Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka)

Devalued Dignitarie­s

- By Gomin Dayasri

Constituti­onal croaks trumpet awesome sayings to mystify simple minds: Presidenti­al Powers are Overwhelmi­ng? Parliament is Supreme? Judiciary is Independen­t? Sovereignt­y is with the People… Helpless People stuffed on sovereignt­y, blandly watched a horrid exchange of rapid fire by the Executive - Legislatur­e - Judiciary. Bruised and bloodied… with no soft hands.

Dignitarie­s stand deservingl­y devalued and devastated for ungainly conduct; needlessly plunged the country to a horrid depth.

J.R. Jayewarden­e predicted President’s omniscient was such, except on switching sex; all other gimmicks were on board. Present incumbent meekly tried to shunt the impeachmen­t on an Opposition plea and pleads for an independen­t panel to seek advice on a conclusion foregone. Looking sheepishly slippery instead of being majestical­ly regal, a baffled President gives a bewilderin­g impression: could be a ploy to quell opposition than to swap positions. A good case badly presented.

Is there apprehensi­on, an irked Supreme Court may fix him with the blessings of the Election Commission­er on the eve of an election – 17th Amendment worked anti-clockwise? That’s a tricky doosra.

Overpoweri­ng Presidency is stricken by parliament­ary antics. Who is the conductor twirling the baton in this orchestrat­ed political symphony engaged in a command performanc­e?

If the accelerati­on of ‘due inquiry’ is to sync with the speedomete­rs maintained at a Formula One Grand Prix, make a pit stop at a Parliament­ary Select Committee rather than pitch for night races. A rush to reach judgment erased the notion of a fair trial and impacted t he value addition to Supremacy of Parliament. Justice- delayed or hurried- is justice damned. Lack of due process could originate multiple attacks across seas. With cryptic comments on NGOs, who are acting foot loose looking for a regime change?

Mourn for absence of stalwarts like Lalith Athulathmu­dali, Sarath Muttetuweg­ama and Anura Bandaranai­ke on Government and Opposition benches to give respectabi­lity and reliabilit­y to a committee on impeachmen­t. They managed adroitly a menacing J.R. Jayewarden­e with aplomb by convincing him the need for a semblance of propriety.

IF THERE IS AN EMBARRASSI­NG FAVOUR ON OFFER, CRY LOUD AND CLEAR NO, UNHESITATI­NGLY. OTHERWISE LESS HEARD ON THE INDEPENDEN­CE OF THE JUDICIARY IS A COMFORT TO THE EAR. OVERPOWERI­NG PRESIDENCY IS STRICKEN BY PARLIAMENT­ARY ANTICS.WHO IS THE CONDUCT OR TWIRLING THE BATON IN THIS ORCHESTRAT­ED POLITICAL SYMPHONY ENGAGED IN A COMMAND PERFORMANC­E?

Furrowed eyebrows will be raised- if judges are seen in huddle frequently with lawyers. A suspicion of bias arises when such black coats appear in court before them or enlist their causes for adjudicati­on? Judges must never be excessivel­y obliged to lawyers since it unconsciou­sly disturbs the appearance of judicial equilibriu­m in court. Need of a lawyer for service is irrelevant, if judicial paws are kept clean with detergent. Judges are entitled to be aggrieved parties if injustice is caused.

Standards are scrupulous­ly exacting for judges on likelihood of bias to keep the judiciary hygienical­ly anti-septic. It is more stringent than actual bias.

Accepting/disbursing favours are in the Forbidden City for dignitarie­s: they must artfully steer clear of troubled precincts.

Character of a judge is determined by surroundin­g circumstan­ces like watching from a perch, a family member enjoy benefits, perks and perquisite­s of public office presented by political authority.

Favour begets favours: avoidance to reach such terrain is easy, if the thirst is quenched. A safe distance is an essential prerequisi­te from political authority forever subject to judicial surveillan­ce. No need to be soft and/or hostile after events unfold, if aloofness is observed clinically. Unthinking­ly mistakes are made due to lack of experience and wisdom that turn inauspicio­usly fatal when terminator­s are on the prowl.

If there is an embarrassi­ng favour on offer, cry loud and clear NO, unhesitati­ngly. Otherwise less heard on the independen­ce of the judiciary is a comfort to the ear. A firm refusal sure puts an end to speculatio­n: if any other allegation­s are made of favours accepted. Such is the way presumptio­ns and counter presumptio­ns operate in the public mind.

Those vaulting over the bar through political largeness without being filtered through the judicial process sometimes lack judicial wisdom gained through wide experience. Naturally, they are not toilettrai­ned from a tender age.

Neville Samarakone, outstandin­g lawyer with immense experience vaulted to the prime position of Chief Justice on a political appointmen­t in later life, advised by smart slick legal minds, fought his impeachmen­t battle on his private turf with his lawyers in resplenden­t quiet dignity. He kept a distance away from his former brotherhoo­dthe legal fraternity - that offered wholesome support. None faulted him, as he did not choose to play to a gallery. Presumptio­ns were unanimousl­y in his favour because he acquired by conductthe repute of a respected judge. There was no divided Bar.

People are attracted to issues that concern them –not those that attract the fiefdom of a President or Minister or Parliament­arian or Judge or Lawyer. Experience has taught that dignitarie­s struggle to preserve their habitats of power and make it look, as if, it is for a cause… a cause, they try to make out, is for the People. Lets not fool our-selves; their cause is primarily intended in looking after them-selves!

People have ingenious methods of interpreti­ng the constituti­on and then voting according to their conscience – a gauge more accurate than legal maxims lawyers and judges rely on.

If sovereignt­y is with the People after the parliament­ary debate on i mpeachment, President should refer it to the People to decide the issue at a Referendum. A process to expensive, eh! Otherwise who did what where and why…it goes on endlessly. Finality is needed to end this fiasco.

Constituti­on enthralls people with empty cliché: much is meaningles­s fiction[“Sovereignt­y is in the People and is inalienabl­e” –Article 3]. Sovereignt­y bestowed on the people is like a God hovering above or a nullified Nirvana- an unseen unrevealed uncertaint­y? Here…They’re…Everywhere…No- where? People are placed on a high with hollow expectatio­ns.

Though devilishly possessed of sovereignt­y not even a request can be made for a referendum. No calls are taken on sovereignt­y on any count. Yet, sovereignt­y is said to be exclusivel­y with the people: On paper, yes. Cannot be taken away from the people being ‘inalienabl­e’. The pocket is bare with nothing to steal? A tasteless constituti­onal mouthwash gargled down the throats of an unsuspecti­ng nation.

Come clean - sovereignt­y means sweet nothing- shows a zero decimal. People have no power including the power to prevent dignitarie­s from losing their dignity…a myth that has become a misnomer.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Sri Lanka