Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law - Deputy Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs

¶ 01 Madam Deputy Chairperson, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.

¶ 02 A few statements were presented by the Opposition in this august Assembly targeting the judiciary. What we believed in law school is that the trinity – the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive – must function on a system of checks and balances. We have looked forward to such a system for a long time. In the past, we never truly saw a balanced and checked system. As per Montesquieu’s doctrine, the true practice of separation and balance has only now come into play because, under this constitutional framework, for the first time in history, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary are functioning as three independent institutions exercising the people’s sovereign power under President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.

¶ 03 The Eighth Executive President completely turned our constitutional framework to the other side. But what did the Opposition say in this House? Especially Hon. Chamara Sampath said that today the judiciary is worse than under J.R., worse than under Premadasa, worse than under Chandrika Bandaranaike. J.R. went and threw stones at Supreme Court Judges. Has anyone in this Government ever exerted such improper influence on judges? At least during our time? Today here, Hon. Namal Rajapaksa spoke about democracy. What a democracy it was then! A Lady Judge was removed from service because she did not act on the IGP’s complaint, they said. They also claimed that the judiciary is not independent and has no chance to function independently. Who said that? Namal Rajapaksa. That is the problem. Now they say the judiciary is that bad.

¶ 04 What were the interferences during their rule? Basil Rajapaksa’s lawyer was made a Justice of the Supreme Court – a person who handled Basil’s cases. He was appointed to hear Supreme Court matters. Then, when the judgment in Basil Rajapaksa’s case was not written as desired, Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was removed saying, “That family does not write judgments like that.” After that, the former Chairman of Seylan Bank was brought and placed on the Supreme Court Bench. Those are the things they did then. Now those same people come and talk about judicial independence. Where is Namal now? This is what happens. They come here, talk and run. When questioned, they are nowhere to be found. The practice is to speak for 10 minutes, bang the desk and run away because if they stayed, they would have to listen to what we say. But they do not have the capacity or strength to listen.

¶ 05 During the UNP administration, how was judicial independence maintained? Though called SJB today, it is the same group. History records how the UNP treated Supreme Court Judges and how they interfered with the Judiciary. History also records how the Mahinda Rajapaksa camp interfered with the courts. Moreover, Supreme Court judgments are written in balance, explaining from the First to the Eighth Executive Presidents, how Executive Presidents violated the Constitution. So, with what mouth can they now speak about judicial independence? Madam Deputy Chairperson, today the Judiciary is truly functioning independently.

¶ 06 It was said here that judges were transferred without following procedure. Madam Deputy Chairperson, that is not something the Government does. Power has been vested in an independent institution. The Judicial Service Commission is a fully independent body. Article 111J states that we cannot interfere with their functions. We are truly saddened because some come here and say things that they cannot say outside and then run.

¶ 07 We should draw the Hon. Speaker’s attention to whether we can amend the Standing Orders so that matters which would be an offence outside cannot be said in this House under privilege. Otherwise, this will become an issue. What was said here, if said outside, would fall under Article 111J. So, they come here and say what they cannot say outside and then run. I say, let us allow that independent institution to act according to the decisions it takes.

¶ 08 What has happened now? We know that some judges have been interdicted. True. Some have also resigned. As I know, two judges are challenging those decisions. Now there is room to challenge; room to resign. What are they trying to do now? They are trying to blacken the Commission including the Chief Justice. If they blacken the Commission, then it becomes easy to claim the Judiciary is not independent.

¶ 09 Madam Deputy Chairperson, we do not interfere with these independent institutions. Two speakers here tried to use the Trincomalee incident as a base—