Release Ranjan

Ranjan Ramanayake, the outspoken former Member of Parliament, has now languished in prison for over a year for the crime of alleging most judges in Sri Lanka were corrupt. He was sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment by the Supreme Court for making the remarks to reporters in 2017. 

As a mass uprising demanding a systemwide change of governance is unfolding, Ranjan Ramanayake should not only be released but should be made a symbol of the failures of the system which has stifled the freedoms of the people for too long. 

Sri Lanka, supposedly a democracy with the right for free expression, does not have laws that determine the crime of contempt of court. The Penal Code defines the offence as one where “whoever by words, either spoken or intended to be read, excites or attempts to excite hatred to or contempt of the administration of justice”.  Such provisions were entered into 19th-century statutes to ensure the smooth functioning of the Judiciary. Yet, most democracies, including those in our region, have evolved from those archaic days to ensure that the Judiciary is also subject to robust democratic discourse.  In mature democracies contempt of court provisions are sparingly used allowing for debate, analysis, and even outright criticism of judicial decisions. These countries have acknowledged that a citizen’s right to free expression, even that which is critical of the Judiciary, outweighs any archaic notions of “attempts to excite hatred to or contempt of the administration of justice”.

Sri Lanka can learn from robust Contempt of Court Acts such as the one enacted in India in 1971 and the UK in 1981 which opens the necessary democratic space for reasonable criticism and scrutiny of the Judiciary.

In Sri Lanka the primary source of law for the crime of contempt of court is the constitution that through article 105 [3] provides for a broad and subjective interpretation by the Superior Courts. According to this provision, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have all the power to punish for the offence, whether the offence is committed in the court itself or elsewhere, with imprisonment and/or fine as the court may deem fit.

As protesters across the country are having a moment of reckoning, identifying the many flaws of the State and the structure of governance it is also time to address the corruption, inefficiency, and the abysmal failures of the Sri Lankan judicial system which has not served the greater interest of its people.  The countless number of criminal and corruption cases that have been dismissed in the last two years alone for numerous technical reasons should be an indicator for the failings of the Judiciary. At least 100,000 Sri Lankan citizens have been subjected to extra judicial killings and enforced disappearance in the last 50 years and there are hardly 10 instances in which anyone has been held accountable for these crimes.  

It is not long ago that a former Chief Justice ‘apologised’ to the nation in an admission that he had arbitrarily set free the current Prime Minister who he should have jailed for corruption. A purported former Chief Justice is currently serving as an ambassador without an iota of concern for the numerous conflicts of interest while another is serving as a personal lawyer to the President. 

The list of such absurdities is long, and these are only examples of those who had once held the office of Chief Justice. The validity of the opinion expressed by former Minister Ramanayake was glaringly obvious even before the current events.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has pardoned some of the vilest criminals during his short tenure. Duminda Silva, a convicted murderer, and Sargent Sunil Rathnayake who mascaraed eight Tamil civilians including children were given Presidential Pardons.  If there ever was an individual who deserves a Presidential Pardon it is Ranjan Ramanayake. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa may have done many things wrong in his short tenure in office but for once he can do the right thing and immediately release Ranjan Ramanayake.