The Warrior, the Priest and the Wife
In his open letter to Madam Manori Sally published in the Daily FT, His Reverence Bishop Asiri P. Perera presents a very articulate reply, yet at the same time reveals the ignorance that not just the educated, but society as a whole, demonstrates in these matters of law and order. In his statement, the Rt. Rev. Bishop writes “As the wife of Suresh Sallay, your feelings and thoughts are real, and I do not interfere with your right to express them. A spouse’s loyalty is natural. Yet, I appeal to your conscience to reflect carefully on your public declaration that “Suresh is an innocent man suffering for no reason.” **And it is with this statement of innocence that he takes issue, **
The first of his **7 Points to Consider ** rightly aligns with the rest of Sri Lankans when he states “Due process matters” and further declares that “Innocence or guilt is not determined by declarations but by the legal and judicial process.” This is absolutely true.
We along with the rest of Sri Lanka is calling for exactly this. Due process.
However, the Honorable Bishop forgets that in Sri Lanka, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This right is enshrined in Article 13(5) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, which explicitly states "(5) Every person shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty."
It is equally true in most statues the burden to prove the guilt falls on the state. Indeed, there are limited exceptions where laws may require the accused to prove specific facts, for example facts relating to a legal exception, defense, possession, income explanation in corruption-type cases, but even then, our Supreme Court has said this does not remove the prosecution’s overall duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
So, it is not just his wife, but all of us – who value due process, law and order – who should indeed insist “on innocence before proceedings conclude,” so as not to risk “undermining the very system that protects justice for all citizens.”
For his second Point to Consider, the Rt. Rev. Bishop questions whether many citizens would find Mrs. Sallay’s claim valid. It is true that much of the public finds itself in the same position as the Bishop — uninformed of the judicial process and the constitutional rights afforded to the people of this country.
It is equally true that General Sally has already been found guilty in the court of public opinion (opinion of at least some of the public), and one must wonder why? Is it because this section of the public knows something the rest do not, or maybe this is so because respected public figures such as the Bishop himself have been spearheading a campaign of misinformation. We use the term misinformation rather than disinformation because we believe no self-respecting man of the cloth would knowingly act in such a manner.
It is Jacques Ellul – the famous social scientist and the author of the book Propaganda – who wrote in his book;
intellectuals are the most vulnerable of all to modem propaganda, for three reasons:
(i.) they absorb the largest amount of secondhand, unverifiable information;
(ii.) they feel a compelling need to have an opinion on every important question of our time, and thus easily succumb to opinions offered to them by propaganda on all such indigestible pieces of information;
(iii.) they consider themselves capable of “judging for themselves.”
This brings us to his next Point to Consider, “Political echoes,” and prompts us to ask whether the Bishop has first stopped to examine the facts — and whether he himself is being used as a tool by political powers?
It is also worth reminding the Rt. Rev. Bishop that General Sally is not held under a court order issued by the judiciary of this country, but rather under a PTA Detention Order, through which the executive branch — a political element — holds the power to detain a suspect without the need to present evidence before a judge.
If the case has not yet been brought before the judicial process, how can that process be said to have been interfered with? This fundamental fact about the PTA is either conveniently overlooked by the likes of the Rt. Rev. Bishop, or, more sinisterly, intentionally omitted by him and others of his persuasion — thereby misleading the public and giving rise to the very perception he now references.
We do not wish to dwell at length on the matter of masks and transparency, other than to say that with the family’s only male protector absent, the wife and children may well have legitimate concerns about being identified — whether going to school, to work, or about their daily errands. The recent reports of the children being followed by unidentified persons with recording devices provide more than sufficient cause for such concern.
It is rather telling that the same person who calls for an impartial and fair judicial process simultaneously demands that General Sally tell the full truth to the public. This clearly alludes to, or assumes, that the General is withholding information.
We ask how the Bishop arrived at this assumption, given that he poses the question “Does this not suggest that certain truths are being withheld? And is your husband not doing the same by withholding the full truth from the public?”
Has God made some revelation to the good Bishop that would justify such an assumption?
In his final Point to Consider, the Bishop invokes “Moral responsibility.” We agree with him that if The General “is indeed innocent, the courts will vindicate him," and that if he is guilty, he would and should be punished to the fullest provisions of the law. But the Bishop would do well to remember that the case has yet to be placed before the courts for any of this to occur. One must also remind the Bishop that if the General is ultimately found guilty, any public defense of him may indeed appear as complicity in shielding wrongdoing. At that point, there may well be provisions in law to bring charges against the wife or any others who would be seen to interfere with the investigations — but even for that to happen, the case must first be presented to the courts.
It must be remembered that if the General is indeed innocent, then the gross injustice has been committed not only against him or his family, but against the victims of the April 19th Easter Attack. By avoiding and delaying the bringing of this matter before the courts, and by invoking the PTA — a law designed to prevent imminent attacks on the country in circumstances where the available evidence is insufficient to secure preventive orders from the judiciary — it is ultimately the victims of this grave atrocity who are being misled and used as pawns in a game of political chess.
Together with His Reverence Bishop Asiri and His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, all those of us who value justice, law, and order must call upon the authorities to bring this case before the courts, present their evidence, and allow the judiciary to determine whether remand of the accused is warranted.
We do well to remind ourselves that we live in a democracy — and in a democracy, judicial power is vested in the judiciary alone, and not in the legislative or executive branches, precisely because of the ever-present risk of partisan goals and agendas.