For peace to prevail, justice must
first prevail

The week that was, would serve as a landmark in the annals of the Sri Lankan judiciary. In what is effectively a verdict delivered by the Supreme Court on a previous ruling, Dr. P. B. Jayasundera’s case elicits a multitude of extremes that puts to test the face and faith in our system of justice. In his motion filed with the Supreme Court requesting that he be allowed to withdraw the undertaking never to take up public office, Dr. Jayasundera alleged that former Chief Justice, Sarath N. Silva,  was prejudiced against him in the judgements delivered during the infamous LMS case in July last year. A seven-judge bench ruled in favour of Dr. Jayasundera, whilst Chief Justice, Asoka de Silva, stated that the reasons behind the ruling would be announced shortly.
Thus it could be construed that one extreme i.e. the former Chief Justice was biased in his decision. The independence of the judiciary is paramount to further the pillars of good governance and astute policy. Jayasundera’s affidavit challenged the integrity of the former Chief Justice and two sitting judges of the Supreme Court. To determine that the independence of the supreme legal body was compromised, augurs ill for country and society.  
President Rajapaksa termed the appointment of Jayasundera a matter of national interest which formed part of the basis for the latter’s application. It was just 10 months ago that Jayasundera apologised to court and undertook not to return to public service. The counsel for the petitioner in the LMS case enquired from Court if Dr. P. B. Jayasundera must be treated differently because the President asked him to take back the appointment. He stated that it would affect the independence of the judiciary and its dignity. But the bench ruled in favour of Jayasundera. With the application for a reversal being taken up under a new administration as it were, it leaves room for the question if such changes give occasion for the easy-reversal of preceding decisions. To imply the first judgment was biased offers one extremity, and to insinuate the latter was politically-motivated presents another.
Supporters of Dr. Jayasundera as well as several other sections of the legal and business fraternity have welcomed the latest ruling while others especially the parties who originally filed litigation in the public interest are dismayed. In the weeks ahead we will see more opinions emerging.
With last week’s ruling and the re-entry of Dr. P. B. Jayasundera as Treasury Secretary, the nation at large must deal with a string of issues stemming from the primary ruling of the Sarath N. Silva-headed Supreme Court. One might choose to draw a parallel between Dr. Jayasundera’s case and another – LMS for instance. Thus we are faced with the possibility of a string of applications and petitions challenging the decisions handed down from the previous regime as it were. Such action can only bring the Supreme Court to disrepute, which is far from what a country desires for its most august legal body.
As a country and citizens, we expect the Supreme Court to be beyond reproach – there must not be a shadow of doubt cast on the independence and function of the judiciary. Thus, the ramifications of a breakdown in that trust could well traverse beyond serious – it’s in effect a state of lawlessness. It is a breakdown of trust in what is often the last line of defence for us as citizens, corporations and even our constitution. Justice must prevail – just as much as it is dangerous to let perpetrators of infractions to escape the system, it is destructive to let them penetrate the fabric of that system. The nation and its people seek a system of effective checks and balances, and with questions raised previously over the independence of the Judicial Services Commission, we look towards our new Chief Justice to lead change measures as he stated to the BBC. The rule of law must indeed be strengthened, as you have said. For peace to prevail, justice must first prevail.