Supreme Court and Court of Appeal Judges: Age should not dictate termination of service

 There is no evidence to prove that the current members of the Judiciary have  acted in a partial manner 

• Needless to emphasise as it’s widely known,  we saw during the rule from 2010 to 2015 that  powerful politicians,  their kith and kin and hangers on were so cocky that they never thought that they would be there forever after elimination of terrorism

By Methsiri Gamage

There is a lot of opposition to the alleged attempt by the government to increase the age limit of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.  This is forcefully articulated by the disparate forces now in the opposition as many who misused power while in office are getting reined in by the present administration which got a massive two third majority to clean the Augean Stables by setting up the independent Commission to Investigate Bribery and Corruption.

It is abundantly clear that the judiciary is acting without fear,  something that was absent in the last seventy odd years. It was large scale corruption and ignored by the rulers whose practice was simply “you scratch my back,  I scratch yours.” The cumulative result was that crooks made hay while the sun shone,  while  the vast majority continued to live in abject poverty without even the basic amenities.

I delved into recent history where in 2015 a nondescript was able to dethrone a politician who did well to annihilate terrorism, no mean achievement. He misread the electorate and thought the mere nod to finish an insurgency where the combined forces ably led by Gen. Sarath Fonseka was able to achieve victory will retain him for life.

We may recall the great Sir Winston Churchill who defeated Hitler was ousted by  Labour leader Clement Attlee in the election to the House of Commons immediately after conclusion of World War II.

To the best of my knowledge, he did not run from Church to Church seeking their support to regain power. He gracefully retired. Such lofty standards were unknown to politicians in countries that regained national governance in later years.

Needless to emphasise as it’s widely known,  we saw during the rule from 2010 to 2015 that  powerful politicians,  their kith and kin and hangers on were so cocky that they never thought that they would be there forever after elimination of terrorism. They made hay while the sun shone,  never expecting a rout.

In 2015 a man whose intellectual capacity was as distant as the sun and the moon when compared with the deputy to be was  cobbled to dethrone a man who worked on the premise that the country belonged to him, his family, clan and hangers on. They won and the journey of governance with him as  head was short lived and disaster followed. That move was not in the interests of the nation,  but catered to the greed of the same social class.

One of the first acts of the new regime was to appoint a Presidential Commission of Inquiry to probe misuse of power and corruption. This Commission produced an excellent report and it was for the rulers to provide the machinery for punitive action.

The Commission recommended enactment of special legislation to deprive MR entering the legislature. The Head of State did not take action as his relationship with the Prime Minister had deteriorated beyond repair,  and was very keen to mend fences with his opponent and run for the Presidency for a second term. This recommendation by the Commission was well received by the country,  but not by the man who appointed the commission for reasons mentioned above.

The Chairman of the Commission was very fortunate to reach the top slot as fate decreed that there were no impediments,  and his ascent was by virtue of seniority and with the blessings of the Constitutional Council which was set up by the previous regime. It is evident that the opposition fears his continuance in office as he is known to be an impartial judicial officer who had an unblemished record.

It’s common knowledge that in the developed West,  and in many others in  the world the Judges of the Supreme Court and The Court of Appeal function till 75 and 70 if their health was good.

Many developed countries have recognised that life expectancy in most parts of the world have increased tremendously and professionals like senior judges,  surgeons,  physicians et al are an asset to a country,  and should continue for a few more years if they are healthy. I am aware of an eminent surgeon who was well past 75 but highly sought after despite many eminent younger men being available. 

Working beyond seventy

This  much respected,  amiable friend of mine Dr. Yohenswaran now gone to the great beyond Dr Yogeswaran. I went under his scalpel and told him  that he must charge me. His quick reply was “I will charge you in a court of law” . His juniors and staff were in stitches of laughter and I was struggling with my wound.  Recently I read about a lady paediatric surgeon still active at seventy being recognised by the King of England performing surgery on infants in New Zealand.

 There is no substitute for experience,  and that is why countries like England,  France,  Canada et al retain Judges of the Supreme Court and Appeal Court up to seventy. In the US,  it’s for life if they are healthy.

I read an argument that the retention of senior judges will impact the promotion of other grades of the judiciary. The issue that merits serious study is whether clearing career paths is more important than profound wisdom that dawns with maturity when it comes to judicial pronouncements. 

There is no evidence to prove that the current members of the Judiciary have  acted in a partial manner. All judgements have been within the law,  and those who have transgressed have been punished in keeping with legislation in place.

Public perception is that those who are awaiting trial for robbing the country and violating the laws of the land should be punished if found guilty,  and for that purpose people  elected a new regime to change this culture,  and a clear mandate was given to clean the Augean Stables. This government is committed to ensuring that all are equal before the law.

It is abundantly clear that those rejected by the country, and  whose conscience must be troubling them are behind this attempt to tarnish our independent judiciary which now acts strictly within the law without fear or favour, striving to end corruption and misrule.