Meeting a deepening challenge of credibility

Sunday, February 07, 2016

The 20th century essayist and philosopher George Santayana’s caustic observation that ‘those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’ may well have been specifically tailored for Sri Lanka. This is true not only for politicians who are generally characterised by a singularly bovine stupidity but also for many others whose capitulation to political agendas is deplorable.

A common focus in securing justice

Last year, with the routing of the Rajapaksas, the several United Nations Resolutions committing Sri Lanka to securing justice for war time atrocities remained a foremost challenge. Ideally this should have been coupled with a strong law centered determination in bringing corruptors to justice. Both aspects may have been part of one process, bringing the people into the centre of change. Public support for this would have been overwhelming across the country, with the firm relegation of the Rajapaksa support base to the sidelines.

There is an important common focus in both processes. This is the cleansing of the defiled Augean stables of Sri Lanka’s police and prosecutorial agencies. In that regard, I do not use the term ‘defiled’ lightly. This is not to say that honourable individuals do not serve in these agencies. On the contrary, the system works in such a manner that honour and dignity have little place in decision making. Currently there is public scrutiny of the pending appointment of Sri Lanka’s Attorney General. The subversion of the prosecutorial role is neither recent nor intermittent. It has been well documented before courts as well as during Commissions of Inquiry, most recently by a senior police officer who pointed to the active role played by a particular senior state law officer in obstructing the inquiries of the 2006 Udalagama Commission.

The conflict of interest arising by a state law officer ‘advising’ failed police investigations and then assuming the role of chief legal ‘advisor’ of the very body mandated to inquire into those investigations was obvious. This was stressed by two retired judges of Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court who gave a legal opinion at the time. It is regretful, however, that none of the Commissioners possessed the basic courage to speak forthrightly on these matters, either then or later. This is what the culture of silence means in this country.

Isolation of honourable state and judicial officers     Read More