Former CJ’s warning

Editorial-December 26, 2014, 6:20 pm 

Retired Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva has made his presence felt again. Taking part in Opposition presidential candidate Maithripala Sirisena’s election campaign, at the New Democratic Front office in Colombo on Thursday, the former top judge declared that a controversial document the government had made public against Sirisena and UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe could be used to remove President Mahinda Rajapaksa from office in the event of his re-election. The ex-CJ was referring to what former UNP General Secretary Tissa Attanayake had released to the media, claiming that it was a secret pact between Wickremesinghe and Sirisena.

The former CJ knows the law and his opinions should not be taken lightly. However, before issuing warnings that the incumbent president runs the risk of being disqualified in the future owing to a controversial document he should make his position clear on his much-advertised opinion that the latter was disqualified to contest again. He made an issue of the presidential term limit, claiming that a president re-elected prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment could not seek a third term. His position was subsequently backed by some lawyers here and abroad.

It is not clear whether the former CJ still believes that it is illegal for the incumbent President to contest again. (The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no such legal barrier.) He has not made a public recantation of his contention at issue and the JVP took him around the country, crying from the rooftops that the upcoming election was illegal as Rajapaksa was contesting it. In fact, that was the reason why the JVP decided to boycott the presidential election and refrain from getting involved in campaigning for any candidate. (However, it is backing Sirisena by urging the people to defeat Rajapaksa!) A logical conclusion that follows from the ex-CJ’s interpretation of the Constitution and his contention based thereon is that the election of the next president will not be valid. For, there is no way the outcome of an illegal contest can be considered legal.

Both Wickremesinghe and Sirisena have threatened legal action over the ‘secret pact’ and the latter has already sent a letter of demand to Attanayake. Legal battles are long-drawn-out processes and the only way the duo can seek to mitigate, if not neutralize, the adverse political impact of Attanayake’s claim on their campaign is to publicly deny, if they can, the contents of the alleged agreement. They, as we argued the other day, ought to tell the public whether they, in case of their victory at the Jan. 08 election, would pull out troops from the North; dismantle high security zones; grant more powers to the Provincial Councils than those devolved under the 13th Amendment and undertake to implement UNHRC recommendations in respect of Sri Lanka’s alleged war crimes. If their answers to these questions are in the negative then the government’s efforts to gain political mileage out of Attanayake’s claim will come a cropper and the doubts in the minds of voters will be allayed. Why don’t they do that?

Meanwhile, as for the ex-CJ’s warning to the media that the media should not publish false allegations, journalists are wary of buying into claims made by all politicians, especially during elections. In jousting for power they are guided by Rafferty’s rules or no rules at all. For the contestants and their spokespersons the end justifies the means and they get away with their false statements afterwards. Regrettably, some of their claims get published because it is next to impossible for the media to check the veracity of each and every allegation candidates and their spokespersons make. The candidates themselves out on the hustings make various allegations against one another. Given the sheer number of media briefings they hold daily, if it is to be checked whether their claims are true or false, nothing will get published in the mainstream media; people will have to depend entirely on social media for information about election campaigns. However, the right of an aggrieved party to have its version of an issue published immediately so as to protect its interests needs to be respected and most of the privately owned media outfits do so.