Columns

Students of Shakespeare know that his plays were meant to be performed, originally on the Elizabethan stage. So there were stage directions. Having watched the unfolding drama over La Affaire Avant Garde, if one may call it that, and the hara kiri by Law and Order Minister Tilak Marapana induced from within his own ranks, one is tempted to write a stage direction a la Shakespeare.

It would read “Exit Marapana amid alarums”. Why alarums? Because the of battle cry against others supposedly involved in this highly controversial affaire and refuse to do the honourable thing like Marapana did, whether it be with the metaphorical sword or one of the weapons aboard Avant Garde vessels.

Marapana might have thrown in the towel before the real infighting broke out at the special cabinet meeting. But the battle to fell others said to be connected with Avant Garde will doubtless continue furiously.Marapana might feel wronged and might even say with Caesar “Et tu Brute” as some of his colleagues plunged the knife even further.

But the fault (dear Brutus) is not entirely that of some of his colleagues but in Marapana himself. He has enjoyed political office before as a defence minister and earlier still he was an attorney general. So he cannot feign ignorance of political conduct and the privileged position of a parliamentarian speaking in parliament, however much he might plead in mitigation that he is not a politician and does not comprehend political nuances.

If that is so what on earth was he doing accepting a political portfolio and sitting in parliament? Parliament is not the inner-bar. It is for politicians or those who pretend to be politicians working for the people when in fact some see it as a salaried vocation.
If Marapana does not understand politics even after serving in two ministries he should not only have chucked up his portfolio but quit parliament all together not continue to sit as an MP.

Marapana’s faux pas was that he seemed unable to distinguish between his position at the bar table with his front row seat in parliament. “If I reveal to the House the facts that my client has revealed to me a lot of people here may feel ashamed.” The client referred to is Avant Garde chairman Nissanka Senadhipathi who seems to mistake his name for a title-a senadhipathi.  Why did he not reveal the names and watch while some squirmed. Apparently he has his onetime client’s permission.

Marapana's faux pas was that he seemed unable to distinguish between his position at the bar table with his front row seat in parliament.

Was Marapana addressing parliament as a minister or until recently, counsel for Senadhipathi? Surely it is more than obnoxious to use his parliamentary position to plead the case of his onetime client? It sounded very much like he had received permission from the Avant Garde chairman to say his piece.

Even if Marapana did not know politics he surely knew that to use his ministerial role to defend his ‘client’ was, to say the least, improper. Surely he should have at least declared his interest in the matter. But that day in parliament he sounded as though he was trying to justify his fee.

Now Marapana is a PC. So is Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, the Minister of Justice whose role in the Avant Garde affaire has also come under scrutiny. PC can be the abbreviation for many things- Privy Councillor, Provincial Councillor, Police Constable and even Petty Criminal. Any imaginative person could think of more.

But President’s Counsel, a title introduced by J.R.Jayewardene, is said to be conferred on senior lawyers. Some say that president’s counsel are a dime a dozen but never mind that. They are said to be well tutored in the law. They are said to know what we laymen in the law do not know and that is why the average and not so average person retains lawyers paying exorbitant fees or retainers.

So it is hard to conceive that Marapana could not separate his two roles- you know like the separation of powers. There is no excuse for his mistaking parliament for the courtroom. But let us admit that having slipped up, to put it charitably, he paid the price- well half the price at least since he continues in parliament playing politics which he claims he does not understand.

On the other hand Justice Minister Rajapakshe seems to have no qualms over the very credible charge of interference in the judicial process. He has stated that he saved Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, that he instructed the Attorney General of Sri Lanka not to arrest his near name sake.

As pointed out above Rajapakshe – Wijeyadasa not Gotabhaya – had been elevated to status of a president’s counsel, by whom I know not. So one presumes he knows more about the law than some of us laymen do. Could he then tell us under what power or powers vested in the Minister of Justice did he instruct/order the AG not to arrest Gotabhaya? Could he please cite under which article/provision in the powers vested in him he did so?

Would he also say that instructing the AG not to arrest the former defence secretary, which he admits he did, is not an instance of political interference in the judicial process.  Where is the Justice Minister empowered to issue such instructions to the AG who is a quasi-judicial officer? If he has no such power then he has over reached himself and used his ministerial position to overawe the AG’s department.

One reason why the Zeid al-Hussein investigation on Sri Lanka calls for foreign participation at various levels in any inquiry into war crimes and violations of international law is because it claims that Sri Lanka’s judicial mechanism has been politicized and corrupted.

Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe by admitting that he instructed not to arrest Gotabhaya when he does not appear to have any legitimate power to do so, has only added proof to charges made in the report on Sri Lanka. And this under the Yahapalanaya government which claimed it will exorcise this country of such malfeasance.

If the Justice Minister says he said not to arrest Gotabhaya in connection with Avant Garde it surely means that the AG had intended to order his arrest or was building a case which could have led to it. Otherwise one cannot understand why the minister should instruct the AG not to order the arrest. And if there was no evidence to justify an arrest why go to the extent of instructing the AG?

That is clearly political interference in the judicial process and it is the minister who said he had so instructed. The question is why. If Rajakapashe thought there was no prima facie evidence against Rajapaksa, that is his view and it is by no means infallible like legal opinions often are. It is not for him to make that judgment and then interfere.

Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe has much to answer for. Why did he interfere in the AG’s department? Under what authority did he do so? What was the reason behind his overstepping his ministerial duties? These are some of the questions that the public would want the Justice Minister to answer now that he refuses to do what Marapana did.

The public would hope that the yahapalanaya government will unearth the truth behind this Avant Garde stink now that President Sirisena has taken control of an investigation which one hopes will be an in-depth scrutiny.