Court of Appeal rules out preliminary objections in Badiudeen case, fixes trial for 13 February

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Court of Appeal yesterday ruled out the preliminary objections and fixed the trial for 13 February against the ruling UPFA Cabinet Minister Rishad Badiudeen for the alleged contempt of court charges.

The Bench comprised Justices S. Sriskandarajah (President of CA) and Deepali Wijesundera.

The Court of Appeal on 26 July issued a Rule (charge) against the Respondent Minister Badiudeen for the alleged contempt of court in relation to the attack on the Mannar District and Magistrate’s courts and the alleged intimidation of the judge Anthonypillai Judeson.

Acting President of the Court of Appeal W.L. Ranjith Silva on 26 July observed that acting in terms of Article 105(3) of the Constitution as there is sufficient material to issue a Rule against the Respondent Badiudeen to show cause as to why he should not be charged for contempt of court.

President’s Counsel Faisz Musthapha appearing for the Respondent Badiudeen raised three preliminary objections to the charges framed against the Resopondent.

He submitted that these preliminary objections are relating to the jurisdiction of this Court to issue legal process against the Respondent.

In his first objection, he stated there is no evidence to support the charges that were served on the Respondent.

In his second objection, he stated the charges are vague and hence the Respondent cannot be charged and the said charges do not disclose offences known t the law.

In his third objection, he stated in relation to the petitioners and the learned Counsels, the petitioners are not entitled to prosecute this case.

The Court was of the view that the Police Statement made by the Mannar Magistrate and the affidavit of the Secretary to the Judicial Service Commission is prima facie evidence to issue summons on the Respondent.

In relation to the third objection that the charges are vague, the Court was of the view that on the perusal of charges, it demonstrates the manner in which the alleged contempt was committed.

The preliminary objections were ruled out by the Court and the Respondent was called to answer whether he was guilty or not.

When the charges were read out before the Respondent, the Respondent told Court that he cannot understand English and he wanted the charge be interpreted in Tamil.

President of the Court of Appeal interpreted the charges one by one and the Respondent said he is not guilty.

The charges against the Respondent are:

(1) On 16 July, a ‘B’ Report has been filed in Case Number B 396/2012 in the Magistrate’s Court of Mannar. The Magistrate had made the order dated 16 July, 2012 and on 17 July, the Respondent telephoned the Magistrate and demanded that he reverse the said order;

(2) On 18 July, the Magistrate had received a further call from the Respondent, at this time from a private number;

(3) On 18 July, the Respondent had met the Secretary of the Judicial Services Commission and requested that the Magistrate of Mannar be transferred forthwith.

When the case was fixed for trial, the Counsel for the Respondent sought leave of the Court of Appeal to support for leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of the Court.

Court of Appeal allowed his application but told him that the contempt proceeding would proceed.

Senior lawyers including the Mannar Bar Association and the Galle Law Association filed a Petition seeking the Court of appeal to punish the Respondent for contempt of court.

They filed the petition through Lilanthi de Silva under 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.”

Petitioners are President’s Counsel Geoffrey Alagaratnam, Dr. Sunil F.A. Cooray, Lal Wijeyanayake, Chandrapala Kumarage, Mannar Bar Association President E.C. Feldano, Galle Law Association President Nalani Kamalika Manatunga and President’s Counsel A.S.M. Perera.

President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva with President’s Counsel Ikram Mohamed, G.G. Arulpragasam, K.S. Ratnavale, J.C. Weliamuna, Sanjeeva Jayawardena, Saliya Peiris, Sugath Caldera, Kamran Aziz, Eraj de Silva, Gayan Matuwage, Senura Abeywardena and Milhan Mohamed instructed by Lilanthi de Silva appeared for the Petitioners.

Petitioners cited Badiudeen who is a Member of Parliament from Vanni Electoral District representing the United People’s freedom Alliance and a Cabinet Minister.

They state the Executive Committee of the Bar Association passed a resolution on July 20 and its expressed concern about the matter of incident in Mannar Courts which adversely affects the Independence of the Judiciary and undermines public confidence in the administration of justice.

Petitioners allege that the aforesaid visit and communication with the Secretary of JSC is an interference with the due and proper working of the Judiciary and/or of Court.

The actions of the Respondent is an interference with the due and proper process of Court, and is an affront to the Judiciary and to Court and an attempt to undermine the independence of the Judiciary and the authority of Court and the Judiciary.