There are legitimate fears that the government will weaponise the increased fines for election-related offences, to harass their political opponents, Head of the Department of Law, University of Peradeniya, Prof. Deepika Udagama, told The Island.

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill gazetted on 19 July 2024 has significantly increased fines related to election related offences.

The amendments to Section 169E have significantly increased fines for various election-related offenses. The fine for “bribery by treating” has been raised from 200 rupees to 750,000 rupees, and for “bribery in connection with an election,” it has increased from 500 rupees to 1,000,000 rupees. Similarly, Section 169F now imposes a higher fine for “undue influence at an election,” increasing it from 500 rupees to 100,000 rupees, while the fine for “personation at an election” has been raised from 300 rupees to 100,000 rupees.

“These changes were necessary because the existing laws were outdated, and the fines for election-related offenses were insignificant,” she said. “However, these new fines could be weaponised by the government against their opponents. The issue lies not with the law itself, but with its implementation. We need to closely monitor whether these laws are enforced in a politicised manner.”

Prof. Udagama noted that the government has recently pushed through several amendments to existing laws. She expressed serious concern over the hasty changes and the introduction of new laws with minimal deliberation.

Prof. Udagama mentioned that 22A was gazetted on July 18, 2024. She clarified that technically, the publication of the gazette has no legal impact on the upcoming presidential election.

“However,” she added, “this situation breeds mistrust and suspicion. It could create chaos if deliberations on 22A proceed and the court determines that it requires a referendum to become law. A referendum is also an election. Can we realistically hold two elections so close to each other? This raises the question: why did the government introduce 22A? Politically and legally, we see this as a mischievous act.”

Prof. Udagama noted that a few months ago, the General Secretary of the United National Party (UNP) suggested that the President should be granted a few additional years in office. She also mentioned that in the past two weeks, two individuals have filed fundamental rights petitions with the Supreme Court, urging a delay in the presidential election.

“The Supreme Court ordered the first petitioner to pay 100,000 rupees in legal costs. Recognizing this trend, the Court increased the legal costs for the second petitioner to 500,000 rupees. Amidst this, the government introduced 22A. It is evident to everyone that this a is part of a larger process,” she said.

“19A re-established the independent commissions, which can be powerful forces for good if they are staffed with independent and respected individuals. Among these, the Elections Commission holds a special significance,” she said.

“The government cannot conduct an election themselves since they are participants. Therefore, the Elections Commission serves as the backbone of the country’s democracy. There is public suspicion about why the commission is delaying the election announcement. Although the commission has provided several reasons for the delay, people need assurance that there are no external influences affecting its decisions,” she said.

Prof. Udagama expressed concerns about state administration regarding the way 22A was gazetted. She noted that the Bill was presented to the Cabinet by the President and the Minister of Justice. The Minister initially declared that 22A would not be gazetted until after the presidential election, but the President instructed the Bill to be gazetted the following day.

“A constitutional amendment is a serious matter. The way the Bill was gazetted suggests a lack of consensus within the government,” she said. Prof. Udagama highlighted that Sri Lankans believe it is the executive that decides which elections to hold.

“The President claimed there was no money for local council elections, so they couldn’t be held. Now, suddenly, we can hold the presidential election because Ranil Wickremesinghe says there is money. Election decisions should not depend on the whims of an individual. People now perceive the Elections Commission as being beholden to the President, and this is not a good sign,” she said. (RK)