අධිකරණයේ අර්බුදය ප්රජාතන්ත්රවාදය
Ivan argues that an independent judiciary must protect citizens, not the government, when popular sovereignty is threatened, citing Kuldip Singh’s court under Indira Gandhi. Under Sarath N. Silva the Supreme Court has become the executive’s tool: he packed the bench on the electoral bill, blocked Karu Jayasuriya’s media petitions, reversed the growth of fundamental rights jurisprudence by assigning cases to himself, and dismissed over twenty judicial officers. No reform or ethnic settlement is possible until this is remedied.
The politics of justice
Two important observations on the Sri Lankan judiciary were published last week. One is in the latest American human rights report, which says the Chief Justice has cut the number of human rights cases the courts examine on the pretext of preventing a backlog — denying redress even to people who have been tortured.
අධිකරණයේ දේශපාලනය
Taking up newly appointed Supreme Court judge C.V. Wigneswaran’s remark that promotions depend on executive favour, Ivan argues that the executive has captured the judiciary. He lists cases in which the Chief Justice sat on politically sensitive petitions and ruled for the government: Karu Jayasuriya’s election-time petitions against Lake House and ITN, the 17th Amendment hearing, appointments cases, a GMOA doctor’s petition, railway strike-breaking, and a Vavuniya torture victim awarded only Rs. 15,000.
Need for reforms cries out loud
An unprecedented interest in the reforms good governance needs has arisen. The UNP is demanding independent commissions for elections, the judicial service, the police and the public service under a constitutional council, and K.N. Choksy is to bring a draft bill he has prepared.
අර්බුදය ගැන ආපසු හැරි බැලිමක්
Answering a reader who asks why Ravaya keeps writing about Sarath N. Silva, Ivan retells how his suspicions began with the Lenin Ratnayake affair: the rape allegation reported in 1997, police findings that Ratnayake had been dismissed from the Insurance Corporation for fraud, and a confidential 1998 report in which Silva as Attorney General shielded him. He describes the Bar’s past presidents’ resolution, the inquiries that found Ratnayake and Upali Abeyratne guilty, his own disbarment petition, and Silva’s appointment as Chief Justice, and calls for his removal.
අධිකරණයේ අර්බුදය හා නීතිඥ සංගමය
Responding to the Bar Association’s criticism of the Sunday Leader and Ravaya, Ivan names the lawyers said to have attended a meeting at Temple Trees where President Kumaratunga discussed the UNP’s election petition and asked that a judge she had accused of taking a bribe be removed from the bench hearing it. He recounts the Vinsendra Rajan fundamental rights case, Sarath N. Silva’s land request while serving on the Vijaya Kumaratunga murder commission, and his appointment as Chief Justice, and says the Bar must defend judicial independence.
සුළු ජාතීන් පිළිබඳ ගැටලුව හා යෝජිතස්වාධීන කොමිෂන් හතර
Answering TULF secretary R. Sampanthan, who said the four commissions cannot secure democracy without constitutional change for minorities, Ivan argues that the south’s democratic demands and the north’s minority rights are two sides of one crisis, rooted in a democracy received from the British without a unifying freedom struggle. He praises the Jaffna Youth Congress, Sri Nissanka and Wilmot Perera, and recalls how the citizenship laws and Sinhala Only overrode Soulbury safeguards while Chelvanayakam lost before a dependent judiciary. He urges Tamils and Muslims to back the commissions.
Government in extremely delicate position
The PA government seems to be trying to cover up all its sins through peace talks. Meanwhile the conditions for a democratic political culture — an independent elections commission first among them — are being deferred until a new constitution that may never come.
එජාප බැරී බැරී රෝගයට පිළියමක් සොයාගත යුතුය
Ivan likens the UNP’s dealings with the People’s Alliance government to a hereditary serf’s timidity before his lord. Though the Elections Commissioner, religious leaders, PAFFREL, the election-violence monitors and EU observers found the October 2000 poll unfair, the UNP chose to ‘let bygones be bygones’ and filed half-hearted petitions. He recalls, from Prins Gunasekera’s book, how Sirimavo Bandaranaike withdrew as petitioner against the 1982 referendum, leaving Rohana Wijeweera to file, and asks why the UNP stayed silent on Sarath N. Silva’s appointment and on the 1999 presidential poll.
දේශපාලන සංස්කෘතිය ගෞරවනීය තැනකට ගෙන ඒම පළමුවෙන්ම සිදුවිය යුතුය
The TULF objects that the PA–UNP consensus agenda covers democracy but not the ethnic question. Ivan agrees a settlement is vital but says it needs cross-party consensus, impossible while ruling parties use state power against rivals: the UNP stripped the SLFP leader’s civic rights and banned the JVP, and the PA humiliated and split the UNP and harassed the JVP. He calls for a level field, beginning with a judiciary freed from the executive and a new Chief Justice, laws against persecuting opponents, and the disarming of armed parties.