"He meant what he said" court held
The Court pointed out that Mr Ramanayake could easily have corrected this mistake and apologised during statements made to the media outside the Supreme Court building on the five court dates leading up to commencement of the trial.
Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) Gampaha District MP Ranjan Ramanayake could have easily corrected his controversial statement regarding judges if the word “judges” had indeed slipped out of his mouth as he claimed. He however, did not do so. Moreover, his subsequent statements indicate and clearly demonstrate that his intention was to refer to Judges, the Supreme Court (SC) noted in its judgement after finding the MP guilty of being in contempt of court and sentencing him to four years rigorous imprisonment on Tuesday (12).
In its judgement, the threeJudge SC bench comprising Sisira de Abrew, Vijith Malalgoda and P Padman Surasena rejected the a s s e r t i on made by Mr Ramanayake that the word “judges” had slipped out of his mouth by mistake during the controversial statement he made to the media outside Temple Trees on August 17, 2017. Mr Ramanayake maintained in Court that he had meant to say “lawyers.”
The Court though, pointed out that Mr Ramanayake could easily have corrected this mistake and apologised during statements made to the media outside the Supreme Court building on the five court dates leading up to commencement of the trial. In fact, he made further statements to the media affirming that he meant to refer to judges in his impugned statement. As such, the Court rejected the defence made by Mr Ramanayake that he had uttered the word “judges” by mistake.
The Court also rejected the argument made by Mr Ramanayake’s Counsel that his client had not said anything against the Supreme Court, and that therefore the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine this case.
The Court pointed out that Mr Ramanayake had referred to the majority of judges in his statements, and therefore, it refers to the Judges of the Supreme
Court as well. The Court further stated that this objection should have been taken up at the very inception of the case, and not as the President’s Counsel for Ramanayake did, at the final submission.
Court also rejected the contention that the procedure in the Civil Procedure Code should have been followed in this case, stating that the procedure they adopted for this case had given Mr Ramanayake the freedom of a fair trial in a better manner. This procedure was based on the criminal justice process.
The three-member bench finally unanimously held the charge of contempt of court levelled against Mr Ramanayake.
The Attorney General appeared as amicus, and was represented by Senior Additional Solicitor General Sarath Jayamanne PC for the final submissions. M A Sumanthiran PC appeared on behalf of Mr Ramanayake.
In other news, S e n i o r Additional Solicitor General Sarath Jayamanne PC’s tenure as a prosecutor of the Attorney General’s Department has come to an end, with him biding adieu to the public service on January 16.
He prosecuted many landmark and high profile cases during his time at the AG’s Department. These include the Mirusuvil Massacre case, Murder of High Court Judge Sarath Ambepitiya, Katuneriya Double Murder case where the wife of a Minister was an Accused, Kobeigane Beauty Queen Murder case, Hokandara Murder case and Tony Martin Murder case.
Mr Jayamanne was also the Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption for three years. During this period, he spearheaded the launch of Sri Lanka’s first ever National Action Plan for Combating Bribery and Corruption, and was the focal point for Sri Lanka for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.