24th October 1999

Will AG's Dept. glow againwith dignity?

By Mudliyar

The appointment of the Attorney General, many discerning people felt, would go the same way as other appointments which are being challenged before the Supreme Courts.

When President's Counsel K. C. Kamalasabesan was finally appointed, there was a sigh of relief in Hulftsdorf, and I have yet to come across anyone, even a rabid chauvinist and myopic jingoist inhibited with religious fundamentalism, who would whisper any ill-will or cast any aspersions against the appointment. It is said that the Attorney-General's Department of late was politicized to such an extent that it virtually became the political office of the ruling party.

Siva Pasupathy was an Attorney-General who tried not to succumb to pressure brought to bear upon him and the Department by politicians in power. When he was the Attorney General, he refused to indict Lalith Athulathmudali in an acid throwing case. The then Director of Public Prosecutions, Ranjith Abeysuriya who was in-charge of the criminal section of the Attorney-General's Department, after having carefully studied the brief, was of the view that there was sufficient evidence to indict Mr. Athulathmudali with the alleged offence. Felix Dias Bandaranaike who wielded insurmountable power during Sirimavo Bandaranaike's government, was keen to prosecute a young rising star of the UNP political firmament. Indicting Mr. Athulathmudali would be sufficient to discredit the UNP to a great extent.

But Mr. Pasupathy was firm. He expressed in no uncertain terms that he would not forward an indictment, as he was not satisfied with the material before him. The calibre of Mr. Pasupathy, and his esteem in the profession were such that no one doubted his independence, integrity and impartiality, so that one of the most powerful justice ministers ever could not cajole the Attorney-General from doing what he thought ought to be done.

His opinion was respected. The indictment was dropped. Mr. Athulathmudali became a prominent minister of the UNP government. The wheel of fate turned when the UNP introduced the most infamous legislation — the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry Act. Felix R. Dias Bandaranaike was disenfranchised.

The wheel of fate changed once again. Mr. Athulathmudali was expelled from the UNP and succumbed to the gun shot wounds of a terrorist. Both Felix Dias Bandaranaike and Lalith Athulathmudali may have aspired to lead the country, but fate intervened. Mr. Pasupathy is now abroad leading a quiet retired life.

Sunil Silva became Attorney-General after the retirement of Siva Pasupathy, and allegedly became a tool in the hands of politicians and had to leave the Department under circumstances where even the Bar had to question the prosecution of Wijedasa Liyanarachchi .

The Attorney-General's Department took a downward trend. It is under these trying circumstances that Solicitor General Kamalasabesan, has been appointed as the Attorney-General by the President. The question of his appointment was hanging in the balance. Various names were bandied about. Some aspirants did everything possible to supersede the Solicitor-General.

We are happy that saner counsel has prevailed. We had reasonable fears and apprehensions that the incumbent Attorney-General would not be permitted to use his office in the interests of the country.

As I said earlier there was a sigh of relief when Mr. Kamalasabesan has appointed as the Attorney-General. How has Mr. Kamalasabesan earned the reputation as a fair minded prosecutor? Is it something he displayed as a prelude before being appointed as Acting Attorney-General? The answer is an emphatic no.

Mr. Kamalasabesan displayed these qualities even as a young state counsel. This is what the Supreme Court said in 1976. Tennakoon C.J.: "Mr. .Kamalasabeson, State Counsel, who appeared for the first and second respondents quite properly expressed the view that he was unable to support the order made by the first and second respondents."

In Karrundasa vs Unique Gem Stones Ltd the Supreme Court said "But that does not end the matter. The legal position was not clearly appreciated and the parties do not seem to have realized the need to invite the Court of Appeal to call for and examine the record and the recommendation. In the course of the hearing in this Court, Mr. . Kamalasabeson tendered copies of the recommendation made by the third respondent and undertook to make the second respondent's file available whenever required. The first respondent consented, in the interest of justice, to the case being re-heard by the Court of Appeal, after calling for and examining the record and the recommendation. I make order accordingly. There will be no costs. I must place on record our appreciation of the manner in which Mr. . Kamalasabesan assisted this Court." And in Mahanama Tillekeratna's case, this is what Justice Dheeraratne said 'Learned Solicitor General who appeared for the fourth respondent with his customary fairness, submitted that it is settled law that the arresting officer should be able to justify an arrest on one or more of the grounds set out in subsection 32(1)(b) and that in the instant case there did not appear to be any justification for the first respondent to arrest the petitioner. "

Our sincere hope and prayer is that Mr. Kamalasabesan will continue to display his intrinsic fairness, which he has done up to the time of his appointment with great decorum and dignity.

Reflections

Editorial/ Opinion Contents