By: Muhammad Jawad
On January 17, 2024, the Supreme Court in an unnamed country challenged the Executive’s power, invalidating a presidential pardon granted by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to Duminda Silva, a former lawmaker convicted of murder. The Court found the pardon arbitrary, with no legal or factual basis, shedding light on Gotabaya’s pattern of controversial pardons, including one for a soldier found guilty of killing civilians during a civil war. This ruling reverberates with historical instances of the judiciary defending its independence and the constitution against the overreach of the Executive.
Presidential Pardons and Political Interference
The first Executive President, J.R. Jayawardene, laid the groundwork for such actions, by pardoning a notorious criminal and meddling with judicial affairs. This act set a precedent, encouraging subsequent Presidents to undermine the judiciary for their personal and political interests. Gotabaya’s pardoning of Duminda Silva is a modern echo of this trend, but one that the judiciary has courageously struck down.
Another remarkable instance of the Supreme Court standing up against Executive overreach was in 2018, when President Maithripala Sirisena attempted to dismiss the government. The Supreme Court overturned his decision, reaffirming its commitment to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens from the arbitrary actions of the Executive.
Guardians of Justice
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to invalidate Gotabaya’s pardon for Silva underscores its steadfast resolve to safeguard the constitution and maintain judicial independence. Despite the Executive’s attempts to undermine the judiciary, the Court has consistently proven its strength and resilience. This ruling, like those before it, serves as a reminder that the judiciary will continue to act as the final bastion of justice, defending the rule of law against any encroachments.