Gavel Under Scrutiny: Why Sri Lanka’s Justice System Demands Urgent Reform
By Staff Correspondent
In Sri Lanka, the courthouse remains an imposing symbol—columns, robes, ritual, and reverence. Yet behind this façade, confidence in the justice system is steadily eroding. Allegations of malpractice, opacity, and institutional complacency have accumulated to a point where reform is no longer optional—it is imperative.
The crisis is not merely about delayed cases or procedural inefficiencies. It is about credibility. And credibility, once lost in a justice system, is notoriously difficult to restore.
The Case for Transparency: Recording Court Proceedings
At the heart of reform lies a straightforward but transformative proposal: mandatory audio-visual recording of all court proceedings, with controlled access for litigants and the public.
In many advanced jurisdictions, court recordings serve multiple functions:
- Ensuring judicial accountability,
- Providing an accurate record for appeals,
- Allowing scrutiny of courtroom conduct.
Sri Lanka, by contrast, continues to rely heavily on manual records and selective documentation—systems that are vulnerable to manipulation, omission, or error.
Introducing a recording system would not only modernise the judiciary but also act as a deterrent against alleged collusion between lawyers and judges—an issue frequently whispered about, rarely proven, but widely believed.
Allegations of Collusion: Perception vs Reality
Perhaps the most damaging critique facing the Sri Lankan judiciary is the perception that some legal practitioners maintain improper relationships with members of the bench.
There have been persistent allegations that:
- Certain lawyers influence outcomes through informal channels,
- High-profile counsel exploit status or connections,
- Judgments can be “anticipated” before they are delivered.
Whether these claims are systemic or exaggerated, the damage lies in their credibility among the public.
A justice system does not fail only when it is corrupt—it fails when people believe it is.
Regulating Legal Representation: Who Speaks for the Client?
Another structural flaw lies in the lack of strict verification of legal representation.
It is not uncommon, critics argue, for:
- Lawyers to appear in court without clear, documented authorisation,
- Clients to remain unaware of who is officially representing them,
- Informal arrangements to override formal procedure.
A simple reform could address this:
mandatory verification of legal fees and representation through documented receipts.
Judges should require:
- Proof of payment,
- Formal engagement records,
- Clear identification of counsel acting on behalf of a litigant.
This would introduce a basic but crucial layer of accountability.
Tax Compliance: The Shadow Economy of Legal Practice
Beyond courtroom conduct lies another uncomfortable issue: tax compliance within the legal profession.
There is a growing belief that a significant portion of legal earnings remains:
- Undeclared,
- Unrecorded,
- Untaxed.
If even a fraction of claims—that nearly half of practitioners operate outside full tax compliance—are accurate, the implications are serious.
Reform must therefore include:
- Mandatory issuance of receipts for legal fees,
- Integration of legal income into formal tax systems,
- Routine financial audits where necessary.
Transparency in finance is inseparable from integrity in justice.
From Colonial Relic to Public Institution
Sri Lanka’s legal system still bears the imprint of its colonial past—formal, hierarchical, and often intimidating to ordinary citizens.
But modern justice systems are evolving.
Across South Asia, including countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan, reforms are underway to make courts more accessible and less rigidly ceremonial.
Sri Lanka must follow suit.
Judges are not distant arbiters removed from society; they are public servants. The judiciary must become:
- More approachable,
- More transparent,
- More responsive to citizens.
Empowering Litigants: The Right to Self-Representation
One of the most overlooked reforms is the encouragement of self-representation.
In many jurisdictions—including across the European Union—individuals are permitted, and sometimes encouraged, to represent themselves in court.
Sri Lanka, with its high literacy rates and educated population, is well-positioned to adopt a similar approach.
This would:
- Reduce dependency on intermediaries,
- Lower legal costs,
- Increase public engagement with the justice system.
Judicial Staff and Unexplained Wealth
Reform cannot stop at judges and lawyers.
Court staff—registrars, clerks, and administrative officers—play a critical role in the functioning of the judiciary. Yet concerns have been raised about:
- Disproportionate wealth among certain officials,
- Lack of financial disclosure,
- Weak oversight mechanisms.
A robust reform package must include:
- Mandatory annual asset declarations,
- Independent audits,
- Strict enforcement of anti-corruption laws.
No justice system can maintain integrity if its administrative backbone is compromised.
The Politics–Law Divide: Ending Dual Roles
Perhaps the most ethically urgent reform concerns the overlap between law and politics.
In Sri Lanka, it is not uncommon for lawyers to:
- Enter politics,
- Serve as ministers or Members of Parliament,
- Then return to legal practice.
This creates a troubling dynamic:
- Political influence can be leveraged in courtrooms,
- Former officeholders may command undue advantage,
- Public perception of fairness is undermined.
A clear rule is needed:
Any lawyer who assumes political office must suspend or permanently relinquish their legal practice.
Such provisions exist, formally or informally, in many jurisdictions. Sri Lanka can no longer afford ambiguity on this front.
Reform as a Necessity, Not an Option
The Sri Lankan judiciary stands at a crossroads.
It can either:
- Continue within a system marked by opacity and eroding trust,
- Or embrace reform—comprehensive, transparent, and enforceable.
The proposals are neither radical nor untested:
- Record proceedings,
- Enforce accountability,
- Ensure financial transparency,
- Separate law from politics,
- Empower citizens.
Above all, the judiciary must remember a fundamental principle:
Justice is not only done—it must be seen to be done.
Until that visibility is restored, public confidence will remain fragile, and the rule of law itself will stand on uncertain ground.