|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Tuesday, 19 October 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
To mark the 4th death anniversary: Imposition of civic disability on Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike - a monumental political mistake by Prof. W. A. Wiswa Warnapala
Sri Lanka's electoral process since 1956 has displayed unique features and the Sri Lankan masses have demonstrated a political maturity and a skill in using the right to vote and the Sri Lankan experience in changing government at periodical elections is unique for a country practising parliamentary democracy. In the Sri Lankan experience, governments have succeeded governments as a result of sharp national electoral swings, and this could be easily attributed to the direct consequence of the universal franchise of 1931, obtained perhaps for the first time by any former British Colonial country. The 1977 July general election in Sri Lanka witnessed a landslide victory for the United National Party (UNP), reducing the SLFP representation in Parliament to negligible proportion and the left wing parties, which continuously maintained a representation in Parliament since 1948, were reduced to naught.
The UNP government, armed with an easy two third majority, made use of this majority to set up several commissions to investigate the former ministers of the SLFP regime; the appointment of the Commissions of Inquiry to investigate matters of public concern had become a familiar phenomenon in Sri Lankan politics. It was thought that such investigations would enable people to form proper judgement on matters of public concern and thereby to guarantee confidences in the working of public institutions and the conduct of public men. Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the then Leader of the Opposition, when the appointment of the Special Presidential Commission was mooted, welcomed it on the ground that it genuiningly helped to inform the public of certain facts and circumstances that were unknown to them at the time of their occurrence. It was her view that such advantages and benefits could be achieved only when such inquiries were free from any partisan political interest; in addition such an inquiry needs to be conducted with absolute impartiality. It was for this reason that Mrs. Bandaranaike who, being a charismatic politician with a formidable following in the country, fearlessly welcomed the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry and expressed her willingness to participate in an independent and unbiased inquiry. The strategy of the UNP and its arrogant leadership of the post - 1977 period was entirely different and it, with a view to thwarting the parliamentary opposition of the country, wanted to convert the Commission of Inquiry into an instrument of political revenge. The government of the UNP, on the other hand, shrewdly recognized its potentiality as an instrument for a very different purpose, namely, the cold blooded liquidation of chosen political opponents of the calibre of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike who still could mobilize the Sri Lankan masses to challenge the new regime. It was with that objective in view that the UNP made use of the massive majority in parliament to enact the Special Presidential Commission Law in March 1978, and the Law was amended again in the same year in order to conceal sinister motives behind the whole strategy. It was indeed an act of calculated political victimization and the political strategy behind this facade of judicial inquiry was to destroy the formidable political personality of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike and thereby to destroy the political fortunes of the SLFP. The Special Presidential Commission Law No. 7 of 1978 was enacted and Constitution of 1978 was adopted in 1978 and therefore, the question of the jurisdiction of the Special Presidential Commission came to be challenged and Mrs. Bandaranaike went before the Court of Appeal and requested the grant of a Writ of Prohibition against the Commission upholding the contention that the Warrant was invalid as the law was not retrospective in its operation and did not authorise an inquiry in respect of a period prior to the law. The Court of Appeal granted a Writ of Prohibition against the Commission and then the Prime Minister, Mr. R. Premadasa announced in parliament that steps would be taken to amend the law so as to make it retrospective. Parliament of Sri Lanka took the unprecedented steps of declaring the judgement of the Court of Appeal null and void. Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, writing on this unprecedented act of political revenge, stated that "the law is a disgrace to our statute book and a shame on our parliamentary democracy". It was his view that "it slaps the Court of Appeal in the face, not once but at least twice over and throws in a few knocks on the head also for good measure". This kind of political interference with the judiciary fell on deaf ears and the lawyer fraternity did not raise a cry against it. Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, making a scathing attack on the whole strategy of the government stated that "to subject the citizen to civic disabilities, that is to say, to the loss of his civic right, is to sentence him to political death". In his view it was precisely the outcome sought from the proceedings of the Special Presidential Commission. Dr. Colvin R. de Silva rightly described it as an insult to the President of the Court of Appeal and his two fellow judges - all of them were former members of the Supreme Court which then was the highest Court in the land. Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, in the style typical to him, condemned this act of political interference with the judiciary to achieve political advantage over a formidable political opponent of the calibre of Mrs. Bandaranaike, "as a shameful episode in our legislative history whose adverse impact on the independence of the judiciary and on judicial independence is incalculable". It was his position that it was only through political tasks that this damage done to the Sri Lankan judiciary could be repaired. He concluded his observations on the subject by saying that "it is in the political arena that the issue will be fought and won". With this opportunistic amendment by a parliament dominated by an arrogant majority, the Parliament of Sri Lanka deprived Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike of any legal remedy. Mrs. Bandaranaike, making a statement before the Special Presidential Commission on 7th May, 1980, stated that "this was the first time in the history of this country when Parliament declared void a judgement of one of the Superior Courts of this country. In the process I was deprived of the right of prosecuting my appeal before the Supreme Court. Not only did the government nullify the judgement, it went on to take away from the Court of Appeal any jurisdiction to deal with such an application as if to intimidate the Court in future cases". The strange events that followed demonstrated that the desire of the Government was "to secure my enforced exile from politics". This is where the UNP and its leaders failed as the people of this country, en masse, wanted Mrs. Sirimavo Bandarnaike to remain in the political field; she continued to remain in active politics and provided active leadership to the Sri Lanka Freedom Party in the context of the growing political authoritarianism of the post - 1977 period. Though everything relating to this important issue cannot be recounted here, Mrs. Bandaranaike had both political and legal reasons to withdraw from the proceedings of the Commission. Mrs. Bandaranaike, in her statement, referred to the composition of the Commission. In March 1978, President J. R. Jayewardene himself chose the Commissioners from over fifty members of the Judiciary who were eligible under Section 2 of the Law for Appointment. In other words, it was the President who appointed the members of the Commission and they held office at the President's pleasure and are in law removable by him at any time. This, in effect, meant that the commission, though a judicial body, was a part of the presidential fiat or an indirect appendage of the President. Yet another fact was that on receiving the report, it is the President who is the complainant and his political group in Parliament and not an impartial Court that will determine the punishment, namely, the imposition of civic disabilities. The UNP, with all these intentions, was requesting Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike to cooperate with them to "bring about her own political destruction". Both the President and the Prime Minister made public statements to this effect and they were trying to mobilize support for this massive assault on the formidable political personality of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike. She, expressing her reasons for withdrawal from the Commission, stated that "I should not bow down to the machinations and the ruthless desire of this Government which seeks to destroy me politically and destroy democracy in this country". The Government of the UNP was concerned whether the political consequences of the course of action which Mrs. Bandaranaike had adopted will result in events similar to those that took place in relation to Mrs. Indira Gandhi in India. Mrs. Gandhi came to her triumph through the Parliamentary democratic process and not through the judicial process. (To be Continued) |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
