In My Opinion: Judicial Dictatorship

There is a serious political and a social problem in Sri Lanka that hampers the democratic process , which lies in the question of democratic legitimacy of judicial reviews affecting the governance of the people. The US Constitution makes a point in stating that, “ it is the people that should decide how they are governed and the Constitutional norms that their society holds. The Judiciary having this power is illegitimate…….”.

In an interesting research article- a thesis on Judicial Dictatorship: Potential Institutionalisation of the Constitutional Review Process by Stephen Cranney of the Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington states “We the People.” One of the most emotion evoking and potentially over used statements has found its way to the center of many democracy-based arguments in constitutional analysis. But if the ‘people’ are center to democracy and the social contract that democracy constructs, then how is it that their voice has become irrelevant?”

https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/4625/thesis.pdf?sequence=2

This is very relevant to the surprising judgment of two courts in Sri Lanka, an Appeal Court and the Supreme Court delivered in interpreting the relevant sections of the Constitution of Sri Lanka with regard to the decision taken by the President of Sri Lanka in a political imbroglio , to dissolve the Parliament and go to the people for an election.

The decisions of both the Appeal Court and the SC on the issues could be interpreted as judicial errors, and the interim order issued by the Appeal Court to stop the Prime Minister and his Cabinet of Ministers functioning until the Appeal Court takes a decision, an enormous Judicial error, perhaps a first in the world.

As it was stated at the beginning there is a serious political and a social problem in Sri Lanka with the people divided into ordinary people largely Sinhala Buddhists ,and another English Educated mainly Colombian high society. The latter group has a following of the people depending on the rich and powerful and drawing their strength from them. Those were the people who were seen recently filling the Galle Face Green for a gathering called for by the high society politicians .

Mahinda Rajapakse and now Maithripala Sirisena belong to the ordinary Sinhala Buddhist population, and trusted, accepted, and loved by them.

The high Society consisting more of the Judiciary, Company Directors , Doctors Engineers, Christians, Evangelists,and the English educated Colombians tend to shun Mahinda Rajapakse and now Maithripalan Sirisena. They have confidence on the political class led by Ranil Wickramasinghe , the UNP and their allied political parties belonging to the high society, and their dependents. So are the JVP calling itself a Marist Party is perhaps trying to reach the high and powerful, while Sumanthiran of the TNA wants a federal constitution and the Eelam, and the rest of the Tamil and Muslim MPs are more keen following the rich and well to do in their sense as that helps their business sense.

Therefore there is the question where lies and who promotes the democratic legitimacy of the people. Mahinda Rajapakse and his Ministers when they were sworn in on 26 Ocober,2018 was not seeking to take vengeance from his political enemies but keen in making the people benefit from their forming a government to give the people as much relief as possible.

But it is the contrary when Ranil Wickramasinghe brings his Kiriellas, Ajith Pereras Champikas, Rajithas , Sarath Fosekas, Harin , and their partners in the JVP, to take over the government. It is for them to take vengeance and take their political enemies to courts and prisons , making their lives miserable, rather than find means to give relief to the people as Mahinda Rajapakse did during the short time he was Prime Minister.

In the light of this high society UNP and the political partners who seems to care less for the people other than to get them to participate in manifestations and fill the grounds where they gather to shout their hatred of Mahinda Rajapakse and President Sirisena. But some how in this political jamboree the Judiciary also seem to play their part along with Ranil and the high society politicians.

Sri Lanka’s Judicial Independence is strange to tell the least. It is certainly independent of the Executive, but not completely independent of the Legislature with an evident support for the right wing legislators. It is certainly independent of the people without seemingly unconcerned about their suffering due to political mismanagement of the country by the right wing politicians of the Legislature, that was seen by the Appeal Court making an interim order suspending the functions of the social wing Prime Minister and his Cabinet thus denying the little relief the people were to receive.

The President of Sri Lanka and the Parliamentarians are elected by the people and the people have confidence in them. However, they are able to show their preference between the high society politicians led by Ranil Wickramasinghe and his political partners, and the Socialist politicians led by Mahinda Rajapakse and his parties supported by the President only at an election , but the SC denied them that democratic right ruling that the President cannot dissolve the Parliament for four and a half years.

The two wings of the judiciary the Appeal Court and the SC seem in my opinion keen in putting the Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse and President Sirisena, in their place making them understand that the Judiciary is above both of them, and they- the Judiciary have become a deciding factor and it is there with them that the power lies. Strangely the Judiciary can exercise this super power of theirs when a Constitutional review is demanded from them.

A Constitutional Review is defined as “ the inquiry and decision of whether a piece of legislation is consistent with a constitutional norms”.

There are critical studies made on using the Judiciary with no political or democratic legitimacy as the ultimate resort to make Constitutional reviews. The article referred to above on Judicial Dictatorship, argues as follows:

“This power given to the courts, of the judicial review of legislation, involves a group of people who seemingly enjoy no political legitimacy and certainly no democratic legitimacy to impose their preferences on citizens generally. The judiciary’s decisions work to thwart policies of the democratic branches of government. The individuals who strike down the legislation are both unelected and unaccountable. What they are effectively doing is invalidating democratically adopted laws.The question must be asked of how this role can be justified in a system that is based on the view that policy and value choices are for the elected and politically responsible institutions.”

This paper argues that the underutilized organ of the executive can be employed to legitimise and solve many of the issues surrounding the constitutional review power that currently lies with the courts.

The paper proposes three review mechanisms. Firstly, an executive override of judicial decisions, where the executive branch can return a piece of legislation that has been struck down to legal effectiveness. Secondly, a veto of constitutionally consequential legislation, where the executive can render a piece of legislation legally ineffective, coupled with an inability for a legislative override. Lastly, an executive mandate for judicial intervention, where the executive informs the judiciary which pieces of legislation can potentially be struck down. The paper expands of these descriptions, discussing potential problems that these methods face before finally defending one decision-making process. By this, the paper aims to satisfactorily create a stable and democratically legitimate constitutional review procedure.

However, it appears correct that using the Judiciary for a Constitutional review is un-acceptable in terms of democratic legitimacy of a Judicial decision on a matter concerning the Constitution, as the Judiciary consists of men who are not elected by the people and unaccountable for their decision.

A future Government should reconsider the question of Judicial independence, specially of its role in Constitutional reviews in the interest of the people and the country. This is very important specially in the case of Sri Lanka a Sinhala Buddhist Country with a culture as old as its history. It would not therefore be wrong to include in the Constitution that the Chief Justice should be a Sinhala Buddhist.

That would avoid the danger of electing some one like the retired Judge Wignesvaran as Chief Justice of Sri Lanka. It is not being extra nationalist, but when we see the role that is being played by the TNA MP Sumanthiran and Sampanthan with regard to writing a new Constitution and JVP wanting to have the President of the Country elected by the Parliament, the Sinhalese- the majority should remember that they have a responsibility to perpetuate both the Sinhala Buddhist Culture and its Buddhist religious background for the future generation of Sinhala Buddhists, as Sri Lanka is the only Country they have, which they can call their own.