• Copies sent to int’l professional associations 

The Joint Opposition has submitted a memorandum to the Chief Justice (CJ) requesting attention over a statement allegedly made by the President concerning a pending court ruling, according to its Convener and jurist Prof. G.L. Peiris. 

Speaking at a media briefing in Colombo yesterday (12), Prof. Peiris claimed that the President, during his May Day rally speech in Maharagama, had referred to the outcome of a court case before the verdict was officially pronounced. Prof. Peiris stressed that only the presiding judge is aware of a judgement prior to its announcement and that disclosing such information to a third party would be improper. He further stated that undue interference in judicial proceedings constitutes a serious offence punishable under the law. Outlining the legal context, Prof. Peiris noted that interference with the Judiciary is a grave offence, punishable by one year of imprisonment and the loss of civil rights for seven years.

The letter titled ‘Grave onslaught on the independence of the Judiciary’ further read: “During his May Day speech, Dissanayake stated, with regard to a pending case, that the hearing had taken place on the previous day and that the judgement is to be delivered on 25 May. He exhorted his listeners to be prepared to greet the judgement with warm applause. This statement has the most significant implications for the integrity of the Judiciary and the separation of powers which are cornerstones of the Constitution. Many issues arise. 

The President purports to have previous knowledge of a judgement yet to be delivered. It is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system that justice must not only be done, but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Once the hearing is concluded, the duty of the judge is to assess the evidence and to arrive at his/her conclusion in accordance with the law. His/her conscience is his/her only guide. It would be preposterous for the judge to discuss his/her judgement, prior to delivery, with any third party. 

Whether the judgement would have the effect of pleasing a third party to the extent of inducing him to urge the reception of the judgement with applause is a totally irrelevant, and indeed grossly improper, consideration. This has the clear potential to undermine public confidence in the judicial system, a matter fraught with the most far-reaching consequences. There appears to us no doubt that this preposterous statement represents an instance of being in contempt of court. 

This is a despicable attempt to bring pressure to bear on a judge in relation to a case being heard before him/her. The gravity of the situation is enhanced by the fact that the pressure emanates from no less than the Executive President. It seems intolerably unfair to submit a judge to pressure of this intensity, exercised at this level, in respect of the performance of his/her official duties. 

It cynically erodes the foundations of our legal culture and values. One of the few institutions still enjoying the esteem of the public at large is the Judiciary. We wish to bring these circumstances to your (CJ) notice for action which you may consider appropriate in respect of this distressing situation”.

According to Prof. Peiris, several Opposition party leaders and representatives jointly decided to submit the memorandum urging the CJ Preethi Padman Surasena to give the matter due consideration.

Prof. Peiris confirmed that copies of the letter were also forwarded to more than 12 international institutions. “Given the importance of the matter, and the essence of liberty in this country, we have decided to send copies of this matter to about 12 international professional associations,” he said.

Also speaking at the press conference, former Minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne accused the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna General Secretary Tilvin Silva of repeatedly violating democratic norms through statements on ongoing investigations. Senaratne cited a previous remark by Silva that a Presidential Commission probing substandard coal would deliver its judgement within three months, that the Government would be cleared, and that members of previous Governments involved in corruption would be arrested. He questioned the ethics of such comments by a political leader, arguing that the Government is gradually undermining judicial independence.

Meanwhile, Opposition Parliamentarian and attorney Dayasiri Jayasekara said in the press briefing that a serious issue had emerged in the appointment of judges. “There are five vacant seats for Judges at the Supreme Court, one of which has been vacant for over six months. Additionally, three seats at the Court of Appeal are vacant,” he claimed. Jayasekara further alleged that by commenting before the final verdict of a case, the President had exerted undue influence on the Judiciary, compelling judges to deliver favourable decisions to secure appointments to higher courts.