Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) President Stephen Thiru said that the lawyers representing the petitioners wanted to respond during the hearing of petitions against the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, but they were not given an opportunity to do so.
Stephen Thiru, who attended the hearing before the Supreme Court as an observer, told the media that it was a very unfortunate situation.
He also commented on the decision not to appoint a Full Bench to hear the petitions.
He said there is strong discussion among Sri Lankan lawyers about why a Full Bench was not appointed to hear such an important matter concerning the independence of the judiciary and the Constitution.
He said that normally, a larger bench of judges is appointed to hear important constitutional matters. However, he had learned that the request to have a Full Bench for this case had been rejected. He questioned the reasons for not appointing a Full Bench for such an important case.
He also said that the situation was very unfortunate and raised a serious concern about the independence of the judiciary.
Speaking further, he said:
“I came here today to observe these legal proceedings. We are preparing a report based on our observations.
The judges handled the proceedings very patiently throughout the day. They gave the lawyers enough time to present their arguments.
However, what happened at the end was very unfortunate. The lawyers representing the petitioners wanted to respond, but they were not given an opportunity to do so. They were told to submit their responses in writing.
This is not very common in most court proceedings. Especially in important cases like this, lawyers are normally given the right to respond orally.
So, I think this is very unfortunate. Our view is that they should have been given an opportunity to respond.
What I learned from members of the legal community here is that there was no Full Bench. This is a very important legal matter.
Normally, there should be a Full Bench in a case like this. I was told that their request for a Full Bench was rejected. This raises the question of why a Full Bench was not appointed.
Therefore, it must be protected. Let us put all the legal arguments aside. If any action has been taken that could harm the independence of the judiciary, it should be removed. If that doubt continues to exist, there is little benefit in arguing about the law.”