Article bearing the title “Sarath N. Silva –Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing’ published in The Sunday Leader of August 23, 2011

Dear Ms. Jansz,

I write with reference to the above article published by you.

The article which relates entirely to my career as a Judicial Officer is ex facie scurrilous, highly defamatory and seriously harmful to my reputation and career spanning 41 years in which I held the highest offices in the administration of justice in this country; as Attorney General, President of the Court of Appeal and Chief Justice. The article is not based on your personal knowledge but on false, incorrect and fabricated information and above all your imagination which appears to have no bounds.

In the article you have made the following, among other disparaging remarks, about me, viz.
1.    That “Sarath N.Silva is fundamentally a bully and a corrupt one at that”;
2.    That I have “a track record for sheer viciousness, a weakness for personal vendetta and an absolute disregard for principles of justice”;
3.    That in a period of 10 years that I held office, “totally destroyed the credibility of the Supreme Court to an extent that it will take decades before the Chief Justice or decisions in the highest court in the land will be taken seriously”;
4.    That as CJ of the Country made an ass of the law”

In addition, you have captioned the litany of derogatory remarks with the bold headline that I am a “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”.

As I recall, the only instance in which you featured as a litigant in a matter before me was the Contempt of Court case against the late Lasantha Wickrematunga and you. Rules were issued against you on the basis of certificates transmitted to the Supreme Court by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption that you acted in disrespect of its authority. When the matter came up for hearing before a bench presided by me, I upheld a preliminary objection raised by your Counsel and discharged you from the proceedings. In the article, you have lamented that “Sri Lankan’s have short memories.” This comment is indeed true in reference to yourself. When you embarked on a baseless tirade against me, you forgot the only matter in which you came before me and secured an order in your favour. It is strange that in your perception, a person who makes an order in your favour is a “corrupt bully” who makes “an ass of the law.”

Be that as it may, I would take each of the matters, relied on you in the article in sequence and demonstrate that they are baseless.

(i)    You have stated that my wife filed a divorce case against me and I “blatantly interfered with the case” What imagination? My wife has not at any stage filed any case against me for divorce or otherwise.
(ii)    That “I fixed a one-sided judgment for my “girl friend” in her divorce case…which stunned not only the judiciary but the entire legal fraternity.” You have not given any particulars of how the alleged “fixing” took place. I assume that the reference is to an allegation made by one Victor Ivan and two others that I attempted to influence a judge who was hearing a divorce case. They went so far as to challenge my appointment as Chief Justice in 1999 on the basis of this allegation. These cases; SCFR 898/99; 901/99 and 100/99 were heard by a Bench of five judges of the Supreme Court who came to a firm finding in June 2001 that the affidavit filed marked P15 which sought to implicate me was “proved to be false.” What is “stunning”, if at all, is that persons dared to file a false affidavit against an incumbent Chief Justice. You should have read this judgment reported in the Sri Lankan Law Reports before repeating a false allegation which was firmly rejected ten years ago.
(iii)    That Attorney General Thilak Marapane supported by Professor G. L. Peiris persuaded the then President D. B. Wijetunga to appoint me as President of the Court of Appeal. I was appointed President of the Court of Appeal in January 1992 since I was the most senior judge and was recommended by the then Chief Justice. Professor G. L. Peiris was not in politics at that time. He was the Vice Chancellor of the University of Colombo and I had no contact with him.
(iv)    That “during the brief tenure of Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister the government went ahead and presented an impeachment document calling for the removal of Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva. The impeachment motion documents a number of instances of misbehaviour.” This is factually incorrect. The government of which Ranil Wickremesinghe was Prime Minister did not present an impeachment motion against me. According to the Order Book of Parliament of 10-8-2001 when Mr. Ratnasiri Wickramanayake was Prime Minister, certain members of Parliament of the United National Party and of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna gave notice of a motion of impeachment to be presented against me. But, they did not take further steps to have this motion supported and to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the charges that were contained in the motion. No such steps were taken for 8 years till my retirement in June 2009. Not even my observations were called for at any stage on these charges by Parliament. In this context you have no basis to repeat the charges 10 years later on the assumption that they are true. It is apparent that the Members of Parliament were misinformed and misled into giving notice of the motion and they refrained from taking any action on it.

Basing your story on the truth of those charges you have repeated them and made serious imputations against me. Before doing so you should have checked on the veracity of these allegations or at the least checked up with me, which you have failed to do. I would briefly demonstrate the falsity of the allegations:

(a)    Throughout my entire career I have never occupied any official residential quarters. I have been the only Chief Justice who did not occupy the spacious residence at Bullers Road. Instead I handed it over to the Judges Training Institute which was in dire need of premises. You have alleged that I employed “a person by the name of Rohana Kumara, a convicted criminal against whom several criminal cases were pending” as the caretaker of the premises. This is totally false. The caretaker of the premises is a public officer attached to the Supreme Court. From 1-10-1981 a person by the name of D. D. Jayanel Ratnayake has functioned as caretaker of the premises. Based on an initial falsehood, you have at length, attributed knowledge to me regarding Rohana Kumara’s alleged criminal activity. I have to categorically state that a person of that description has never worked for me or any institution that came under my purview.
(b)    You have made a ludicrous allegation that when my appointment as Chief Justice was challenged, I “more or less threw these applications out of Court by making orders that were partial to my interest”. These cases, the particulars of which have been given in paragraph (ii) above, were heard at first by a Bench of 7 Judges and later a Bench of 5 Judges (since 2 judges retired) over a period of one year and a comprehensive judgment was delivered at the end, which was entirely in my favour.
(c)    That I ridiculed and insulted Rev. Rupha Pemananda being the Petitioner in case no. SCFR 503/99. I am annexing hereto (marked A) a certified copy of the final order dated 5-4-2001 made in that case. It is seen that the Petitioner withdrew the application on suitable alternative relief being offered by the State. Your allegations are not borne out by the proceedings.
(d)    You have alleged that in SC 681/99, a case in which the Petitioner was a Doctor, being a member of the GMOA, I commented that “government doctors do not perform any work.” I annex hereto marked “B” a copy of the judgment in the case bearing that number which shows that there were 5 petitioners, none of whom were doctors.
(e)    You have referred to a case filed by one Priyantha Liyanage against a former Minister Richard Pathirana and alleged that I said that “Mr. Pathirana came to my house and cried.” I do not recall any such case and Mr. Pathirana has never visited my house. Although you have not specified the number of the case, it has been stated as 441/97 in the impeachment motion. I am annexing hereto the judgment in the case marked ‘C” which reveals that the petitioner is one Chandrasiri and the case had not come up before me.
(f)    That I “summarily dismissed…without any reason” an application filed by Mr. Karu Jayasuriya against ANCL. I am annexing marked ‘D’ the final order in that application. According to which the main relief sought was against the Sri Lanka Press Council. Mr. Jayasuriya had not made an application to the Press Council and the Chairman who was present submitted to Court that if a complaint is made, the Council would inquire into it and take appropriate action. Counsel for Mr. Jayasuriya stated that he would make an application to the Press Council and it was in these circumstances that leave to proceed was refused. In the other case against the ITN Television leave to proceed was granted. As I recall the case did not come up for hearing before me.
(g)    You have alleged that as Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission I took action against two Magistrates at the behest of Mr. Berty Premalal Dissanayake. This is absolutely false. The records of the Judicial Service Commission will bear out that inquiries were pending against both Magistrates. Mr. Hiran Ekenayake vacated post without answering the charges and Jayaki de Alwis expressed regret and resigned. She was subsequently re-appointed and as I recall after a period of satisfactory service her seniority was restored.
(h)    You have alleged that I “constantly harassed” a Magistrate by the name of Lawrence Costa. He is one Magistrate that I have never met. As I recall he served only for a very brief period in my tenure of office as Chief Justice. He failed to report for duty in an outstation court without obtaining prior leave. The medical certificate tendered by him subsequently was found to be questionable and when his explanation was called for, he tendered his resignation.
(i)    You have begun the series of allegations on the false assumption of my wife suing me for divorce and my interference in a divorce action which has been dealt in (i) and (ii) above and, reverted to the same at the end by repeating the allegations in the impeachment motion. I have to state that adultery is only a ground for divorce and is a matter of Private Law and not Public Law in our country. Whatever matrimonial disputes that I had, ended together with the relevant judicial proceedings, 15 years ago. You have now raked up these matters to bring me into public ridicule and contempt.
(j)    That when the bill to Repeal and Replace the Constitution was referred to the Supreme Court, I persisted in taking up the matter before me in spite of an objection raised by Mr. S.L. Gunasekera that I had been involved at some stage as Attorney General in drafting the proposed Constitution. I recall that Mr. Gunasekera did not raise an objection but merely mentioned the matter. I made an observation to Mr. Gunasekera that I have no personal interest in the Constitution of the country, which is a matter of public concern. The matter rested at that. In any event in terms of Article 120 (b) of the Constitution when the Cabinet certifies that the Bill is to be passed by 2/3rd in Parliament and by a referendum, “the Supreme Court shall have and exercise no jurisdiction in respect of the Bill”. The determination of the Court merely repeats this provision of the Constitution.
(k)    That I convicted one A. M. E. Fernando in contravention of Section 49(3) of the Judicature Act. You have got the wrong end of the stick. Mr. Fernando was convicted of having committed contempt of Court in terms of Article 105 (3) of the Constitution since he persistently disturbed the proceedings of Court. The basis of his conviction was set out in a comprehensive judgment which you have not apparently read.

The allegations set out in (a) to (k) have been selectively extracted by you from the motion of impeachment contained in Order Paper of 10-8-2001. You repeated the allegations, at times using your own words conveying the impression to your readers that I am guilty of these allegations. You have done so deliberately to tarnish my image.
Since you have published the article without ascertaining my views and without checking on the relevant documents, I would kindly request you to publish this letter in your newspaper giving it equal prominence.
I reserve my right to take further action in this mater.
You faithfully
Sarath N.Silva

Editor’s Response
That Sarath N. Silva has had the temerity to write to this newspaper in response to an article carried by me two weeks ago titled – ‘Sarath N. Silva – A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing’ only proves the man’s audacity and thick skin to dare boast of an unblemished career as Chief Justice. Of course Sarath Silva, like any other citizen referred to in any articles published in this newspaper certainly reserves the right to a response.  Which is why in upholding the highest ethics of journalism we reproduce in full his letter today – as a Right of Reply.  That his response is laughable and an audacious attempt on his part at disguising the truth speaks for itself. But then truth, justice and fair play are words that never figured in the vocabulary nor ministrations of Sarath Nanda Silva as Chief Justice. It is a mantle he never wore.
I will respond to only one issue Silva has raised in his letter to me where he refers to a Contempt of Court case in which the late Lasantha Wickrematunge and I were the litigants.  It is indeed true that Sarath Silva presiding on the bench discharged both Wickrematunge and myself from this case.  What he fails to say however is that he deliberately concocted charges against Wickrematunge and myself in relation to an article carried on the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption in 2001, following my having written an extensive and detailed expose on him which proved that on the night of July 6, 2004, the Talangama police, inspecting a motor car parked at a lonely spot by the Diyawanna Oya, found a half naked couple in the car. Further examination revealed that the half naked male was the Chief Justice.
The rest of my article was based and quoted from the Impeachment Motion filed before Parliament in November 2003 which not only speaks for itself but included various charges and allegations of misconduct made against the Chief Justice in various quarters. This was the first time that an Impeachment Motion against a Chief Justice had gone before Parliament.
Prior to this in 2001 an attempt was made by Parliament to impeach him on June 6, 2001. The United National Party and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna acted in unison to move the motion of impeachment against the Chief Justice. The detailed allegations set out in that impeachment motion, in addition to the hundreds of columns in the independent press especially the Sinhala weekly Ravaya at the time, are of such a serious nature that a man of integrity would have immediately stepped down.  (Read Uvindu Kurukulasuriya elsewhere on these pages).
The Sunday Leader has over the years detailed explicitly the numerous allegations against Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva in the public interest. Moral turpitude aside, there are other extremely serious charges against him which in fairness to the public and the judiciary should be fully investigated.
If indeed Sir, you wish “to take further action on this matter” as you have concluded in your letter to me – please be my guest – go ahead and do so.