Contempt of Supreme Court Case: ASG piles on arguments to convict Ranjan Ramanayake

By Chitra Weerarathne

Accused, Ranjan Ramanayake, though a politician, did not have special power to criticise the Supreme Court and contempt of court laws applied equally to all citizens, Additional Solicitor General Sarath Jayamanne, President’s Counsel yesterday told the Supreme Court. 

The Additional Solicitor General said the Supreme Court was vested with very wide jurisdiction as the highest Court in the land to punish persons found guilty of contempt of court.

 Sarath Jayamanne PC, appeared for the Attorney General, in the contempt of court application against Ranjan Ramanayake, accused of tarnishing the image of judges and lawyers, at a press conference, held in Colombo. Ramanayake is a Janabalavegaya Parliamentarian for the Gampaha District.

Article 105 (3) empowers, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to punish persons for contempt of court, the ASG explained.

The ASG said that the Attorney General has been invited by the Court to appear an Amicus curiae to assist the court.

The accused was permitted to summon witnesses of his choice.

The accused Ramanayake in his impugned utterances said that most of the judges were corrupt. They included the judges of the Supreme Court. What he had said amounted to contempt of the Supreme Court. If it was allowed, tomorrow films would be made to bring the Supreme Court into disrepute. That would be scandalous. It would mark the end of the judicial system.

Members of Parliament or public representatives should not be allowed to discredit the judges, the Additional Solicitor General said.

Politicians and other citizens were subject to same contempt of court laws.

ASG Jayamanne argued that the prosecution does not have to prove the intention of the accused in a contempt of court case. The Article 105/3 of the constitution had recognised Supreme law. The contempt of court had always been treated as an offence. The penalty could be imprisonment and or a fine.

In the Criminal Procedure Code, offence was an act or ommission, punishable by law, Jayamanne said.

Ramanayake too had taken contradictory positions. Once he said he meant the judges. Then again in his evidence he said he did not mean the judges. The contradictory evidence confirms the accusation.

For insulting the court there was no defence, Sarath Jayamanne PC stressed.

A judgement could be examined in a professional way. But insulting the court was an offence, he said.

The bench comprised Justice Sisira de Abrew, Justice Vijith K. Malalagoda and Justice Preethi Padman Soorasena.

The case will be mentioned again on October 21.