Two senior Justices of the Supreme Court (SC) – Justices Gamini Amarasekera and Preethi Padman Surasena – had recently carried out a surprise visit to the Marawila Magistrate’s Court to secretly observe the conduct of a Magistrate who had been the subject of multiple complaints.
After observing the proceedings in the court of the relevant Magistrate, the SC Justices had interdicted the Magistrate on the spot and had appointed an Acting Magistrate.
The two Justices had walked into the courtroom disguised as a litigant and lawyer to avoid being recognised. Justice Surasena had reportedly dressed casually to resemble a regular litigant, while Justice Amarasekera had worn a lawyer’s cloak to appear as an Attorney-at-Law.
They had entered the courtroom separately and had mingled with the public. The two Justices had even travelled separately to Marawila and had walked to the courthouse after stopping their vehicles at a distance.
After observing the proceedings and gathering evidence, the Justices had confronted the Magistrate in his chambers during the lunch break and, finding his explanations unsatisfactory, had immediately placed him under interdiction, according to reports.
This operation was reportedly prompted by numerous complaints received by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over a period of time regarding the conduct of the Magistrate. These complaints had been reviewed on multiple occasions, and although the Magistrate had previously been warned by the commission, concerns had persisted.
Finally, Justices Amarasekera and Surasena, both ex officio members of the JSC, had decided to personally assess the Magistrate’s behaviour and performance in court.
Justice Surasena had reportedly observed that a prison guard and a sub-inspector, both armed, were distracted by their mobile phones and were not paying attention to the prisoners in their custody or the proceedings in the courtroom.
The Justices had observed the proceedings throughout the morning and had made detailed notes regarding the Magistrate’s conduct and behaviour. At approximately 12.15 p.m., the Magistrate had announced a lunch break and adjourned the court until 1.30 p.m. Along with the others, the Justices had exited the courtroom.
During the adjournment, the JSC Secretary, who had been instructed in advance to be present at the location, had proceeded to the court registry and record room to locate and retrieve case records related to the complaints.
The two Justices had summoned the President and Secretary of the Marawila Bar Association and their statements and supporting materials had been recorded and added to the gathered evidence.
At around 1.25 p.m., the two Justices had entered the Magistrate’s chambers with the collected materials and had confronted the Magistrate, presenting him with the evidence and allegations. The Magistrate had reportedly been unable to give an acceptable or convincing explanation.
The two Justices had then decided to interdict the Magistrate with immediate effect, pending further investigation and an Acting Magistrate had been swiftly appointed to preside over the rest of the day’s proceedings.