Sarath Silva in the hot seat
Posted on January 12th, 2010
C. Wijeyawickrema, LL.B, Ph.D.
The Daily Mirror interview of Sarath Silva by Diane de Silva reveals the extent to which a former Chief Justice can go in playing the game of distorting and twisting facts because of his personal anger against a village man who became a successful president. He hoped Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR) would be a Sakra Deyyyo! Whatever has happened to Sarath SilvaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s legal training based on logic and reason? The unreasonable excuses that he gave to justify his decision to work against MR makes one wonder if he has also become a victim of an IC plan to try to make a regime change in Sri Lanka with the aim of destabilizing the country and to punish MR for the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-return-humiliationƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ given to the former white colonial masters who continued humiliation (Asians are barbarians and God wanted the white man to civilize these lazy people) as a strategy to exploit former colonies. Then as well as now, white agents have implemented this strategy using local black-white agents as catƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s paw. Sarath is a known black white who thought that law must be taught in English at the Law College.
When you read the following itemized list you cannot think he made genuine mistakes, not knowing the facts.
He says what made him decide that MR should be removed was the government ignoring his decision to reduce petrol price by 40 rupees. Instead, it was reduced only by 2 rupees. He says it was not only a violation of the CourtƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s decision but was an insult to the Court. He says the price was now reduced by 15 rupees which means that it could have been done then as he ordered. The order was made to help the poor people, he says. But Sarath was silent about the price of fertilizer sold to famers, and SC was not supposed to get into price control business.
I would not approve bringing PB Jayasundara back to government service, but it was possible because the court did the donkeyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s job without asking the dog to do the job. The court should have referred PBJƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s crimes to his employer instead of stepping into employerƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s shoes. It was this technical mistake that allowed a loop hole to PBJƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s return.
Sarath Silva did not realize that his job is to interpret the law and not to implement the law. After making this mistake of getting into politics Sarath had to face a humiliating political rebuff. For this he should not feel insulted as it was due to his own unnecessary involvement in other peopleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s affairs. Deciding oil price was not a job for the SC.
A funny thing that I noticed at his interview was his use of I did this and I did that mode as if he was the SC. It is like the other Sarath saying I won the war, I killed Prbakaran with weapons imported by Chandrika. Yes, he was its CJ but he cannot say he did or judge x, y or z did it. It was collective use of judicial power of the state or the people. In the case of USA, time periods of its Supreme Court are expressed as Burger Court, Warren Court etc. using the name of the respective CJ. But that did not mean that a particular CJ personally gave the decisions or claim ownership of running the battalion.
Sarath says that MR opposed the demerger of NP and EP and he was the one who did it. Again, it was as if he had countervailing facts to dismiss the logical arguments made by the petitionersƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ lawyers, H.L.de Silva, S.L. Gunasekera and Gomin Dayasiri. Again, as if he was the owner of the SC to say that he demerged N and E. If he on his own activated the inherent powers of the SC to render this decision, only then he can claim that he did it.
He says MR opposed the demerger because the Attorney General wanted to dismiss the petition. The petitionersƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ complained against the GOSL. Whatever was his personal position at that time, MR cannot tell the AG to not defend the government. Legal systems do not function that way. So Sarath is using this situation to now say that he wanted the demerger but MR wanted the merger. Was that a reason for Sarath to now support or open up the topic with TNA separatists on whether the re-merger should be judicially examined?
Sarath is for the restoration of democracy and parliamentary supremacy. But he knows very well that whatever little value representative democracy had in Ceylon/Sri Lanka was taken away by JRJ-RPremadasa twins with a new system of elections. Any tinkering of the JRJƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s bahubootha thing will not restore anything but further increase chaos and destabilize the country, justifying a military junta.
Who select the members of the CC under 17-A? It will be the jokers who became MPs from the party bosses list prepared in Colombo offices. The CC will be a political agency sabotaging presidentƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s plans of action. We saw how Jayadeva Uyangoda became the saint needed for a saintly CC. The solution is therefore, not 17-A, but junk the JRJ thing and prepare a new constitution similar to the 1947 Constitution.
Sarath now says the Executive presidency will not be abolished. Instead its powers will be reduced until such time a new constitution is approved. For example, he says that the president will not be allowed to take ministries under him. But Sarath F says he is going to keep at least five key ministries with him such as education, finance and security. So what will happen? Who is right? Sarath S or Sarath F? What will happen in between until the new constitution is ready?
After watching Sarath in hot seat I am fully convinced that this Sarath-Sarath-RanilW-JVP project is nothing but an international colonial plot against the 2500-year old heritage of Sri Lanka which MR saved from destruction, against all odds, on May 18, 2009. The western plot to project Sarath F as the proverbial Prince Diyasena, who came to politics to save the island from the Rajapaksa family has already failed because of badmouthing by the principal actor and some TNA separatists. It can be called the second Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in Sri Lanka. Sarath Silva in his Daily Mirror interview revealed that he cannot even be a shadow (cardboard) Diyasena kumaraya helper!
I say MR is a gem in the mud because I do not support him blindly. I support MR because as in 2005, Sri Lanka can be saved only by MR in 2010. Yes, he made lot of civilian political mistakes. But he had to operate in a prison created by Prabakaran and the previous PMs and Presidents. Tamil terrorists have infiltrated even the PresidentƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s office and residence, and it was in such dire conditions that he saved the country. Saraths can go to Jaffna exposing their belly buttons and surgical wounds because of the political leadership given by MR.
Basil Rajapaksa handled the East and North reconstruction the way General Marshall handled post-Hitler Europe. But the Basil model was not suitable for the south. He cannot be the person with thousand eyes and hands. The delegation of powers and utilization of honest and non-political public servants were neglected by Basil. The corruption trioƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚politician, public servant, NGOƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚capitalized on this and made lot of money, and now Basil is blamed for all that. But, that is no reason to not give a chance to MR again as he has the potential to begin a second war against corruption. Most importantly, the two virgins (Sarath and Sarath) are not virgins, and are agents of white colonialism.
January 14th, 2010 at 1:22 am
I listened to the interview because I wished to hear, at first hand, what the ex Chief Justice had to say during it. And, frankly, I was disappointed. The responses he gave were not what I had expected from ‘a learned judge’, someone who had held the high position of CJ. In part, they were not very convincing and sometimes inconsistent.
The ex CJ recalled how former candidates seeking the Presidency, like Mrs Kumaratunge, had also said they would abolish the Executive Presidency but that the public did not believe them because they were candidates in a hard fought election. But the ex CJ is prepared to believe that when Sarath Fonseka gives a similar undertaking, he can be trusted to keep his word, because he is not contesting as a candidate from any political party. What curious logic. This is hardly convincing. Earlier the ex CJ had said how he at first welcomed the election of Mahinda Rajapakse as President and hoped for good things from him but he was to be disappointed. Given that experience, how can he be so trusting of Sarath Fonseka? They are old sayings – ‘the burnt child dreads the fire’ and ‘once bitten twice shy’. Clearly, they don’t seem to apply to our learned ex CJ!
The ex CJ went on to tell us about the need to have suitable ‘checks and balances’ to prevent abuses of power and for the proper functioning of a democracy. This is hardly ‘rocket science’ I learned this in the SSC as part of the Civics course. What is significant is that the ex CJ did not say HOW exactly they propose to establish these. He said, in this connection, ‘we will have to reduce’ the powers of the Executive President. (whom he meant by ‘we’ was not clear). He also said that the Judiciary should be empowered to check the institutions of President and Parliament. I am not sure that this is ideal. My understanding is that what good government demands is a separation of powers – not a meddlesome judiciary. Indeed, the judiciary should in some sense be ‘removed’ from the other two institutions.
When clarification was sought by the interviewer, the ex CJ conceded that what Sarath Fonseka plans to do is only to REDUCE the powers of the Executive Presidency – to reform NOT abolish the Office. The ex CJ said, rightly, that Sarath Fonseka cannot tell himself, ‘I abolish myself’. Exactly. And that is what all sensible people with even an ounce of common sense appreciate only too well. And that is why they ask themselves how it is possible to believe a man who says he wants to be the Executive President so that he may abolish that Office! How suicidal can you get? The ex CJ then went on to say that the ‘concept of abolition’ of the Presidency actually means ‘limitation of powers’ but that because it takes a lot of words to explain, it is said that the proposal is to ABOLISH the Executive Presidency. Now, to me this is grossly misleading – clearly less than honest. And it would seem that the ex CJ is not uncomfortable with this – the fact that Sarath Fonseka holds out that, if elected, he will ABOLISH the Executive Presidency when in fact what he intends doing is a lot LESS than that. Tut! Tut! It bothers me that someone who talked a great deal about democracy and transparency and governance, can accept this situation.
The ex CJ said he was not seeking any high office under a Fonseka administration, merely that he’d like a meaningful role to bring about needed change. But he went on to say he envisages a role that goes beyond that of an adviser. “I will perform” (in whatever role he gets) is what he said. If we are to take the gentleman at his word, he’d be “performing” in some humble, lowly capacity. How one can play a ‘meaningful role’ in that fashion, one can only imagine.
One thing was clear during the interview – the former CJ is not without a substantial ego. He said that some significant cases had been decided in his court and “people kept coming to my Court “he proudly declared, to demonstrate how much confidence people had in him. Indeed, some landmark decisions were delivered by the court during his tenure of office and for that he is due appropriate credit. But he must be ingenuous to think that people came to his court only because of him. He cannot be unaware that people have been coming to the Supreme Court before he was CJ and will continue to do so because of the faith they have in the institution and the legal system – not necessarily because of the incumbent CJ.
Traditionally, the CJ has steered cleared of politics even after leaving office, so helping to preserve the high esteem in which the office of CJ is held. I am not sure that Sarath Silva has done himself personally or the office he has so recently vacated much good with his decision to actively involve himself in sectarian politics. And I wonder how much good he has done, with his intervention, to the General’s campaign.
It has been said that a man is judged by the company he keeps. Sarath Fonseka has seen fit to count as his friends the JVP and the UNP. The recent history of these parties has been pathetic and they are not the sort of friends whose company will reflect well on the General. Will counting the ex CJ as a friend reflect better on the General? One wonders.