[caption id="attachment_114734" align="aligncenter" width="1223"]
SJB Parliamentarian Ranjan Ramanayake was sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment on contempt of court charges[/caption]
By Sumudu Chamara
After a lengthy court proceeding, on 12 January, Sri Lanka’s apex court delivered a verdict that certain statements made by Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) Parliamentarian Ranjan Ramanayake concerning Sri Lankan judges being corrupt, amounted to contempt of court, and sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment. Ramanayake’s fate, especially the four-year jail term he received, attracted more attention than similar cases reported in Sri Lanka in the recent past, and social media platforms as well as the mainstream media were flooded with concerns raised by various parties both in favour of and against the Supreme Court verdict. This incident also prompted a dialogue about the concept of contempt of court and how serious of an offence it actually is, while those who refused to concur with the court’s verdict even questioned the severity of Ramanayake’s jail term as well as other consequences Ramanayake has to and will have to face, including the loss of his parliamentary seat and the opportunity to be an elector for a period of seven years.
[caption id="attachment_114736" align="alignright" width="245"]
"When taking into consideration verdicts given by the Supreme Court in the past in connection with contempt of court cases, I am of the opinion that, that task should not be necessarily given to the Supreme Court" Former BASL President U.R. de Silva PC [/caption]
The actor-turned-politician has made a name for himself as a public figure who openly raises his voice regarding matters of public interest, especially corruption and injustice. However, many are of the opinion that irrespective of the intentions behind Ramanayake’s statements, he should have chosen his words more wisely, and that the public needs to be more aware of how and under what circumstances a person can criticise the judiciary in the correct manner, if they feel the need to do so.
Speaking of Ramanayake’s sentence as well as the broad concept of contempt of court, former President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), President’s Counsel (PC) U.R. de Silva said that regardless of the charges filed against a person, there should be a legal process that allows a person to appeal against a court verdict he has received.
When contacted by The Morning, he opined that on several occasions, the need to make changes to Sri Lanka’s contempt of court laws has surfaced, and also that there is a lacuna as far as the interpretation of the concept of contempt of court is concerned.
He added: “The Supreme Court is Sri Lanka’s apex court, and when it gives a verdict, the public has no other place to seek further assistance from. There is, therefore, a concern with regard to handing over the said case to the Supreme Court in the first instance. When taking into consideration verdicts given by the Supreme Court in the past in connection with contempt of court cases, I am of the opinion that, that task should not be necessarily given to the Supreme Court.
“The reason is that, in the event a certain party feels, after a verdict is delivered by the Supreme Court, that they cannot be satisfied with the verdict, that party does not have an opportunity to take further steps to address their concerns. Since the relevant judgment is given by the Supreme Court, which is the country’s apex court, they do not have any other place to seek redress. I think that this is not a fair situation.”
Speaking further, de Silva referred to Article 105(3) of the Constitution, which reads: “The Supreme Court of the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Sri Lanka shall each be a superior court of record and shall have all the powers of such court including the power to punish for contempt of itself, whether committed in the court itself or elsewhere, with imprisonment or fine or both as the court may deem fit. The power of the Court of Appeal shall include the power to punish for contempt of any other court, tribunal, or institution referred to in paragraph (1)(c) of this Article, whether committed in the presence of such court or elsewhere: Provided that the preceding provisions of this Article shall not prejudice or affect the rights now or hereafter vested by any law in such other court, tribunal, or institution to punish for contempt of itself.”
[caption id="attachment_114735" align="alignright" width="242"]
"The court is vested with such power based on the trust the public has kept in the court system. But, Sri Lanka’s courts have broken the public’s trust many times, and I can point out many examples from Sri Lanka’s history to this effect" Public interest litigation activist, Attorney-at-Law Nagananda Kodithuwakku [/caption]
De Silva stressed that according to the above-mentioned clause of the Constitution, both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are vested with power to penalise a person who is convicted of contempt of court. He added: “Contempt of court charges can be twofold depending on where the said offence was committed – in the court which may include the court premises as well, or outside the court. If the relevant clause was either removed, or amended to give the Court of Appeal the power to hear all sorts of contempt of court cases first, the aforesaid issue can be rectified. In the event a certain party feels that they cannot be satisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision, they automatically get the opportunity to seek the assistance of the Supreme Court, which is superior to the Court of Appeal. A method such as this can be employed to address this issue, and if this was implemented, any aggrieved party can challenge the previous decision seeking redress. It should be a right the public is entitled to.”
He also said that Sri Lanka can take examples from well-known contempt of court cases involving former MP S.B. Dissanayake and the General Secretary of the Bodu Bala Sena, Ven. Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thera.
Speaking of the extent to which a person can criticise the judiciary, he pointed out that the freedom of speech is a right granted to every citizen by the Constitution, and that any person has the liberty to voice any opinion. He added that statements likely to amount to contempt of court, however, should not be made without concrete proof and basis. “Blindly criticising the judges is tantamount to contempt of court. Ramanayake’s statement that around 95% of judges and lawyers are corrupt cannot be taken lightly as it criticises almost the entire judicial system. Given Ramanayake’s influence as a public figure, his statements have power,” he added.
When queried as to what course of action a person who wishes to challenge a verdict given by the Supreme Court can take, de Silva added: “If a person cannot concur with a Supreme Court verdict, he can request that the verdict in question be reviewed by a full judge board. But it should be done systematically, with a strong basis. If one can present concrete reasons as to why the verdict should be reviewed; for example, if the respondent was not given adequate opportunity to speak or if his/her testimony was ignored, that is a grave violation of one’s rights, and he can request for a review. But in Ramanayake’s case, that is not possible, as he is an influential person and he had made statements amounting to contempt of court several times over a period of several years. Had Ramanayake made a formal request with concrete proof, he would have received the support of the public as well as the lawyers. This sets a bad precedent as he is a public representative, and his statements attracted the attention of the international community as well. In his case, charges against him were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One cannot request that Ramanayake be given the minimum sentence, and the court does not necessarily have to give the maximum sentence. The court can determine the length of his sentence within the parameters specified in the law.”
Meanwhile, speaking to The Morning, public interest litigation activist, Attorney-at-Law Nagananda Kodithuwakku, who himself has had his license to practice law temporarily suspended following conviction over a contempt of court case, said that when it comes to Sri Lanka’s legal situation pertaining to contempt of court, the public should be made aware of it.
He added: “In Sri Lanka, neither the public nor lawyers talk about the court system, as they have been weakened. Due to this reason, the public has no understanding about their power, strength, rights, and the people’s sovereignty. The Judicature Act clearly states what punishments can be given for contempt of the High Court. In addition to that, the Constitution also states, under Article 105(3), as to what amounts to contempt of court. But, it does not specifically mention what punishments can be given for contempt of court proceedings. The citizens have a right to know about these matters, and they should be willing to learn from them. In essence, the court enforces the people’s judicial power, not the power of the President or any other party. The court is vested with such power based on the trust the public has kept in the court system. But, Sri Lanka’s courts have broken the public’s trust many times, and I can point out many examples from Sri Lanka’s history to this effect.”
Speaking of the severity of the punishments that can be imposed for charges related to the contempt of court, he cited a judgment given to an Indian activist by an Indian Court recently in a contempt of court case. He added that the said Indian activist, who was found guilty of the charges, was fined INR 1, and that the court had granted a period of three months to pay the fine.
Kodithuwakku added that giving excessive sentences is a grave misuse of the power the public has given to the court system. “Every citizen has a right to a free and just trial when appearing in a court, and the biggest problem we have in Sri Lanka is that citizens, public officials, judges, as well as lawyers have been weakened to the point that they do not talk about their rights at all. The public has been seriously disregarded as they have absolutely no understanding about their power and rights. I do not see why it has happened, and a country cannot go forward like this”.
Elaborating on the existing law pertaining to contempt of court, Kodithuwakku added that the provisions included in the existing law are rather vague, which is unacceptable. “The law most certainly has to be a clearly interpreted one. Not only the law, Parliament also appears to be hesitant when discussing this matter. The freedom of speech is a right granted through the Constitution to everyone. In general, if a citizen finds any institution to be corrupt, they have a right to say it. In fact, Sri Lanka has signed the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Ramanayake made the said statements for the sake of saying it, which in my opinion is unacceptable. Had his allegations been supported by specific facts and details, the situation would have been different. As a result of the verdict delivered in Ramanayake’s case, he became ineligible to be an elector for a period of seven years, and I think it is a serious matter,” he pointed out.
Kodithuwakku, expressing his opinion about the dissolution of the Constitutional Council, which had a significant role in appointing judges to courts, and the subsequent establishment of the newly introduced Parliamentary Council, said that the latter does not appear to be as powerful and effective as the former. He added: “Earlier, the President was bound to accept the decisions given by the Constitutional Council. Also the Constitutional Council had the power to review the nominations put forward, without being influenced in the process. However, now, there is no such obligation, and the Parliamentary Council has less power when it comes to the reviewing and approving of such nominations.”
He added: “At the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) session scheduled to be held in March this year, a resolution would be tabled against Sri Lanka concerning several matters including but not limited to, law and order, the judiciary’s independence, and fundamental rights. Therefore, we cannot take such matters lightly, and the court should be strengthened.
“My message for the public is that, first and foremost, they must stop going after political parties. As long as they follow political parties, the country cannot be saved. More importantly, the public should be impartial, independent, and conscious about their rights – until and unless they do that, the country will not change.”
A country’s citizens are not only entitled to rights granted to them through the law and/or the Constitution, they are also entitled to the power to choose their law and policymakers. However, in order to exercise these rights, it is important that the public are aware of and adhere to the country’s law. At the same time, we, as the public should be mindful about when to address shortcomings in the existing law, and what the correct process to do it is. Only law-abiding citizens can take steps to perfect the law.
Photo by Pradeep Dambarage
SJB Parliamentarian Ranjan Ramanayake was sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment on contempt of court charges[/caption]
By Sumudu Chamara
After a lengthy court proceeding, on 12 January, Sri Lanka’s apex court delivered a verdict that certain statements made by Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) Parliamentarian Ranjan Ramanayake concerning Sri Lankan judges being corrupt, amounted to contempt of court, and sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment. Ramanayake’s fate, especially the four-year jail term he received, attracted more attention than similar cases reported in Sri Lanka in the recent past, and social media platforms as well as the mainstream media were flooded with concerns raised by various parties both in favour of and against the Supreme Court verdict. This incident also prompted a dialogue about the concept of contempt of court and how serious of an offence it actually is, while those who refused to concur with the court’s verdict even questioned the severity of Ramanayake’s jail term as well as other consequences Ramanayake has to and will have to face, including the loss of his parliamentary seat and the opportunity to be an elector for a period of seven years.
[caption id="attachment_114736" align="alignright" width="245"] "When taking into consideration verdicts given by the Supreme Court in the past in connection with contempt of court cases, I am of the opinion that, that task should not be necessarily given to the Supreme Court" Former BASL President U.R. de Silva PC [/caption]
The actor-turned-politician has made a name for himself as a public figure who openly raises his voice regarding matters of public interest, especially corruption and injustice. However, many are of the opinion that irrespective of the intentions behind Ramanayake’s statements, he should have chosen his words more wisely, and that the public needs to be more aware of how and under what circumstances a person can criticise the judiciary in the correct manner, if they feel the need to do so.
Speaking of Ramanayake’s sentence as well as the broad concept of contempt of court, former President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), President’s Counsel (PC) U.R. de Silva said that regardless of the charges filed against a person, there should be a legal process that allows a person to appeal against a court verdict he has received.
When contacted by The Morning, he opined that on several occasions, the need to make changes to Sri Lanka’s contempt of court laws has surfaced, and also that there is a lacuna as far as the interpretation of the concept of contempt of court is concerned.
He added: “The Supreme Court is Sri Lanka’s apex court, and when it gives a verdict, the public has no other place to seek further assistance from. There is, therefore, a concern with regard to handing over the said case to the Supreme Court in the first instance. When taking into consideration verdicts given by the Supreme Court in the past in connection with contempt of court cases, I am of the opinion that, that task should not be necessarily given to the Supreme Court.
“The reason is that, in the event a certain party feels, after a verdict is delivered by the Supreme Court, that they cannot be satisfied with the verdict, that party does not have an opportunity to take further steps to address their concerns. Since the relevant judgment is given by the Supreme Court, which is the country’s apex court, they do not have any other place to seek redress. I think that this is not a fair situation.”
Speaking further, de Silva referred to Article 105(3) of the Constitution, which reads: “The Supreme Court of the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Sri Lanka shall each be a superior court of record and shall have all the powers of such court including the power to punish for contempt of itself, whether committed in the court itself or elsewhere, with imprisonment or fine or both as the court may deem fit. The power of the Court of Appeal shall include the power to punish for contempt of any other court, tribunal, or institution referred to in paragraph (1)(c) of this Article, whether committed in the presence of such court or elsewhere: Provided that the preceding provisions of this Article shall not prejudice or affect the rights now or hereafter vested by any law in such other court, tribunal, or institution to punish for contempt of itself.”
[caption id="attachment_114735" align="alignright" width="242"] "The court is vested with such power based on the trust the public has kept in the court system. But, Sri Lanka’s courts have broken the public’s trust many times, and I can point out many examples from Sri Lanka’s history to this effect" Public interest litigation activist, Attorney-at-Law Nagananda Kodithuwakku [/caption]
De Silva stressed that according to the above-mentioned clause of the Constitution, both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are vested with power to penalise a person who is convicted of contempt of court. He added: “Contempt of court charges can be twofold depending on where the said offence was committed – in the court which may include the court premises as well, or outside the court. If the relevant clause was either removed, or amended to give the Court of Appeal the power to hear all sorts of contempt of court cases first, the aforesaid issue can be rectified. In the event a certain party feels that they cannot be satisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision, they automatically get the opportunity to seek the assistance of the Supreme Court, which is superior to the Court of Appeal. A method such as this can be employed to address this issue, and if this was implemented, any aggrieved party can challenge the previous decision seeking redress. It should be a right the public is entitled to.”
He also said that Sri Lanka can take examples from well-known contempt of court cases involving former MP S.B. Dissanayake and the General Secretary of the Bodu Bala Sena, Ven. Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thera.
Speaking of the extent to which a person can criticise the judiciary, he pointed out that the freedom of speech is a right granted to every citizen by the Constitution, and that any person has the liberty to voice any opinion. He added that statements likely to amount to contempt of court, however, should not be made without concrete proof and basis. “Blindly criticising the judges is tantamount to contempt of court. Ramanayake’s statement that around 95% of judges and lawyers are corrupt cannot be taken lightly as it criticises almost the entire judicial system. Given Ramanayake’s influence as a public figure, his statements have power,” he added.
When queried as to what course of action a person who wishes to challenge a verdict given by the Supreme Court can take, de Silva added: “If a person cannot concur with a Supreme Court verdict, he can request that the verdict in question be reviewed by a full judge board. But it should be done systematically, with a strong basis. If one can present concrete reasons as to why the verdict should be reviewed; for example, if the respondent was not given adequate opportunity to speak or if his/her testimony was ignored, that is a grave violation of one’s rights, and he can request for a review. But in Ramanayake’s case, that is not possible, as he is an influential person and he had made statements amounting to contempt of court several times over a period of several years. Had Ramanayake made a formal request with concrete proof, he would have received the support of the public as well as the lawyers. This sets a bad precedent as he is a public representative, and his statements attracted the attention of the international community as well. In his case, charges against him were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One cannot request that Ramanayake be given the minimum sentence, and the court does not necessarily have to give the maximum sentence. The court can determine the length of his sentence within the parameters specified in the law.”
Meanwhile, speaking to The Morning, public interest litigation activist, Attorney-at-Law Nagananda Kodithuwakku, who himself has had his license to practice law temporarily suspended following conviction over a contempt of court case, said that when it comes to Sri Lanka’s legal situation pertaining to contempt of court, the public should be made aware of it.
He added: “In Sri Lanka, neither the public nor lawyers talk about the court system, as they have been weakened. Due to this reason, the public has no understanding about their power, strength, rights, and the people’s sovereignty. The Judicature Act clearly states what punishments can be given for contempt of the High Court. In addition to that, the Constitution also states, under Article 105(3), as to what amounts to contempt of court. But, it does not specifically mention what punishments can be given for contempt of court proceedings. The citizens have a right to know about these matters, and they should be willing to learn from them. In essence, the court enforces the people’s judicial power, not the power of the President or any other party. The court is vested with such power based on the trust the public has kept in the court system. But, Sri Lanka’s courts have broken the public’s trust many times, and I can point out many examples from Sri Lanka’s history to this effect.”
Speaking of the severity of the punishments that can be imposed for charges related to the contempt of court, he cited a judgment given to an Indian activist by an Indian Court recently in a contempt of court case. He added that the said Indian activist, who was found guilty of the charges, was fined INR 1, and that the court had granted a period of three months to pay the fine.
Kodithuwakku added that giving excessive sentences is a grave misuse of the power the public has given to the court system. “Every citizen has a right to a free and just trial when appearing in a court, and the biggest problem we have in Sri Lanka is that citizens, public officials, judges, as well as lawyers have been weakened to the point that they do not talk about their rights at all. The public has been seriously disregarded as they have absolutely no understanding about their power and rights. I do not see why it has happened, and a country cannot go forward like this”.
Elaborating on the existing law pertaining to contempt of court, Kodithuwakku added that the provisions included in the existing law are rather vague, which is unacceptable. “The law most certainly has to be a clearly interpreted one. Not only the law, Parliament also appears to be hesitant when discussing this matter. The freedom of speech is a right granted through the Constitution to everyone. In general, if a citizen finds any institution to be corrupt, they have a right to say it. In fact, Sri Lanka has signed the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Ramanayake made the said statements for the sake of saying it, which in my opinion is unacceptable. Had his allegations been supported by specific facts and details, the situation would have been different. As a result of the verdict delivered in Ramanayake’s case, he became ineligible to be an elector for a period of seven years, and I think it is a serious matter,” he pointed out.
Kodithuwakku, expressing his opinion about the dissolution of the Constitutional Council, which had a significant role in appointing judges to courts, and the subsequent establishment of the newly introduced Parliamentary Council, said that the latter does not appear to be as powerful and effective as the former. He added: “Earlier, the President was bound to accept the decisions given by the Constitutional Council. Also the Constitutional Council had the power to review the nominations put forward, without being influenced in the process. However, now, there is no such obligation, and the Parliamentary Council has less power when it comes to the reviewing and approving of such nominations.”
He added: “At the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) session scheduled to be held in March this year, a resolution would be tabled against Sri Lanka concerning several matters including but not limited to, law and order, the judiciary’s independence, and fundamental rights. Therefore, we cannot take such matters lightly, and the court should be strengthened.
“My message for the public is that, first and foremost, they must stop going after political parties. As long as they follow political parties, the country cannot be saved. More importantly, the public should be impartial, independent, and conscious about their rights – until and unless they do that, the country will not change.”
A country’s citizens are not only entitled to rights granted to them through the law and/or the Constitution, they are also entitled to the power to choose their law and policymakers. However, in order to exercise these rights, it is important that the public are aware of and adhere to the country’s law. At the same time, we, as the public should be mindful about when to address shortcomings in the existing law, and what the correct process to do it is. Only law-abiding citizens can take steps to perfect the law.
Photo by Pradeep Dambarage