News
Protecting the independence of the Judiciary should have priority over political advantage
The coming into the public domain of the recordings of conversations that Parliamentarian Ranjan Ramanayake has had with various individuals including judges, police officers, state officials and fellow politicians has set the cat among the pigeons and has become the subject of discussion among all strata of society.
While the conduct of the parliamentarian has quite rightly attracted near unanimous condemnation from all sections of society, the motives of the individuals who make such criticism vary depending on the perspective that such individuals have with regard to the issue.
Concerned citizens who have no axes to grind but are only worried about the adverse impact on society see in this incident at least two unacceptable features which if not quickly arrested will undermine the democratic nature of society.
The first is the recording of private conversations without the knowledge or consent of the other party. Whether the conversation relates to a harmless private matter or something more serious such as the ones being systematically released to the public by interested parties, such conduct is unacceptable.
The second relates to engaging in conversations with judges with regard to pending cases. This is a clear interference with the judicial process which is not acceptable under any circumstances in a democratic society. Nor are conversations with investigating officers with regard to pending investigations.
The paramount concern of a concerned public must be to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is protected and strengthened. Such independence must not only exist in fact but also be perceived as such. The Judiciary and the legal profession must act in concert to ensure that this bulwark of democracy that ensures the security of every citizen must be ensured.
Even before the arrest of Ranjan Ramanayake the country has increasingly witnessed in the past few weeks the phenomenon of various individuals and organisations naming and criticising judicial officers and other public officials at media conferences. The unacceptable heights to which this situation rose compelled the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) to issue a public statement which was published in the media on December 13, 2019 calling for a halt to this course of action.
In its statement the BASL said: “ In the recent past ,there were quite a few instances where references were made to pending cases and sometimes the Honourable Judges who heard such cases. It is regrettable that this practice is permitted to be continued without any notice being taken in such regard.
“What is more alarming to note is that there are a few instances where members of the legal profession too have resorted to this unsavoury conduct,” the BASL said.
In its statement the BASL went on to point out that “our judicial system is a well structured system and any party affected by a decision of a court could always appeal or follow the process identified by the law.”
The BASL further stated: “We request our members to act within the ethical standards of the profession and preserve and protect the dignity of the profession.”
In conclusion the BASL unreservedly condemned the statements made with reference to concluded cases, pending litigation, role of Judges, role of prosecutors and the right of representation relating to litigants who are parties to court proceedings.
In its statement the BASL warned that if any such conduct continues the BASL would not hesitate to take appropriate action.
Unfortunately the situation has become worse after the raid on Mr. Ramanayake’s house with lawyers, clergy and laymen alike not merely making references but also making accusations against members of the judiciary.
The hue and cry made by Government Parliamentarians over the Ranjan Ramanayake episode deserves to be examined closely. The ones who shout loudest about Ramanayake’s conduct in Government ranks are the one’s who themselves have various proceedings against them in court.
Their concern for the independence of the judiciary rings hollow in the context of these very same individuals conduct and acquiescence in the unceremonious and undignified removal of the former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranyake for the mere reason that she delivered a judgement which did not meet with their approval.
An attempt is also being made to use the Ramanayake incident to prove that the claims of strengthening the framework for Judicial independence through the 19th Amendment are not true.
Probably Mr. Ramanayake would have acted in the way he did with or without the 19th Amendment. His conduct was probably due to his personality where he thought of himself as a crusader against corruption and wrongdoing and in the pursuit of such objectives would resort to even unorthodox measures to achieve such ends.
Clearly he is not one who understands that, the end however laudable, can never justify the means and therefore oversteps boundaries as he has done in this case.
The 19th Amendment strengthens the framework for the Judiciary, Police and Public Service to act independently. It is the individuals manning the different positions in those services who have to utilize the legal protection available to act independently.
Those who are concerned about the independence of the judiciary today should realise that even if any individual who is powerful or influential makes an attempt to subvert the cause of justice, Sri Lanka’s time tested judiciary has within it the personnel as well as the systems that ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice.
One such feature is the process of appeal that enables a higher Court to validate the findings of a lower Court by reviewing the determination of such lower Court. Another safeguard is the requirement that a judge has to give reasons for any determination that he arrives at. This too is an inbuilt safeguard to ensure that extraneous considerations do not come into play when Judicial Officers have to mete out justice.
The continued and systematic release of the tapes that have been taken into custody allegedly from Ranjan Ramanayake’s house into the public domain will only have the effect of creating apprehensions among the public about the independence of the judiciary.
The political advantage gained by the release of such tapes should not be at the expense of the image of the judiciary and should be immediately stopped.
There is no doubt that an inquiry must be held to inquire into the whole episode of the recordings of the tapes of Ranjan Ramanayake. Such an investigation must be a credible, independent and unpoliticised one which is aimed at strengthening and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary. (javidyusuf@gmail.com)