Opinion

Sarath and Chandrika show

28 Jun 2015 - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

Our rights are in peril when professional associations that function as guardian deities on violations of justice, keep mum, on such issues; especially after persons in such organizations accept political office that brings many a plum to their pockets.

Click onto the TV in search of News: out pops segments of a local version of a bygone serial “The Punch & Judy Show”, currently in the vernacular, slotted on distinct channels; with smart editing, could be released as the Sarath & Chandrika Show.
It is at comedy central as two septuagenarians’ perform antics to provide entertainment for an evening of melancholy mirth with their foggy notions on current affairs following the trend of comic interludes set by famed Abbot & Costello down to their local counterparts Shehan & Jehan.
Urge to make news is pathetic: merits of the content adduced are juvenile and contradictory – a rapid descend to the realm of the ridiculous to disgrace the venerable Supreme Court. That’s Mischief Point: basis of this piece.

Chandrika had to bail Silva out repeatedly proroguing Parliament to get an impeachment motion off the hook of the agenda; to save him on matters inclusive of his private life, which is not a public concern and therefore is unfair to comment in my book.
The damning judgment on Chandrika on the Water’s Edge case by the Supreme Court was at a time the relationship had turned supposedly sour. Fair enough- if justice was done: cheer righteousness.
Bias in law is a two way street: swing on friendship or hostility that disqualifies a judge. Stick around shall show you more -on pronouncements on another President where personal relations jut out prominently and contradictions are galore. If so, was justice strained and tainted? You decide on the facts presented.
A TV clip [News First (2014) shows Silva seeking forgiveness from the nation for failing to commit the former President to jail. A comment he made long after the Helping Hambantota judgment – an order helpful to Rajapaksa.

There is a wrong notion, in the media that he apologised for his decision in the Helping Hambantota case. He didn’t, instead he repented for not dispatching him to the dungeon. Relations were indeed strained at that time in 2014- that sure counts.
This observation, according to Silva, arises from a query raised by a JVP comrade who impliedly faulted Silva after a pat on the back at the Narahenpita

Market, for not posting Rajapaksa to jail even for a single day when he had the opportunity. Silva apologises for failing to save the nation from preventing an impending tragedy by not confining Rajapaksa, even if it was a ‘wrongful’ act. A comment more audacious than judicious?
Cruder is the arrogance associated with his aside in the clip that. He permitted people to pat him on the back though a Chief Justice without security. Security services, if present, would have been embarrassed by what the iconic butler saw through the peep-hole! What a pat on the back!
The TV footage further shows Silva holding out that Rajapaksa is where he is [as president] because of him? Does he imply that the Helping Hambantota judgment broke the barrier that stood between Rajapaksa and Presidency and enabled Silva to carry Rajapaksa to safety? If so, Silva’s words are true, it shows him as a conduit to political causes, with many allegations against him: unwittingly amounts to a tacit admission by him of the allegations. More precisely it’s the people’s vote that made him President. Silva instead, tries to gain the maximum.

In a TV clip of 2015 Silva [Ada Derana] does a U turn, stressing that Mahinda Rajapaksa, the brave, is the need of the nation? Silva contends his previous pronouncement on Rajapaksa were mere simplistic correction of a legal fiction arising from a notion a President can contest for a third time. Let us examine the validity of that statement with his prior conduct.
When Silva was a little star in the mini world of Fonseka, trying to defeat Rajapaksa for presidency, didn’t hear Silva saying Rajapaksa is the need of the nation. Far from it: wanted him ejected from office of the President and replaced by Fonseka; mind you, immediately after the war, when most people expressed otherwise at the election.
The man who should have been committed to jail in 2014 to prevent a great tragedy befalling Sri Lanka becomes the need of the nation in 2015 since he is strong and fearless. Indeed a revolutionary revelation by a revolving star? From Jail-house to Presidential Palace is a short distance in Silva Town.
The metamorphosis took place within a year where a Rajapaksa basher became a Rajapaksa chaser. Largest number of MPs shifted party allegiance during the period Silva presided over the Supreme Court since the judiciary created an easy walk way. He watched over the crossing of the great barrier from his pedestal in the Supreme Court circumventing the constitution assisted by a helpful judiciary. Rajapaksa was able to build a strong voting base in Parliament as the crossings benefited Rajapaksa. Those were in happier times.

Where is consistency, lad?
Easy to predict the platform on which Silva will make a guest appearances during the oncoming election campaign? Give mike-will travel. Simplistic advice is to carry his own soapbox, pitch tent and spout contradictions provided an audience is available to give a hearing! Over to you Silva, to tender another explanation: but don’t make a hash of it again as previously.
Silva cannot be heard to say he did favours to help Rajapaksa when relations are cordial and apologised for a ‘wrongful’ inadequacy when relations become frosty. Then it is selective justice and is Chandrika a victim of a bad mood?
To the credit of Sarath Silva he was squeaky clean on financial matters and never touched filthy lucre by way of fees when such were available to officers of the Attorney General’s Department.
There surely is a better side to the man. Difficult for a financially hygienic man with a conscience to watch the stinking corruption around; choose to lose credibility, when he decides to blow hot and cold and somersaults from side to side. Rather be the servile butler to Rajapaksa households like the honest professor.

"The man who should have been committed to jail in 2014 to prevent a great tragedy ...becomes the need of the nation in 2015 since he is strong and fearless."

Few take Chandrika seriously, known for her garrulousness, at the best of times. My issue is with the eerie silence maintained by the venerable men in the Bar Association when she throws stones at the Supreme Court judges implying favours are granted to batch mates.
What action is the Bar Association taking when Chandrika implies such judges are not honourable? Chandrika lauds a judge as honourable, who voluntarily quits the bench for reasons not known possibly to stay away from controversy and implies Justice Eva Wanasundera, gutty to remain to face the music is not honourable because she is a batch mate.
But Chandrika fails to realise no individual is a batch mate of Mrs Wanasundera in any case before her. Gotabaya Rajapaksa was never associated with legal education to qualify to be a batch mate in the case alleged. Mrs Wanasundera is a judge well known for her integrity and ingenuity and needs safeguards under assault.
The former lady Attorney General Wanasundera was appointed to the Supreme Court following the normal procedure of elevating the holder of the post of Attorney General to the Supreme Court. She was appointed Attorney General as the senior most official in the department. The appointment of judges to hear cases is made by the Chief Justice.

Why is it that the Bar Association that bravely safeguarded a lady chief justice to the maximum; makes no noise on behalf of a lady judge who is straighter and stronger, now in peril because of Chandrika’s utterances? Selective justice brings me into the framework.
Our rights are in peril when professional associations that function as guardian deities on violations of justice, keep mum, on such issues; especially after persons in such organizations accept political office that brings many a plum to their pockets.
Where are all those great men who made merry rightfully on the Shirani Bandaranayake issue? Are they relaxing in the land of Noddy? Look at them individually: many have been appointed to offices of importance or made inquirers on matters of public importance by the state and do not have time to attend to aspects that brought them into prominence as there busy enjoying the benefits off the gravy train.
They are no better than the previous other.

Opinion

Sarath and Chandrika show

Our rights are in peril when professional associations that function as guardian deities on violations of justice, keep mum, on such issues; especially after persons in such organizations accept political office that brings many a plum to their pockets.

"The man who should have been committed to jail in 2014 to prevent a great tragedy ...becomes the need of the nation in 2015 since he is strong and fearless."

Most Popular Articles

How far does the political-underworld nexus extend in Sri Lanka?

Why Countries Are Banning Children from Social Media and What It Means for Sri Lanka

More arrests would lead to do-or-die elections

The narrowing window: Small-state agency in an age of multipolar scenario

Economic growth is not the only measure of human development

Detention Rights: Sri Lanka and the United States

Latest News

Reconstruction of damaged Kandy–Colombo railway line accelerated

LAUGFS gas slashes domestic LP gas prices

French heat wave death toll rises to 2025

Spa Association complains to IGP over alleged police action

CIABOC says Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe was in Dubai during alleged bribe transaction