 |
By
Mudliyar
|
||||||
|
Bar: Trade Union or professional body? By Mudliyar A senior practitioner brought it to the notice of the Bar Council at a recent meeting that an indictment had been filed against an Attorney-at-Law. The Bar must report the facts to the Supreme Court and request his suspension pending the conclusion of the Trial. He said that the Bar should not degrade itself to the status of a trade union. It is a professional entity. It holds inquiries against its own members for violating the Rules of the Supreme Court. It reports them to the Supreme Court. The trade unions fight for their workers who have been dismissed by their employers. On the other hand if an indictment is filed against a lawyer he should be suspended from practice until the trial is concluded. Often at meetings of the Bar Council such statements are made and recorded in the minutes and corrected and re-corrected. No action is taken as no decisions have been taken. In Sri Lanka statements are recorded by the Police and on the statements that are recorded indictments are filed. It is only after the trial that a conclusion could be arrived at. A few years ago there was a lawyer who was not only indicted but found guilty and sentenced to jail. He came back from jail and continued in practice. I do not think it is fair or justifiable to remove or suspend a lawyer purely on the basis that an indictment has been filed. The Chief Justice
once remarked that more than 600 lawyers enter the profession every
year. They enter the profession but are unable to find accommodation
in the Chambers of a senior. Most of the seniors do not have space
even for their clients to sit as juniors fill the Chambers. They
find that their rights have been eroded every day. Even an unkind
judge sits on them without paying any heed to the problems the juniors
face when they carry a brief and instructed to do some thankless
job. The Police treat them with contempt. Even the clerks and the
minor staff treat the junior lawyers with disdain and are arrogant
towards them. On the basis of their position in the profession the
junior lawyer has to hide his feelings as best he could. His situation
is pathetic. The need is obvious for a strong leader who will look
into his problem and act immediately. A leader who procrastinates
until the cows come home is certainly not what he needs. When the Indian
Air Force breached the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka and dropped
food parcels over Jaffna it pained every single patriotic citizen
irrespective of his or her ethnicity. Dr. H.W. Jayawardene, QC the
first and one of the ablest Presidents of the Bar Association came
to the Magistrate Court with H.L. de Silva, PC, who has now become
the virtual leader of the Bar and discussed the invasion and the
breach of territorial and international rights by the Indian Air
Force. There was pandemonium in the Magistrate's Court. Lot of members
of the profession were agitated by what had happened. Dr. H.W. Jayawardene
QC, H.L. de Silva and the late H. Joe Perera former President of
the Magistrate's Court together with almost 100 members of the Magistrate's
Courts paraded on the street holding placards in protest. There
were a few slogans that were mouthed. The Paparazzi appeared from
nowhere and on the next day the pictures of the lawyers protesting
against the action of the Indian Air Force were published on the
front pages. No one, not even senior lawyers of that era condemned
the action. Was it not
a kind of trade union action. The difference was that where the
trade unions protest, parade and strike for their own benefits and
to win workers rights, the lawyers protested against the invasion
of their motherland by a foreign army. Similarly in the year 1988
when the killing of Wijedasa Liyanarachchi took place the leadership
given by H.L. de Silva will never be erased from the memory of those
who were present at that time. A meeting of
lawyers was summoned at the Law Library. What had to be decided
was whether the earlier decision of the Executive Committee not
to appear for any Police Officer in a civil or a criminal case was
correct. At that time it was well known that some of the leading
lawyers the country has produced, like Faiz Mustapha, PC and K.N.
Choksy, PC, had been retained by the Police. There was a peculiar
incident where Faiz Mustapha had been retained by the Trustees of
a Mosque and one Trustee was a Police Officer. It was purely a civil
matter which absolutely had no connection to the Police. But Faiz
Mustapha agreed to abide by the decision of the Bar Council and
declined to appear for the trustees. A vote was
to be taken. The situation was so tense that the late Mr. Ranbanda
Seneviratne suggested that a body count be taken. Two doors were
opened and those who were in favour of the resolution had to walk
through one door. The loudest cheer arose when K.N. Choksy, PC got
up and walked through the door of those who supported the resolution.
At the same meeting it was discussed to boycott the grand opening
of the Superior Court Complex on condition that all those who were
responsible for the murder of Wijedasa Liyanarachchi be arrested
and produced in Court. When the decision was taken only a handful
of few members were seen voting against the decision. Some lawyers
contend that a professional body like the BASL should have immediately
rescinded the resolution not to appear for Police as it would offend
the objectives of the BASL and tantamount to infringing the rights
of Police Officers to retain counsel of their choice. At that time
Upali Gunaratne was to proceed to Argentina to attend a conference
and he was not sure how to answer if he was questioned about the
resolution. H.L. de Silva the then President of the Bar Association
told him ''Upali, tell them that extraordinary situations requires
extraordinary measures to meet them'' |
|||||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
