to invite Chandrika Kumaratunga, who posed at length with Shirani Bandaranayake, for photographs, also earned you criticism. What was your rationale?
Chandrika Kumaratunga was an invitee as much as others. There were invitees. Amongst them were clergy, politicians, ex-politicians and Members of Parliament from all parties.
Four Ministers of the Government were also invited. There is no discrimination and no politicisation. After all, from what I know, Ms. Kumaratunga is not a politician now. And when she was a politician, she attended the BASL convocation on two previous occasions.
The BASL, under your stewardship, has sent a strong message to the Government about the impeachment of Shirani Bandaranayake. Yet your members continue to appear before CJ 44, Mohan Peiris. How do you explain this paradox?
The legal profession has to weigh the scales of justice. On the one hand, it is an irregular appointment. On the other, it is in the client’s interest. This matter was also addressed by Justice C.V. Wigneswaran, retired judge of the Supreme Court, in his speech at the convocation. As the years pass by, legal complications would arise upon the pronouncements. Before this situation came up, some senior lawyers conveyed in a letter, that they would not appear before such new appointee. But, as I said, they may find it difficult to abide by this for too long. We respect clients’ interests. That is of paramount importance.
The rule of law is seriously eroded in Sri Lanka. The courts of law are used as weapons. On the other hand, Parliament showed the way how to ignore court orders. Criminals are walking free. There is political patronage for the most unsavoury people. This situation has received international condemnation. The LLRC has referred to the Rule of Men rather than the Rule of Law. Can the BASL do anything to help reverse this?
Lawyers alone cannot do much. We can highlight these issues. We can urge and apply pressure on the authorities. But our role is not sufficient. Media has a major role to play. It is also the duty of other professions, as well as civil society, to take up these matters without fear or favour.
Follow @timesonlinelk
comments powered by Disqus