Editorial

The Government’s decision to proceed on the recommendations of what were blatantly biased findings of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) calling for blanket withdrawals of corruption related and other criminal cases now before court, betrays a dangerous mindset prevailing among the country’s political leadership.

The COI opined that certain cases filed by the Bribery Commission and the Attorney General against members of the present Government were ‘politically motivated’, and therefore, the accused ought to be discharged from proceedings with a ‘nolle prosecui’ (no further prosecution). For the Government to buy that line may have been its original intention when it appointed a puppet COI, but it is not just a flagrant tinkering with the Constitution and the tenets of a modern democratic state, it is a bad joke!

If any of the suspects now before court feel they were politically victimised, and they might well have been, their only recourse was to defend their cases before whom they have been indicted and be vindicated. This attempt to bypass what is before court by a Parliamentary motion – whether it is binding or not, is setting a dangerous precedent that tests the already questionable commitment of the Government to the Rule of Law, Independence of the Judiciary and the Attorney General, and the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers.

When the COI report was in the public domain unofficially, there was a howl of horrified protests at the manner in which it had conducted its business and the recommendations it had made. Government voices, especially its lawyers including the Minister of Justice must have themselves blushed at the uproar that was created. Instead of waiting till the findings were challenged and tested in court, the Government’s ‘brainwave’ has been to bring a resolution before Parliament to circumvent such a challenge.

Just this week, the Minister asked that aspersions not be cast on the Government for delaying indictments against those involved in the Easter Sunday 2019 bombings saying that this job was for the Attorney General, not the Government.

Article 4 (c) of the prevailing Constitution (until such time as it is amended or revoked) states that the Judicial Powers of the sovereign People ‘shall’ be exercised through courts, tribunals and institutions established by law. The exception being in matters relating to the privileges of MPs and the powers of Parliament. There is no law that gives Parliament the power to interfere with pending court cases. Long-held Parliamentary tradition goes further in that no pending case before a court of law is discussed in Parliament.

Article 111C goes on to prescribe interference with the Judiciary as an offence. This extends the argument to whether the COI is therefore in infringement of the Constitution. This COI was a fact-finding body and the law under which it is established (Act No. 17 of 1948) gives it no power to interfere with court cases or indeed, steps taken by the Attorney General in that regard.

Furthermore, Section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the law that applies to withdrawal of indictments before a court. This can only be done by the Attorney General in agreement with the respective sitting judge. Historically, even the courts have been reluctant to interfere with this extraordinary power vested with the Attorney General.

Not all past Attorney Generals were paragons of professional virtue. Don’t we know of cases where the then Minister of Justice asked the then AG to file indictments even when there was “no case” to prosecute, and other instances where indictments were withdrawn, or cases ‘crashed’ by the AG on a political diktat.  The Supreme Court has developed the law in recent years to have the right to consider whether the AG’s indictment has been executed “properly”, i.e. without bias and undue political influence. That right must remain vested solely with the Supreme Court — not Parliament.

The current exercise is going to the extreme in making a mockery of Government and the Rule of Law when MPs who are indicted before court raise their hands to vote “Aye” to withdraw a case against them in court.

Climate change: Lanka must play its part

While the entire world is grappling with the immediate challenge of tackling a resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic that is ravaging nation after nation with new waves and new variants of the virus, it was refreshing to see world leaders had not lost sight of the future.

Earth Day was marked with the US making a statement that the country that produces 15 percent of the world’s carbon emissions contributing to global warming and climate change was back on board in meeting targets towards carbon neutrality. The previous US Administration dismissed climate change as a hoax, the same way it did the COVID-19 virus. The results from the reckless latter course are there to be seen in the US while the disastrous policy on the global campaign for a cleaner planet is fortunately being recalibrated before it is too late.

There may be some element of international power play involved in the US initiative to have a global virtual summit this week with the world’s worst polluting nations – the US, China, India and the industrialised West engaged along with the worst victims from Bangladesh and African states suffering through floods, droughts and extreme temperatures.

Yet, the US President said this was a ‘decisive decade’ to “overcome the existential crisis of our time”. China and India made no specific promises to meet targets set by various international protocols from Kyoto to Paris to Glasgow. Interestingly, however, the Chinese leader said his country was aiming to be a coal-free nation in the future. China has much to gain by futuristic carbon neutral policies like electric cars. Much of the minerals required for such components are found in China. Coal fired energy plants are some of the biggest pollutants of the atmosphere, but how is it that China has no qualms about exporting coal plants to countries like Sri Lanka. Norochcholai has seen a ‘dirty plant’ here — not only riddled with corrupt kickbacks, but constantly breaking down. Now there are plans to expand it.

In Sri Lanka, recent instances of deforestation, plans to rape the Sinharaja Reserve, rampant sand mining and the like have been much debated and criticised but plans on a sustainable platform for clean, renewable energy are torpedoed by ‘energy mafias’. The Government should realise the dangers of wearing blinkers to the prospect of climate change. Like the coronavirus, these are not issues to easily wish away, or to tackle in splendid isolation from the rest of the world.