Mahanama inconvenienced at BIA

Issuing a statement to the media former national cricketer, Roshan Mahanama has urged the Bandaranaike International Airport authorities to take steps to mitigate inconvenience caused to passengers in respect of vaccination reports. According to our ex-cricketer, he had taken two out of the three vaccines in the UK. In the statement he has released, says, “I took my 2nd and 3rd vaccinations in the UK. Having been responsible and taking the vaccinations on time did not necessarily help me, as the health authority in Sri Lanka refused to issue me the full vaccination certificate as I had not taken the 2nd and3rd vaccines in Sri Lanka’.

What appears to a cursory observer is that the Sri Lankan authorities correctly refused him to board the plane, as he had not presented the certificate that he should have obtained from the UK authorities, which is Mahanama’s responsibility. It is unfair to blame Sri Lankan health for it is the responsibility of the traveller to do so. Mahanama ought to be aware of the incident regarding Novak Djokovic here in Australia. No one is above the law as our Prime Minister said. When it comes to quarantine matters everyone must be treated alike.

There is always a healthy tension between the strict adherence to the rule and the exercise of appropriate discretion, in instances when formal law becomes an obstacle in the speedy delivery of justice. But here is a clear and impersonal rule, which was correctly adhered to by the BIA authorities. Mahanama’s request to the BIA authorities to do otherwise does not make sense, other than asking them to adjust the rule to his particular circumstance, which borders on corrupt practice.

On a personal note, I remember that while on a UN assignment, at the Male airport, an airport police officer ‘planted’ a European traveller and his family and stood them in front of me, breaking the long line of tired passengers waiting for clearance. Slightly aggrieved, I mentioned this to my host who came to the airport to take me to the hotel. The host took the matter so seriously that the police officer was issued a warning, I was later informed by letter. It has been mentioned that some countries need to reduce discretion and impose more rules, while others should do the reverse. But Sri Lanka is not in the latter category, because we have often noticed that discretion minus accountability ends up as corruption, which we must contain in order to be modern.

Mahanama has every right to assert his stance and is free to use every opportunity to seek redress. But the big picture must be kept in mind. The purpose of the rule is to make the society’s rules and to use them even handedly. The vast procedural apparatus, which is the speciality of the legal profession, is a means to deliver such even handed justice. We do understand that procedures at times take precedence and stymies the substantive ends of justice. Such worship of procedure over substance is a source of political decay in modern democracies, but worst is the case when rules are bent to suit individuals. We know that in our country, powerful interest groups can take advantage of existing procedures to gain narrow interests, and hinder broad public interest. In those circumstances public interest claims fail to receive adequate representation.

In developing countries, it is often the case that officials backslide into the default form of sociability, one based on favouring friends and family and engaging in reciprocal exchange of benefits, abusing the procedural apparatus. We have heard of many instances for some to gain privileged access via the political system, causing considerable damage to the institutional forms that law and accountability should take.

Dr D. CHANDRARATNA