Columns

It’s not often fortune falls upon Lankan Presidents to bless them with the opportunity to appoint a chief justice to the Supreme Bench not once, not twice, not even thrice but four times during his first tenure in office.  And all within not even four years at the helm. One Chief Justice per year, so to speak, being the average. What a scorecard Sirisena holds in his hands. And one that’s unsullied.

L to r: Former Chief Justices Sripavan and Priyasath Dep and new Chief Justice Nalin Perera

The first president under the present constitution J. R. Jayewardene could only score two and that was during ten years in office as President. Neville Samarakoon was appointed by JR when the latter was Prime Minister in 1977 and thus that doesn’t count for the present record. Premadasa scored two. Wijetunga ended with a nil. Even Chandrika managed only one with the appointment of the disastrous Sarath Silva whose controversial appointment led to an impeachment resolution being brought against him, which lapsed only due to Parliament being dissolved before the general elections.

Mahinda Rajapaksa had only one to talk of during his first term of office and had to wait till two years had passed in his second term to appoint G.L. Peiris protégé and legal academic Shiranie Bandaranayake in 2011 until she turned turtle in the Divinaguma case, went out of favour and a politically motivated impeachment resolution was brought against her and she was forced out of office.

The former president said last week that there was nothing wrong in getting her out of Hulftsdorp Hill and that it was done lawfully and according to the constitution. That’s true. No quarrel about that. But it’s not the legality of the impeachment that the people questioned then and even do not do now. It’s the political motive behind it. One, the then president was able to realise, commanding as he did, a two-thirds majority in the House. So with Asoka de Silva and Shiranie Bandaranayake, two notches to Mahinda score.

Actually three, if you count the appointment of Mohan Peiris, the then President’s legal advisor, who was appointed by Mahinda to succeed the impeached Shiranie. But after he was declared as having being nothing more than a phantom of the Supreme Court no sooner Sirisena was elected in 2015, he doesn’t count and his name expunged from the record books for having being an imposter. So for Rajapaksa the tally is only two.

That leaves Sirisena far ahead of the field with four to his credit. And, if there’s one blessed thing that he has done during these past four years, it is to have used all the four chances that presented before him to appoint the nation’s chief justice with great sagacity:  To have chosen the best for the task, irrespective of his own political agenda. To have restored the independence of the judiciary and salvaged the respect from the depths, to which, in the public eye, it seemed to have fallen during Rajapaksa times.

First was the reinstatement of the Rajapaksa government’s impeached Chief Justice Shiranie Bandaranayake. It was attended with some controversy but riding, as Sirisena did as the newly elected president on the crest wave of victory, the current of opposition weakened and died, especially since Bandaranayake’s appointment was only for a day — sworn today gone tomorrow — and was viewed as a mere cosmetic appointment to make amends for the injustice she had suffered during the previous regime which, incidentally, had appointed her to the topmost post in the apex court  in great expectation that she knew the code and would deliver the goods whenever ordained to do so. When her conscience dictated otherwise and she failed to provide the flowers as ordered, it was kaput for her and a funeral wreath to mourn her demise was dispatched to the entire judiciary, lest they didn’t get the message.  One more obedient to heed his master’s voice was the replacement.

But the trilogy that followed thereafter stands to Sirisena’s everlasting credit and has contributed in immense measure to restore public respect and confidence in the independence of the judiciary. Sirisena may have failed in many aspect, but one must give credit where credit is due.

After having deftly got rid of the Mohan Peiris anomaly by expunging his name from the Supreme Court records and its precedents; after having paid state recompense to Shiranie Bandaranayake for the injustice done unto her, the time dawned for the new President to make his choice as to who would be the Chief Justice. He chose wisely opting the safe path of appointing the most senior Supreme Court Justice Sripavan to be the incarnate apex fount of law and justice.

Bandaranayake had been sworn in as Chief Justice on January 28th 2015. And she retired the day after. On January 30th, Kanagasabapathy J. Sripavan, an old boy of Jaffna Hindu College, was sworn in as the 44th Chief Justice of Lanka. After lapse of twenty five years, he was the first chief justice to be appointed from the minority Tamil community. But Sirisena did not let race stand in his choice, in the same way religion had stood in Chandrika’s way when she bowed to Buddhist pressure and chose Sarath Silva over the Catholic Mark Fernando, a choice which must still haunt her and stalk her dreams and be a source of endless regret.

After an unblemished record as the supreme holder of the nation’s scales of justice, Chief Justice Sripavan retired from office on February 28th 2017, the day before his 65th birthday. His period in office: Two years and a month.

Unlike in 2015 when the President’s appointment of Justice Siripavan was automatic, the 19th Amendment that Sirisena had enacted in April 2015, demanded that the President could only nominate and the nomination had to be approved by the Constitutional Council. But here, too, the President’s nomination faced no bar, for the President had made the right choice again: that he will go strictly on seniority or merit. The name forwarded to the Council for approval was Justice Priyasath Dep.  The Council needed no time to rubber stamp the President’s choice. It was given its seal of approval. For Justice Dep’s credentials were impeccable, beyond question.

Justice Dep, the son of a Deputy Inspector of Police, is an old boy of St. Joseph’s College, Colombo. He not only excelled in his studies in the class room but also displayed his sporting prowess in the sporting field, winning his spurs in athletics, rugby and soccer.

After doing his stint at the Law College, he was called to the Bar in 1976. Two years later he joined the Attorney General’s Department and steadily rose in the ranks to be appointed in 2011 as a judge of the Supreme Court. Sirisena nominated him to be the Chief Justice upon Justice Sripavan’s retirement and the Constitutional Council accepted it without murmur.

His tenure as Chief Justice was also without a single blemish. And when he retired this month on reaching the age of retirement at the age of 65 this October, he had served as chief justice for only one year and eight months.

The eulogy read out by the Registrar of the Judicial Service Commission which echoed throughout the nation must rank as one of the greatest tributes paid to a man in these trying time of corruption we live in.

What the Registrar said was that the retiring Chief Justice Dep was one who had never ever accepted a duty free vehicle as he was entitle to as a judge, never accepted a land gifted by the government in recognition of his services as a judge; and whenever he went abroad on official business, returned the money given as an advance for his personal expenses to the last cent.

That’s how the former Chief Justice retained his independence and became the pride of the nation.  And more. It’s a moral lesson, he set as example for others to follow. From the President, to all  the Ministers of his cabinet, to  deputy and state ministers and down to the ministry secretaries and other public servants.

What a shame that Chief Justice Dep could not have held the scales of justices for a little longer. For such men are hard to find in today’s Lanka. The only consolation we have is that such men still do exist in the land.

And President Sirisena found such a man to succeed Justice Dep in Justice Nalin Perera. After Parinda Ranasinghe who was appointed in 1988 by J.R. Jayewardene, Nalin Perera was one who had risen from the ranks, like a lotus from the mire, to bloom in the Supreme Court sun without a single spot of blemish on his petals.

Again Sirisena had made the right choice. And it hardly took a half day’s work for the Constitutional Council to meet and unanimously approve the nomination.

On October 12, Justice Nalin Perera took his oaths before the President and became the 46th Chief Justice of Lanka. The welcome speech given by him at the ceremonial sitting this Monday serves to inspire faith and hope in the independence of the judiciary under his watch.  To quote a few paras from the moving speech he made that day:

“We live in a world where people almost by default expect those in power to misuse the same. We are taken by surprise if those in power actually make true their promises.         Public often  assume that speeches such as this are merely sugar coated and loaded with empty words outside of real commitment. In a society like this we are almost programmed to look at each other with mistrust and much more at those who hold power in positions. As such I am aware that all of this makes it difficult for the general public to look to the judiciary in trust, expecting an independent and just solution.

“In my 38 years long and challenging journey in the judiciary, I have constantly sensed the tension between two ends that any conscientious judge will need to strike a balance. One end being the need to humbly integrate with society as a real man with real sorrows and weaknesses; and the other being the need to keep my arms-length in such a way that personal favours are not encouraged or accommodated in my office as a judge. While this peculiar tension is not always pleasant, I believe it is something that all judges should learn to handle well with wisdom, humility and non-compromise in the normal course of life.

“And to this reality I speak today. I understand some may find it hard to believe that ‘I’ stand here without a political bias or favoritism or a secret strategic personal agenda that brought me here.

“Nevertheless, I truly hope that my tenure in this position will disapprove the same to you, if it has not been sufficiently gathered from my journey of 38years through the judicial service. I hope that I could be a beacon of hope to those who have been silently and honestly persevering in administering justice.”

And then he delivered the sermon from the Hulftsdorp mount:

Quoting Chapter and Verse, he revealed his own strong belief in justice and evoked the primordial sense of justice that is inherent in every human breast when born.

He said: “As in His book ‘Judges’ (1987) David Pannick affirms, judges are asked to perform a function that is truly divine.

“The Holy Bible brings out this idea in the following way: I quote from 2 Chronicles 19:6-7:

‘Consider carefully what you do, because you are not judging for mere mortals but for the Lord, who is with you whenever you give a verdict. Now let the fear of the Lord be on you. Judge carefully, for with the Lord our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.”

He said: ‘Judges therefore may do well to realise and remember the seriousness of their vocation even before God. For if their office was meant to serve such a high cause, then the failure to rightfully do so on their part constitutes a grave offence.’

And declared: “It is indeed when truth alone triumphs in courts that we can expect people to have faith in the judicial system. As such the integrity of officers functioning in the administration of justice becomes a must. The actual good faith of judges and therefore the ability of the society to rest securely on the same is the bedrock of a successful judicial system. This truth makes the officers in this field strongly bound by a demand for the deepest form of personal and professional integrity.”

And gave a warning to the rest in the judiciary: “Therefore, if there is any doubt about the integrity of such officers, the Chief Justice bears the responsibility to take necessary action so as to ensure that the system of justice remains unpolluted. And to this end I am deeply committed.”

And also advised the judiciary to be frugal in the manner the former Chief Justice had shown by example stating: No longer remain any grounds for complaints about the lack of privileges given to judges. The Government has done much in this regard. Therefore, let us work — and work hard.”

And added: “The Holy Bible affirms that “When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers” (Proverbs 21:15).

And wound his speech, holding it as his personal testament: “And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love, mercy and to walk humbly with your God. And to this end I commit myself.”

This is not the election promise of a politician on the make to take. This is the sworn, sacred testimony of the new Chief Justice of the Supreme upon whose words we can nail our greatest faith and confidence. In his speech, the new Chief Justice showed that all is not lost, that with him and the Justices Siripavan and Dep who preceded him, we have still men of such sterling calibre to inspire us all to rise anew to a new dawn of hope.

Except for one thing. One that baffles the mind. Why is it that in these last ten years has the life of a chief justice been so short?

Of course it’s to do with the retirement age limit. But such a pity, isn’t it, that after bringing with them the accumulated wisdom, maturity and experience gained in their ascent to Hulftsdorp Hill only to be nipped  in its bloom and waste their  sagacious fragrance in the legal air?

Perhaps, it’s time that the Government did a rethink on increasing the age limit of Chief Justices, at least to the age of seventy, if only to extract from them the honey of their wisdom rather than sentence them to graze the grass in the knackers’ yard where all the erudite, the wise and the honourable end to nibble on the grass and ask the question whether all  their efforts were worth the sacrifice?

And now, even as news flow of a dramatic change at this  late night hour on Friday, newly appointed Chief Justice Nalin Perera should brace himself to whether the storm that will surely blow in his direction and test his mettle to the utmost at the altar of constitutional  faith. The faith he has sworn on the Bible of his faith.  How he will bear the cross he had so recently been condemned to bear will determine whether the nation will survive the tortuous Calvary or end nailed on the cross.