Judicial Corruption: Chief Justice Priyasath Dep Also Charged For Corruption

By Lacille de Silva –SEPTEMBER 6, 2017

Lacille de Silva

As a public-spirited citizen, and with wide experience having served the public sector for nearly four decades, I am fully aware that corruption in all sectors in the country has pushed Sri Lanka backwards causing irreparable damage to the Nation. It is sad that in Sri Lanka, although it is a representative democracy, it does not have an independent judiciary. In this country it is observed that the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary do not respect the doctrine of separation of power, which is honoured by leading democracies in the world. The norm is that these three organs shall function independently without encroaching the areas assigned to each other by law. However, it is observed that in this country the judiciary is powerless to check the other two organs that openly challenge its independence and authority, particularly the legislature, that is infested with criminal elements who should have been behind bars.   

Judicial independence no doubt could be considered essential in our country for upholding the rule of law, yet the Yahapalana government that promised upright judiciary has failed the Nation. It is vital that the public should have full confidence in the judiciary and in accordance with the UN Declaration, which says, I quote “all the better safeguarded to the extent that the judiciary and the legal professionals protected from interference and pressure”. It is embarrassing that the government of Sri Lanka co-sponsored a resolution (A/HRC/RES/30/1 dated the 1st October 2015) at UN conceding that the people have no trust and confidence in our judicial system. After the new government was elected to office in 2015,  the Bar Association  of Sri Lanka (BASL), issued a press statement,  I quote, “the existing judicial system in this country has not met the confidence of the people and that it is an undeniable fact that over a period of time the independence and credibility of  many of these institutions suffered resulting in an erosion of the confidence in the system as a whole”.

After independence, for a considerable period of time, We Sri Lankans had the privilege  of enjoying a professional and independent judiciary.  It could have been probably because the Soulbury Constitution had insulated all State officials including the judges from officials of the other branches in the government until it was repealed in 1972.   After the annulment of the Soulbury Constitution, the judiciary has been failing to enforce the Constitution and Human Rights and we have heard of instances where the judges had favoured their friends, relatives,  and associates and given verdicts in order to punish their adversaries.

It must be stated that the 18th Amendment vested unrestricted power over the judicial appointment on the Executive President. Then the Yahapalana administration that promised the people an independent judiciary through its 19th Amendment re-introduced the Constitutional Council to restore the judicial independence. It has however been revealed that these constitutional obligations too have been wilfully and intentionally disregarded and overlooked by the Executive and the Legislature. I am totally in agreement with the Public Interest Litigation Activist Nagananda Kodituwakku (NK) that the 14th Amendment Bill, that allowed defeated candidate enter parliament through the National List has been made law by fraudulent means, which no doubt amounts to a serious Constitutional fraud involving the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. It is therefore the duty of the Yahapalana Government to strengthen the judiciary so that the government becomes more credible in the eyes of the citizens and the international community. It is also the most appropriate step in this particular case to permit the judiciary to review the matter lawfully, independently and impartially because the matter raised by NK is an important national issue concerning the ‘Franchise and Election’.

According to the facts that had been unearthed by Nagananda Kodituwakku, the bill that was considered by the 12-member Parliamentary Select Committee headed by the then Prime Minister, Ranasinghe Premadasa, did not contain the provision that had been stealthily incorporated subsequently, pertaining to the Franchise and Election Law (Article 3). The evidence shows that there had been two 14A Bills in circulation in the Parliament and the Speaker had ratified a bill fraudulently, which had not been approved by the Parliament at the Committee stage, where a foreign clause, within brackets, had been surreptitiously introduced.   And the relevant parliamentary proceedings demonstrate that no member has proposed any such amendment to the bill presented to the house by the Prime Minister.

However, the evidence filed in the Supreme Court challenging this constitutional fraud reveals that the then President J R Jayewardene had referred the Bill with the false clause to the Supreme Court with a letter dated 8th April, 1988 sent to the Chief Justice with a note addressed the CJ – I quote “My dear Chief Justice” and had requested CJ to approve the said bill with a fraudulently introduced clause into the Article 99 A, which had never been approved by the Parliamentary Select Committee on Franchise and Elections. 

Read More