It was the consensus among participants at the recent ‘Sambhashana’ outreach programme organised by TISL, that the rule of law has broken down in the country. The programme was on the theme ‘Rule of Law – What next?’
The need to discuss and involve the masses in the outstations in promoting issues like the rule of law was stressed by the participants. They felt that at present discussions are limited to Colombo thereby distancing the large numbers in the other areas from such dialogues.
Panel member, Dr Sumansiri Liyanage of the Peradeniya University said that he personally observed during visits to distant places recently that the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice was not being talked about and people were not bothered about it. This was because concepts like Rule of Law were strange to them.
Stressing that the breakdown of rule of law is not limited to Sri Lanka but is a global phenomenon, he said that a campaign is underway towards de-democratisation. He quoted several factors as reasons for this. These included the getting together of political power with business power, free elections being used as tools by commercial and administrative interests to achieve their ends, profits forming the base of decisions taken under the widespread concept of new liberalism, sovereignty of the judiciary, globalisation and security. In this backdrop, most laws in operations are unjust. He questioned whether in such an environment people can expect justice under the rule of law. In such a situation a change can only be expected by throwing out the present structure and building a new one, he stressed.
According to him, to begin with, the 1978 Constitution should be scrapped. Otherwise, any attempt made to protect the rule of law will result in the rule of unjust laws, he insisted.
Consultant editor ‘Ravaya’, Victor Ivan said that although the constitution talks about sovereignty of the people, in actual fact it has taken away that sovereignty from the people and placed in an individual allowing him to act in an arbitrary manner. He described it as a “rasthiyaadu constitution”.
He opined that the worst thing was to give over the power of interpreting the constitution to the judiciary. He stressed that the interpretations and decisions given by the judiciary pertaining to the constitution have made the situation even worse than what it was in the original constitution. Quoting decisions related to the referendum and allowing MPs to cross over as examples, he pointed out that it was most difficult to remedy certain mistakes done by the judiciary. While numerous lawyers’ associations, both local and foreign, found fault with the procedure adopted in the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, it was hilarious to find that under the same provisions, they asked that inquiries be held on Sarath Nanda Silva, he added.
He suggested that at a time when the masses are fed up of the present system, it was difficult to create interest in them towards a new political system. What is needed is a spiritual change in society.
Presenting an academic viewpoint, Dr Asoka de Silva of the Law Faculty – Open University admitted that the rule of law was in a pathetic state today. He found that what is seen today is not a “rastiyaadu constitution”, but more “rastiyaadu administrators and rastiyaadu interpreters” of the constitution. In such a situation he did not think that a new constitution however much it will be a good one, will be of much use.
He was of the opinion that it was the 1972 constitution that resulted in the breakdown of the rule of law. He said that for a Republic to exist, the basic principles related to it should be in operation and not feudal principles which are the ones now in operation.