---

In an interview with , the newly appointed Deputy Minster of Justice, Sujeewa Senasinghe, a prominent lawyer,  spoke about the controversy surrounding the Chief Justice in the country and the erosion of the judiciary in general. He blamed the Rajapaksa regime for the situation and said that in the current environment it would not be easy to restore good governance in the country as quickly as desired. 

• In a country with good governance, a CJ of this nature would have definitely resigned
• I don’t have full power but I know how to do it

Q : Let’s talk about the present crisis in the judiciary and the issue of the Chief Justice; we saw that while Mohan Peiris refused to resign, the former ousted CJ, Shirani Bandarnayake was reinstated. Do you think that as a lawyer, what was done was done in the right way? 

Actually nobody knows exactly what exactly is the ‘right way’ because the appointment of Mohan Peiris was done haphazardly and there were loopholes in the procedure. The removal of Shirani Bandaranayake was not done properly and was not done for good enough reasons. So the removal was bad and if the removal was bad, then there cannot be a new appointment. Mohan Peiris who was sitting as the CJ does not have the legal capacity to sit as a CJ. Then there is no CJ and the old CJ has the capacity to act as the CJ again. The situation is rather uncertain and unclear. 

But one thing that we do know is that Shirani Bandaranayake was removed in a very unjust manner on false and political reasons. So as lawyers we had queries about her appointment also. But once she was appointed, whether it was right or wrong, she was appointed as a Supreme Court judge. 

Q : So doesn’t that same principle then apply to Mohan Peiris as well with the question, was the appointment right or wrong and, once he is appointed, does he remain appointed? 

No, because unlike in Mohan Peiris’ case, nobody was removed to appoint Shirani Bandaranayake. There was a vacancy and she was brought in. So the question is only that whether her appointment was ethical. Legally, she had all the right to become the CJ. So there are no queries about it – only whether it was moral and ethical and whether she was deserving of that position. Legally, she was the CJ of the country. 

But, with Mohan Peiris, there are so many other problems. And with his track record, he is not fit to be a CJ. Being the adviser to the president, of the Central Bank, to Cabraal and to Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s company, he was disqualified from the word ‘go’. As a lawyer I am disappointed this profession has come to this level thanks to Mahinda Rajapaksa. It is like a banana republic so the problem starts there. As a responsible lawyer, I like to see the system on the right track and the system to take a new course in a proper manner. To be honest, that has not happened from the time of Sarath Silva. 

Q : You said yourself that even Shirani Bandaranayake’s appointment was questionable. In that context, is reinstating her the best course of action? Does two wrongs make a right? 

The two wrongs are totally different. The first one was not legally wrong – it was only questionable on moral and ethical grounds. 

Q : But the whole point is to restore independence to the judiciary; can that happen with such ethically and morally questionable appointments? 

That is what we are doing; and that is why she resigned. Even if her appointment was not correct, it was unfair to just dismiss her and put her on the road. In any unjust appointment, there is a system to correct it. She needed to be given a proper retirement. She agreed to that and when I spoke to her she said that all she wanted was a dignified retirement. Thereafter the next best person, the most independent person who is not a stooge of any political party, who will uphold the dignity of the profession will be appointed. The President will take a decision on that. 

Q : Recently it came to light that the government considered giving a diplomatic post to Mohan Peiris if he resigns his post as the CJ. Do you think such a move [if implemented] would have been correct and ethical? 

It is not the best thing but in certain situations you cannot always do the best thing. These are bad situations in countries. One example was the war. Are we going to forgive all the terrorist cadres of the  LTTE? Is it right? People who have stolen something are in jail, but these guys who killed so many people are being rehabilitated and let loose and set free. Now, is that correct? 

So you have to see the situation in a country. With Mohan Peiris, his appointment was bad so he was given an exit point. To sort out this problem, this was the best way we could think of. I wouldn’t have agreed in giving a post like that. I would ask him to resign and exit peacefully. But he did not agree to do that; now he will have to face the consequences. 

Q : Looking at this situation, don’t you think that the way it was handled is fundamentally contradictory with this governments’ policy of good governance [a theme] it campaigned on when in the opposition? 

The system has been crippled so much you cannot expect good governance at once. Can you talk about good governance after  the war? You see former LTTEers who conducted mass killings  in Parliament now.  Is  that good governance? You cannot always go by the old system; you have  to set up a new system. 

In South Africa, America, Singapore and Malaysia, their new starts have not been 100 per cent satisfactory. But once you put in the system, after one or two years, we can [cast away] the old system. To put the new system right, we have to do certain things out of the box. In a country with good governance, a CJ placed in a similar situation would have definitely resigned. If it is not happening, good governance is not working in the country. 

Q : Realistically, how long do you think it will take for good governance to be established in the country? 

Once a new CJ is appointed, once the Bribery Commission is set up, once the police is cleaned up, once the top officials are changed, it will happen. The first 100 days will be a good foundation for that. You have to build on it. For good governance to take place, it will take five, six, seven or eight years. It is also the attitudes and mindsets of the people. This formulation can change but the people also must change and get used to it[the new system]. That will take some time because we have not been having good governance for centuries. 

Q : When you were in the Opposition, you were vociferous about mass-scale corruption. Now, we see charges being made against several people, but is anything going to happen beyond that? 

We are still trying to get the system right. We are struggling to get the Supreme Court in order and  the Bribery Commission in order, so we need time. We don’t have a magic wand to wave and get the system right. If we have a magic wand and the systems are right, then we can take action. But we don’t have that advantage yet. The Bribery Commission has been conducting investigations into 2,000 – 3,000 rupee bribery charges. So they don’t have the expertise to handle cases of this magnitude. We have to structure the Bribery Commission in a different manner; we have to get expertise from the AG’s Department; senior lawyers too must be involved in this exercise. A lot of mechanisms need to be added in the future. It is not easy. 

Q : Are you up for the challenge? 

Yes, definitely. I have already given the action plan. It is just that I don’t have that full-power. But I know how to do it and if I am given the task I would do it. I have asked the President to give me this task. 

Q : What is your action plan? 

To set up the Bribery Commission three times stronger than the one now. To get AG Department’s senior councillors involved in this, get the CID and law enforcement agency top ranks to have meetings and have hotlines connected to 119. Then evidence, documents can be collected. We need a task force to meet every 3-4 days and discuss what action has been taken. Weekly monitoring and a different, speedy mechanism to conduct investigations. It can be done if you have the will but I want full authority if I am going to do it.. 

Q : When you say authority, you are already the Deputy Minister of Justice…

I am the deputy, but I am not the main person. 

Q : Are you saying that you and the Minister of Justice Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe have not been able to work together? 

We are working together. But, if I am on my own, I will adopt a different method. Together it is a different method we follow. I have to adapt when I am the deputy; I can only make suggestions; the decisions are not taken by me but by the President, the Justice Minister and other relevant parties. 

Q : Are you unhappy with the position given to you? 

Initially yes, because I am one of the senior members. I have been in the provincial council for seven years and in Parliament for five years. 

Q : Now there are many allegations against the former ruling family  but they have not been proven yet. In fact, both the former president  and MP Namal Rajapaksa have denied these allegations as false  complaints. Do you think we should assume they are innocent until proven  guilty? 

We  need to investigate these allegations. If someone has made a  false  complaint, there is a remedy in law. And yes, it is innocent   until proven guilty. But, the public has an idea. You don’t have to  prove  Bin Laden was a murderer or that Prabhakaran was a  murderer? It  was never proven; so were those people  innocent? 

Q : One of the main goals of the new government is reforming the Executive Presidency. How far has the government gone with that task? Do you think it will be possible to do within 100 days as promised? 

It has already happened. Already powers have been transferred to the Prime Minster. We don’t have to wait for another 80 days. The rest is yet to come and we are working round the clock to bring in these constitutional changes. People did not have anything [before];  but they like to see the change to happen in 10 – 15 days. Everything we have promised, we have delivered so far. Changing the regime and putting the system right is what people wanted and we are already doing that. 

Q : Some are of the view that this ‘change’ is only for 100 days – until the general elections and that the change will not last. What have you to say about this? 

Journalists have the freedom to write what they want these days which was never there before. Sometimes what is wrong with the country and the people is that they are asking for too much. You have already seen the change, such as an independent police and an independent media. The criticism must be comparative and within the system. 

Haven’t the presidential powers been reduced? Isn’t the President spending only 6,000 rupees a day? Compare that with the spending of the ex-president. Look at the inauguration ceremony of the President. I have only one bodyguard outside. Otherwise there will be 10-12 bodyguards outside the residence of the Deputy Justice Minister. Isn’t that a big change? What has been done has to be appreciated. I feel that the information about the good we have done is not reaching the people readily.