Sil Redi Case Vindicates Call For Abolition Of The Executive Presidency
Javid Yusuf
Two legal proceedings were much talked about during the past week-the Commission probing the Central Bank Bond transactions and the so called Sil Redi case in the High Court of Colombo.
Both these proceedings confirm that the administration of justice in this country is live and kicking and has the potential to mete out justice to all irrespective of the issues involved.
Apart from the evidence that has so far transpired before the Commission of Inquiry, what has been the subject of discussion among the public is the Commission’s order that Arjun Aloysius who is the central figure in the matter before the Commission is entitled to, if he so chooses (as he has now done ), not to give evidence and that he cannot be compelled to do so even though his evidence is relevant.
The Commission’s order has been based on the legal dictum embodied in the Sri Lankan Law that no person can be compelled to give evidence which is self incriminating. The Commissioners in their order have interpreted the law on the subject and set out their reasoning in arriving at such conclusion. The Commission has refused to play to the gallery by compelling Arjun Aloysius to give evidence but rather to use the words of the Commission in their order chose to be ‘coldly neutral’. The Additional Solicitor General has voiced his disagreement with the Commission’s order as he is entitled to do and has indicated that he would discuss the matter with the Attorney General.
While the Commission’s order has understandably puzzled members of the lay public who may not understand the complexities of the law. The fact that judges have to apply the law to the evidence before them and cannot take into consideration extraneous factors is something not easily understood by laymen.
Sections of the political establishment have been quick to jump to their own conclusions. The Leader of the National Freedom Front Wimal Weerawansa who functions as a de facto Joint Opposition spokesman criticized the Commission last week and screamed his disapproval of the Commission’s order. Of course considering the NFF leader’s conduct in humiliating the former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake when she was arraigned before the Select Committee of Parliament his disparaging comments with regard to the Commission’s order are not in the least surprising.
The Commission in its order has also gone to great lengths to list out the matters on which Arjun Aloysius’ evidence would have been relevant and therefore helpful to the Commission in coming to a finding on the matters within its remit. In doing so the Commission has been fair to Arjun Aloysius enabling him to take an informed decision whether to give evidence before the Commission or not.
The other legal proceeding that has evoked a great deal of public interest is the judgement and fall out of from what is popularly known as the Sil Redi case. Once again the order of the High Court judge has attracted many observations and been subject to discussion in several forums.
In order to understand the High court Judge’s reasoning that led to his finding in this trial it is necessary to study the judgement in the case which is not yet readily available in the public domain. The reasons in a judgement delivered by a Court sets out the reasoning that guided the Court in arriving at its finding at the conclusion of the trial. As is often the case there may be different views with regard to the interpretation of the law or evidence but the reasons set out in the judgement provide the parties concerned an understanding of why the judge came to his conclusion in his judgement.
If it is perceived by one party that the judgement or the process leading up to a judgement is erroneous, the law provides that the aggrieved party can avail himself (as done in this case) of the appellate process whereby a higher Court will review the matter and mete out justice by quashing, confirming or varying the judgement after submissions by the parties concerned.
