Judges expose systemic failure in corrupt judiciary
Posted on December 28th, 2012

H. L. D. Mahindapala

The anecdotal evidence, revealing what the judges are up to on the bench, should have amused and, more importantly, shocked the Magistrates and District Judges gathered  at the Annual General Meeting of the Judicial Services Association, (JSA)  held on December 22, 2012. For instance, Appeals Court Judge Justice A.W.A Salam , speaking on the theme of judges  falling asleep on the bench while cases are in progress, confessed: “I also sometimes feel sleepy. I have my own way of doing it. When I’m quite alert, I just close my eyes and wait. Suddenly, I open my eyes and, to show that I had followed everything while my eyes were closed, I ask him a question! So even if I fall asleep, he thinks I’m pretending to be asleep!” It is hilarious, no doubt, but  there is a flip side to this story:  what is the impact of it on the litigants who come in search of justice? The Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, addressing the same audience said: “In 1867 Walter Bagehot commented that, the worst judge is a deaf judge.” In this story Justice Salam confirms that judges of our courts can not only  be deaf but also blind with sleep. 

In fairness to Judge Salam it must be mentioned that he warned the Judges to be attentive at all times. Nevertheless, this leaves room open to question the fairness and the quality of justice meted out to citizens who believe that they have come, in the words of the Chief Justice, to their “Temple of Justice”. Can judges who fall asleep on their job deliver justice at the same time?  Does this not amount to deception of  sorts?

However, it is the stories narrated by Justice C. V. Wigneswaran, in his key note address, that  revealed the seamy side of the judiciary. There is one story that screams out  for justice. In this story, believe it or not, an  innocent man was sent to prison because a Senior High Court Judge didn’t like the lawyer who appeared for him. The Judge knew that there was hardly any evidence to convict the accused. So he put words in the mouth of the accused and found him guilty. After that the judge proceeded to give the maximum sentence to the client of his old batch mate at Law College. This Judge has been recently appointed as a High Court Judge.

Incredible? Yes. It’s more than that. It’s outrageous. Nay, it’s criminal. The story stinks to high heaven. It exposes the corruption of the judicial/legal system that is now talking  so piously about the independence of the judiciary. Oddly enough, the gathering of the magistrate and judges was  focused on the theme of  “the independence of the judiciary “. This anecdote goes to the heart of the ideal principles enunciated by the legal pundits, from the Chief Justice downwards. The  general trend was to  expand on the theme of  independence of the judiciary as if it is a manthra that should be chanted right now, in this politically charged ethos, to glorify the judiciary.  But the theme of corruption in the judiciary that ran as a counterpoint was equally strident. While the high priests of legal morality were intoning their principles lurid stories were told of how judges run amok on the bench. It seemed as if principles were invoked to cover-up the misconduct of crooked judges.  No doubt independence is a sine qua non to maintain the integrity, impartiality and the credibility of the judicial system for the public to rely on its fairness to all.  But what confidence will it inspire in the public if the judges of the highest court conduct themselves in the most vindictive fashion?  How can a Judge learned in the law act like abominable Prabhakaran? It is against all known principles of human nature to send an innocent man to jail just to please the bitter, vindictive cravings of a Judge. 

Equally horrifying is the reaction of the entire legal profession that listened to this story. Their indifference to the unjust victimisation of an innocent man is deplorable. Normally, these acts come  from political institutions. But  for  the Judiciary to commit crimes against innocent civilians is unpardonable. How can the highest tier of the Judiciary listen to the plight of an innocent man imprisoned for no fault of his own and not ask for an inquiry? Has the Chief Justice, who was there, initiated an inquiry into the plight of this innocent man and the conduct of the High Court Judge who was later promoted ? Or are judges above the law?

What has the Bar Association, headed by righteous Wijedasa Rajapakse, done so far? What does he propose to do, if anything all, in the future, to prevent judges from going berserk on the bench? For how long will our judges be allowed  to pervert the judicial system to satisfy their sado-masochistic tendencies? The just thing to do was to report his Law College batch mate to the proper authorities — the Bar Association, or Bribery Commissioner, or the Judicial Service Commissioner, or the Chief Justice. Instead of which the Judge punishes an innocent  by giving him the maximum punishment. Isn’t this another case of black-coats, whether on the bench or in the courts, ganging up to protect each other at the expense of the innocent citizens? Will Wijedasa Rajapakse lead another team of black-coats to dash coconuts demanding  justice/compensation for this innocent man? Or will this unnamed innocent victim of a crooked judicial system be ignored because he is not so important as the Chief Justice?

The evidence in this case is unimpeachable because it came from a retired judge who heard it straight  from the vindictive Judge’s mouth. Here is the full story as narrated by Justice Wigneswaran to judges with the Chief Justice listening:

“There are other interesting cases of judicial bias. A senior High Court Judge told me this about thirty years ago. This Judge had been recently appointed a High Court Judge and sent to this station. A senior lawyer who practiced in that Court had been a batch mate of the High Court Judge at the Law College. The lawyer would daily come into the Judge’s Chambers and wish him “Good Morning” and inquire about his health and conveniences at the Official Bungalow, about his family, children and so on. The Judge attributed the lawyer’s concerns to their friendship at Law College until one day the Judge casually walked up to the window overlooking the pathway within the Court’s premises. The lawyer had just left after inquiring into the health and well being of the Judge. Standing behind the curtain in his Chambers, the Judge overheard the lawyer telling a client in Sinhalese “Work is done. I have given the Judge’s dues. You will be acquitted. You must bring me extra Rs.5000/- before evening today after you are acquitted”! The Judge was shocked. On looking into that day’s trial cases he found the one in which his Law College friend appeared, there was hardly any evidence to convict the accused. The lawyer knowing that the accused would be acquitted had made use of the Judge’s name to make a fast buck.

“The Judge was furious. What did he do? He while hearing the case put many matters into witnesses’ mouths, made out a case which was not there and convicted the accused sentencing him with maximum punishment. I inquired from him “Sir! Was it correct to punish the client for a mistake made by the lawyer?” He said “May be you are right. But at that time I was furious and until I convicted him I could not control my anger. I refused permission to any lawyer thereafter to come into my Chambers.” Judicial bias thus could be the outcome of anger and annoyance.”

It is the conclusion drawn by Justice Wigneswaran in his key note address that is equally repugnant. He dismisses it as “judicial bias” that comes out of “anger and annoyance.” No, Sir! It is not simple as that! It is a crime committed against an innocent man by a senior judge of the Sri Lankan judiciary. Obviously, the judge told this to Justice Wigneswaran to prove what a righteous man he was. A mature legal mind trained in the highest  principles of law and imbued with a sensitive moral sense would have recognised instantly that the judge was a hypocrite hiding behind his self-serving principles  to boost his own ego. Which moral judge would send an innocent man to jail to punish his batch-mate at the Law College? The Judge lets the guilty party (his batch-mate) go scot free and sends an innocent man to jail just to prove that he is a righteous man to his fellow-judge. Why should the helpless accused pay for the the crime committed by his corrupt black-coated friend? The duty of Justice Wigneswaran was to get his friend removed from the bench for committing a heinous crime and the lawyer disbarred. But he turns a blind eye to his fellow-judge’s crime and also allows the crooked lawyer to go on earning easy money through corrupt deals while an innocent man languishes in jail. The law forced this victim to pay twice: 1. he had to pay for the lawyer a bribe in addition to his fees and 2. serve a jail sentence for a crime he never committed.

The Chief Justice addressed the same meeting that day. She was there listening to this story and she and the entire legal profession assembled at this august gathering of magistrates and judges had nothing to say about the victimisation of an innocent man by a Judge of the Sri Lankan courts. Besides, the story is now well publicized with Justice Wigneswaran’s speech going on the websites.  This must be one of the thousands of injustices committed by the bewigged judges. Neither the President of the Bar Association, Wijedasa Rajapakse, nor the Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, who should have reacted instantly had said anything about the conduct of the Judge or expressed any concern about the victims of the Sri Lankan judiciary. Imagine a judge putting words into the mouth of an innocent man deliberately to find him guilty on a charge he had never committed and giving him the maximum prison sentence! Does this judge deserve to sit even on a bench with a hole in the middle in the village toilets?

The narrator Justice Wignewaran too is an accomplice in this crime. For thirty years he kept this crime to himself without reporting it to the Judicial Commission or showing any compassion to the victim of his fellow-judge’s wrath. If he  is the righteous man he claims to be his first concern should have been to rescue the innocent victim  locked up in a jail for no reason at all. He knew that  a grave injustice has been done to an innocent man. He keeps his mouth closed all these days and lets  an innocent man rot in jail. He revealed this story to  his brethren in the judiciary not to right the wrong but to gloss over the act of a fellow-judge who should be in jail instead of the innocent man whom he convicted.

This is not all. The stories he told in all makes you wonder whether the judiciary has any right to claim independence. Here are the horror stories he related to his brethren in the judiciary:

“Let me point out some of the common contributory causes, which lead to judicial bias – Political pressures brought about directly or indirectly. Desire on the part of a Judge to curry favour for his or her future prospect. Pecuniary interest of the Judge in the subject matter of the case before him or her. A desire to patronize any former colleague at the Bar or elsewhere. Inherent tendency in a Judge to show favour to certain classes of cases. Interest of the Judge in one or the other litigating parties for any reason whatsoever. There are many more.

“A Judge needs to be alert with regard to his or her conditioned reflexes when hearing a case. We are all human. But it would do us good if we know ourselves “”…” know our biases, prejudices, predilections and so on. Inter alia gender bias, communal bias, racial bias and political bias have been noticed in recent times. I know of a Lady Judge who would not seriously consider the need to have corroborative evidence to support that of the complainant in a rape case, regardless of how reliable the evidence was. I know of a Judge of an Original Court who refused to read a judgment of the Supreme Court produced in his Court by Counsel, which recommended corroborative evidence to support the confession given by the accused in a case under the Prevention of Terrorism (Special Provisions) Act with regard to the actual happening of the event mentioned in the charge sheet. The principle there was, even if a confession might be considered to have been voluntarily made, if the act confessed did not take place in reality how could an accused be convicted. Since the Judge refused to accommodate the Supreme Court Judgment in his anxiety to convict the accused, the matter is now in appeal.

“A senior lawyer had played out several clients. While hearing the criminal cases against him I had shown my disapproval of his conduct at some stage. That was good enough for the accused and his lawyer to say I was prejudiced and have the case transferred to another Judge when in fact the lawyer’s cases were at their tail end after leading so much of evidence. I was annoyed with the transferring authority for not asking me anything or calling for my observations. I discussed this with Justice Jameel, who was then a High Court Judge. He said “The fact that you are annoyed and angry confirms the fear of the accused. What does it matter if a few cases are less for you? Whether this lawyer will ultimately get convicted or not is not your concern.You have done your part. Just leave it at that!” The lawyer died soon thereafter “”…” due to natural causes of course!”

 How can a judiciary that has lost its moral compass ask for independence? Independence for what? To terrorise and imprison innocent citizens? 

Nevertheless, I must congratulate Justice Wigneswaran for  his no-holds-barred analysis of the judiciary. His first hand  experiences are more revealing  than the doctoral theses of those in Law Faculties of our universities. His analysis of the judiciary was clinical , sparing neither the external nor the internal forces that threaten the independence of the judiciary. His candid narrative exposing  the sordid practices at Hulftsdorp reveals the systemic failures of the judiciary. He makes an attempt to balance the external and internal factors fairly evenly even though at the end he comes down heavily on the external (political) factors that impact on the judiciary.

On the current crisis facing the Chief Justice he has taken a cautiously critical stance. He concludes this aspect by saying : “And if I may say so, honest reflection will show that the Judiciary played its role in allowing this to happen.” He also sounds a warning note: “As Judges we must remember that manipulating crowds and processions are in the domain of the political animal. Judges who, by virtue of their office, are isolated cannot win that battle easily. The battle that can be won of course is the battle in their domain “”…”  the legal domain.”

His concluding words  were : “You must continue performing your duties however challenging they are, bearing in mind the need to be balanced. You must continue to remain together, for you can be certain that there will be moves to split asunder the unity. You must continue this historic struggle for extrinsic independence. Not just for the judiciary but for democracy.”

Quite disappointingly, he did not sound the clarion call to clean up the Augean stables at Hulftsdorp. Obviously, he  is willing  to brush under the carpet the muck in which his black-coated colleagues wallow and divert attention only to the external factors. If even one tenth of what he says about Hulftsdorp is correct then there is an urgent need to clean up the judiciary from top to bottom. But we know that  Justice Wigneswaran is truthful. So will the Chief Justice and the President of  the Bar Association get together and initiate action to eradicate corruption within the legal system?

The responsibility is mainly with the Chief Justice. She has heard it all from the horse’s mouth. She must have heard worst things on the grape vine before and possibly kept quiet about  it.  But now that she has heard it will she take it  up with the Judicial Commission and the  other  relevant authorities?

The role of  some of the judges under her  and her own role  can explain, to some extent, why the judiciary has fallen into the lower depths described by Justice Wigneswaran. Her failure to clean up her backyard is an indictment  of her role as Chief Justice. As S. L. Gunasekera, the intrepid legal luminary, said, quite aptly, she is “not all Lily White “. Her speech at this annual gathering of judicial officers also reveals some aspects of  her politics and attitude to the law and the judiciary. Her speech will be  examined in the next article.

9 Responses to “Judges expose systemic failure in corrupt judiciary”

  1. Ashoka Perera Says:

    Dear Mr.Mahindapala

    I went through the entire article which is nothing short of a horror story. The moment you set foot on Hultsdorp what does it remind you. A burial ground, with undertakers and poll bearers in black coats. The innocent who visits there to get a patient hearing is in for a shock treatment at the hands of Tholkaya, who screams at him as if he has committed a crime punishable with death. The black coated rogue who is representing him is thrilled because he knows now that poor client is looking at him for salvation and the devil’s due is quadrupled. The judge from his bench pretends as if there is nothing wrong in it. Isn’t this the normal practice at any Sri Lanka court?

    Having visited courts in Australia and NZ on jury duty, many a time, we have observed the difference in shock. What a contrast. A pleasant place to spend your day if you enjoy debates of legal luminaries.

    Do you think the exposures you have made through this article would make any difference in the judiciary in SL.? On the contrary the rogues in legislature and judiciary will join forces again with the minor hiccup of Shirani B’s removal which is the right course of action to punish her for directly involving in corrupt practices. How dare she behaves as if a squeaky clean virgin. Nonetheless, it’s time that the rogues in black coat were told where to get off.

  2. jay-ran Says:

    How can we expect a FAIR JUDGEMENT FROM THOSE JUDGES & ALSO THE LAWYERS WHO SUPPORTED THE CJ WHO HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF MANY WRONG DOINGS ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF THE LAND.These allegations were inquired by the PSC as per JR’s constitution where many such inquiries were held during JRJ’s period but NONE OF THE SO CALLED JUSTICES,BASL PRESIDENT OR ANY PUNDIT NEVER CONTESTED SUCH RULINGS!!! Whay is it only now they are ILLEGAL.When an ordinaryman appears before the Judge,he or she has to give utmost respect to the Judge.Buut the accused CJ,SB WHEN APPEARED BEFORE PSC,SHE EXPECTED ALL THE RESPECT AS A CJ COMPKLETELY FORGETTING THAT SHE WAS AN ACCUSED BEFORE A PANEL OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTED MEMBERS.
    Now Wijedasa Rajapakse will be given utmost FAVOURS BY THE JUDGES WHO DID NOT FAVOUR THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.Is this what u call fair play???
    Many of these Judges are of the view that THEY AREABOVE THE LAW,AND THEY CAN DOANY WRONG BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS RIGHT!!!
    These Judges are so SWOLLEN HEADED, that I can remember an incident that happen in 1995.At that time I wa the Regional Telecomm Engineer,Bandarawela.I noted that Haputale District Courts Main Telephone was disconnected an was with only incomming facility for NON PAYMENT OF BILLS.No sooner I came toknow this I called that telephone number,and informed who I was to the person who answered to see how I could help to give back the service.A ROUGH VOICE CAME FROM THE OTHER END WHOSAID HE WAS THE JUDGE AND SAID HE DID NOT WISH TO SPEAK TO ME IN A VERY HIGH TONE.This IDIOTIC JUDGE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED ME TO CALL HIM SIR. I called this Muslim Judge as a courtesy to help him to restore the service AS THE HEAD OF THE BRANCH AND NOT AS AN ACCUSSED APPEARING BEFORE HIM.
    Such are the MENTALITY OF THESE FOOLS,MOSTLY OF WHOM ARE CORRUPTED TO THE UTMOST!!!

  3. Kit Athul Says:

    I read this article from top to bottom twice, but nothing to beat YOUR CELBRATED ARTICLE ON JUDGE WEERANANTRY. You your self might not realizs it, but what you did was to expose a person who is not exposed to change, because of the British Colonial System that never canaged. Charles Perera in his article clearly explains why change is not an excepted norm of the judiciary system of Sri Lanka. This is why there are still, so many supporters of Judge Weeramantry. This mentally deranged Weeramantry thought that his legal knowledge of the British Colonial system was valid at the time JRJ put the SL constitution gather. This is why JRJ politely told him to get lost and stay in Australia. This man should be made PERSONA-NON-GRATA and his VISA’s removed from his passport. He should be treated the same way Brain Seneviratne was treated. He was not allowed to enter Singapore! And put on a plane back to Australia.

  4. Nanda Says:

    Kit Athul,
    You must be really angry with Weeramantri to compare him (or any other human) to the monster Brian Seneviratne.

    He was kept in a comfortable room 3m x 3m with A/C in Singapore and he said he was tortured in a 10×10 “BOX”.
    Most houses in Australia have rooms 10×10 with no A/C.

    No. nothing compares with Brian monster.

  5. cassandra Says:

    The anecdotes recounted by HLDM bring no credit to the judiciary but they scarcely justify the somewhat sensational heading, “Judges expose systemic failure in corrupt judiciary”. They do not show that there has, in fact, been a “systemic failure” within the country’s judiciary.

    The remarks attributed to Judge Salam were most likely uttered ‘tongue in cheek’ and need to be treated as such.

    The other stories mentioned are a different matter. The story of a High Court Judge who, upset by the conduct of a lawyer, an erstwhile colleague from Law College, ‘took it out’ on a hapless accused is especially serious. As HLDM rightly says it is a “story that screams out for justice.” It is inconceivable that a High Court Judge could have acted in the way he is said to have. Clearly, the man was not a fit and proper person to hold the position he did.

    HLDM notes that the Chief Justice sat “ there listening to this story and she and the entire legal profession assembled at this august gathering of magistrates and judges had nothing to say about the victimisation of an innocent man by a Judge of the Sri Lankan courts.” Is HLDM certain that they said nothing? At any rate, I don’t know whether one could reasonably have expected them to have said anything there and then. There is also little meaningful they could have done about it, considering that the incident mentioned occurred “about thirty years ago”

    While the cases cited in the article reflect poorly on the judiciary, we need to bear in mind that they do not reflect the norm. There are bad eggs in every profession. There are good lawyers (and judges) and there are bad ones, just as you find good journalists and bad journalists. That said, however, it is vital that the legal profession and the judiciary maintain the highest standards of integrity and conduct. And, as HLDM has suggested much needs to be done in this regard. May I suggest that among the measures to consider are more rigorous tests for those entering the legal profession, and worthy codes of professional conduct. And of course, politicians need to stop interfering with the judiciary and putting undue pressure on judges. The Law is an old and noble profession. Over the years many lawyers and judges have served with great distinction and served society well. Today’s lawyers are heirs to those great traditions and they bear a responsibility to conduct themselves accordingly.

    The fact that the judges need to lift their game does not gainsay the fact that the independence of the judiciary needs to be protected – as Justice Wigneswaran has said, “not just for the judiciary but for democracy”. The legislature and the judiciary are both essential parts of a democracy. Their roles should be those of partners, not adversaries, and one hopes that members of parliament would be enlightened enough to realise it is incumbent on them to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is maintained.

    Kit Athul,

    I see you have seen fit to have another go at Judge Weeramantry. As Nanda says you “must be really angry with Weeramantri to compare him (or any other human) to the monster Brian Seneviratne”. You are of course entitled to your opinion, for what it is worth. I don’t believe that any of that is going to diminish Judge Weeramantry in any way. Unlike you, I did not find HLDM’s article concerning Judge Weeramantry worthy of any celebration – far from it. As I said in my response to that article, it was all very sad. And that is my opinion – for what that’s worth!

    A Happy New Year to everyone.

  6. Nimal Says:

    Cassandra
    I don’t agree with your explanation about what HLDM had written,quote “Judges expose systemic failure in corrupt judiciary
    Unless you are living in SL or have to deal withe legal enterprise in that island.Along with other countries in South East Asia our legal enterprise is a very corrupt one.In fact it’s a club where the judges and lawyers seems to support one another to maintain the cruel gravy train at the expense of the poor victim of a litigation.Perhaps you have not experience the usual treatment by their hands,if you get caught to a legal rangel.
    They never end a case but bleed the client until the perpetrator gains a upper hand and win.this is the reason for lawlessness in the country.Every case brought before judge gets endlessly get put of day after day,month after month,year after year and not common to go to decades,where victims have gone bankrupt,homeless or passed away.
    I too read what Mr Charles Perera had written that this problem is something we seems to have inherited from the Colonials.That’s not true,during the colonial times as far as I could remember,law breakers are few and people had respect for one another and for the law of the land.During their times in Ceylon the police respected the people and people respected the police and that goes for judiciary,politicians and all officials of the government.I am old enough to testify to this.That’s why people in appreciation to the people who ruled us when to the extent having their first names and even surnames.We are in self denial of our recent glorious history,that was mainly due to recent invaders or colonials,that seems to have developed the true infrastructure that up to this day we enjoy it’s fruits.We seems to be sleepwalking back to,the pre colonial days of invaders and tyrants that ruled us and subjugated us to tyranny where we lived in virtual poverty,
    This legal hegemony is clearly brought to prominence by the humble people of India where just ONE rape had brought the country to stand still.Here the utterly corrupt judiciary,police,politicians brought that country to a desperate situation where people had enough.They put up with 1 rape ever 13 minutes.What I was told 12 years ago by a very pretty Indian student seems to highlight what is happening there now.She told us that a young girl is scared to walk the streets in a big city fearing abductions and rape and the cops do little and the courts take over 10 years to listen to a case where the victim gives up in obtaining justice.This is because the rapist is usually connected to the powerful or become powerful during the case ever brought up in courts.No wonder there is lawlessness in our countries and the criminals and politicians and their likes take undisputed upper hand in our coutries,just like in the pre colonial days.
    Compare that with the mother country of the colonial? A case of civilian nature is finished in one hearing and a criminal in in 2 or 3 weeks.House next door was forcefully occupied by whole lot of people,over 30 people and it took the authorities and the courts to evict them in one hearing and these occupiers were evicted within 10 days of they been reported.will this ever happens in the island?
    Every structure of our administrative process has to be thoroughly cleaned and restructured with a lot of enlightened people from countries that that are enjoying a just and fulfilling life.No wonder our leaders had to sign the Kandyan convention that led to a century of prosperity peace.
    There must be a valid reason why so many,included pseudo patriots seem to be domiciled in the countries of the former colonials? So let’s be honest to ones self.I love my country and my people back home and I continue to help as much as I can materially and morally.I may have a lot of sreams and shouts but that is nothing compared to the never ebnding sufferings of our people back home,iresspective who is in power.

  7. cassandra Says:

    Hi Nimal,

    Thank you for your comments. You have stated your views clearly and in sensible fashion and I appreciate all you write.

    The stories that HLDM had cited do not paint a rosy picture of the judiciary. The incidents recalled are deplorable and there cannot be any quarrel about that. But my point was that, bad as those stories were, they did not demonstrate that there was a “systemic failure” within the judiciary.

    Your comments suggest that ‘problems’ involving judges and lawyers are widespread. I have not had first -hand experience of having to deal with them and cannot therefore realistically dispute your position. I am still inclined to believe that there has not been a “systemic” failure in this area. The problem with the ‘Law’s delays’ is not new but it would seem it has now got worse. Clearly, that is a serious matter that needs attention.

    You have commented on various matters. But if I may refer to just a couple, I am pleased to see that you have the good sense to acknowledge that colonial rule was not ALL bad and that in fact there are some very good things that are a part of the colonial legacy. You have also noted how law and order have deteriorated since Independence and corruption has grown in that time. It is good to acknowledge these things honestly. Otherwise, as you say, we will be in self denial, and that will do no one any good.

    A Happy New Year to you.

  8. SenaD Says:

    Cassandra,

    Nimal explained how the collution between the judges and the lawyers in Sri Lanka has resulted in a “system” that fails the people seeking justice through courts.

    Even then You said, “I have not had first -hand experience of having to deal with them and cannot therefore realistically dispute your position. I am still inclined to believe that there has not been a “systemic” failure in this area.”

    These comments illustrate the difference between “knowing” (through experience) on one hand and “believing” for wanting to believe, confirming that people believe what they want to believe, which they are quite entitled to and free to do.

    I am inclined to accept the comment based on experince “believing” the narrater is honest.

  9. cassandra Says:

    SenaD,

    And you are quite entitled to believe “ that people believe what they want to believe”.

    Cheers.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2018 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress