Members take up BASL President’s CONTROVERSIAL APPOINTMENT AT MEETING
Now that he is a judge, it would not be good for Kannan, or for the future, to remove him without a proper procedure. The Bar Council’s view is that removing a High Court judge would set a bad precedent
The dispute over the appointment of Ramanathan Kannan as a High Court Judge in Batticaloa following a recommendation by Geoffrey Alagaratnam, President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), without endorsement by its Executive Committee, has created divisions within the professional body.
According to BASL Secretary Amal Randeniya who was present at the Bar Council’s meeting on February 25, many lawyers have alleged that the outgoing president’s action went beyond his mandate. Several members including the past presidents of the association have questioned Alagaratnam on Kannan’s appointment, pointing out that the BASL’S constitution disallowed such conduct.
Randeniya said the council had also asked Alagaratnam to recall a circular he issued to the media that was published in some newspapers with regard to the controversial appointment as it too was in contravention of the BASL constitution. He said there was a lengthy discussion at the meeting on the question of appointing judges from the private bar, with views expressed for and against.
Alagaratnam in an interview with the Daily Mirror on February 22, when asked why he had gone to such lengths - not only writing to President Maithripala Sirisena but even leading a delegation that met the President and urged him to make the appointment – said there was a dearth of Tamil-speaking judges in the North and the East, adding that both the Chief Justice and Attorney General had approved the nomination. Randeniya said he was unaware that Alagaratnam had personally met the president over this issue, after the president had turned down the written request, until President Sirisena made the revelation while addressing lawyers at the inauguration of a law conference.
The Judicial Service Association (JSA) that represents the interests of the minor judiciary has protested Kannan’s appointment and written to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), headed by the Chief Justice, requesting that the JSC recommend to President Sirisena the removal of this officer. As part of its protest, the JSA refused to act as presiding officers at the BASL elections scheduled to be held last week.
The elections have been re-scheduled to take place on March 15 without the involvement of the JSA, following an amendment to the BASL’S constitution approved at Saturday’s Bar Council meeting.
The Bar Council comprises some 800 members from BASL branch organisations islandwide and is the superior body that approves decisions taken by the Executive Committee. The Daily Mirror spoke to BASL Secretary Amal Randeniya on the latest developments in this controversy subsequent to the Bar Council meeting. Excerpts of the interview:
He has not sought the approval of the Executive Committee. We have asked him to repeal the press release. We explained that it was damaging to the credibility of the association The elections have been re-scheduled to take place on March 15 without the involvement of the JSA, following an amendment to the BASL’S constitution approved at Saturday’s Bar Council meeting
Q What happened at Saturday’s Bar Council meeting? Were views expressed on the manner in which Kannan was appointed a High Court Judge?
So many concerns were expressed. Past presidents of the association including Upul Jayasuriya, Upali Gunaratne PC and W. Dayaratne PC grilled Geoffrey on his move, citing Section 9. ‘b’ and ‘’c’ of the BASL constitution which says the president cannot send a letter or even a press release (for and on behalf of the association) without (a decision of) the Executive Committee or the Bar Council.
Several members including the past presidents of the association have questioned Alagaratnam on Kannan’s appointment, pointing out that the BASL’S constitution disallowed such conduct
Q Did the BASL circular, published in some newspapers, come from Alagaratnam and not from the BASL as a whole?
Several members said this was not the view of the BASL. The press release gives that impression and the President will also assume the same. He has not sought the approval of the Executive Committee. We have asked him to repeal the press release. We explained that it was damaging to the credibility of the association.
Q Alagaratnam is reported to have said in his circular that there had never been a practice of either the BASL or the Executive Committee approving persons that were to be recommended for such appointments. However, there has not been a practice of the BASL President making such recommendations either..?
Yes, there is nothing like that.
Q What were the decisions made at the Bar Council meeting regarding the appointment of Kannan?
The decision was to write to the JSA to clarify the situation. The council wanted to explain what happened from September onwards. Regarding Kannan’s appointment, Geoffrey directly recommended names without consulting. At the end of the day, when a letter prints on the BASL letterhead, President Sirisena would assume that it is endorsed by the association. This is an internal issue.
Q The JSA is reported to have requested the BASL to rectify the situation. Will BASL support the JSA’S reported call to the CJ to request President Sirisena to remove the High Court Judge?
Now that he is a judge, it would not be good for Kannan, or for the future, to remove him without a proper procedure. The Bar Council’s view is that removing a High Court judge would set a bad precedent.
Q In the Daily Mirror’s interview with him, Alagaratnam made the controversial remark that the BASL played an active role in the change of government. At the same time, he maintained that the BASL is not politicised. What act could be more political than changing a government? Is the BASL politicised?
I don’t agree that the BASL is politicised. It is an association of lawyers. There are a lot of different views. Unlike other professional entities, we are more into political views. But we are supposed to act independently. Even if President Sirisena has done something wrong, we have to point it out. Most associations fight for their personal matters, but the BASL works for the people. We are supporting the GMOA in opposing ETCA (the proposed Economic and Technical Cooperation Agreement between India and Sri Lanka). The United Professionals’ Movement is a collective of professionals fighting against ETCA.
Q A group called ‘Lawyers for Democracy’ issued a press statement defending Alagaratnam’s role in the appointment of Kannan. It said “In our view, when appointing a practising lawyer to the higher judiciary, views should be obtained only from the President of the Bar Association and not from its committees such as the Bar Council or the Executive Committee. The practice has always been for the President of the Bar Association to make such recommendations, whenever suitable candidates are proposed.” The conveners of this group who signed the statement included lawyers known to have supported the regime change that took place in 2015. Does this add to the impression that Alagaratnam’s actions had a political aspect...?
There has been no tradition of the BASL President making recommendations. It appears to be political, yes, but the BASL is not politicised. It is not dominated by any political group. But different lawyers have different political perspectives.