Selective Outrage and Silent Ethics: BASL’s Convenient Alarm Over President’s Call for Transparency
In a country where public confidence in legal institutions has long been strained not merely by political interference but by everyday professional misconduct, the recent statement issued by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) rings less like a principled defence of judicial independence and more like a carefully timed exercise in institutional self-preservation. Its criticism of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake over remarks made at a May Day rally demands scrutiny—not for what it says, but for what it conspicuously ignores.
At the heart of the BASL’s grievance is the President’s suggestion that a forthcoming judicial decision would be one the public could “applaud.” The Association has interpreted this as a veiled encroachment upon judicial independence. Yet such an interpretation appears deliberately overstretched. Political rhetoric—particularly in the charged theatre of a May Day rally—is often aspirational, even symbolic. To construe it as evidence of executive interference without substantiation is not legal vigilance; it is speculative alarmism dressed in constitutional language.
More troubling, however, is the BASL’s selective moral posture. For an institution that claims to stand as a guardian of legal ethics and professional integrity, its silence on the persistent, well-known malpractice within its own ranks is deafening. Across Sri Lanka, complaints from litigants about attorneys failing to issue receipts, mishandling client funds, and engaging in opaque billing practices are neither rare nor anecdotal—they are systemic. These are not minor infractions; they strike at the very fiduciary duty that underpins the lawyer-client relationship.
Yet where are the urgent press releases on these matters? Where is the “grave concern” when ordinary citizens—often with limited means—are left financially exposed and legally vulnerable by the very professionals sworn to uphold justice? The BASL’s failure to enforce accountability internally weakens its credibility when it seeks to lecture the executive on safeguarding institutional integrity.
President Dissanayake’s broader political message has consistently revolved around reform, transparency, and dismantling entrenched corruption—principles that inevitably extend to the judiciary and legal profession. An insistence on a transparent judiciary is not an attack on its independence; rather, it is a prerequisite for restoring public trust. Independence without accountability risks degenerating into insulation—an environment where misconduct can flourish unchecked.
The BASL’s statement invokes the Constitution and the “intangible heritage” of judicial independence. That heritage, however, is not preserved by rhetorical defensiveness alone. It is preserved by ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done—through ethical legal practice, financial transparency, and institutional accountability at every level.
If the BASL is genuinely committed to protecting the dignity of the judiciary, it must begin by addressing the erosion of trust within its own profession. Public confidence is not undermined by a President expressing optimism about a court ruling; it is undermined when citizens feel exploited by those who operate within the justice system itself.
In this context, the BASL’s statement appears less like a defence of democratic principles and more like an attempt to deflect attention from uncomfortable truths. Judicial independence is indeed the bedrock of democracy—but so too is ethical conduct within the legal profession. One cannot credibly defend the former while neglecting the latter.
Until the BASL confronts this contradiction, its pronouncements—however eloquent—will struggle to resonate beyond the confines of its own chambers.