The events of the past week have once again reminded us that the true strength of a democracy is measured not by the prominence of those who appear before its institutions, but by the consistency with which those institutions discharge their responsibilities.
The proposed presentation of facts before the Court of Appeal in relation to alleged contempt proceedings involving several well-known public figures, together with the arrest and remand of a former Cabinet Minister by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, have inevitably generated widespread public discussion.
They should also prompt reflection on a more enduring principle.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
The rule of law does not exist to favour governments, oppositions or individuals. Nor does it exist to produce outcomes that satisfy one political constituency or another.
Its purpose is more fundamental: to ensure that every allegation is examined according to law, every person receives due process and every judicial determination is reached independently of political influence or public pressure.
Equally important is the recognition that legal proceedings are not convictions. Investigations are not findings of guilt.
Allegations, however serious, remain allegations until tested in accordance with the law. The presumption of innocence is not an inconvenience within the justice system; it is one of its defining safeguards.
The same principle applies to the administration of justice itself. Courts must remain open to fair and reasoned criticism. Judicial decisions are debated every day in democratic societies.
Yet there remains a clear distinction between legitimate criticism and conduct that risks undermining confidence in the administration of justice.
Maintaining that distinction protects not judges as individuals, but the integrity of the judicial process upon which every citizen ultimately depends.
Sri Lanka has spent many years debating accountability, institutional independence and public confidence.
