Proceedings concern statements allegedly capable of interfering with the administration of justice
COLOMBO, Wednesday – The facts relating to allegations of contempt involving former Ministers Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila, Member of Parliament Dilith Jayaweera, Sugeeshwara Bandara, Asanka Navaratna and Mahinda Pathirana are to be placed before the Court of Appeal for its consideration under the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act.
Facts to Be Placed…
The matter arises from statements allegedly made in relation to the ongoing Easter Sunday investigations, which investigating authorities contend may have had the effect of undermining public confidence in the judicial process or interfering with the administration of justice.
The Court of Appeal will be invited to consider the material placed before it and determine whether any further proceedings are warranted.
The development follows investigations conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department into statements made through electronic and social media.
The investigation has centred on whether those statements merely constituted political comment or whether they crossed the threshold established by law for contempt of court.
The proceedings have renewed discussion within legal circles regarding the scope of Sri Lanka’s relatively recent contempt legislation.
While freedom of speech and expression remains a constitutionally protected right, courts have long recognised that such freedom carries responsibilities, particularly where comments concern pending judicial proceedings or are capable of influencing the administration of justice.
Equally, the law has consistently recognised that judicial decisions remain open to fair and reasoned criticism.
The issue for the Court of Appeal will not be whether public debate is permissible, but whether the material placed before it discloses conduct amounting to contempt within the meaning of the statute.
At this stage, no finding has been made against any of the individuals concerned. The proceedings remain at a preliminary stage, with the Court of Appeal first required to consider the facts and determine whether there is a legal basis for initiating contempt proceedings.
Any person against whom proceedings are subsequently instituted will be entitled to be heard before the Court reaches any determination.
The matter is expected to attract considerable public interest, not only because of the individuals involved, but because it raises broader questions concerning the relationship between freedom of expression, public confidence in the judiciary and the proper administration of justice in a constitutional democracy.
