Mahinda Pathirana, a prominent member of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), has issued an unconditional apology to the Fort Magistrate’s Court over remarks he made regarding a court-appointed medical panel tasked with assessing the mental health of former State Intelligence Service (SIS) Director Suresh Sallay.
In a statement submitted to the court on Friday (12), Pathirana sought to clarify comments he made publicly on June 11, saying they were based on a mistaken understanding of how the panel had been appointed and were never intended to undermine the judiciary.
The controversy arose after Pathirana published a social media post criticising the composition of the panel of specialist doctors appointed by the Fort Magistrate to evaluate Sallay’s mental fitness.
In his explanation to the court, Pathirana said he had incorrectly assumed that the selection of the medical professionals had been influenced by the executive branch rather than being the result of an independent judicial decision.
“My commentary was entirely prompted by a mistaken factual premise that the selection and recommendation of the specific medical professionals on the panel were driven by executive/governmental influence rather than an independent judicial determination,” he stated.
Pathirana stressed that his criticism had not been directed at the judiciary.
“I wish to solemnly state before this Honorable Court that my criticisms were directed strictly toward what I perceived to be executive overreach and governmental processes. I hold the absolute independence and integrity of the Judiciary in the highest esteem,” he said.
“At no point was it my intention to scandalize, disrespect, or challenge the authority, wisdom, or impartiality of this Honorable Court,” he added.
Pathirana further acknowledged that he had failed to recognise that the appointment of the medical panel was a formal judicial act carried out in accordance with legal procedures.
“I deeply regret failing to properly distinguish that the ultimate appointment was a formal act of this Honorable Court, executed in accordance with due legal process and free from executive dictation,” he said.
While noting that his comments were intended to raise concerns about public confidence in independent panels and judicial processes, Pathirana conceded that the remarks could have been interpreted as reflecting on the conduct or integrity of the court.
“Recognizing that my statements may have been construed as a reflection on the conduct or integrity of the court, I recognize the gravity of such an interpretation,” he said.
“I express my profound remorse and tender an absolute, unqualified apology to this Honorable Court for any embarrassment, misinterpretation, or disrespect my words may have caused.”
Pathirana also reaffirmed his commitment to the rule of law and the judicial system.
“I remain deeply committed to upholding the rule of law, the dignity of the administration of justice, and the sanctity of the judicial institution,” he said.
The apology follows criticism on social media from several individuals who argued that Pathirana’s earlier comments regarding the court-appointed medical panel could amount to an affront to the judiciary. (Newswire)
