Columns

Justice Minister Ali Sabry’s remarks to the media about the recent controversial seminar/webinar for lower court judges and magistrates left enough loopholes to drive a couple of bull elephants through.

Either he had a bad brief or his defence was as leak-proof as a sieve. Whichever was the case, it not only left a bad taste in the mouth; it would surely have left the public with several gunny bagsful of doubts and concerns.

Mr Ali Sabry was cited as telling one website “that no one was getting involved in the work handled by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Sri Lanka Judges Institute (SLJI), certainly not the Justice Ministry”.

But here was the Justice Minister rising to the defence, so to say, of the two institutions which he virtually says should be left to their own devices and with which the Justice Ministry will certainly not be involved. This may not sound as being “involved in the work”, if by ‘work’ is meant their substantive responsibilities.

But Minister Ali Sabry has involved himself by making comments about the seminar and its aftermath. Perhaps the minister’s venture into an area which he himself declared ‘verboten’ to the justice ministry as to others, arose when parliamentarian Anura Kumar Dissanayake raised the issue in the House and the minister undertook to inquire into what appeared to be highly controversial happenings at what was apparently an occasion to “train” judges.

If he had stopped at that we could have awaited with breathtaking anticipation for his revelations that were to follow from his promised inquiry. But no, he decided to speak to the media and make comments that seemed much like a mitigation of whatever seemed extraneous to any lessons taught about the pandemic.

That is what aroused the ire of judicial officers and resulted in the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) itself writing a letter to Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, Chairman of JSC. That letter is revealing, for it reminds some of the sitting justices of the highest appellate court who attended the seminar, some fundamental principles of justice and the rule of law.

“Litigants and their Attorneys-at-Law should have the confidence that judicial officers are free to decide cases on their own merits and not based on any other consideration. These, as Your Lordships are well aware, are fundamental aspects of judicial independence and the Rule of Law,” the BASL stated.

The fact that the premier body of attorneys-at-law was led to address a letter to the Chief Justice himself expressing “deep concern” at media reports on what was said to have transpired at the seminar is tantamount to influencing, if not pressuring, judicial officers to act in a manner that trespasses on their independence and what should be their unhindered right to decide a case on its merits free of influence from political, judicial or any other source.

It is this turn of events at the seminar, which appeared to be intended to enlighten lower court judges on how to conduct judicial proceedings during this pandemic and perhaps on the pandemic itself, that sparked off the controversy.

Lest some readers missed this drama which first received publicity two days before the ‘training’ session was held on 13th August, the JSC reportedly sent out a notification to all lower court judges and magistrates.

In that the secretary of the JSC said “I have been further directed by the commission (JSC) to inform you that failure to participate at this seminar will be taken into consideration when recommendations are made for promotions, annual salary increments, foreign training and appointment to the High Court”.

Space restrictions require I abridge this column. So I cannot raise all the issues I intended to. But there are some salient points that cannot be ignored because they are the heart and soul of this controversy.

The ball is now in Justice Minister Al Sabry’s court to clear the air in a week or two when he comes to state what conclusions he reached from the inquiry. Would he dismiss the media reports as “fake news” as politicians and officials do these days?

Or would he stand by his comment to the media- “I think that no one should get involved and tell judges how they should hear cases”.

There are other questions I would love to ask. But let’s hear what the minister tells parliament first.

(Neville de Silva is a veteran
Sri Lankan journalist who was Assistant Editor of the Hong Kong Standard before working in London for Gemini News Service. Later he was Deputy Chief-of-Mission in Bangkok and Deputy High Commissioner in London).