Judicial immunity takes centre stage as Appeals Court blocks attempt to summon a High Court judge in Yoshitha Rajapaksa case.
Judicial immunity has returned to the centre of Sri Lanka’s legal debate after the Court of Appeal blocked an attempt to summon a High Court Judge as an ordinary witness.
The Court of Appeal recently issued an interim order preventing the execution of a summons that had directed current Avissawella High Court Judge Sahan Mapabandara to give evidence in a money laundering case being heard before the Colombo High Court.
The move has triggered strong legal and political discussion over judicial independence, institutional respect, and the rule of law in Sri Lanka.
The background to this legal controversy lies in a case filed by the Attorney General against Yoshitha Rajapaksa under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The complainant had taken steps to summon Judge Sahan Mapabandara before the Colombo High Court to question him regarding a restraining order or judgment issued by him when he previously served as the Nugegoda District Judge in connection with the same matter.
A petition was then filed before the Court of Appeal on behalf of the judge, with the intervention of President’s Counsel Uditha Egalahewa, Faizer Kaseem, and Attorney Sugath Caldera.
After considering the petition, a bench comprising Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysooriya and Justice Priyantha Fernando issued the interim injunction preventing further action on the relevant summons.
The main legal principle raised by the lawyers appearing for the petitioner was the judicial immunity and independence enjoyed by judges when performing their official duties.
A judge cannot be summoned before another court as an ordinary witness and cross-examined over a decision or order delivered while acting in a judicial capacity.
That protection exists to safeguard the independence of judges and the authority of the judicial office.
If there is an error in an order made by a judge, the proper legal remedy is to file an appeal or revision application before a higher court.
It is not to drag the judge into the witness box and question him over the reasoning behind a judicial decision.
Such a step, legal observers argue, would be entirely contrary to the rule of law.
Money laundering cases involving politically high-profile individuals are always subject to intense public scrutiny and political sensitivity.
Against such a backdrop, allowing a precedent where a judge can be summoned to give evidence over a decision he made would strike a fatal blow to the independence of the entire judicial system.
If judges begin to fear that a decision delivered independently today could force them to appear in another court tomorrow as witnesses, their ability to decide cases without fear or favour would be seriously damaged.
That would weaken not only individual judges, but also public confidence in the courts.
Legal scholars therefore point out that the intervention by the Court of Appeal is not merely a step taken to protect one judge.
It is a wider act aimed at preserving the institutional dignity, respect, and integrity of the judiciary, which remains one of the central pillars of democracy.
Although the complainant party’s attempt to summon a judge as a witness created confusion over the limits of legal procedure, the Court of Appeal’s intervention has now clarified those boundaries.
Regardless of the final outcome of the main case against Yoshitha Rajapaksa, the petition filed in defence of judicial freedom is scheduled to be recalled on June 12.
The final decision expected on that day is likely to become a significant milestone in Sri Lanka’s legal history.
It may also stand as a historic precedent defining the protection, independence, and institutional immunity of judges in the country.
