Actually the argument SHOULD NOT be who
should or should not be the AG it is more of what the AG acting independently
should or should not do! In this regard real clarity is needed.
Firstly there is the AGs department
which came under the President under the MR Govt. and Suhada Gamlath as the
Secretary to the Minister of Justice, or was it additional secretary played a
dual or at least not altogether independent role, which obviously completely
made him eligible for the post of AG.
I also believe he had already
compromised his position, so that he should not have even been appointed the
Solicitor General, so this problem does not arise here, but then the
personality that is Suhada Gamlath a competent but not an independent man, does
not see it that way. That is why he is sulking at present. He has both refused
a position at the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy there, and has also refused
a possible diplomatic posting presumably remaining as the SG or a troublesome
pain in the butt in the AGs department.
Let the current AG sort that out. The AG
is the Government’s legal adviser, and has to advise the Govt. in cases of interpretation
of the Constitution, especially when the Govt. is being prosecuted under some statute
or another.
Further the AG has to defend the Govt. also
when the Govt. is taken to task, especially in a place like the UNHRC, which is
a completely different task, and therefore there must be a different department
to advise on that kind of score.
It was obvious there were two failures on
the part of the State, firstly, in not making a seamless transition from one AG
to another, and the delay created more than its fair share of criticism. Secondly,
the President should have only asked for a recommendation, and then he would have
either approved or not, and requested another name, instead of the three sent to
him, creating added confusion, and the gall the joint opposition had in giving their
choice which was not even something they had any right to do in the first place!
No comments:
Post a Comment