FOR PUBLICATION
AHRC-ART-004-2013
January 6, 2013
An Article by the Asian Human Rights Commission
SRI LANKA: The Comments of S.N Silva - the archenemy of rule of law
Basil Fernando
Sarath Nanda Silva is heavily quoted in SLBC programmes trying to criticize the Supreme Court judgment relating to the
question on the interpretation of law referred to it by Court of Appeal. He says that the Supreme Court has not properly
interpreted the words “or standing orders” as found in Article 107(3) of the constitution. As usual, the great
trickster, who misinterpreted law to shroud the government he supported, is trying once again to come to the rescue of
this government - which he was not long ago condemning vehemently.
Silva ignores the following paragraph of the judgment:
“In a State ruled by a Constitution based on the rule of Law, no court, tribunal or other body (by whatever name it is
called) has authority to make a finding or a decision affecting the rights of a person unless such court, tribunal or
body has the power conferred on it by law to make such finding or decision. Such legal power can be conferred on such
court, tribunal or body only by an Act of Parliament with is “Law” and not by Standing Orders which are not law but are
rules made for the regulation of the orderly conduct and the affairs of the Parliament. The Standing Orders are not law
within the meaning of Article 170 of the Constitution which defines what is meant by "law"”.
It is no surprise that Silva is excited because he is fully aware of the manner in which he fooled Sri Lanka in order to
safeguard JR Jayawardane’s tomfoolery with the constitution, to serve his political bosses Chandrika Kumaranatunga and
Mahinda Rajapaksha. He was shameless enough to admit this himself when he was publicly stating his regrets regarding his
misinterpretation of law in the case now known as the Helping Hambantota Case.
Silva understood JR’s tomfoolery with the constitution, done to safeguard his power. Having understood this, he
proceeded to use the same warped logic to serve his own political masters. The great damage he did to the rule of law in
Sri Lanka has not yet been fully exposed to the Sri Lankan public. That he managed to survive without a severe assault
from Sri Lanka’s legal community is also a matter that still remains to be fully discussed. However, in order to have
his way, the manner in which he bullied lawyers and clients is quite well recorded in the memory of lawyers.
Silva’s record as a bully is well borne out by the case relating to Tony Michel Antony (Tony) Fernando. That case will
remain to challenge any claim by S N Silva to be an expert in law. It is only a coward who uses his official position to
take his revenge; he wrongly convicted and sentenced a layman who requested that he should not hear a case, for contempt
of court, sending him to jail for one year, and even refused his appeal by hearing the appeal himself.
Such souls are destined to be reborn again and again to repeat their follies. His reappearance in television shows that
are blatantly used to attack and undermine the judiciary is no surprise. The same man who twice sentenced two persons
(Tony Fernando and SB Dissanayake) for contempt of court is now taking part in media shows which are deliberately staged
in contempt of courts for political purposes.
# # #
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in
Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of
these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
ENDS