Court Martial Justice

In years past, courts-martial meted out justice with firmness and fair play. The members of the court sifted the evidence, was advised on the legal aspects by the judge advocate, then judged matters according to their experience in the armed service. The members were always of higher rank to the accused and had been selected such as not to have a preconceived agenda or other bias. Dealing mainly with facts and circumstances, fair play was always assured.

In the recent GCM (court-martial) things were different. Here was a heroic chief of defence staff, after transfer to this post from the army, preparing for his retirement, merely sounding two politicians of his interest to enter politics. He did not engage in any political activity publicly whilst in uniform but merely expressed what he would do after retirement.

This was different to some whilst in service coming on TV during the presidential election campaign or at political rallies, including the naval son of one of the candidates. Preparing for an imminent retirement is an inherent right of any citizen. Speaking to a politician is not engagement in politics; a serviceman son speaking to his politician father is also not engagement in politics.

But the worst injustice was a court constituted by persons who had an axe to grind against the accused. The army commander who summoned the GCM was one who was not recommended to that post and previously disciplined by the accused. The army commander’s brother-in-law was a member of GCM. Another member too is one who was withdrawn from the front for non-delivery, by the accused. Of course these are rumours floating in armed services and may not be true. Whatever the case, for persons of lower rank to deliver a judgement on the highest ranked war hero is indeed unique and goes against the service ethic of a GCM.

Then there is the legal point made by eminent lawyers. The chief of defence staff or indeed the army commander are fit and proper persons subject to the Army Act, just as former IGPs were selected from outside the police service. As such, a chief of defence staff making known his retirement plans to a politician cannot be tried by a court-martial.

It is so sad that the war hero who captained the winning side is declared that he was no longer the captain by the manager after he miraculously won the match, even withdrawing the centuries scored by the captain.

A question to be asked is why a Volunteer Naval Judge Advocate should have been appointed to try the highest ranking person in the armed services when there is a regular judge advocate general to the armed forces in the legal department of the army.

This miscarriage of justice is the biggest black mark in the history of the heroic armed forces of Sri Lanka.

N. Wijetunga