All eyes have now turned to the Bar Association of Sri Lanka as to how effective their actions will be in the aftermath of a grenade attack on the house of a senior lawyer, Mr. J.C. Weliamuna, on night of Saturday, 27th September. The Asian Human Rights Commission was able to talk to many lawyers in Sri Lanka who are eager to see a courageous plan of action from the Bar Association to counteract what almost everyone feels to be a terrible situation that is emerging in the country to intimidate lawyers from practicing their profession without fear. The lawyers we spoke to about the attack on Mr. Weliamunas house, see it not as an isolated incident, but as part of a very comprehensive scheme within which the fight for the rule of law and justice is brought under severe attack.
The lawyers speak about a general state of intimidation that has been developing in recent years. At the local level in all areas of the country, the police have emerged as a draconian power, capable of inflicting serious harm on anybody who might come into conflict with them on matters of justice. Making of complaints, pursuing such complaints in courts, honest representation of clients exposing what they have faced at the hands of the police or powerful persons, have all become dangerous activities which may bring serious harm to the lawyers themselves. It is in this light that they see the grenade attack on Mr. Weliamuna who has had a reputation for a long time now for appearing in sensitive cases on issues such as corruption and grave human rights abuses. The killing of complainants of torture such as Gerard Perera and Sugath Nishanta Fernando are just two glaring examples of a very common experience of witness intimidation.
The duty of the Bar Association is to protect the lawyers so that they can engage in their profession and maintain the highest standards of integrity. The rule of law cannot be sustained if the Bar Association fails to protect all its members.
While condemnation of the grenade attack by way of a resolution is to be appreciated, no one would consider this as an adequate response to the type of threat faced by the whole profession besides the actual victim of this attack. The Bar Association should demonstrate its strength as a professional body of lawyers to get across the message that it is capable of successfully retaliating to such attacks.
The bar associations of Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and India in recent times have demonstrated their will and capacity to fight against threats to their profession by way of strikes and legal actions initiated for their defense. The threat faced by the legal profession in Sri Lanka is such that they should also resort to such actions and thereby demonstrate to the members that they do not have cow down to such acts of intimidation.
The Bar Association should demand from the executive guarantees of protection and develop a permanent mechanism within which the association can deal with the executive arm of the government in the event of threats to lawyers and also to develop more permanent ways to protect the profession.
The Bar Association should also go before the Supreme Court as a body representing lawyers against the violations of the fundamental rights of one of its members to practice his profession in a peaceful environment. The association can seek the intervention of the Supreme Court to lay down a number of guidelines for action by the state to protect the lawyers.
The threats that the lawyers faced in the late 80s when several of them were killed is still in the memory of the lawyers as well as the nation. It cannot be said that the Bar Association then did enough to safeguard these lawyers or to pursue justice on their behalf. This grenade attack on the house of a lawyer will remain in the memory of the lawyers as well as the country. What the Bar Association does at this moment will also be reviewed by lawyers in the years to come. The AHRC hopes that the Bar Association will not succumb to pressure but carry out its obligation towards its members at this important moment.
