The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees, I am pleased to join this debate under the Justice Ministry on Orders made under the Foreign Judgments Act. While we accept foreign judgments under law, we must also safeguard respect for our judiciary’s independence.

¶ 02 I have consistently spoken here about protecting the independence of judges and injustices they face. Under previous governments, favourites were promoted; even Presidents summoned judges or the AG to discuss their own cases. We hoped this Government would be different. Unfortunately, similar patterns are emerging.

¶ 03 On assuming office, this Government targeted Justice Bandula Karunarathna, then President of the Court of Appeal, threatening an impeachment with 114 signatures but then sending him on pre‑retirement leave instead—why? A deal? While he remained on leave, an acting President of the Court of Appeal was appointed—an unprecedented move—and Hon. Mohamed Laffar was overlooked repeatedly for elevation to the Supreme Court, despite seniority. By 15 December 2024, there were four SC vacancies. After Mr. Karunarathna went on leave, the expected seniority path should have seen Sobhitha Rajakaruna, then Menaka Wijesundara, then Mohamed Laffar elevated. Instead, Laffar was sidelined; later, Sampath Wijeratne was appointed. We believe Laffar’s ruling against the Council of Legal Education on Law College admissions displeased the Chief Justice, and that is why he is blocked.

¶ 04 Last Friday, the Constitutional Council received a recommendation from the Presidential Secretariat to appoint Laffar. Yet our Leader of the House, Hon. Bimal Ratnayake, reportedly withdrew it. Why was it withdrawn? Today, Laffar retires without reaching the Supreme Court, a grave injustice to a respected judge.

¶ 05 Separately, on prisons and pardons: a circular dated 01.05.2025 was issued about Vesak special pardons. It sought lists by 06.05 with criteria such as seven‑day remissions, non‑payment of fines, and age‑based remissions. However, in the case of one Athula Tilakaratne at Anuradhapura, a court ordered Rs. 2 million compensation, and for non‑payment, a fine of Rs. 20,000 with six months’ imprisonment in default under Penal Code s.386 (criminal breach of trust). Instead of standard processing—assigning prisoner numbers and handling remission—there are irregularities. Similar transfers between courts (e.g., Galgamuwa/Kekirawa to Warakapola) show confusion. The long‑standing concept of general amnesty (distinct from Presidential pardons) appears effectively abolished, leaving only ad hoc Presidential clemency. Now officers from the Prisons Department to CID are being hauled up and blamed due to flawed circulars. Please stop this chaos and restore proper procedure.

¶ 06 Thank you.