The Buddhist Lawyers Association (BLA) alleges that the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) is upholding judicial independence, selectively.

In a statement titled ‘Re-UNDATED BASL Statement on Independence of the Judiciary’, BLA President Uditha Egalahewa PC has said that the “BASL should be mindful of its role as a neutral and objective entity that contributes to the administration of justice. Aligning themselves with partisan views and taking a confrontational stance, selectively, undermines the credibility of the association and its ability to effectively advocate for justice.”

Full text of the statement: The Buddhist Lawyers Association of Sri Lanka whilst agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) to uphold the rule of law and to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, strongly condemns the partisan, and selective approach displayed by the BASL in issuing statements.

First and foremost, it is essential to remind the BASL that it serves as the voice of the legal profession, and thus it has a responsibility to promote unity and fairness within the administration of justice. However, the said statement seems to align itself with sectarian views rather than focusing on the principles of justice and the rule of law.

We note with disgust that the BASL was prompt in issuing a statement with regard to a speech made by Parliamentarian Dr. Sarath Weerasekera, that calling it a brazen attack on the judiciary, when he was expressing his views of denial of Freedom of Religion at the several Bhikkhus of the Kurunde Vihare.

It is also surprising that the BASL was completely silent and did not think it fit to issue a similar statement condemning the blistering attack on the judiciary by Parliamentarian Mathiaparanan Abraham Sumanthiran, who also happens to be a member of the BASL. During the debate on the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill in the Parliament, Parliamentarian Sumanthiran had stated:

“It’s not only the parliament that swings like a pendulum,” “it is (also) the Supreme Court, so change that Supreme Court also. Ask them to go home.” “If they can’t read and understand their own determination in the 19th Amendment, with the very same words, within a few years, they said no, this requires a referendum. How can that be? They’re supposed to be learned?”

This is a scathing attack by Parliamentarian Sumanthiran on the apex court, and the supreme court judges of this country. However, quite shockingly the BASL remained silent. In fact, the BASL should have, in the first instance, proceeded to condemn the action of its own member for making such a derogatory attack on the judiciary. For reasons only known to the BASL, the BASL did not think it fit to do so.

It is with profound disappointment that we observe the selective nature of the BASL’s stance, wherein it appears to be inconsistent in its application of its principles.

It is going to be a century now since Lord Chief Justice Hewart made his celebrated judicial pronouncement “Justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. This has become the golden rule of Impartiality. The conduct of the BASL does not seem to be Impartial. The juxtaposition of the aforesaid two incidents manifestly exposes the biased and partisan approach of the BASL in condemning and issuing statements.

Being the premier body representing the Attorneys-at-Law of this country, must not only act impartially, but also must be seen to act impartially. Hence, we are of the view that the BASL should, in issuing statements, act impartially without being subservient to extraneous political pressures exerted with ulterior motives for collateral purposes. It is our sincere hope that the BASL, as a pivotal institution committed to the sanctity of the legal profession, will earnestly reevaluate its approach and ensure a fair and impartial treatment of all matters concerning the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.

The BASL should be mindful of its role as a neutral and objective entity that contributes to the administration of justice. Aligning themselves with partisan views and taking a confrontational stance selectively undermines the credibility of the association and its ability to effectively advocate for justice.

May our shared pursuit of justice guide us towards a harmonious society founded upon the noble principles of equity and integrity.”