Who oppose a solution to law’s delays?

Ex-president Mahinda Rajapaksa says it is against the constitution to form a special court. Speaking to the media after a function at the BMICH in Colombo, he said courts cannot be set up as the ministers wanted.

He was referring to the draft bill that proposes to set up permanent three-member high courts and speeding up of the hearing of court cases etc.  Bar Association president U.R. de Silva, MP Dinesh Gunawardena and other parties have petitioned the Supreme Court against this draft bill. Also, 14 intervening petitions have been filed by Patali Champika Ranawaka, Dr. Harsha de Silva, Eran Wickremaratne, Ajith P. Perera, Karunaratne Paranawithana, Prof. Sarath Wijesuriya, Saman Ratnapriya, Jayadeva  Uyangoda, K.W. Janaranjana, Gamini Viyangoda and Jagath Hemachandra.

The petitioners seek a SC order to declare that the draft bill is against the constitution. President’s counsel Romesh de Silva has told the court that the draft bill should be discarded as three member high courts were nonexistent.

Our question is simple

Here, what we ask is very simple – what is wrong in it if society gets justice speedily? Opponents could cite the constitution and many other things to justify their opposition. But, one thing is clear – that all those opponents are not sensitive to our simple question.

Law’s delays have been there for a long time. It has a long history. A parliamentary committee comprising all parties was formed on this matter. It was the report of this committee that was the basis for the draft bill in question. That report says the conclusion of a criminal case with the accused being punished would take as long as 17 years. 

Therefore, a three-member high court to speed up the hearing of the cases could be opposed only if the accused are not allowed room to prove their innocence. For instance, we will be the first to oppose, before the Rajapaksas and Dinesh, if the judicial system is prepared to allow imprisonments in the manner former chief justice Shirani Bandaranayake or common candidate Sarath Fonseka were sent behind bars. We propagate the system as we believe that society should be given justice in lieu of the murders of Lasantha Wickrematunge, Wasim Thajudeen and Prageeth Ekneligoda.

What Mahinda & Dinesh are finding a problem

Ex-president Rajapaksa has a personal risk over his family with regard to this draft bill. Now, he is trying to paint it as a risk for all of us. Dinesh wants to evade the danger of this matter becoming an issue for his personal political camp. Other than that, they do not have any other issue over the speeding up of justice.

Another important thing here is that all those who support the draft bill are not protectors of social justice. There should be no undue belief on that either. What is important is the introduction of a mechanism capable of ensuring social justice and that such a mechanism will function somehow irrespective of the opposition it will face.

Sanjaya Liyanage