• Prisoners’ rights and child rights activists wield the double-edged sword of the presumption of innocence over controversial TikToker’s media conference

BY Sumudu Chamara Social media platforms are becoming exceedingly popular among the people, especially among the youth, and publicity gained via such platforms is becoming something no other media can give nowadays. Sri Lanka’s social media use as well as those who have gained an audience via social media platforms is a topic that has been discussed in various constructive as well as controversial contexts, the most recent one being the arrest of a person, who became famous as “Kiri Saman” on the TikTok platform, for allegedly abusing an 11-year-old girl. The alleged incident first gained wide media and public attention due to the popularity of the suspect in question, whose real name is Oshada Nilan Weerapura, and secondly, due to a press briefing organised by the Committee for Protecting the Rights of Prisoners (CPRP) at which he claimed that he was tortured while he was in remand custody and that he was not guilty of the charges filed against him. This media briefing, however, attracted rather negative public attention, and also opposition from child rights activists who questioned Weerapura’s stance that he was innocent while there is an ongoing court case and investigations into the incident in question. There is also a discussion among rights groups about a person’s right to raise a voice against torture in remand custody and discussing an ongoing court case in a manner that may negatively affect the victim. Law and suspect’s rights Regardless of the nature of an offence, the Constitution guarantees the people’s right to be treated innocent until they are proven guilty. Article 13 of the Constitution says that every person shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty provided that the burden of proving particular facts may, by law, be placed on an accused person. Explaining it, CPRP Chairman and Attorney-at-Law (AAL) Senaka Perera pointed out that appearing for those who have experienced torture and also taking measures to prevent the occurrence of such within the prison system are extremely important, even though the society has not recognised how important it is. Speaking with The Morning, he added: “As the CPRP, we are committed to appearing for people who have faced torture in law enforcement and the prison system, irrespective of the nature of the offence they are accused of, their gender, or other grounds such as political ideologies they may represent. Even the State has acknowledged this humane treatment, and that is why it is written on the wall of the Welikada Prison that ‘prisoners are human beings’. It does not specify any other grounds except being human.” Speaking of the aforementioned press briefing, he added: “What we discussed during the media briefing was not whether Weerapura is guilty or not. It was about the fact that being subjected to torture is wrong.”  Perera emphasised the importance of having organisations to speak for the rights of prisoners, and added that working for and publicising their rights, however, have become an uphill battle mainly due to unwillingness among the people to talk about the rights of prisoners or suspects. He also pointed out that Sri Lanka’s social structure is such that suspects are considered guilty before a proper conviction in court. “One might feel that the CPRP assisted a guilty person. However, there is no law in Sri Lanka that finds people guilty on mere moral grounds. A society cannot move forward on moral grounds which are subjective, and that is why we have the rule of law. If moral sentiments were to decide the course of a society, there would be no use in having laws. When prisoners died in 2012 during the Welikada Prison riot, there were some who condoned those deaths. That is the kind of situation we work in. We receive certain criticisms regarding working for the rights of prisoners, and it really depends on Sri Lankans’ attitudes.” Moreover, he noted that despite the CPRP merely trying to protect people’s rights, in the above-mentioned context, there are attempts to label them as a group that supports rapists. Perera further said that Weerapura is currently seeking legal recourse with regard to the inhumane treatment the latter claims he faced. Media shows and victims’ rights Speaking with The Morning, Stop Child Cruelty Trust (SCCT) Founder Chairperson and Child Protection Alliance Convener Dr. Tush Wickramanayaka emphasised that while a suspect has every right to prove their innocence and also reveal or seek support with regard to any inhuman treatment they may have faced, such action must be taken within the existing legal framework, and not before the media. Moreover, she expressed concern that a suspect speaking to the media about a child abuse case which is currently under investigation while also revealing information about a victim can jeopardise the safety and damage the dignity of the child victim in question. This, she said, can be considered as contempt of court, while pointing out that the Constitution, in Article 12, states that every citizen is considered equal in the eyes of law and that the law must be implemented equally to all. She explained: “Every victim and every suspect must have equal opportunities before the law to defend themselves, or to prove who is right or wrong, and in the eyes of the law, everyone should be equal. We condemn any form of abuse within the legal system, particularly within the penal system. If the suspect in this case claims that he was harassed and tortured, there are proper measures he can take.” Filing a complaint with the Prisons Commissioner General, the Inspector General of Police, or the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka are some of the measures she highlighted. She further said that the act of people suspected of offences speaking to the media is becoming a “joke” and that civil society organisations supporting such is a concerning situation. This, she noted, could become a trend where suspected people appear in the media with the support of rights organisations.  Moreover, Dr. Wickramanayaka was of the opinion that speaking to the media about an ongoing investigation while expressing opinions about certain matters pertaining to the case goes beyond the boundaries within which the people are supposed to be discussing such matters. With regard to these boundaries, she noted that according to the Penal Code, in terms of an ongoing case, especially a criminal case, a suspect cannot publicly discuss the case’s content or evidence. She referred to Section 365(C) of the Penal Code, which refers to the publication of matters relating to certain offences. This section states that the printing or publication of the name or any information which may make known the identity of a person against whom certain offences identified by the Penal Code are alleged to have been committed, is punishable by law. “In this case, he can speak about the fact that he was tortured, but ideally not to the media. He should have taken other measures first. But, coming to the media as the first step shows that he was trying to manipulate the situation to get a sympathy vote,” Dr. Wickramanayaka said, while condemning the suspect’s statements regarding the victim’s credibility and the victim’s family’s credibility which she said may even amount to harassment.  She further said: “As far as rights are concerned, be it a child, an adult, or a woman, they can be considered innocent until proven guilty. But, we have to pay attention to the rights of the victim, who, in this case, is a child. I am unhappy about the fact that a rights organisation allowed the violation of the rights of one person in order to protect the rights of another.” How the media acted during the press briefing in question was also severely criticised by Dr. Wickramanayaka. She pointed out that instead of questioning why the case and the victim were mentioned during the media briefing, media institutions actually encouraged the suspect to talk about those matters. She opined that it was a violation of the ethics of journalism. Speaking further, Dr. Wickramanayaka proposed several steps to strengthen the laws pertaining to child abuse cases.  She said that bail conditions in child abuse cases must be very specific in the future, and that in the event of the violation of the bail conditions, strict action must be taken. Referring to the matter at hand, she questioned why no action has been taken against the suspect when he has violated the bail conditions. Another step she proposed was having a separate code of conduct and a set of ethics for the media to follow when reporting on cases of child abuse or other matters relating to children, adding that the media can come up with such standards. In this regard, Dr. Wickramanayaka further explained that even though the current code of ethics for journalists says that when reporting on cases of child abuse, journalists must be sensitive in reporting and must refrain from sensationalising, that is exactly what is happening.  Another matter Sri Lanka should look into in order to change the situation, according to her, is child protection agencies, particularly the National Child Protection Authority, being more active, more alert, and more assertive in implementing the law.  Dr. Wickramanayaka noted that one of the major changes that need to take place is expediting cases pertaining to children. Adding that although the Attorney General’s Department is bound to follow a protocol of completing children-related investigations referred to them within three months, she said that it is not happening at present. “Because they do not conclude these investigations within three months, we now have an average 10 years’ waiting time. At present, there are over 20,000 cases backlogged at the Attorney General’s Department,” she added. Another step she proposed was introducing a tracking system and a register for those convicted of abusing children. While every person has a right to seek legal recourse when their rights have been violated, the manner in which it is raised must not violate or indirectly cause to violate another’s rights. As those who spoke with The Morning noted, there is a need to balance the rights of a suspect and a victim, and it is a delicate situation. However, there is also a need for clear regulations, policies, and guidelines regarding how situations such as the one that was discussed in this article need to be handled.