|
The tendency is growing in some sections of the community to attempt to prejudge the outcome of the judicial process particularly in respect of cases involving the death penalty. It is obvious that those who promote such tendency do so relying only on sentiments and not on the basis of any firm principle. Some people take such positions without realising that in the process they would be seen as attempting to exert pressure on the Government to frustrate the administration of justice in this country and thereby violate the law. They expect and sometimes request the President to prejudge an issue before the court on the basis of an authority which they seem to think he has to overturn in advance whatever judgement may come out of the court. If the President were to succumb to such pressures he would be violating the law in a manner that he would expose himself to legitimate criticism. Several views have been expressed relating to the death sentence and there have even been suggestions that the President should initiate a process to abolish the death sentence in respect of the recent convictions. There is no doubt that the death penalty is a serious punishment and some people may genuinely want to see it abolished in this country. Such people must however realise that the President cannot change the law on his own and he is bound to obey the law as long as it is the current law in the country. Therefore, he is bound to follow the law as other Presidents do in many other democratic countries, to allow the law to take its course subject to the fact that in appropriate cases, the law also gives the President power to exercise his Prerogative of Mercy in favour of a condemned prisoner. But he can exercise this power only after all judicial remedies including appeals have been exhausted and NOT before that. The exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy is without prejudice to another legal power conferred on the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice to discontinue criminal trials before a verdict if in his sole discretion he considers this appropriate. But he too cannot exercise that power between verdict and the conclusion of appeals. It needs to be emphasised here that the death penalty is still part of the law in this country as indeed in the majority of the countries of the world. For example, many states in the United States of America have retained the death penalty in their legal system. The same applies to Japan and many African countries. It is hoped that this short explanation of the situation will persuade the tiny minority of the population of this country who are advocating for the abolition of the death penalty to relent in their pressure on the Government to break the law. This pressure on Government is also prevalent in the attitude of critics in respect of other matters particularly in the recent negotiations between the Government and the Labour Congress. The ILO Labour Relations (Public Services) Convention No.151 (1978) lays down the principles applicable in the case of industrial disputes. It provides as follows:- "The settlement of disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment shall be sought as may be appropriate to national conditions, through negotiations between the parties or through independent and impartial machinery, such as mediations, conciliation and arbitration, established in such a manner as to ensure the confidence of the parties involved." In the recent negotiations between the Government and the Labour Congress, there were some reasons for the Labour Congress to believe that the required confidence may have been breached. Whatever may have given rise to the apparent breach of confidence was not of the Government's making, nor was it authorised or sanctioned by the Government. Government made its disapproval of that incident quite clearly to the Labour Congress. There was no war situation between the Labour Congress and the Government. Some sections of the population seem to have misconstrued the whole purport of the exercise. Because the Labour Congress acted properly by seeking a negotiated settlement of the dispute with the Government, rather than confrontation, it has been wrongly termed a toothless bulldog. The whole matter related to an industrial dispute which had to be resolved according to the principles stated in the ILO Convention quoted above. Indeed the current trend is to settle industrial disputes amicably by negotiation and settlement instead of by resorting to strike actions which necessarily would have adverse effect on the economy, and may even provide a pretext for ill-motivated individuals to embark on violence. That was why the Government and Labour Congress deemed it prudent to accelerate the settlement process. -End- |
