Sirisena must answer for his presidential pardon

The Supreme Court heard the case of the presidential pardon granted by former president Maithripala Sirisena to the convicted murderer in the Royal Park case, Jude Shramantha Jayamaha, who was sentenced to death in connection with the murder of Yvonne Jonsson in 2005. A fundamental rights case has since been filed challenging the former President’s decision. Jayamaha, hailing from a prominent business family, was on death row when he was pardoned by Sirisena in November 2019, raising many an eyebrow and concerns of corruption.

According to the Constitution, before pardoning a convict, it is essential for the President to call for reports from the Attorney General, the judge of the court that imposed the sentence and the Minister of Justice. However, in this case Sirisena had not called for a report from either of these authorities. Previously Maithripala Sirisena himself had revealed that there had been money exchanged for the controversial pardon even though he had not revealed who received money for the pardon he granted.

Sri Lanka has not judicially executed a convicted criminal since 1976 maintaining a de facto moratorium on capital punishment. However, the country’s statute books still have mandatory sentencing for certain crimes which removes the judges from granting leniency depending on the circumstances of the case. Therefore, any person convicted of murder will mandatorily be sentenced to death even though in practice the sentence is not carried out and often commuted to life imprisonment. 

Commuting a death sentence to a life imprisonment can be called a humane act since the mental trauma of being kept in death row is a form of torture, especially when there is a worldwide moment to abolish the death penalty. However, issuing a pardon and releasing a convicted murderer, that too after only a few years of serving a prison sentence is an aberration and an extraordinary action.

There are currently over a thousand persons officially on death row. Why then had this single individual, Shramantha Jayamaha who was convicted by the High Court and his sentencing upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, received a presidential pardon? It is no secret that the individual’s family is extremely wealthy and well-connected politically. Despite a former president stating on record that he was informed of money being exchanged to ensure Jayamaha’s release three has not been an official investigation into the matter.

First of all, Sirisena should be investigated for his role in this pardon. If he was aware that money had been exchanged, what action did he take? If such a matter has been brought to his attention he owes a duty of care to initiate an investigation, especially since he too is implicated for being an accomplice to such a transaction. Secondly the abuse of presidential pardons must be immediately seized. A provision for a pardon by the Executive is provided in order to work as a ‘check’ on the powers of the Judiciary, since it would provide for one final means of rectifying any miscarriages of justice. However, a President arbitrarily issuing pardons for individuals due to political and financial considerations does not serve justice and results in the undermining of the whole judicial process and the rule of law. 

The pardon issued to Jayamaha remains yet another blemish in the Sri Lankan judiciary which is often abused by the rich and powerful to deny justice to victims.