The Asian Human Rights Commission expresses deep sadness on the occasion of the passing away of Suranjith Hewamanna in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Hewamanna was one of the bravest lawyers in the country during one of the hardest times faced by the judicial and legal professions. He embodied the fearlessness and conviction associated with advocacy at a time when such qualities were no longer favoured by legal and judicial practitioners in the country. He took up cases dealing with undue executive and judicial interference. He represented journalists who were targeted by politicians as well as the attorney general of the time, Sarath De Silva, who later became the country’s chief justice. Hewamanna saw the rise of De Silva as one of the greatest blows dealt to the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession. Only his strong commitment to basic freedoms convinced him to continue appearing before the courts in recent times of judicial and legal degeneration.
Freedom of press and expression were the causes closest to Hewamanna. He played a prominent role in the campaign against criminal defamation, which was finally abolished. This was a campaign for which he devoted a significant period of his life. He was fervently opposed to censorship. The achievements realised by the Sri Lankan society in these areas will be part of the legacy Hewamanna leaves behind. Many leading journalists owe a great debt to him for his bold and free defense of their cases. Many of them will likely share their own stories about him in the coming days.
He also represented members of the judiciary who felt their fundamental rights were violated through arbitrary and unfair disciplinary processes. Few lawyers were willing to take up such cases, which would bring them in conflict with senior judicial and other officers, as well as place them against the current of convenient adjustment to a rapidly degenerating legal process. This brave and bold lawyer however, never considered the ‘consequences’ of his work.
A V Dicey said of the British constitution that it was grown and not made. The same cannot be said of constitutionalism in Sri Lanka. Recent decades have seen the uprooting of basic foundations of constitutionalism, which have in effect made the judiciary subservient to the executive. Although this has been a painful process for many lawyers, few dared to fight against it, particularly with the knowledge that the odds are against them. Hewamanna was among a handful who refused to compromise and give in to the decay and degeneration going on around him.
He was a gentle person, kind and concerned about his friends and deeply worried about his countrymen. A man knowledgeable of many cultures, his was a commitment to the basic rights and liberties of everyone. The Asian Human Rights Commission salutes ‘a truly lawyer type of lawyer’ and hopes that he will be a role model emulated by more persons. The survival of Sri Lanka’s judicial system as a democratic institution depends upon this. The Asian Human Rights Commission particularly honours him for daring to swim against the current, for not giving in to the degeneration around him and for continuing to believe in basic freedoms and the possibility of an independent judiciary and a bold legal profession in the country.
