.

Three cheers for the judiciary

Hard on the heels of a tightly reasoned judgment on the illegality of its postponement of five provincial council elections that should have been held in August last year, another three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Friday quashed all the finding against Mr. Sirisena Cooray by the Lalith Athulathmudali Assassination Commission. Given the fashion in which the state media, including live telecasts, reported the various allegations made before the commission, it is shameful that yesterday’s Daily News relegated the judgment to page 18.

But that is by the way. One of the few things that Lankans can be happy about today is that the highest judiciary is maintaining its traditionally sturdy independence. Politics must be left to the politicians while it is the duty of judges to dispassionately review executive actions challenged before the courts and determine whether such acts, or findings as in the Sirisena Cooray case, conformed to the law as well as the rules of natural justice. It is to be hoped that politicians are not allowed to tinker with the judiciary however unpalatable the findings/determinations of the courts may be to them.

Let us not forget that the late Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon, appointed by President J.R. Jayewardene at the zenith of his power, stood up at the Sinnathurai Commercial Tutory at Kollupitiya and expressed an opinion that infuriated the then president. Whether one agreed with what the chief justice said or not, it must be freely conceded that saying what he did demanded courage of the highest order. The then opposition made capital of that incident which angered the man whom the London Economist once called Junius Rex and embarrassed his government. But those are facets of democracy that governments and their leaders, however powerful, must live with.

Ever since the disgraceful Wayamba poll was over, the country has been treated to stories of how angry the president had been at the doings of some PA thugs that had resulted in her own image being sullied. Many ministers of her cabinet are convinced about her sincerity and say that she is determined to stamp out wrong doings. Let us hope they are right. But can any leader credibly argue that when at least one of the candidates fielded by her party was the spouse of a politico with a highly questionable record, that she expected the election to be fought under the Queensberry rules? Or if another about whom the broadest hints have been passed, is suitable for the provincial ministry?

The government has been unhappy about the reaction of Sri Lanka’s friends abroad to the way in which this infamous election was conducted. The U.S. statement on the subject, no doubt, provoked the confidential note sent out last week to the heads of diplomatic missions in Colombo cautioning them that any comments on the conduct of the election will be regarded as an interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Expressing concern over reports that some diplomats have publicly expressed their views on how the election was conducted, the ministry expressed its displeasure about such comments, whether solicited or otherwise, being made.

The hoary Sinhala idiom says it all. Karanna hondai. Kiyanne narakai. Freely translated, it means "good to do, but bad to say." The facts are distasteful to the government and that is why it is now muting, though by no means abandoning, the refrain about the UNP’s doings during its 17-year rule. That is perhaps why the hurrah boys and whitewashers on the state media are now on a different tack lamenting that it is difficult to get rid of the poison that the UNP infused into the system in just four years plus some months. The trouble is that considerably more poison has been added in this election that is just past and it is best that those who are in office face up squarely to the facts.

When the foreign ministry issued its note to the heads of missions, it could not have been blissfully unaware of the fact that countries like the U.S. are outspoken about subjects like the present situation in Burma. It is unlikely that the ministry in its innocence believed that its "urgent and confidential" tag would prevent the diplomatic note from being published locally. They could have been sure that neither Lake House, Rupavahini or SLBC would run the story. But then there is also those who our old friends at ANCL calls the "so-called free media."

It would have been best if the ministry kept mum. The unsigned (third person?) note itself makes reference to the "judicial nature" of the procedures that must follow with regard to the allegations made about the election. These will no doubt take place and the findings are eagerly awaited. We are sure that Colombo is not going to make an issue with Washington about the U.S. statement. In the circumstances, there would have been less egg on everybody’s face if the ministry held its peace.

| NEWS | PROVINCIAL | POLITICS | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |