Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government faced criticism for its decision to impeach former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranaike, which infringed on judicial independence. Although the government aimed to carry out the impeachment within constitutional limits, the US State Department started on December 7, 2012, calling for respect for judicial independence. Subsequently, a second announcement condemning the impeachment was issued. The American Embassy in Sri Lanka also voiced opposition, and statements were issued by the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the European Union, Canada’s Foreign Ministry, and the UK’s Foreign Ministry, all condemning the impeachment. On January 15, 2013, US State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland deemed the Sri Lankan government’s justification for the impeachment as unacceptable.
After the 2012 impeachment, the judicial system in Sri Lanka has been heavily influenced by the President and the Cabinet of Ministers. This interference began following a court order to hold local government elections, which the President failed to execute. He criticized the judiciary’s decision, claiming that it could not generate funds for the polls and disparaged court rulings on government bills, accusing the Supreme Court of “judicial cannibalism.” Last week, the President did not comply with a court order regarding the Inspector General of Police, and his Prime Minister announced that the judgement would not be accepted. Despite the passage of several days, the President has yet to act by the court’s directive.
In Sri Lanka’s history, there has never been an instance where a court decision was not implemented by a president. Despite this unprecedented situation, the US State Department, which previously emphasized the importance of the rule of law during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure, has not issued any statements. Similarly, the American ambassador to Sri Lanka remains silent. The United Nations and the UN Human Rights Commission have not responded, and the foreign ministries of Canada and Britain have also refrained from commenting. The Commonwealth Secretary-General, who has visited Sri Lanka multiple times and engaged with Ranil during his foreign trips, has yet to address the impact on the Sri Lankan judiciary or the damage to democracy caused by the postponement of elections.
When Mahinda Rajapaksa initiated the impeachment against the former Chief Justice, Ranil Wickremesinghe, then the opposition leader, warned him about the Latimer principle. He cautioned that Sri Lanka could face expulsion from the Commonwealth and risk becoming an international pariah due to judicial interference. Now, as Ranil appears to have forgotten the Latimer principle, it falls upon the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth to remind him of its importance. If the Secretary-General is more focused on securing support from countries to maintain her position rather than enforcing the Latima principle, it undermines her commitment to upholding it.
