The bar's duty to uphold the rule of law

Henry David Thoreau argued in one of his most provoking essays appropriately labelled "Civil Disobedience" that, if enough people would follow their conscience and disobey an unjust ruler or unfair rules, they could bring about a peaceful revolution. This was, after all, the essential basis for the Gandhian ideal and was indeed, one of the planks on which America's civil rights movement, in fighting for equality, based itself.

Yet, these philosophies would probably be cynically dismissed as quaint and outdated in Sri Lanka today. Almost every issue of national importance facing our country today remains transfixed in a destructive paradox of political partisanship vis a vis a crisis of silence. The capacity to determine our way as a nation has been splintered because of these failures. Corrupt politicians who are presumed to govern us should not be shouldered with all the blame.

Attacks on lawyers and the role of the Bar

There have however been some exceptions to this rule. Last week's grenade attack on the residence of attorney-at-law JC Weliamuna marked one particular instance where protests were manifested from lawyers, civil activist bodies, trade unions, womens' bodies, professional associations and business lobbies. Hopeful as these signs of collective activism may be, it is however, an extremely pertinent question as to why the Bar Association of Sri Lanka has not taken a leading role as might be expected. Issuing a bare statement and meeting the President in this respect is the minimum in this regard. Far more will be expected of the body in the weeks to come.

It must be recalled that during the second youth insurrection of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna in the eighties, the Bar collectively assumed an activist role, expressing shock and horror regarding the murder of lawyer Wijedasa Liyanarachchi. The Bar en bloc and irrespective of political differences, decided to boycott the ceremonial sitting of the Supreme Court in the new Courts Complex. Later, as the killers of Liyanarachchi were not brought to book, it was decided that no member should appear for any police officer until the matter was settled and the killers charged in court.

The Bar in the eighties and tributes thereto

The report of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) for 89-90, acknowledges the events of that period thus; "At the end of such a year of turbulence in the affairs of State and our profession, we are happy to see the profession stronger, its independence strengthened and its position as a bulwark in defence of rights recognised even more…. This report will place on record that the Bar Association of Sri Lanka was required to foster and preserve the Rule and the Rights of the Citizen in this country, as well as to hold high the honour and dignity of the legal profession. Our aim was to be just by all members of the profession and also take the necessary steps to protect their personal lives and liberty and their freedom to practice their profession in keeping with the high standards of the Bar."

None would grudge the Bar these accolades at that time. In fact, the political executive, on occasion, went out of his way to acknowledge this fact. It is perhaps little remembered that when one of then President Ranasinghe Premadasa's Ministers referred to the Bar Association as being a terrorist association, President Premadasa compelled the Minister to publicly apologise to the Bar (see The Sunday Times, July 5, 1998). Now however, a corrosively politicised Sri Lankan Bar has left us with diminished capacity to take the lead even when attacks are carried out on its own members. In turn, public respect for the Bar has greatly weakened.

Shameless cajoling and failure of the Bar's duty

Last week's protest by a section of the legal profession in regard to the grenade attack on attorney-at-law JC Weliamuna should have been under the leadership of the Bar Association. The issue is not personal. Neither is this attack the first of its kind. On the contrary, we had been seeing in recent months, a spate of such attacks on lawyers. Yet, there have been little forceful interventions from the Bar. Instead, the focus has been on cajoling the political executive to provide greater facilities and privileges for a chosen few of the legal profession.

What is the exact role of the Bar when attacks on those striving to ensure the very implementation of the law and constitutional rights is coupled with an official failure to thoroughly investigate those responsible, identify and punish them? When will the timidity on the part of the Bar in regard to its essential duty to uphold the Rule of Law end? Increasing numbers of concerned people in this country await answers to these questions from Sri Lanka's Bar Association.