Principle or Politics?

Mr Speaker, all case reports dismissed by ‘Hulftsdorp’ fall under the jurisdiction of Sucharitha. While I am not a lawyer, reviewing those dismissed case files has taught me a great deal about the law. Many lawyers have often wondered how Ranasinghe Premadasa possessed such legal knowledge. I consider myself fortunate to have lived next door to Hulftsdorp, Mr Speaker.’

During his tenure as Prime Minister, Ranasinghe Premadasa made the above references while delivering a powerful speech in Parliament following his victory in a defamation lawsuit.

The defamation was publicly made by Sri Lanka Freedom Party leader Mrs Bandaranayake, who questioned the source of Premadasa’s funding for his children’s overseas education.

Her allegations appeared in ‘Divaina’, a newspaper owned by her brother, Seevalee Ratwatte.

In response, Premadasa filed a lawsuit against ‘Divaina’, seeking substantial damages.

He won the case, and ‘Divaina’ paid the damages.

Premadasa donated that money to the ‘Foster Parents’ scheme, which supports the educational expenses of orphaned and impoverished children.

K. N. Choksy was his counsel in all his legal cases.

Choksy was not a prominent lawyer at Hulftsdorp.

Premadasa used Choksy for legal representation, but through that, he did not seek to build relationships with lawyers or judges.

He never tried to influence the judiciary.

When he became President, the Chief Justice was Senior Parinda Ranasinghe, father of the incumbent Attorney General.

Parinda had been appointed by J. R. Premadasa; he later appointed Herbert Thambiah as Chief Justice based on seniority.

In contrast, J. R. and Chandrika appointed Chief Justices from among their friends, despite qualified and experienced judges being available in the Supreme Court.

J. R. appointed his friend, Attorney Nevile Samarakoon, and Chandrika appointed Attorney General Sarath N. Silva.

Premadasa never tried to exert power over ‘Hulftsdorp’ but was cautious about the election petition Mrs Bandaranayake filed against his presidential election victory.

The opening of the Colombo Law Library was scheduled during the pending court proceedings on this petition.

Both President Premadasa and Chief Justice Parinda Ranasinghe were invited.

The Chief Justice was to announce the panel of judges to hear the election petition.

Since a decisive case was pending against the President, Chief Justice Parinda Ranasinghe felt it was inappropriate to attend an event where the President would be present and decided not to participate.

Upon hearing this, Premadasa informed the Chief Justice that his attendance was essential, and he decided not to attend the ceremony so as not to cause discomfort to the Chief Justice.

The verdict in Premadasa’s election petition was a split decision.

One judge ruled the election invalid.

However, Premadasa did not pursue the dissenting judge or seek revenge.

When Sajith Premadasa, son of former President Ranasinghe Premadasa, assumed the role of Leader of the Opposition, Jayantha Jayasuriya was Chief Justice.

The Jayasuriya family maintained close ties with the Premadasas; indeed, a close relative, ‘Konda Veda Mahatha’, was appointed to Parliament on the national list by President Premadasa.

Yet Sajith did not allow these personal connections to influence his conduct.

Ultimately, it was Anura who arranged for Jayantha Jayasuriya to be sent abroad as a diplomatic envoy.

In 2013, during the administration of Mahinda Rajapaksa, a motion of impeachment was brought against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, whom Rajapaksa himself had appointed.

At that time, Ranil Wickremesinghe, serving both as Leader of the Opposition and head of the United National Party, declared that Parliament was supreme over the judiciary.

He prohibited UNP parliamentarians from participating in court proceedings when Bandaranayake challenged her impeachment before the judiciary.

A faction of MPs, including Sajith Premadasa, rebelled against Wickremesinghe’s leadership, arguing that his stance ultimately benefited Mahinda Rajapaksa.

In defiance, they resolved to support Shirani Bandaranayake.

During the impeachment debate, Sajith was initially not allotted time to speak.

He pleaded with Opposition Chief Whip Johan Amaratunga and was granted 15 minutes to defend Shirani.

When Sajith rose to speak, the Chair informed him that he had only 10 minutes.

Sajith: Deputy Speaker, how long do I have to talk?

Deputy Speaker: “10 minutes.”

Sajith Premadasa: “Deputy Speaker, I have been allocated 15 minutes.”

Deputy Speaker: “MP John Amaratunga claimed five minutes from your fifteen.” (Hansard report, 11.01.2013, Pages 615–616)

Despite this, Sajith utilised the full 10 minutes, defending judicial and Sriyani’s independence.

Sajith stood up for Supreme Court judges both inside Parliament and publicly in 2022, when Ranil ignored the court ruling to hold local government elections and attempted to bring those judges before a parliamentary select committee.

“If possible, bring judges to the select committee; we will look after the rest…” he warned Ranil.

Currently, Sajith leads the opposition against Anura’s government’s move, through the 22nd Constitutional Amendment, to extend judges’ retirement age, claiming that it threatens judicial independence.

All other opposition leaders accusing the 22nd Amendment of abolishing judicial independence today were once supporters of leaders who threatened the judiciary.

However, Sajith has never defended those who undermined judicial independence.

It is for this reason that Sajith Premadasa possesses a moral authority to speak on judicial independence that no other Opposition leader can claim.

Yet whether he will safeguard that integrity consistently—both in times of power and in times of powerlessness—remains an open question.

by Upul Joseph Fernando