Daily News Editorial

MR and independence of the judiciary

21 February 2017

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa has joined the chorus of his Joint Opposition cohorts in criticising the appointment of a High Court Judge by the Yahapalanaya government in what he calls a move to appease its political allies. He goes on to state that it is essential to abide by the accepted practise in making judicial appointments to safeguard the INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY (emphasis ours).

Rajapaksa is the last person who can speak about the independence of the judiciary, after making not just the Judiciary, but also the Attorney General's Department, a malleable tool in his hands. The AG's Department was prevailed upon to close the cases of wrong doers who had switched their allegiance to the Rajapaksas after deserting the UNP. A self confessed rapist was allowed to go scott-free after switching sides while another - a former Deputy Minister from the Colombo District- charged for murder had his case summarily withdrawn at the instance of the powers that be.

Rajapaksa also should be careful when he espouses the cause of an independent judiciary because his record in this connection is bound to come under scrutiny and he will only be opening a can of worms. The whole sordid saga involving former Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandanayake is still fresh in the minds of the public. They are aware that, but for the adverse verdict given in connection of the Divi Neguma Bill, Dr. Bandaranayake would have continued to remain as CJ. She was subjected to impeachment only because she exercised HER judicial independence and struck down the Bill that gave unlimited powers to a Rajapaksa sibling to handle billions of rupees bypassing parliament.

When Rajapaksa talks of Independence of the Judiciary he must mean independence in the true sense of the word. But the former President appointed the husband of the self same Shirani Bandaranayke to an important government post while the latter remained the CJ. How will his present espousal of an independent judiciary juxtapose with his act of appointing the spouse of the country's Chief Justice to a high profile government post that is bound to colour judgements in the government's favour, although we are here not suggesting that Dr. Bandaranayake would have been so influenced, a fact borne out by her Divi Neguma judgement.

Rajapaksa has also taken exception to the manner in which his choice of Chief Justice Mohan Peiris was removed from office, which he contents was by Presidential fiat that was unconstitutional rather than through the legislative process. While conceding that the laid down procedure to oust Dr. Bandaranayake was followed, what actually took place was a travesty, with the former CJ being subjected to humiliation trough a mock trial with handpicked Rajapaksa acolytes forming themselves into a Parliamentary Select Committee that was in fact a Kangaroo Court. Not only that, the ousted Chief Justice was subjected to further indignities and humiliation with government sponsored mobs armed with loud speakers taking position outside the official bungalow of the CJ to hurl abuse and invective at a female judge.

President Sirisena, the other day, made a public revelation on how the former Chief Justice Mohan Peiris approached him, not once, but twice, with a pledge to enter judgements at the behest of the President and that he (President) was compelled to show the door to the supplicant in order to protect the independence of the judiciary. President Sirisena who made the same charge at the beginning of his Presidency has so far not been challenged on this score and it is only logical to assume that this unethical approach was indeed made by Peiris.

Going by this logic it is only too obvious how the self same Mohan Peiris acted at the behest of the former President in his judgements and the hypocrisy of Rajapaksa in now espousing the cause of an independent judiciary.

Last, but not the least, the whole country was agog with the news of an attempted coup by Rajapaksa to remain in power on election night while the results were trickling in to show the former President was doomed. It was also said that he was in the company of his inner coterie planning a way out of the disaster. When the then Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe went to Temple Trees the same night, who was he to behold among this inner circle, plotting and planning for Rajapaksa to stay put, but the country's Chief Justice.

It is difficult to comprehend how a Chief Justice, who was among the conspirators, finding a way to keep the then President in office, despite the results, could ever be independent. It was also well known how the former President dangled plum appointments before Supreme Court judges to obtain favourable judgements. One Supreme Court judge in fact was appointed as High Commissioner to London while another Judge- a former Chief Justice, no less, ended up as an Advisor to the former President. Not quite the conduct of Rajapaksa that would have inspired people on the independence of the judiciary, for which he has now taken up cudgels.

Ceylon Today Editorial

From Students to Criminals...

21 February 2017

Every now and then, there occurs an event that makes one lose all hope in humanity. We have a talent of making ourselves miserable in numerous innovative ways. On these few days, we are sure that the Hell is empty and all the devils are here on Earth.

The latest addition to human ineffability was reported yesterday.

Fifteen students from the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya were arrested last Sunday (19) by the Peradeniya Police for severely ragging eight first year students of the same university. Upon receiving a complaint, the Police were able to locate the victimized students who were being ragged, assaulted and tortured at a house in Kalugamuwa, Peradeniya. The Peradeniya Police officers making the arrest became unwitting witnesses to the horror that had taken place at the house where the first year university students were lying naked, covered in bruises and in binds.

The tortured students were admitted to the Peradeniya Teaching Hospital and the accused were produced in the Kandy Magistrates Court yesterday where they were remanded until 2 March.

University authorities later commenting on the matter had stated that this incident should be a 'lesson' to all those who take part or support - intentionally or otherwise - the ragging culture in universities. The authorities who have suddenly become empathetic towards the situation misguidedly hope that necessary steps will be taken to address the situation according to the legal system of the country.

It is very common knowledge that university authorities – lecturers and other faculty members –have carried on a tradition of ignorance and utter negligence when it comes to students being ragged within universities. This tradition of laxity has been synonymous and parallel to the tradition of ragging among university students – the seniors would rag the juniors and the lecturers would ignore it and consider ragging to be an urban legend.

There might be a handful of university heads that occasionally stands against ragging but then again, even if they had taken steps to stand against it, their efforts had come to naught because ragging continues through our proud free education system.

Therefore, university authorities making sympathetic comments on the latest of events sounds more like a well managed publicity stunt, instead of a proper rally for action.

This brings us to the next question at hand; have our State universities become a breeding ground for torture centres with senior students behaving like sex perverts and sociopaths?

With the latest of these events, it seems as if the answer is yes. And according to numerous accounts of victims – publicized and otherwise – who have suffered untold humiliation or extreme forms of ragging at the hands of some senior students, this is the case despite the height of our human evolution.

Most parents' dream is to send their children to a State university and make them responsible citizens. But what awaits the freshers in some universities is a gruelling torture course which they are forced to undergo. Unable to withstand the severity of extreme forms of ragging, some students leave the university, while children of affluent parents prefer tertiary education at private institutes in Sri Lanka or overseas to a degree in State universities.

Despite ragging being officially prohibited in universities and is a punishable offence under the Prohibition of Ragging and Other Forms of Violence in Educational Institutions Act, No. 20 of 1998, it still continues in the form of depersonalisation and over all removal of a sense of individualism. Seniors under the guise of what they like to call 'orienting' first year students and making them 'comfortable' to the new surroundings, torment freshers through their undisciplined haughty speech and at times violent physical actions which can be tantamount to torture, and therefore raggers can be charged under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act, No. 22 of 1994, while provisions in the Penal Code are applied as well.

This latest addition to the violent history of ragging in Sri Lanka, this House of Horror, its tormentors and its victims, one could hope would bring about the end of ragging in Sri Lanka. The optimist in our psyche would like to hope that this would be the turning point to all these matters and this would stop students from turning into blood thirsty criminals.

But, even as we write, we know that this is just a pipedream.

This problem would not go away any time soon - not as long as the government turns a blind eye to prisoners being tortured, while the heartless society condemning those who are different and prosecuted for being unique. This is where the root of the ragging problem lies. The seniors who need to create a generalized batch out of the freshers are indirectly motivated and cultivated by the norms of the society he or she comes from. And that is reflected in his or her actions – in this case ragging.

AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to PrintShare to EmailShare to More

The Island Editorial

Justitia in distress

21 February 2017

President Maithripala Sirisena finds himself in an unenviable position, trying as he does his best to justify the appointment of a member of the private bar as a High Court judge at the expense of many deserving District Court judges. He says he has only acted on a Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) recommendation and the proper process was followed in making the controversial appointment. But, the Judicial Services Association (JSA), on the warpath, would have none of it. Worse, the BASL is reported to have officially written to the JSA that it never recommended the appointment of the judge concerned. Who is telling us the truth?

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa has, in a strongly-worded statement, published in this newspaper yesterday, taken up cudgels for the judiciary and flayed President Sirisena for the appointment at issue. Pointing out that there have been instances where outstanding members of the private bar were brought in as Supreme Court judges, he has mentioned the names of Neville Samarakoon and Mark Fernando. (President Chandrika Kumaratunga appointed Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake a Supreme Court judge.) Rajapaksa has admitted that he also appointed one Supreme Court judge from the private bar. (He is also guilty of what he is blaming President Sirisena for!) The independence of the judiciary will be compromised if lawyers are allowed to have judges appointed, he has said, calling for the reversal of the presidential decision.

Rajapaksa’s arguments are, doubtlessly, very compelling. It is popularly said in this country that bale thiyanakota mole ne, mole thiyanakota bale ne—‘when one has power, one has no brains; when one has brains, one has no power’. If only he had the same concern for the independence of the judiciary while he was ensconced in power! One may ask what moral right he has to champion the rights of judges, having meddled with the judiciary and abused his power and parliamentary majority to get rid of Chief Justice (CJ) Bandaranayake.

It may be recalled that Rajapaksa as President unashamedly stooped so low as to manipulate Parliament to get rid of CJ Bandaranayake in the most despicable manner. He was furious that she had refused to toe the government line on the Divineguma Bill, crafted to grant more powers to his brother cum ‘super minister’ Basil. It is not being argued that Bandaranayake was blameless; the draconian 18th Amendment, which did away with the presidential term limit besides paving the way for the executive president granting himself more powers, passed muster with the Supreme Court on her watch. But, the fact remains that she shouldn’t have been hounded out of her job savagely.

Interestingly, President Sirisena has recently gone public as saying he himself voted for the 18th Amendment as, otherwise, he would have had to leave the Rajapaksa government much earlier. In other words, he has admitted that he is ready to act out of expediency rather than principle to safeguard his interests. He also voted for the wrongful impeachment of CJ Bandaranayake! So much for his commitment to good governance!

President Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe came to power, promising a break from the Rajapaksa style of governance. But, they have not made good on that pledge. President Sirisena does not seem to have learnt from the fallout of his questionable action at the insistence of the BASL in 2015; no sooner had he been inaugurated than he got rid of the then Chief Justice Mohan Peiris.

President Sirisena, by arbitrarily nullifying with retrospective effect, a parliamentary resolution which removed CJ Bandaranayake from office, violated the much-flaunted Latimer House (Commonwealth) Principles to ensure healthy relations among the three branches of government—the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary—through separation of powers. He should have consulted the Supreme Court on the issue and the nullification of the resolution at issue should have been left to Parliament itself.

Before the last presidential and parliamentary elections, President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe wept buckets for the judiciary and vowed to liberate it from the clutches of Rajapaksa. Now, we have Rajapaksa shedding crocodile tears for the judiciary and trying to save it from the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration!