Executive Gobbles up Judiciary

September 26, 1999
Publication:
Why did the President, against every accepted norm of morality, appoint Sarath N. Silva to the vacant post of Chief Justice at a time when very serious allegations against him were being inquired into before the Supreme Court? And how will that act work on society and on politics?

Why did the President, going against all accepted norms of morality, appoint Mr. Sarath N. Silva to the post of Chief Justice which had fallen vacant, at a time when there were very serious allegations made against him and some of them were being inquired into before the Supreme Court? How will this action affect society and politics?

At the time when Mr Silva was appointed to the office of Chief Justice there were two petitions submitted to the Supreme Court requesting that his name be deleted from the list of lawyers and those petitions were being inquired into by the Supreme Court.

One of the petitions had been submitted by me while the other had been submitted by chemical engineer Mr. W.B.A. Jayasekera.

My petition had said that there was a factual basis to the public allegations against magistrate Lenin Ratnayake and the reports of the police inquiries also said that there was a factual basis to those allegations.

The report of the police inquiry was with Mr. Sarath N. Silva. In reply to a query made from him as the Attorney General, by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Silva, due to his relationship to and close friendship with magistrate Lenin Ratnayake, said in a confidential report to the Minister of Justice, that there was no basis whatsoever to the allegations. My petition stated that by this act Mr. Silva had deliberately misled the Minister of Justice, and requested that, in view of the serious nature of the offence, his name be struck off the list of lawyers.

In his petition Mr. Jayasekera said that Sarath N. Silva while being a married person and father of one child, had invaded his family life and disrupted it and that when he had instituted legal action against his wife and Mr. Silva as corespondent, claiming damages in Rs. 500,000 and the right to divorce his wife for adultery, the alleged influence exerted by Mr. Sarath N. Silva as the head of the Court of Appeal was disastrous to Mr. Jayasekera, and on these grounds he asked that the name of Mr. Silva be struck off the list of lawyers.

In addition Mr. Percy Wickramasekera too had submitted a petition to the Supreme Court requesting that the names of Magistrate Lenin Ratnayake and District Judge Upali Abeyratne be struck off the list of lawyers in view the allegation against them and the conclusions arrived at by two committees appointed by the Judicial Services Commission on those allegations. That petition too was being inquired into.

Due to the serious objections that were arising in society against the activities of these two judges, the Judicial Services Commission had to appoint two committees each composed of three Appeal Court judges to look into the allegations of misconduct levelled against these judges. Both these committees of inquiry found the two judges guilty of all the charges but the judges were not expelled from the judicial services.

Mr. Jayasekera informs the Judicial Services Commission in writing on September 24, 1994, about the prejudice caused to him by District Judge Upali Abeyratne who had heard the case filed by him against Mr Sarath N. Silva. Hon. G. P. S. de Silva who held the post of Chief Justice did not inquire into Mr Jayasekera’s petition because he knew him personally. He referred it to the other two judges, namely Justice Tissa Dias Bandaranayake and Justice Mark Fernando.

Justices Tissa Dias Bandaranayake and Justice Mark Fernando sent a copy of Mr. Jayasekera’s petition to Mr. Upali Abeyratne on November 8, 1994 asking for his observations in writing. Mr. Abeyratne sent his written observations to the commission on November 11 and Justices Tissa Dias Bandaranayake and Mark Fernando after considering the observations, summoned Mr. Abeyratne and held a further inquiry. Thereafter the commission framed very serious charges against Mr. Abeyratne.

A copy of the charge sheet was sent to the Attorney General too. On February 12, 1996, the commission sent this charge sheet to Mr. Upali Abeyratne asking him to inform the commission in writing within one month if there are any reasons not to dismiss him or to punish him otherwise, for the instances of misconduct mentioned in the charge sheet.

Subsequently Justice Tissa Dias Bandaranayake is made the chairman of the Lalith Athulathmudali Commission and thereafter sent on a diplomatic appointment to Indonesia. Justice Mark Fernando while remaining in the Supreme Court is dropped from the Judicial Services Commission.

Until then the Judicial Services Commission consisted of the Chief Justice and the two other senior most judges of the Supreme Court. But thereafter the Judicial Services Commission came to consist of the Chief Justice and two junior members of the Supreme Court.

The period of one month given to Mr. Upali Abeyratne to submit his explanation on the charge sheet was to expire on March 12, 1996. Mr. Sarath N. Silva is appointed to the post of Attorney General on March 1. Surprisingly the inquiry about Mr. Upali Abeyratne which should have been taken to its logical conclusion was allegedly suppressed.

The inquiries against magistrate Lenin Ratnayake, who is a relation and a friend of Mr. Sarath N. Silva, which were due to be conducted, were also allegedly suppressed in a similar manner.