Discrepancy between original and edited version of Salley's presser in the spotlight

Is a travesty of justice being played out against former Western Province Governor Azath Salley? The question arises as a result of what transpired on September 24, 2021 when the bail application filed on behalf Salley was taken before Colombo High Court Judge Manjula Tillekeratne and reported in the media the following day.

Indictments had been previously filed against Salley by the Attorney General in connection with a statement he made on March 9, 2021. Indictments had been filed against Salley for committing offences coming under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act.

When the bail application made by Salley before the Colombo High Court Judge Manjula Tillekeratne had been taken up on September 24, 2021 the Court was informed by Senior State Counsel Wasantha Perera appearing on behalf of the Attorney General that since the indictment had been filed in High Court Number 2, the Colombo High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the application for bail.

Colombo High Court Judge Manjula Tillekeratne then stated that he was unable to consider the bail application as indictments had already been filed against the accused before another court.

During the proceedings in the Colombo High Court it came to light that Colombo Chief Magistrate Buddhika C. Ragala had on an earlier occasion delivered an order holding that there appeared to be a strong discrepancy between the views expressed by Azath Salley during a press conference and the content of the edited version published by the media.

The Colombo Chief Magistrate Buddhika C. Ragala had made the order when an application that Salley be discharged from the case on the basis that there was no evidence to proceed against him for committing offences under Prevention of Terrorism Act and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act.

However, the Magistrate held that he had no power to discharge the suspect as

Indictments had already been filed in the High Court based on the same press conference.

The Chief Magistrate had observed that if the entire unedited version of the press conference had been published, it would have been clear that the suspect had expressed an idea of building peace among the people and to rise up as one nation.

“The Court perused the unedited version and if the unedited version was shown to the public it was in fact about national harmony and rising up as one nation. The Criminal Investigations Department should look into persons who have distorted the original version to suit their necessities” the Chief Magistrate said.

If the findings of the Chief Magistrate are upheld it will be an uphill task to establish the Prosecution’s case against Azath Salley. In the meantime legal procedures and jurisdictional issues may delay his obtaining bail.

However in view of the order by the Colombo Chief Magistrate it is incumbent on the Attorney General to review the indictment against Salley and take appropriate action.

In accordance with the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s recommendation the Criminal Investigation Department should be directed to investigate the circumstances under which the original version of the press conference was doctored and action taken against the individuals concerned.

This is the second occasion in recent times that a doctored conversation has come to light.

The Sunday Times of August 1, 2021 reported that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had established that the tape recording of a telephone conversation between former Solicitor General Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe and Avant Garde Chairman Nissanka Senadipathi which resulted in the interdiction of the

Senior State Prosecutor had been edited and doctored.

Ms. Wickramasinghe was interdicted and sent on compulsory leave by the Public Service Commission (PSC) following the alleged conversation being uploaded on YouTube and broadcast over sections of the media in September, 2019.

There is no information in the public domain as to what further investigations have been conducted in order to ascertain the circumstances under which such doctoring of the telephone conversation took place.

It is probably the Attorney General’s Department which is best placed to initiate action to ensure that doctored or edited recordings of conversations or press conferences do not result in a miscarriage of justice.