Skip to main content


The Impeachment and the Independence of Judiciary
Sumanasiri Liyanage

Many are trying to interpret the attempt by the UPFA members of the Parliament to impeach the Chief Justice as a blow for the independence of judiciary, a highly valued element of democracy. Judiciary if operates independently, is posited as the last bastion of democracy in which people can seek justice when the two branches of the government, the legislature and the executive, wittingly or unwittingly, take unjust decisions affecting the citizens. Since the impeachment motion was presented to the Speaker of the Parliament, almost all have argued that it has been an attempt to scotch the independence of judiciary as some of the determinations of the Supreme Court affected adversely some of the bills the UPFA government wanted to pass quickly. It has also been mentioned that powerful politicians were unhappy over some of the decisions of the Judiciary Service Commission. The Secretary of the JSC was attacked by an unidentified gang in Sunday morning just prior to the handover the impeachment motion. The Sri Lankan police that are highly efficient in uncovering cases of non-political nature have so far failed to arrest or to identify the perpetrators. So I shall agree fully and unconditionally with the argument that the impeachment is undoubtedly an attempt to attack the judiciary. Nonetheless, I beg to differ in using the adjective, independent. Was the Sri Lankan judiciary independent of the legislature and the executive in the past? Was it independent, at least in relative sense, from the dominant social forces that include hegemonic Sinhala nationalist as well as economically dominant rich? Hence I would suggest that the impeachment discourse should be broadened if we really seek to understand the inner logic that operate beneath the surface. As my friend, journalist Kusal Perera (the Editor of Subhavitha), puts it in a private conversation, we should distant ourselves from ‘Hulsdorf Mentality’ in our attempt to theorize what is happening today.
Let me begin with my conclusion that is in fact an extension of the argument advanced in my previous article, ‘Systems are Collapsing, So What?’. Then I will try to substantiate it. My submission is that the systems and institutions that have been created and modified by the Second Republic Constitution of 1978 have now evolved and transformed into parts of totally undemocratic, unjust and exploitative machine. Judiciary is no exception. It is also another decadent rotten and moribund institution that has been constantly making an attempt to negotiate with the executive in order to reach a ‘better deal’. It showed a semblance of independence when it had failed to reach such an agreement. One may say that the pre 1978 history was relatively better as far as the relationship between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary was concerned. Three branches of the government enjoyed relative independence from each other. However, even then, judiciary was not independent from the dominant and hegemonic social forces. As Selvakumaran and Edrisinghe have argued, post-independence judiciary acted with strong Sinhala nationalist bias in giving its views and verdicts. I do not here intend to harp on how the Supreme Court and lower courts made their determinations when it comes to laws and regulations affecting workers and other poor masses.
Focusing on the recent past, let me pose some questions that would help in unraveling the true nature of the judiciary. Was the appointment of Dr Shirani Bandaranayake as a supreme court a result of a political decision? Was the appointment of Sarath Nandasiri Silva as Chief Justice a political decision? Was the SC determination to imprison S B Disanayaka a political decision? Was Sarath Fonseka given a fair and just trial following the due process? Was the decision to reverse SC decision on P B Jayasundara an independent one? One may add many questions of similar nature to the above list and come to his or her own conclusion.  
To witness the decadence of the system in its worst form, one may see what is happening in lower courts. How many years do people have to be under remand custody before cases were filed against them? How Tamil prisoners are waiting in prisons/ open camps to know what would be the charges eventually filed against them? As far as I am concerned these are much more important issues. It is totally unwarranted to put the issue independence before these issues since those issues have serious impact on poor, marginalized people. Once again journalist Kusal Perera reminded me of budgetary allocation of some 600 mn rupees in 2011 to improve court condition to make the execution of justice expedient. What happened to this money? Were there any follow-up actions? Was there a mention of this in 2012 budget?              
It is absurd to portray this rotten system as independent and the guardian of ‘final’ justice. Of course, one may quote some of the decisions that were given by the judiciary as independent verdict. When a large number of Tamil prisoners were forcefully and arbitrarily transported to Vavunia somewhere in 2007, the Supreme Court gave a verdict that action was illegal and ordered those people should be brought back to Colombo. When I filed petition against the non-appointment of Constitutional Council set up by the 17th Amendment, the SC even declared that none is above the law so that petition can be filed making even the President a respondent. How do we explain these phenomena? These things happen when the SC especially the Chief Justice had engaged in a battle with the executive branch of the government. However, it is incorrect to portray these decisions as a result of the Judicary exercising its independence. The system of bribe does not always run smoothly. It faces fissures and contradictions that should not be depicted as positive aspects of the system although outcome may be beneficial to the people. What we are witnessing to days is not an attack on pure and clean branch of the system by a dirty and authoritarian branch of the government. It is a conflict between two parts of the same corrupt and rotten machine. All the parties involved seem to have vested interests created by the system. Hence this reminds me a saying by Spinoza that Leon Trotsky prefers to quote many a time: “not to laugh, not to cry, but to understand’. Only such understanding will assist us to build a system that is just, democratic and humane.

The writer is co-cordinator of Marx School, Colombo, Kandy and Negombo and teaches Political Economy at the University of Peradeniya.       

               

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

සාකච්ඡාව සදහා වැටුප් ශ්‍රමිකයා කවරෙක් ද? සුමනසිරි ලියනගේ
වැටුප් ශ්‍රමිකයා කවරෙක් ද? නිර්ධන පන්තිය ලෙස සැලකිය හැකි පංති තීරූ මොනවාද? විප්ලවවාදී පක්ෂයක පන්ති පදනම වන්නේ සහ විය යුත්තේ කුමන පංතීන්ගෙන් ද? මා මෙම ප්‍රශ්නය මතු කරන්නේ න්‍යායාත්මක ප්‍රශ්නයක් හැටියට නොවේ. ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ වර්තමාන සන්දර්භය තුල දේශපාලන ක්‍රියා මාර්ගය සකස් කර ගැනීමේදී ආසන්නව මතුවන ප්‍රශ්නයක් හැටියට ය. පසුගිය වසර දෙක තුල ඇතිවුන මා සහභාගී වූ දේශපාලන සාකච්ඡා කිහිපයක දීම මෙම ප්‍රශ්නය මතුවිණ. එහෙත් එම ප්‍රශ්නය මතු වූ අවස්ථා හැම එකකදීම වාගේ අපි එම ප්‍රශ්නය සමග නිශ්චිතව පොර බැදීම අත්හැර දැම්මෙමු. ඒ එය දිගට ගෙන යාමෙන් අප මාක්ස්වාදයේ ශුද්ධ වූ පාඨයන් ගෙන් බිදී යාදෝ යන බියෙනි. මෑතකදී වෟත්තීය සංගමයක් තුල ඇතිවූ සාකච්ඡාවකදී මෙම කරුණ වඩාත් සංයුක්තව මතුවිණ. වෟත්තීය සංගමයක් විසින් සංවිධානය කළ යුත්තේ කවුරුන් ද යනුවෙන් පැන නැගුන එම සාකච්ඡාවේදී සෟජු ලෙස නොවුන ද මතු වුයේ මෙම ප්‍රශ්නය ය. වැටුප් ශ්‍රමිකයා, නිර්ධනයා, සහ කම්කරුවා යන පද වලින් ජනප්‍රිය ලෙස හැදින්වුව් ද නැත ද වැටුපට වැඩකරන කොටස් වෟත්තීය සංගමයක් විසින් සංවිධානය කළ යුතු ය යන්න සාමාන්…
කම්කරු පන්තියේ විප්ලවවාදී පක්ෂය ගොඩ නැගීම සදහා අරගලය


1, මෙම මාතෘකාවේ දැක්වෙන මූලික පද දෙක -කම්කරු පන්තිය සහ විප්ලවවාදී පක්ෂය- මුලින්ම පැහැදිලි කරගත යුතු ය. ධනේශවර සමාජයක් තුල විවිධ පන්තීන් සහ උප පන්තීන් දැකිය හැක. විප්ලවවාදී පක්ෂය කම්කරු පන්තියේ පක්ෂයක් විය යුත්තේ මන් ද? මෙම කරුණ තේරුම් කිරීමට නම් විප්ලවවාදි යන්නෙන් කුමක් අදහස් කරන්නේ ද යන්න පැහැදිලි කර ගැන්ම අවශ්‍ය ය. සමාජ විප්ලවයක් යනු පවතින සමාජ ක්‍රමයයක් වෙනස් කොට -රූපාන්තකරණය කොට- ඒ වෙනුවට වෙනත් මූලධර්ම මත ගොඩ නැගුන සමාජ ක්‍රමයයක් බිහි කිරීම ය. එය දිගුකාලින ක්‍රියා දාමයකි. මෙවන් රූපාන්තකරණයක් වැඩවසම් සමාජ ක්‍රමය වෙනුවට ධනේශ්වර ක්‍රමය ගොඩ නැගීමේ ක්‍රියාවලිය තුල සිදුවීම ගැන අපි කියවා ඇත්තෙමු. අප අද කථාකරන සමාජ වෙනස මෙයට වඩා වෙනස් එකකි. වැඩවසම් සමාජ ක්‍රමය වෙනුවට ධනේශ්වර ක්‍රමය ගොඩ නැගීමේ ක්‍රියාවලිය තුල අප දුටුවේ එක් පෙෳද්ගලික දේපොල ක්‍රමයක් වෙනුවට වෙනත් පෙෳද්ගලික දේපොල ක්‍රමයක් ඇති කිරීම ය. අද අප අරගල කරන්නේ පෙෳද්ගලික දේපොල ක්‍රමයම නැති කරන සමාජ විප්ලවයක් සදහා ය. මෙය පරිපූර්ණ රූපාන්තකරණයක් ය. එක් පෙෳද්ගලික දේපොල ක්‍රමයක් තුල වෙනත් …
Is The Constitution A Key?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share