But this time, the alleged ‘threat’ to judicial interference does not come from a retired military man deluding himself that pips once on his shoulders entitled him to make written accusations against the judiciary, but from the other two institutions of the separation of powers tripod – the executive and the legislature.

It concerns the words uttered by the country’s president himself, followed by a ruling of the Speaker of Parliament. The issue revolves round the government’s move to restructure domestic debt, following a call by Sri Lanka’s private creditors who were approached to undergo a ‘haircut’, as the IMF rather shabbily calls it, by taking a slice off the sizeable debts owed them.

Those international creditors wanted the government to restructure its own domestic debts to ensure equal treatment ‒ which the government did, raising a howl of protests from the private sector, civil servants and trade unions, who were understandably opposed to their retirement funds ‒ especially those of the poorer classes, turning into a crew cut while the rich escaped with nothing more than a snip, if at all.

The government however went ahead, using its parliamentary majority to pass a resolution supporting the domestic restructuring, leading to political parties and a trade union filing fundamental rights petitions in the Supreme Court.

Last month, at a meeting of the Coconut Growers Association ‒ which was more concerned with the future of their struggling industry, President Wickremesinghe made a dig at the judiciary, although he scrupulously avoided mentioning it by name.

He said the government would only heed the advice of parliament with regard to the debt restructuring process. Underscoring that parliament had sole control over public finance, he added: ‘We cannot take orders or instructions from anyone else.’

Only months earlier, parliament was threatening to summon three Supreme Court judges before its Privileges Committee to question them on a ruling they had made ‒ ordering the finance ministry secretary to release funds for local government elections that had been postponed; the government wanted them postponed further, spuriously claiming that it had no money for them, although the real reason lay elsewhere – the fear of losing.

The government ignored the Supreme Court determination.

On top of the presidential warning for ‘others’ to stay away, came a ruling by the parliament’s Speaker on a privilege issue raised by the tourism minister over the constitutional propriety of a resolution passed by parliament being challenged in court.

In an unusually quick ruling on the vital issue of the judiciary’s right to hear such petitions, the Speaker held that the ‘Supreme Court is not empowered to issue orders or judgements of any nature against a resolution already passed by parliament’.

While there appear to be contradictory opinions on the validity of the Speaker’s ruling delivered one morning, what has angered so many, was that it was perceived as a crude attempt to pre-empt the Supreme Court, which was to hear the petitions later that day. It prompted Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa to label Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena an agent of the executive.