JUDGES, not ABOVE the LAW

‘JSC, tribunal of LIMITED jurisdiction’ - Part III :

Text of the speech delivered by External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris in Parliament on October 25, 2012

It also states that “this Circular should be brought to the attention of all ‘subordinate’ officers working in your court, and their signature obtained stating they have seen it.” which means the Commission has dealt extensively with the said issue.

The Circular has been sent, and everyone has been told to sign confirming that they have received it and read. Wijayadasa Rajapaksa said the Legislature has a clear responsibility about these matters. Undoubtedly there is such a responsibility. To whom can our judges make these complaints? If an injustice has been done to them the Legislature should not in any way hesitate to accept responsibility. Therefore, the nature of this threat is a warning not to tell anyone, and that strong action will be taken if it is proven that it has been told. Who is frightening whom in this manner? This is not the Executive driving fear into the judges.

What we see here is the Judicial Service Commission going beyond its mandate and demonstrating a tendency to threaten judges, and not a threat from any other source. If any judge has a complaint, that a wrong appointment has been made, that one’s qualifications have not been properly considered - then clearly such judges have the right to make their complaint about such matters. The Legislature is bound to consider such matters.

Deputy Chairman of Committees, the Judicial Service Commission is not a Court of law. We should understand this very clearly. The Judicial Service Commission is in no way a Court of law. It is an administrative institution, for the enforcement of the powers of a court.

The Judicial Service Commission can in no way be considered a Court of law. If so, what is at fault. Anura Kumara Dissanayake said, the right to take decisions on the salaries of judges lies with Parliament. This is entirely correct. There is no debate or dispute on that issue. But, the estimate should be presented to Parliament.

I am personally aware that the Judicial Service Commission has not once but on many occasions sought financial provisions, for a training programme. We all know that this is very important to improve the quality of the judiciary. It is a practice in many countries to conduct refresher courses for judges who are appointed. Such a training scheme is essential for the proper improvement of the knowledge, talent and skills of our judges.

Judicial decisions

The Judicial Service Commission has on several occasions told the government to provide funds for these matters. How is this financial provision to be accommodated? It is provided through the Budget. Those proposals should be presented to this House by the Minister of Finance and Planning. There is nothing wrong in that and what could be wrong? There is nothing wrong. The Minister of Finance and Planning extends an invitation. It is not an invitation to a Court of law, not to change decisions in any case.

The Judicial Service Commission is in no way able to change the judicial decisions in cases. It is not within their sphere of activity. If the Executive finds it necessary to alter the decisions of courts, there is no purpose served in inviting the Judicial Service Commission. This Commission should be invited to find out the amount of financial allocations required to provide the facilities for judicial officers, what are these for, and discuss what supervision there is on these matters. Such discussion is essential.

If not, how can the Minister of Finance and Planning present estimates to the House with responsibility? What is wrong in such discussion? There is no fault in that. If a judge hearing a case was invited to meet the Executive that is wrong. But, is it wrong to discuss estimates of expenditure? It is a request of the Judicial Service Commission itself, and not the request of any other. The Government did not say we wish to give this money.

There is no fault in the Executive inviting the Judicial Service Commission to discuss how much of funds are needed, and for what purpose the funds that have been sought. There is nothing wrong in the Executive inviting the Judicial Service Commission for this purpose. Then, why does the Judicial Service Commission turn down that request? Who loses from what? It is the judges who lose from that action.

(Interruptions - “why assault?”)

(Prof. Peiris)

About assaults we state very clearly that the government wholly condemns that incident. Vasudeva Nanayakka will present the IGP’s report to this House. On the 9th of this month the Leader of the House made a long report to this House of the situation that prevailed at the time, namely the investigations carried out by the police and their results. A report has been received of the police investigations in the past two weeks. Vasudeva Nanayakkara will present that report to this House. There are no two words on that issue.

Bribery and corruption

But what is now always being said? That the invitation was wrong; it is interfering in judicial affairs; that it is an improper intervention of the Executive in matters of the Judiciary. That is a completely baseless argument. Prior to this, there have been plenty of such invitations for discussions about matters of the Judiciary and related allocations of funds.

To be continued