Just as the trial into the murder of High Court Judge Sarath Ambipitiya has concluded, another judge, former Magistrate of Wellawaya Magistrates Court, Janaka Bandara has received death threats. The threats, which came by way of telephone call, demanded that the magistrate resign from the Judicial Service and refrain from attending an inquiry to be held on 13 July 2005. The president of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka has called upon the Inspector General of Police to provide protection for the interdicted magistrate and also requested investigations into the identity of the persons who are threatening the magistrate and who are attempting to prevent him from attending the inquiry.
These threats undoubtedly stem from Judge Bandara issuing a warrant on Senior Superintendent of Police, Sherief Deen who was alleged to be involved in a fatal accident case but whose driver was produced before a court as the culprit. The magistrate, having heard evidence in court of the alleged actual culprit, issued a warrant to produce Mr Deen before court. However, the magistrate himself was interdicted by the Judicial Service Commission. The magistrates interdiction caused one of the most vocal protests from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and from other sources in the country. The new Bar Association president fought his election campaign on the basis of ensuring a fair inquiry into this controversial case. Now that the inquiry has begun into this case, it is no coincidence that the judge is being subjected to death threats and told not to attend the inquiry. The demand that he should resign is directed towards exculpating the persons who are behind the interdiction, which has been largely perceived as unjust.
That a magistrate is facing death threats is an indication of the extremely dangerous security situation prevailing in the country. More often than not, death threats are carried out. Within the last 25 years the number of persons who have been slain in this manner can be counted in the thousands. Those who have been slain belong to a variety of social strata and include intellectuals, journalists, civil rights activists, politicians, and crime victims who are pursuing their cases in courts, particularly those involving complaints against state officers and political dissidents of various sorts. Just recently there was a public meeting organised by journalists to condemn death threats and to defy those who take such action.
The magistrates case is seen by the legal profession as a very important one as the magistrate has resisted cowing down to all pressures to demand justice in his case. The legal profession has viewed the action taken by the magistrate of issuing a warrant on an alleged suspect as an exercise of his legitimate duties. The legal profession also believes that any action taken against the legitimate use of power by a judicial officer threatens the independence of the judiciary itself. The legal profession has whole heartedly supported this magistrates endeavor to seek justice. The general perception has been that if judges themselves are prevented from carrying out their duties, there cannot be any expectation of justice for any other citizen.
The Asian Human Rights Commission requests the Inspector General of Police and the Attorney General of Sri Lanka to ensure that a complete inquiry is held into the death threats made against the magistrate and bring those persons who have issued such threats to justice. In order to ensure that this takes place inquiries should be transferred to the special investigating unit, which is technically equipped to handle this case more effectively. Such inquiries should include the analysing of all telephone exchanges relating to the death threats and the sources from which these emanated.
As a mark of protest, when Justice Ambipitiya was assassinated, his dead body was taken to the Supreme Court premises and an impressive ceremony was held. The idea behind that action was to demonstrate that those who threaten the judiciary will be resisted and they will not succeed in undermining the judiciary by behaving in such a manner. Now that another magistrate is facing death threats, it is the duty of the Judicial Service Commission to act on his behalf and to protect him from the dangers he faces. The AHRC calls for the same determination shown after the death of Justice Ambipitiya to be demonstrated in the face of death threats against Judge Bandara.
The civil society of Sri Lanka should not underestimate the enormous implications of death threats issued against a judge. A death threat to any citizen is a gross violation of human rights and a threat to social security. However, the threat to the life of a judge is much more. It is a threat to the system of justice itself. If judges are allowed to be killed or threatened in this manner, the triumph will be to evil elements of society whatever the positions are that they hold. Thus, the death threats against Judge Bandara require a strong resistance from civil society. Additionally, the new President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, who came to power on the promise of fighting these kinds of threats to the administration of justice in the country, should show his capacity to bring such words to fruition by mobilising the entire Bar. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka should demand an immediate inquiry by a special investigative unit into these threats; the findings of which should be made available to all as soon possible.
