A case for witness protection law

Tuesday, 6 March 2012 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

WHEN placed in pressurised situations, unpredictable things can happen. On the sidelines of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Justice Minister Rauff Hakeem has expressed intentions by the Government to introduce legislation to protect witnesses.

These intentions were revealed when a Governmental delegation held a side event with representatives of various diplomatic missions in Geneva, international organisations including Amnesty International and LTTE fronts such as Global Tamil Forum and Tamil Centre for Human Rights. At that meeting, Amnesty International in particular raised concerns about investigations into various issues concerning human rights and the rule of law.

In response to some of those remarks, Hakeem had assured that the proposed Witness Protection Bill would be enacted in Parliament soon. The bill seeks to ensure the credibility of evidence to be extracted from witnesses through video conferencing. When evidence is recorded from witnesses through video conferencing, there can be concerns about the credibility of such information. The witnesses can be influenced by someone in the background when evidence is being given through video conferencing from a different location.

The proposed law is expected address such issues and it will enable the authorities concerned to take measures to ensure the credulity of information to be extracted. Hakeem had also stressed that the bill would provide for a new methodology to facilitate witnesses in difference contexts. Yet exact details were unclear in the media reports.

The Government first introduced this bill in Parliament in June 2008 and later it was referred for further discussion after a debate. Currently, the Legal Draftsman’s Department is adding finishing touches to the bill to be enacted. It is disappointing that the Government could not return it before Parliament on its own accord for four years and had to be nudged by the UNHRC events.

It is unclear whether the bill makes provisions for witnesses to be protected by the State and given physical assistance if they testify in a crucial case. While this will bring hope to getting more convictions without the impartiality of the Police and the judicial system, the new bill, even if it is ratified by Parliament, may not have a significant impact.

The independence of the Judiciary, which is a concern that grows daily, together with the politicisation of the Police, have undermined law and order for far too long. Yet could it be possible for a Witness Protection Bill to improve the situation on its own? Rational thinking suggests that it will be impossible to improve evidence in cases unless the entire justice system is made more independent and transparent.

The need for a practical and comprehensive Witness Protection Bill cannot be denied. However, if it is to have the desired effect of promoting impartial justice, then it needs to be supported by an impartial system. The idea is not new, yet it comes to Sri Lanka as a long overdue need.

Undoubtedly witness protection would be welcomed by most Sri Lankans but this means that the Judiciary has to be strong enough to allow even those at the top level of Government to be answerable in courts. Till that day comes, new bills will largely be restricted to paper.