Contradictions

ly be accorded to the new political dispensation. Such judicial orders would have been impossible under the iron hand of the Rajapaksa Presidency distinguished by its arrogant refusal to accept even a remote challenge to its authority. So when the former Defence Secretary lavishly thanks the Court for the relief granted to him, the irony thereof is profound. Make no mistake about that.

But this generalized Presidential assertion, as pleasing as it may be, inadequately reflects far more complex realities at play. Contrast therefore, the Prime Minister's perturbation that he and the Cabinet have been effectively prevented from answering the matters in the former Defence Secretary's fundamental rights petition until October this year where (probably) a new political dispensation will be in force. Indeed, the larger impact of the matter concerns the very legality of the new criminal investigations unit established by the Government which has been impugned in the petition. Undoubtedly this gives rise to grave questions regarding the legitimacy of the investigations in general. Provoking other potentially inflammatory debates

Meanwhile the Prime Minister's further claim (reportedly) that, in the wake of the order, there was nothing left to be done but to seek the advice of the Commonwealth, lawyers and 'other relevant people of the Commonwealth' provokes another potentially inflammatory debate of 'foreign' vs 'local.'

In any event, these claims raise more questions than answers. Who are these 'other relevant people'? Do seeking opinions from lawyers and the Bar in regard to such judicial orders constitute a healthy practice? This brings back recent memories best forgotten when demonstrators demanded that 'a Rajapaksa Chief Justice' be summarily dismissed, the Bar proffered an eager opinion saying that this was perfectly proper and all gratefully salaamed when these demands were met.

Contrast this, hypothetically, with the constitutional alternative of a prompt impeachment but with due process safeguards as per the admirably reasoned judgment of Supreme Court Justice Gamini Amaratunga referencing the ugly dismissal of former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. This option would have been firmly in consonance with the Rule of Law. It would have stamped the relevant judicial improprieties as part of the public record rather than remaining as mere allegations. It would have also held out definitive warning signals to other judicial officers inclined to err. But that was not to be. No 'quick-fix' solutions to the problem

In the instant dispute as well, defined legal procedures apply whether this concerns challenging the propriety of a two member Bench awarding interim relief or the fact that the relief was awarded effective till October without the respondents being heard. So this flippant jump to invoking the Commonwealth on the part of the Prime Minister is somewhat baffling. Again, the resultant controversy promises to take the focus away from the actual issue in hand.

Even at this late stage, the treacherous path of 'quick-fix' solutions in rectifying the independence of the country's judicial institution must be eschewed. It is high time that the 'yahapalanaya' Government recognizes this fact even as strongmen of the Rajapaksa regime rush to court successfully pleading judicial intervention.

And the need for serious public debates on judicial accountability as well as judicial independence remains stronger than ever.