The Hon. Chithral Fernando, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on the Justice Ministry Votes and to present constructive proposals. I raised the issue of case delay and backlog; the Advisory Committee responded, noting approximately 1.1 million cases pending—this is massive and must be urgently addressed because justice delayed harms the public.

¶ 02 I draw attention to the IMF Technical Assistance Report – Governance Diagnostic Assessment (September 2023). Under Section IX: Rule of Law – (a) Case Backlog, it states: “The perception of international investors and the financial sector is that it is unattractive to do business in Sri Lanka, citing absence of a functioning judiciary as the key sticking point.” The IMF recognized that beyond macroeconomics, the justice system is an issue.

¶ 03 Under Section IX – (b) Court process delays due to caseload and lack of effective judicial administration: “The heavy workload of judges is increased by heavy court administration procedures.” This administrative burden is well known. Judges lose days to call lists. We must find solutions. It further notes: “The lack of resources in the judiciary is clear with the Ministry of Justice citing the ratio of approximately 15 judges per million population.” Though the Minister notes that figure pertains to 2015–2019, the point remains: alongside caseloads, judges are consumed by administrative tasks that could be handled by court staff so judges can adjudicate.

¶ 04 Regarding the Attorney-General’s Department, the Aluwihare Committee Report (2017/18) found the average time from offence to filing indictment in the High Court was 4 years and 7 months; from indictment to commencement of trial, about 3 years and 6 months; from commencement of evidence to judgment, about 1 year and 8 months; totaling around 10 years and 2 months to conclude. This is unacceptable and needs corrective action; we stand ready to support.

¶ 05 On rented buildings: from the last Progress Report, monthly rent figures include (for example) Rehabilitation Authority – Rs. 1.9 million per month; Colombo Permanent Tripartite High Court – Rs. 780,000 per month; and in total, about Rs. 23.86 million per month. There is also Rs. 1.4 million monthly to maintain offices for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. These are not capital expenses; they recur monthly and are a major burden.

¶ 06 Hon. Minister acknowledged these were not contracts entered under the new Government and that steps are being taken to reduce recurring expenditure, including allocating Rs. 3,500 million in the Budget for the “Adhikarana Piyasa” building to house the Ministry and departments, thereby stopping these rents expeditiously.

¶ 07 There is also a large shortfall of official quarters for judges—need about 416; only 140 available, the rest being paid for through rent. The 2024 Progress Report has not yet been tabled in the Library; I thank the Minister’s staff who assisted me with data.

¶ 08 On vacancies: the AG’s Department shows significant cadre gaps; similarly, about six Solicitor-Generals with over 30 years’ experience are due to retire; urgent recruitment and training are needed to prevent backlog resurgence. The Prisons Department has around 1,820 vacancies; the Rehabilitation Authority about 204.

¶ 09 I also raise concerns about charging fees from courthouse canteens while we pay rent for court halls. For example, in Kuliyapitiya, a simple bar canteen, improved partly with public funds and lawyers’ contributions, reportedly faces tenders of Rs. 20,000–25,000 monthly—unrealistic given low patronage. Revenue should not be extracted this way; rather, reduce costs and waste.

¶ 10 On the President’s remarks about lawyers and judicial officers fraternizing with criminals: as lawyers we are bound to represent suspects until proven guilty. It is unethical for judges to fraternize with suspects, but lawyers must be able to consult clients without intimidation or slander. I request the President and all to respect the legal profession’s role.

¶ 11 Hon. Minister, we respect you as a senior in our profession and will support constructive reforms. I was, however, saddened by certain remarks you made about one of our former leaders; you are better than that.