|
|
|
  |
| Sunday, 23 January 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
And now, the asses of the law Light Refractions by Lucien Rajakarunanayake It seemed as if the lawyers at the Colombo Magistrate's Court had taken a step back into an exceptionally riotous day at the Colombo Law College during training for their profession. The catcalls more familiar with the common room and cut-table at Law College had suddenly pervaded the Colombo Magistrate's Court.
The Courthouse was full of hoots, boos and the Bronx cheer as well, when the announcement was made. Suddenly most of the black-coated types in the Courthouse showed they were ideal types to be hired by any political party that was looking for people who can behave in as rowdy a manner as possible in public, as a mark of protest at nothing they knew about. And all this din of protest was about another lawyer appearing as the lead defence counsel for the first suspect in the murder of a High Court Judge. Fraternity in a profession is one thing, but to act against the oath taken by a lawyer to assist the Courts in arriving at the truth, and performing one's duty by being a counsel to an accused are matters that transcend professional fraternity. There was no secret about the strong competition, even among those in silks, to be chosen to mark one's appearance for Potta Nauffer. The visitors' book at the Welikada Remand Prison will bear witness to that. It is also no secret that the fee for the right person would be very high. So what was all this booing and jeering about? Doesn't Nauffer have the right to be defended by a good lawyer, as the law allows him to, when he is tried for an offence that involves capital punishment? It was reported that some of the lawyers had shouted whether it was all about a huge fee and told Mr. Walaliyadde to remove his cloak. Who is the lawyer ready to reveal the fee he or she has been retained for any other murder, rape, drug related or any other such case? We all know of the cloak and fee tactics of many in the legal profession, unlike many in courts, such as the Traffic Court, who are down at the heels and out at the elbows. The Department of Inland Revenue admits they have a problem in keeping track of the obviously huge fees earned by lawyers. So why make such a demonstration of envy about whatever fee Mr. Walaliyadde may earn in this case? Is it because the seniors of those juniors who were booing and jeering and making such a shocking din at the Colombo Magistrate's Court did not get the much sought after brief? To tell a lawyer to take off one's cloak if one appears for money goes far beyond farce. The people of this country have known for many years how costly it is to obtain justice. The "gini ganang" charged by lawyers is part of common parlance. It comes down from the days when senior counsel charged by the guinea and not the pound. The practice still remains. It is common knowledge that in most instances one cannot hope to obtain justice today unless one has assured one's lawyer of what is obviously unjust enrichment. The first time I've seen Mr. Walaliyadde and his client Potta Nauffer was in the newspapers last Thursday. One need not know either of them to raise the question as to whether Potta Nauffer is not entitled to a fair trial, although the victim in the case is a High Court Judge, whose killing did shock all of us? Can these boorish members of the black-coated profession who thought it fit to make such a mockery within a courthouse say where this nonsense will end? Should a medical specialist refuse to give vital evidence that may help an accused in a case where the director of a National Hospital has been murdered? Should a well-qualified accountant refuse to give or even lead evidence before a tribunal inquiring about an alleged major fraud by a senior in the accountancy profession, where his evidence may lead to an acquittal? I recall the time when Dr. Colvin R de Silva, accepted the brief to defend P. Sathasivam, who was accused of murdering his wife. The legal luminary that he was, he was able to prove to the Court beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Sathasivam was not the killer. It is true that Colvin's defeat in the Wellawatte-Galkissa seat in Parliament shortly after this case is largely attributed to the Tamil women of the area voting against him, in sympathy for the murdered Mrs. Sathasivam. But, such fears did not stop Colvin from taking Sathasivam's brief and seeing to it that justice was done. There is a shuddering thought in the behaviour of these rowdy lawyers. Little do they realize that we are dealing with a very important case. It is a case where the police that so far had a dismal record in cases involving serious crime, had the solution almost fall on its lap, due to the clues the alleged assailants left behind. Yet, does that mean that any of the suspects are actually guilty until so proven in a court of law and that too beyond reasonable doubt? Do these booing and jeering lawyers want the case to be presented as the police would wish to, without any cross-examination from the defence to establish the truth of the police case? We have all heard of the story of how lawyers cheat their trusting clients by charging for both "stamp fees" and "muddara gaastu" for the same legal document. It could well be an aphorism, but lawyers have indeed been struck off the roll and even incarcerated for cheating one's clients. It is therefore no big deal for these comparative juniors, who may even be touting for cases in the corridors of the Magistrate's Court, to boo and jeer at a senior counsel for having accepted a brief that was refused to the chambers of their seniors. These are days when the topic of contempt of court is very much in the air. Whenever a litigant, even crosses one's legs while seated on a crowded bench in a court, the Sergeant is quick to reprimand him. At regular intervals the Mudaliyar calls for silence in the Court. There have been instances when people have been found guilty of contempt of court for not being properly shod. Can anyone say that all those lawyers who were causing a disturbance in court last Wednesday, were not guilty of contempt of court, especially when they are sworn officers of the Court? All these years we have heard it said that the law is an ass. But seeing the asinine behaviour of these black-coated hooligans in the Temple of Justice, one cannot help realize the truth that these are indeed the asses of the law. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
It all happened when Mr. Tirantha Walaliyadde, P. C. marked his
appearance for Mohamed Niyaz Nauffer alias Potta Nauffer, the main suspect
in the killing of High Court Judge Sarath Ambepitiya.
