{"id":84029,"date":"2018-12-09T18:44:48","date_gmt":"2018-12-10T00:44:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=84029"},"modified":"2018-12-09T10:59:38","modified_gmt":"2018-12-09T17:59:38","slug":"is-judiciary-independent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2018\/12\/09\/is-judiciary-independent\/","title":{"rendered":"Is judiciary independent?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Geethanjana Kudaligamage<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n

Is judiciary independent? This is the question that is buzzing around us and the Colombo city day and night now. One thing we must understand is that Judiciary is occupied by men and women, like any others, who are also members of the same social fabric of the country in point. If the society is virtuous full of law-abiding people, then the people holding positions in the judiciary also might be righteous, honorable and moral, at least majority of them would be so. When a society become corrupt to its core, I doubt if the people in the judiciary can be immune to such conditions.<\/p>\n

For several times judges have been caught in the USA for accepting bribes. USA is said to be the \u2018best\u2019 democracy, with a sound system of judiciary and law and order in the world with independent institutions. But they also have judges getting bribes on the basis of pay to play. For example, some judges have received kickbacks for convicting and incarcerating mostly minority people for minor crimes like smoking marijuana. These judges had received money from privately owned prison companies. Because these prisons need steady supply of prisoners to thrive their business. And there are allegations that even politicians receiving hefty illegal payments in millions for bizarre things like making speeches. Then there are campaign donations received by politicians on agreement to work on behalf of those donners. That type of bribery is legalized in the US. So, if that is the case of USA, then can Sri Lanka be different?<\/p>\n

But hope is good. Hope keeps us alive to live another day. If it is a false hope due to our ignorance of the realities, then that hope keeps us happy only for short time? As the saying goes, ignorance is bliss. Eventually we will confront with the harsh reality. We hope that our supreme court will be immune to the heavy bags of dollars coming from the west these days to manipulate politics in Sri Lanka. We hope that our judges look other way if they were offered money to make a favorable verdict\/decision favorable to the west.<\/p>\n

The following article was published by maestro H. L. D. Mahindapala six years ago, in December 2012. I quote the entire article here since it is so relevant to the issues concerning us today.<\/p>\n

How independent is the Judiciary?<\/strong><\/span>
\nPosted on December 3rd, 2012\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n

H.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>L. D. Mahindapala<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The following anecdotal\u00a0evidence is narrated to test the independence of the judiciary that was supposed to exist before the current contest between Parliament and the Judiciary broke out. The raging\u00a0controversy is based on the claim that the Judiciary was independent and the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee to probe into the conduct of the Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake erodes the independence of the Judiciary. The following anecdotal evidence presents a skeletal profile of the hidden legal system\u00a0on which the sovereign people were dependent solely for the\u00a0rule of law and their\u00a0share of\u00a0justice:<\/strong><\/p>\n

First story: <\/strong>Reminiscing about the good old days at Hulftsdorp a lawyer friend once\u00a0told me that it was common\u00a0in his day\u00a0to see bewigged lawyers getting off their cars and walking down the solemn\u00a0corridors of red- brick\u00a0Hulftsdorp, followed by peons carrying heavy\u00a0legal tomes on their stretched scrawny arms.<\/p>\n

That is all gone now,\u201d he added ruefully. Learned counsel do not take\u00a0volumes to court now. Nowadays they take the short cut, the easy path,\u00a0by visiting judges at\u00a0home with bulging envelopes, offering the kind\u00a0of irresistible hard evidence that judges cannot\u00a0refuse.\u201d<\/p>\n

Second story:<\/strong> Going\u00a0back to the late sixties I remember meeting a cross-section of professionals\u00a0at the AAA \u2014 a popular\u00a0watering hole of journos,\u00a0politicos, lawyers,\u00a0etc.\u2013\u00a0which was located then just\u00a0behind Gall Face Flats. I also remember having\u00a0hot, spicy bites of seer fish or venison, washed down with sips\u00a0of\u00a0gin, lime\u00a0and\u00a0tonic, with a prosperous\u00a0lawyer-politico who was boasting\u00a0that he fixes his cases the previous evening before it comes to trial the next morning. I asked him how. That\u2019s easy,\u201d he said. I invite\u00a0\u2026\u2026 (all names withheld for obvious reasons)\u00a0for drinks the previous evening and over one-too-many\u00a0he hears the evidence and\u00a0the verdict he would deliver next\u00a0morning in courts.\u201d<\/p>\n

Third story:<\/strong> I also knew\u00a0a Magistrate\u2019s driver with an exceptional knowledge of the inner workings of court, especially in the art of making vital evidence disappear the day before the case is due to be taken up. Once he made a miris gala, <\/em><\/strong>a vital bit of evidence,\u00a0disappear just like that from the courts store room \u2014 a feat that\u00a0could\u00a0have\u00a0been performed only by someone like Houdini. I have, of course, lost count of the number of times I\u2019ve read or heard of the record rooms of courts going\u00a0 up in flames, particularly if\u00a0 it contains files of tax cases of rich big wigs.<\/p>\n

Fourth story: <\/strong>Judges, in cahoots with their mates at the\u00a0bar,\u00a0offer\u00a0liberal extensions to lawyers who postpone their clients cases, over and over again,\u00a0which, in effect, means the helpless clients pays out\u00a0of\u00a0their\u00a0pockets for the needs of the hired\u00a0lawyers and not\u00a0theirs.<\/p>\n

Fifth Story: <\/strong>The stories about\u00a0the former Chief Justice, Sarath N. Silva are a legion. Every lawyer and judge know how he tyrannised the judiciary and ran it like his own fiefdom. But one story that sticks out goes right to the top where he colluded with the former President, Chandrika Kumaranatunga,\u00a0to hold a secret swearing in for the second time, after holding a public one earlier, with the\u00a0sole intent of\u00a0extending the President\u2019s term in office.<\/p>\n

Sixth story: <\/strong>Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, who has held her sister\u2019s power of attorney for 22 years to manage her investments in Sri Lanka, uses the\u00a0power embedded in the office\u00a0of the Chief Justice\u00a0to sit in judgement\u00a0over her sister\u2019s\u00a0case concerning\u00a0a property deal, knowing that\u00a0she should\u00a0not\u00a0touch it even with a barge pole mile long.\u00a0Since she, in her defence, claims\u00a0that the principle of justice\u00a0seen to be done\u201d should apply to her, how will the public see this\u00a0sacred principle\u00a0in operation when she comes to court grabbing\u00a0her sister\u2019s case in one\u00a0hand and the sister\u2019s\u00a0power\u00a0of attorney in the other? Even illiterate Punchi Banda, who lives in remote Yakdessagala and never heard of the existence of Standing Orders or the Constitution of 1978, won\u2019t take two seconds to\u00a0see through it.<\/p>\n

The anecdotal evidence cited above covers a wide range, from top to bottom. This, of\u00a0course, is not even the tip of the iceberg. It is only the last tiny flake sitting on the tip of the iceberg. Every practitioner in the legal system\u00a0knows more than one story which they will not talk about in public because it reflects badly on the integrity and the professional standards. The tragedy \u2014 or rather the hypocrisy\u00a0(Jesus had a\u00a0lot to say about this) \u2014 is that these black-coated professionals are the first to pontificate on the unimpeachable\u00a0standards that must be preserved at all levels\u00a0to\u00a0(1)\u00a0protect the independence of the judiciary (2) rule of law and (3) delivery of justice to the sovereign people.<\/p>\n

With the damning inside knowledge of the goings-on in courts the legal fraternity, which is tearing its hair now about\u00a0the rule\u00a0of law\u201d\u00a0should seriously ask:<\/strong> is Hulftsdorp governed by rule of law or by corrupt, underhand, illegal, immoral practices?\u00a0Can the judiciary be independent\u00a0when those in the profession are the first to undermine\u00a0the\u00a0independence of the judiciary\u00a0by selling justice to the highest bidder?\u00a0The vocal lawyers and moralists are\u00a0babbling and demonstrating about political threats to the judiciary as if the law-makers are about to\u00a0pluck\u00a0judges from their benches and hurl them into the nearest dustbin. But\u00a0how many of\u00a0these lawyers have shown\u00a0the same concern to the sovereign people in villages and cities, who\u00a0have been fleeced by unscrupulous lawyers\u00a0because of their incompetence, postponements of cases to suit their personal agendas, corrupt practices or by greasing the palm of judges?\u00a0When have the lawyers fought as passionately as they do now to protect the independence of\u00a0the judiciary from the black-coated enemy within?<\/p>\n

When have they ever demonstrated\u00a0publicly protesting\u00a0that justice cannot be delivered at the exorbitant fees they extract from\u00a0the sovereign poor?\u00a0Which lawyer ever broke a coconut in defence of a penurious villager who had been wronged by malpractices of\u00a0lawyers and judges in courts? The Kalu Koat Karayas<\/em><\/strong> have invariably been on the side of\u00a0the rich and the powerful.\u00a0Justice was constantly bought and sold over the counter at Hulftsdorp. When did the poor ever have the rule of law on their\u00a0side? On whose side was the independent judiciary? There were intrepid judges\u00a0(example: T. S. Fernando)\u00a0who stood their\u00a0ground resisting all pressures but they were few and far between. By and large the judiciary would go with the flow. So will the President of Bar Council, the\u00a0ever-so- righteous Wijedasa Rajapakse, PC, initiate action among\u00a0fellow black coats to clean up the Augean stables at Hulftsdorp to reform the legal system which he, like his fellow-lawyers, knows is corrupt to the core? Can a corrupt legal system deliver justice to the sovereign people? How can the superficial separation powers at\u00a0the\u00a0top deliver justice to the sovereign people if the process at the bottom\u00a0on which justice depends is rotten to the core?<\/p>\n

Standing up for the independence of the judiciary does\u00a0not begin and end with\u00a0combating\u00a0external forces \u2014 political, underworld, money bags, reforming outdated and bad laws,\u00a0etc. These, of course, constitute\u00a0a part of defending the independence of the judiciary. The struggle to defend the judiciary goes beyond these\u00a0to the internal factors that corrode the integrity of the judiciary, starting from crooked lawyers and going up to\u00a0some of the\u00a0untrained, lazy,\u00a0judges who sit on the bench with befuddled heads in the morning after the night before.<\/p>\n

Independence\u00a0of the judiciary also does not mean fighting for the privileges of those in upper\u00a0bracket in the official\u00a0and\u00a0unofficial\u00a0bar. If independence of the bar means delivering justice to the sovereign people, without tilting it\u00a0 in favour of one side\u00a0or the other, then there are\u00a0greater issues at stake like protecting the citizens victimized by the tyranny of courts, malpractices of black-coated hypocrites, costs involved in getting justice, impartiality\u00a0of the judges, incompetence of\u00a0 lawyers, and generally lifting the standards of the legal profession to\u00a0 make it user-friendly for the public who have to wait for donkeys years\u00a0just to get their cases heard, let alone justice. It is the Bar Association that must be in the\u00a0forefront of this battle to reform the judiciary to make it independent in a meaningful way to serve the sovereign people.\u00a0But so far no one has seen lawyers dashing coconuts on behalf of the poor people who had been\u00a0denied justice from the exploitative legal system.<\/p>\n

Independence of\u00a0the judiciary has had no meaning to the average citizen who had suffered throughout their lives oppressed by the lawyers, judges, and those connected to the legal system.\u00a0Ask anyone who has come out of the nightmarish legal process and he\/she would come out\u00a0breathing a sigh of relief never wanting to go back to gruelling process ever again. So far\u00a0the vociferous\u00a0cry of independence of the judiciary\u201d\u00a0boils down to\u00a0ensuring the right of those in the legal profession to rake in as much profit as they can\u00a0with no consideration\u00a0for the rights of their clients, especially the poor ones, to obtain\u00a0some measure of justice. If the Bar Association and those black-coated coconut dashers had devoted\u00a0one fraction of the concern\u00a0they spend on saving their\u00a0privileges in the name of\u00a0saving the independence of the judiciary\u00a0to bring some justice and relief to\u00a0their poor clients by reforming the legal system, the sovereign\u00a0people could look up to those\u00a0on Hulftsdorp hill as valuable and sincere\u00a0contributors to life, liberty and happiness.\u00a0But one has to wait and see when \u2014 if the day ever comes \u2013Wijedasa Rajapakse, who wants to reform everything around\u00a0him, will ever dare to clean up\u00a0the rot in his professional backyard and restore an independent\u00a0judiciary free from legal tyranny and corruption.<\/p>\n

It is in this background that respected Justice C. G. Weeramantry\u2019s judiciously couched phraseology directs it censorious force\u00a0to question the ethics of legal practitioners. In his writing he has been very critical of the legal profession. His latest statement on this aspect goes to the heart of the crisis within the profession. He said:<\/strong> If a judge fails in his duty of judicial integrity, that entire nation is lost. It is only when the community has confidence in the integrity and the capacity of the judiciary that that community is governed by the rule of law. In other words, you don\u2019t have the rule of law, you don\u2019t have democracy in any community where the judge is lacking in integrity.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n

Before I place this\u00a0statement in its local context, I must digress\u00a0to sketch\u00a0briefly Justice Weeramantry\u2019s\u00a0role in the Sri Lankan judiciary. Earlier I mentioned that there are two models established at Hulftsdorp: <\/strong>1) the model of T. S and Mark Fernandos, both of whom adhered to the\u00a0law and its spirit with\u00a0redoubtable tenacity\u00a0to preserve the purity and the integrity of the judiciary; (2) the model at the other extreme\u00a0of Chief\u00a0Justice Sarath N. Silva which doesn\u2019t need any more elaboration.<\/p>\n

The third model was established by Justice Weeramantry who reached the pinnacle not only in\u00a0 the\u00a0legal profession\u00a0when he was appointed to the highest court\u00a0 in the world, the International Court of Justice, but also in his scholarly approach to the law, bringing in inter-disciplinary perspectives to enrich the law and serve the sovereign people\u00a0through the use of the most\u00a0civilized\u00a0and humane force\u00a0available to humanity: <\/strong>the righteous principles\u00a0of\u00a0 law. Those who\u00a0had read his numerous volumes, including the published two volumes of his\u00a0biography (the third is on the way), will agree that\u00a0his legal\u00a0philosophy is influenced deeply by religion. Just not his\u00a0Christian faith\u00a0but all mainstream religions.\u00a0He sees religious leaders as the primary law-givers for\u00a0mankind and he draws deeply from religious sources to give depth and meaning to the laws of day. One outstanding contribution in this vein\u00a0is his book titled The Lord\u2019s Prayer<\/em><\/strong> \u2014 a path-breaking approach to Christianity from a legal perspective. He delineates the oppressive socio-economic conditions that prevailed in the time of Jesus in Jerusalem and teases out the profound\u00a0legal principles enshrined in the Lord\u2019s Prayer.<\/p>\n

He relates\u00a0the crises\u00a0of modernity to either the neglect or\u00a0abandonment of the fundamentals contained in the highest principles\u00a0of\u00a0religions. His criticisms of\u00a0the\u00a0crises in environment, politics, science and technology, law etc., are based on\u00a0religious values and, in his main thesis, he concludes that\u00a0the security. stability and the future of the good earth \u2014 the\u00a0exclusive home\u00a0of mankind\u00a0\u2014 can be assured only by returning\u00a0to\u00a0the religious values and the life-style prescribed in the sacred\u00a0texts. By this he does not mean a return to institutionalised religions. He refers essentially to the life-enriching values that can take the individuals lost in crass materialism\u00a0into the\u00a0next level of a moral\u00a0and\u00a0meaningful life.\u00a0It\u00a0is in this spirit of his concern for humanity and their future that he delivered the landmark judgment which declared all\u00a0weapons of mass destruction illegal at the International Court of Justice. It was a dissenting judgement no\u00a0doubt.\u00a0Nevertheless, it\u00a0resonated globally with a lasting moral impact\u00a0that\u00a0is slowly but surely gathering a momentum of its own.<\/p>\n

His attitude towards his own legal profession\u00a0too is drawn from religion. Talking about lawyers at a recent dinner in Melbourne I heard him telling another lawyer that he must\u00a0read Jesus on lawyers. You must read Mathew\u00a0from 23: 22. Jesus was\u00a0very severe on lawyers.\u201d \u00a0True. Jesus had never excoriated any other profession\u00a0as that of the lawyers. His angry verbal explosion is devastating. He calls them hypocrites\u201d, blind fools\u201d, blind guides\u201d. He tears into them saying: <\/strong>You snakes, you vipers\u2019 brood, how can you escape being\u00a0condemned to\u00a0hell?\u201d (23:<\/strong>33).\u00a0He begins his tirade against lawyers on a quieter tone.\u00a0This is\u00a0how the long text begins:<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>The doctors of\u00a0 the law and the Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses; therefore do what they tell you; pay attention to their\u00a0 words. But do not follow their practice; for they say one thing and do another. They make up heavy packs and\u00a0pile them on men\u2019s shoulders, but will not\u00a0raise a finger to life the load themselves. Whatever they do is done for show\u2026.\u201d (p.51 \u2014 The New English Bible<\/em><\/strong>, The\u00a0British and Foreign Bible Society in association with Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1962)<\/p>\n

The source of Judge Weeramantry\u2019s statement referring to the duty\u00a0of judicial integrity\u201d can be traced to\u00a0the Bible. He is quite emphatic when he says:<\/strong> If a judge fails in his duty of judicial integrity, that entire nation is lost.\u201d He, of\u00a0course, is not referring to the current crisis. He is focused in general on the principle of a judge\u2019s duty to uphold judicial integrity. But there is no doubt that it is a principle that applies directly to the Sri Lankan judiciary. He leaves no doubt that judicial integrity must of the highest unimpeachable standards. The last word on lawyers is with Jesus who said: Alas, for you, lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites! You travel over sea and land to win one convert; and when\u00a0you have won him you make him twice as fit for hell as you are yourselves\u201d (Mathew, 23: 15). The lawyers at the bar indeed have done\u00a0just that \u2014 dragged Sri Lanka into\u00a0another hell!<\/p>\n

The\u00a0current contest between\u00a0the legislature and the judiciary revolves mainly round the issues of judicial integrity\u201d, independence of\u00a0the judiciary: rule of\u00a0law\u201d, separation of powers\u201d, leading finally to who has the final legal authority to lay down the law to whom \u2014 is it the judiciary to\u00a0parliament or vice versa? CJ\u2019s team of lawyers is appealing to the courts urging that in the contest between the courts and the Parliamentary Select Committee the Courts must\u00a0take away the option available to Parliament to hear the case of the CJ and hand it over to court. On that selection it is respectfully submitted hangs the future of the independence of the judiciary,\u201d says K. Kanag-Iswaran the counsel\u00a0for CJ.<\/p>\n

The issue before the Appellate Court is not that of the independence of the\u00a0judiciary\u201d. The issue is whether courts can impose a new and arbitrary interpretations of the law and take away the powers\u00a0vested by the Constitution in Parliament to appoint a select committee and hear the cases of misconduct\u00a0of the judges in superior courts, including CJ. In his submission Kanag-Iswaran is openly and unequivocally appealing to the Courts to interpret the law in favour of the Courts. He would not ask the courts to interpret it in favour of the courts if the law had not\u00a0given Parliament the\u00a0right to hear the\u00a0case. It is\u00a0because Parliament is\u00a0vested with the power of hearing the case of a superior courts judge\u00a0that Kanag-Iswarn is asking the courts\u00a0to deny that right to Parliament and hand it over to the courts. If the courts had that exclusive right in law\u00a0he should\u00a0ask the Appellate Court\u00a0to uphold the law \u2014 not\u00a0to interpret it in favour of the courts.<\/p>\n

So if the Courts go out of its way to take away the power of\u00a0Parliament to hear\u00a0cases against judges in superior courts\u00a0and hand it over to the courts then it would\u00a0amount to a dictatorial grab of power\u00a0to strengthen the hands of judges who can pervert the law with no one\u00a0to\u00a0 check them.\u00a0It would also question\u00a0the independence of the judiciary\u201d. Can a court be trusted to\u00a0judge independently, without bias, a case in which\u00a0the\u00a0judicial powers constitutionally\u00a0vested in Parliament is contested with a view to grab it from the legislature and hand it over to the\u00a0judiciary? Yes, if the judge was like T. S. Fernando. So it is the judges who will be on trial\u00a0with the issue of the independence of the judiciary\u201d.<\/p>\n

Considering that granting judicial powers to an external institution would erode its own powers the natural temptation\u00a0would be for\u00a0the courts\u00a0to interpret the law in its favour. It would\u00a0be\u00a0something like the CJ deciding to hear the case of her sister because she has a stake in the investments of her sister by holding in her hands the power of attorney to the family property.<\/p>\n

As stated earlier, this issue tests the integrity of the judiciary. Given the high voltage electrifying the political landscape, can\u00a0the judiciary uphold the rule of law when their interests are at stake? This case as argued by CJ\u2019s counsel, K. Kanag-Isveran, unequivocally concedes that Parliament has the right to hear the case\u00a0of judges in superior courts. But \u2014 hold your\u00a0breath!\u00a0\u2014 \u00a0he says that this right must be transferred to courts for the courts to maintain its independence, disregarding\u00a0what the Constitution states in black and white. In 107 (3) of the Constitution the law states that Parliament is as good as a court in trying\u00a0judges of superior courts ONLY. After the Constitution\u00a0vested in Parliament the legal power\u00a0to try judges of superior court in principle it was left to\u00a0Parliament to structure the mechanism for trying judges which is laid down in Standing Order 78A.<\/p>\n

The law vesting power to Parliament\u00a0is in 107 (3) of the Constitution. What is in 78A is the mechanism to\u00a0implement that power vested in Parliament and it is the right of Parliament to devise its own instrumentality to implement the powers vested in it. It is similar to the Constitution\u00a0vesting powers in the Judiciary in principle and the judiciary devising its own mechanism to implement those powers.\u00a0So it\u2019s not a question of what is right and wrong in law. Or who has the power to try judges or not. It is because the Constitution has vested the power in Parliament that the Judiciary is fighting now to grab that power from Parliament.<\/p>\n

The precedent for Parliament to act as judge has also been established. Harold Peiris, the Editor of the Sunday Observer, was tried before Parliament on an issue of Parliamentary privilege, and fined Rs. 1,000.<\/strong>00. If citizen Harold Peiris can be tried by\u00a0Parliament why can\u2019t citizen Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake be tried, especially when the law says that judges of the superior courts, including the Chief Justice,\u00a0should be tried by\u00a0the Standing Order of\u00a0Parliament.\u00a0Neither the Chief Justice nor the Judiciary is above the law. Trying the superior judges by Parliament is another way of maintaining the checks and balances entailed in the principle\u00a0of separation of powers. Allowing judges to try each other (no pun intended) is not a healthy practice for the preservation of the rule of law or the independence of the judiciary.<\/p>\n

If the courts decide to usurp powers that it does\u00a0not have and\u00a0grab power vested in Parliament to empower\u00a0the judiciary, which is something\u00a0like grabbing your neighbour\u2019s property to\u00a0expand and strengthen the base in your little\u00a0acre, then it amounts to the judiciary acting illegally to\u00a0place the judiciary above the law with no checks and balances. It would lead to reinforce the Actonian principle that would\u00a0tend to establish the untrammelled dictatorship of the judiciary.\u00a0Such a scenario can have serious consequences to\u00a0the nation. Powers that invariably corrupt individuals and institutions\u00a0tend to propel both to demand more powers, all in the name of high principles. This leads to the\u00a0erosion of\u00a0the integrity and\u00a0credibility of institutions and individuals. That is why there are checks and balances in the separation of powers.<\/p>\n

It is in this context that\u00a0the warnings\u00a0of Justice Weeramantry becomes germane. As he stated:<\/strong> If a judge fails in his duty of judicial integrity, that entire nation is lost. It is only when the community has confidence in the integrity and the capacity of the judiciary that that community is governed by the rule of law. In other words, you don\u2019t have the rule of law, you don\u2019t have democracy in any community where the judge is lacking in integrity.\u201d<\/p>\n

Next question: <\/strong>So will the judiciary uphold the law or will it bend\u00a0over\u00a0backwards to uphold its own interests under the cover of upholding the independence of\u00a0the judiciary\u201d which doesn\u2019t exist as shown in the anecdotal introduction?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Geethanjana Kudaligamage Is judiciary independent? This is the question that is buzzing around us and the Colombo city day and night now. One thing we must understand is that Judiciary is occupied by men and women, like any others, who are also members of the same social fabric of the country in point. If the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[67],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84029","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-geethanjana-kudaligamage"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84029","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=84029"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84029\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84029"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84029"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84029"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}