The Judicature (Amendment) Bill is now at the Supreme Court being argued for constitutionality before being presented to Parliament. The Bill, if enacted will set up a permanent High Court-at-Bar to take action against corruption and complex financial crimes. This would at long last fulfil a key promise of a Government which was swept into power in 2015 on a platform of anti-corruption, and establishing the rule of law.
The people expected swift justice against those who had plundered at will during the Rajapaksa regime. That was not to be. Hardly anyone has been convicted of such crime and the only two people to be convicted, former Secretary to the President Lalith Weeratunga and former Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (TRC) Chairman, Anusha Palpita are free to roam and even travel overseas on ‘bail’ following a conviction, while waiting for their cases to go through appeal.
A judicial system in a democracy needs legitimacy to survive. Promoting public confidence in the administration of justice should be one of the key goals of good governance. Therefore, justice must not only work, it must be seen to work by the people of this land. One way to achieve this is by affording priority to the so-called ‘emblematic’ cases that continue to spark significant public interest.
This is nothing new. In numerous cases, most recently in the rape and murder of Jaffna schoolgirl S. Vidhya, an appointed trial-at-bar expedited cases of monumental public interest.
In fact, it is also in the interest of the accused that a speedy trial is held and his or her guilt or innocence pronounced by a court of law. An efficient judicial process benefits the innocent and provides relief to victims. In the case of criminally charged politicians, it will allow them, if innocent, to clear their names in the public consciousness without the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads for the remainder of their political careers.
Therefore, it is surprising that the very people who have opposed this Judicature (Amendment) Bill in the Supreme Court are those who would benefit most from an efficient and expeditious trial. Among the petitions being considered by the Supreme Court are those presented by the Sri Lanka Bar Association, Dinesh Gunawardena M.P, a leading member of the pro-Rajapaksa Joint Opposition and the pro-Rajapaksa Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna Chairman G.L. Peiris. Given the numbers accused of corruption within its ranks, the JO and its fellow travellers, should be keen to have corruption trials expedited prior to coming before the people at future elections. Alas, this appears not to be the case.
If there are concerns that a special corruption high court may politically victimize certain groups or could be weaponized by an executive to target political opponents, amendments to the Bill should be proposed through the parliamentary process. There is no reason to oppose the establishment of this special court on corruption, wholesale, unless the JO and other pro-Rajapaksa factions are indeed acutely aware of their own guilt and fear the speedy conclusion of their corruption trials.
As Government Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka recently noted at a media briefing, the new corruption high court will not only hear cases pertaining to the crimes of the Rajapaksa Government. Its jurisdiction could extend over corruption cases that have emerged over the past three years as well, including the Central Bank Bond scandal.
If the Government, now three years into a five year term and with the shadow of elections dogging its footsteps does not fear the establishment of a permanent judicial body to expeditiously hear corruption cases, what is it about the new court that strikes such fear into the hearts of the Opposition?
Managing the Internet’s human impact
‘The medium is the message’, declared communications guru Marshall McLuhan. The rampant usage of the internet social media in the recent outburst of racist violence prompts action to manage this awesomely powerful medium. But, this action should not be so restrictive that we end up ‘shooting the messenger’.
Not for the first time, the violence was preceded by and accompanied by a spate of messaging via the internet social media that both, incited the violence as well as multiplied the collective emotional and societal reaction to it. Thus, racist terror was incited by racist messaging, and then, the rapid spread of images of the destruction multiplied the terror effect on the population. Thanks to social media, we must also anticipate a longer term toll on our political as well as economic life.
The more intricate and intimate the binding of collective thought and emotion, the more powerful the motivation to collective action. The very nature of the internet medium enables not just easy and quick sharing but also sharing on a massive scale with a ripple effect that can take thoughts and images literally across the globe. Worse, everyone can ‘spread the word’ - and the violence.
This is why the government, the Internet industry, as well as concerned rights groups, have moved to devise mechanisms and formats for the regulation of internet social media, including such websites as, Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram. Just as much as people must exercise discipline in their speech and expression of ideas and feelings verbally, the systems of mass communication are similarly constrained by laws, and industry self-regulation. This disciplining needs to be extended to the internet social media.
While it did curb social tensions, the social media shut-down in response to the riots also severely disrupted economic activity dependent on such websites, and cannot be imposed for too long. Hence, the urgent need to replace these temporary controls with permanent cyber architecture.
The nature of the World Wide Web is such that the Government cannot hope to manage the problem merely by imposing its own controlling systems. Nor should the government attempt it, given the bad record of successive governments in abusing such media controlling mechanisms as the Press Council, criminal defamation laws and, the Censor Board.
Rather, we should look to a careful collaboration between the government and the internet industry in building this architecture of regulation and curating of content. We must balance the need to detect and interdict socially volatile messaging with the need to ensure the openness of the Net to enable continued expansion of human creativity and (virtual) socio-economic life.
This regulation should not be delayed either, lest we end up having to count the cost of more ethnic violence and un-intelligent human gullibility.