 |
By
Mudliyar
|
||||||
|
A
matter of pride: the lawyer asserts his rights He wrote to
the Bar Association explaining the facts and circumstances under
which he was convicted and requested the professional body for some
redress. One of his grievances was that court did not want to accept
a colleague as a surety. It is an accepted
fact that the condition of bail is the prerogative of court and
no one can complain about a court order releasing a suspect on bail.
If any one is displeased with the order, he or she must appeal to
a higher forum. Be that as
it may. When the matter came up for discussion, senior lawyers were
of the view that the Bar should not get involved in matters involving
lawyers who had been either indicted or found guilty by a court
of law and that the bar should report such persons to the Supreme
Court and recommend that their names be struck off the register
of lawyers. When Mr. Welaratna
was convicted and sentenced, there was pandemonium in the court
house after the court adjourned. What is the next step, colleagues
wandered. Whether it is leave or special leave to appeal or appeal,
no one was sure. Every effort to get in touch with a senior counsel
failed. Some were sleeping with specific instructions 'do not disturb'. The question
that should be answered is whether a lawyer should not be defended
by another or whether the defense available to any citizen is not
available to lawyers. Whether being lawyer in itself was a disqualification.
The much touted
Shibboleth "the presumption of innocence" is a cry of
the vanquished and not that of the victor. Sarath Perera,
the instructing Attorney of Mr. Welaratna, wrote to the Executive
Committee of the Bar Association. He said: "Since the above
order is in appeal, I refrain from making any comments on the order.
Though I refrain from making any comments on the merits and demerits
of the case, it is regretted and disheartening to note that at the
Bar Council meeting held on 26/10/2002 it is alleged that some member
were allowed to make unnecessary remarks which are not only derogatory
but also defamatory based on hearsay disregarding the common accepted
presumption of innocence till finally found guilty against my client
who is a fellow member of the BASL. "Apart
from the above, as the Bar Association is the guardian of the rights
and privileges of the members of the Association I earnestly appeal
to your committee to look into the matters without allowing fellow
members to sling mud at a member who is in difficulty. Being members
of the Bar Association I trust that we as members are entitled to
the protection of the Bar Association and it is the duty of our
Association to spearhead the defence of a member wherever and whenever
he or she faces a difficulty instead of taking refuge by saying
that the difficulty faced by the member is a personal matter because
such steps do not augur well for the welfare of the membership." The Executive
Committee of the Bar Association met on November 2, 2002 at an emergency
session and discussed inter alia the letter of Mr. Perera. On behalf
of the Executive Committee, BASL Secretary Bandula Wijesinghe wrote
to Mr. Perera on November 6, 2002 and said among other things "with
reference to the comments made at the Bar Council Meeting of October
26, 2002, the Executive Committee was of the opinion that the views
expressed at the said meeting are not the views of the Bar Association.
The Executive Committee is in agreement with your assertion that
excluding lawyers acting as sureties is a matter of concern."
The letter
ended with the following sentence: "The Executive Committee
decided that the BASL would assist Mr. U.D. Welaratne whether or
not it is feasible to do so." Though it is
difficult to understand what exactly the Executive Committee meant,
the fact that it has decided to take some action and assist him
in his hour of crisis will be commended by a large majority of the
members. The question that looms large in the minds of the members,
especially the juniors, is whether the Bar Association takes a negative
and elusive attitude when a member faces a difficulty and his difficulties
become compounded on the basis that he is a professional; a lawyer.
It is heartening
to note that the original stand of the Bar Association has changed
and it is now willing to assist Mr. Welaratna in whatever form that
he needs assistance. It is a matter of pride to become a member
of the legal profession; if some one does not give the professional
his due place, his pride is hurt. We do not know what will be the
outcome of the appeal, but we feel that Mr. Welaratna like any other
person has the same rights and privileges and the fact that he is
a lawyer should not in any was affect his position of being a litigant.
|
|||||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
