Connect with us

News

Press freedom under fire, says HRCSL

Published

on

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) has expressed serious concern over what it describes as growing threats to freedom of expression in the country, particularly the targeting of journalists through police investigations into alleged defamation.

In a statement, the Commission cited the recent summoning of journalist Tharindu Jayawardena for a police inquiry without disclosure of reasons, later revealed to be linked to complaints over his reporting on alleged corruption, involving public funds. The HRCSL said the failure to inform him of the reasons for the summons violated a circular issued by the Inspector General of Police in July 2025.

Full text of HRCSL statement: The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) is deeply concerned about emerging threats to the freedom of expression in Sri Lanka, and particularly the freedom of journalists to engage in their profession without interference. It is particularly disturbed by a trend in which law enforcement officials have launched investigations into allegedly defamatory speech, including by journalists. In a recent egregious example, Mr. Tharindu Jayawardena, a journalist and member of the Commission’s Sub-Committee on the Freedom of Expression, was summoned for a police inquiry without proper disclosure of the reasons for such summoning. It later transpired that the summoning was due to a complaint that Mr. Jayawardena had made allegedly defamatory remarks in his publications about corruption in the use of public funds. The Commission also notes that any failure of the police to inform a person of the reasons for summoning such person is a breach of Circular RTM 101/CRTM 61 issued by the Inspector General of Police on 2 July 2025 directing all investigating officers to inform persons of the reasons for summoning them.

The freedom of expression in Sri Lanka is guaranteed by article 14(1)(a) of the Sri Lankan Constitution. It is a fundamental right that is crucial to all citizens for the purpose of expressing their thoughts and opinions, and participating in democracy. The right protects expressions in all forms made through any medium, including online platforms. According to the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, the right protects ‘not only information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive…but also those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population’.

The freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions, but these must only be by law in accordance with article 15(2) and article 15(7) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has clearly held that each restriction on the freedom of expression must meet the standards of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness. The Commission also notes the societal danger in unnecessary, disproportionate, and unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of expression, as such restrictions can lead to public frustration and even unrest.

One of the grounds on which the freedom of expression can be restricted under article 15(2) is defamation. Necessary, proportionate, and reasonable restrictions may, therefore, be imposed to guarantee to every person the right to their reputation and privacy, and to protect persons from defamation. Orders and judgments in this respect by civil courts are examples of such restrictions. Moreover, all persons, including journalists and editors, have ‘special duties and responsibilities’ with respect to the rights and reputations of others when exercising their freedom of expression. This norm is clearly articulated in article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Therefore, journalists and editors should ensure that published content is checked for accuracy and should provide all parties an opportunity to comment on or respond to allegations made against them. Where inaccuracies are found to be published, retractions and apologies should be issued without delay.

However, there is a common misconception that restrictions on the freedom of expression on the grounds of preventing defamation can be in the form of criminal sanctions. On the contrary, any restriction on a person’s speech on the grounds that it constitutes defamation remains the exclusive province of civil courts. No offence with respect to defamation currently exists under Sri Lankan criminal law. In fact, the Penal Code (Amendment) Act, No. 12 of 2002, completely repealed Chapter XIX of the Penal Code of Sri Lanka, i.e., the Chapter on Defamation. Therefore, Sri Lanka Police has no jurisdiction whatsoever to investigate complaints with respect to defamation. It should neither entertain nor investigate complaints concerning defamation. Any citizen aggrieved by an alleged act of defamation can only seek a remedy before the civil courts of Sri Lanka and may not file criminal complaints in this regard.

The Commission observes a trend where political actors and influential persons have sought to file complaints with the Criminal Investigation Department or other divisions of Sri Lanka Police, including the Computer Crime Investigation Division, alleging that citizens have made false or defamatory statements about them, often on online platforms. The Commission recalls that international human rights standards require that public figures, such as political leaders and state officials, must tolerate more criticism than private individuals. The reliance on law enforcement officials to launch investigations into allegedly defamatory statements should be especially avoided by such public figures, as they have special responsibilities to respect the freedom of expression of members of the public. Often, inaccurate or unfair statements may be made about such public figures. However, it is their responsibility to respond to such statements through proportionate means, such as issuing official clarifications, rather than reliance on law enforcement officials. The Commission has also recognised in the past that commentary on women in political office, both on social and legacy media, has often been harmful in the country. Addressing this egregious issue, however, requires long term societal interventions, and not the abuse of criminal law.

In this context, the Commission wishes to make several observations with respect to the Online Safety Act, No. 9 of 2024 (OSA). The Commission has previously noted in a letter to the former Speaker that the current Act does not fully comply with the Supreme Court’s Determination on the Online Safety Bill, and that the current Act could have been enacted only with a special majority in Parliament. In this context, the use of this Act to suppress the freedom of expression of any citizen, including for the purported purpose of preventing defamation, raises serious questions of constitutionality.

The Commission observes that online safety is a legitimate aim and the regulation of online platforms for the genuine purpose of online safety, particularly of vulnerable users, may be necessary. However, the current OSA does not achieve this aim. Its provisions replicate colonial-era criminal offences found in the Penal Code and fails to appropriately deal with a number of genuine online safety issues, such as phishing, spyware, malware, denial-of-service attacks, and hacking. The Commission recently held a consultation with civil society actors and noted a wide consensus that the OSA should be repealed. Any process of drafting new legal provisions on online safety should be consultative and draw on relevant experience and expertise to ensure that such provisions are fit for purpose.

The Commission recommends that the Government of Sri Lanka and relevant authorities adopt the following measures to ensure the respect for and protection of the freedom of expression in full compliance with the Sri Lankan Constitution and relevant international human rights law: 1. The Ministry of Justice should declare a moratorium on the use of the Online Safety Act until its repeal and replacement with fit-for-purpose legislative provisions; 2. The Inspector General of Police should issue directions to all divisions and police stations of Sri Lanka Police reminding them that defamation is not a criminal offence in Sri Lanka, and to refrain from recording or investigating complaints purely relating to alleged defamation where no other offence is reasonably suspected; and 3. Political leaders should refrain from filing complaints with law enforcement officials with regard to any statement that is allegedly false or defamatory, as such a statement does not constitute a criminal offence.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Ex-lawmakers group calls for IPU’s intervention to check “irregularities” in Parliament

Published

on

Association of Former Members of Parliament of Sri Lanka has requested the Inter-Parliamentary Union to inquire into, what the group calls, institutional irregularities in Parliament.

The Association cited the decision taken by the Attorney General not to appear for Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickremeratne, in a case filed in the Court of Appeal by sacked Deputy Secretary General of Parliament Chaminda Kularatne, to underscore the need for IPU’s intervention.

The following is the text of the letter signed by former JVP MP Premasiri Manage, on behalf of the Association:  We write to Your Excellency on behalf of the Association of Former Members of Parliament of Sri Lanka, an independent body representing former legislators who have served the Parliament of Sri Lanka across successive administrations. The Association is committed to upholding democratic values, parliamentary traditions, institutional integrity, and the rule of law within Sri Lanka’s governance framework. It is with grave concern that we bring to your attention a series of developments that, in our respectful view, seriously undermine parliamentary democracy, administrative fairness, and institutional independence in Sri Lanka.

1. Unlawful Cancellation of Parliamentary Pensions

The present Government of Sri Lanka has, through actions that we consider both unlawful and unethical, cancelled the pension entitlements of former Members of Parliament. This decision appears to have been taken arbitrarily, without adherence to established legal principles, legitimate expectations, or due process, thereby undermining the dignity and security of those who have served in the national legislature.

2. Illegal and Malicious Interdiction of the Deputy Secretary General of Parliament

We wish to draw urgent attention to the interdiction of the Chief of Staff and Deputy Secretary General of Parliament, which raises serious concerns regarding abuse of authority and interference in administrative due process. According to material presently before the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka (CA/Writ Application No. 109/2026), the interdiction:

• Was imposed through the Parliamentary Staff Advisory Committee (PSAC), which lacks lawful authority to exercise such disciplinary powers, rendering the action ultra vires;

• Was based on a preliminary inquiry conducted without proper legal mandate, thereby invalidating the process from its inception;

• Was not the result of an independent administrative determination, but was carried out following the direct personal intervention and influence of Speaker, Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne;

• Appears to have been driven by personal and retaliatory considerations, amounting to a malicious exercise of authority rather than a lawful disciplinary process.

Importantly, it is also noted that the Attorney General of Sri Lanka has withdrawn from appearing on behalf of the Hon. Speaker in the related proceedings, reportedly in view of serious procedural irregularities associated with the interdiction process. The Speaker has consequently retained private legal counsel. This development strongly indicates that serious legal and procedural defects exist in the interdiction process, further reinforcing concerns regarding its legality and propriety. It is therefore evident that the lawful disciplinary framework vested in the Secretary General of Parliament was bypassed, resulting in a serious violation of the principles of natural justice, institutional independence, and the rule of law.

3. Discrimination and Harassment within Parliamentary Administration

We are also deeply concerned by credible allegations of discrimination and harassment within the parliamentary administrative structure, which, in our respectful view, have arisen as a result of the interference of the present Speaker in the administrative affairs of Parliament, thereby undermining the independence of the parliamentary administration. These concerns include:

• Discriminatory conduct affecting senior officials, including the Deputy Secretary General;

• Harassment and discriminatory treatment of female staff members within Parliament;

• The resignation of one female officer due to such circumstances;

• Confirmed findings of harassment in respect of another female officer attached to the Information Technology Division, as established by a report submitted by a former High Court Judge.

These incidents indicate a disturbing pattern of administrative misconduct and a failure to ensure a safe, independent, and professional working environment within Parliament.

3. Broader Institutional Concerns

The above matters collectively raise serious concerns regarding:

• The erosion of the independence of parliamentary administration;

• Abuse of authority and concentration of power;

• Undermining of due process and established legal frameworks;

• A broader decline in adherence to democratic governance standards.

 Request for Engagement

In light of the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Inter-Parliamentary Union:

1. Intervene and monitor the situation;

2. Call for reports and clarifications from the Speaker and senior parliamentary administration;

3. Facilitate independent review and observation of relevant judicial proceedings;

4. Promote accountability and restoration of institutional integrity within Parliament.

Given the IPU’s distinguished role in safeguarding parliamentary democracy and promoting good governance worldwide, we firmly believe that your timely engagement will contribute significantly to restoring institutional integrity and public confidence in Sri Lanka’s Parliament.

Continue Reading

News

Power and Energy Minister, Ministry Secy resign over coal probe

Published

on

Power and Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody and Ministry Secretary Prof. Udayanga Hemapala have resigned from their posts.According to the President’s Media Division (PMD), the two officials submitted their letters of resignation to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake this afternoon.

The resignations come in the wake of a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry appointed to probe possible unlawful activity and financial irregularities in coal procurement and power generation.

The PMD said the decision was taken to ensure that the Commission’s work proceeds without interference or perceived influence from individuals holding office.

Minister Jayakody, in his resignation letter, noted that following the appointment of the Commission, he had requested that investigations into coal imports, since 2009, be referred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), describing it as part of the government’s anti-corruption mandate.

He added that the inquiry should be conducted independently and without bias, and said his continued presence in office could be perceived as an obstacle to the process.

Prof. Hemapala, in his resignation letter, said his decision was intended to facilitate the commencement of investigations and ensure a transparent and independent process, the PMD said.

The Special Presidential Commission was recently appointed to examine allegations of irregularities in coal imports and electricity generation over a prolonged period and to recommend corrective measures.

Continue Reading

News

President appoints Commission to probe irregularities in coal imports from inception of Norochcholai

Published

on

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake yesterday appointed a Presidential Commission of Inquiry to investigate alleged irregularities in coal imports and electricity generation, amid concerns over possible financial losses to the State.

The President’s Office said the Commission would examine transactions from the inception of coal-based power generation in Sri Lanka up to April 16, 2026, focusing on operations linked to the CEB-affiliated Lanka Coal Company (Pvt) Ltd., its successors, and private suppliers.

The three-member body is chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gihan Kulatunga, with Court of Appeal Justice Adithya Patabendige and High Court Judge Sanjeewa Somaratne as members. Former Ministry Secretary P.V. Bandulasena has been appointed Secretary to the Commission.

Appointed under the Special Presidential Commissions of Inquiry Act No. 07 of 1978, as amended, the Commission has been mandated to scrutinise procurement procedures, supply chains, quality testing, and operational processes connected to coal imports and utilisation.

The Commission has been tasked with the following mandates:

• To determine whether irregularities or illegal acts occurred in the procurement process for coal imports and to assess any resulting financial loss to the government.

• To investigate whether substandard coal was imported during the relevant period and to examine the entire associated workflow, including procurement, supply, quality testing, operational, and utility processes.

• To ascertain whether electricity generation using imported coal reached the expected levels of efficiency and productivity.

• To investigate whether legal or financial irregularities or illegal acts occurred during the power generation process if substandard coal was indeed utilized.

• To examine whether there were any breaches of expressed terms or conditions in these processes and, if so, whether measures such as withholding payments or other compensatory actions were taken.

• To identify the political authorities, government officials, officers of Lanka Coal Company (Pvt) Ltd, suppliers, or their agents responsible for any such incidents and to recommend future action to be taken against them.

• To propose measures to prevent the recurrence of such alleged malpractices or illegal acts in the future and to ensure proper governance and integrity.

In addition to the above, the Commission will also report on any other alleged malpractices or illegal acts related to coal importation and electricity generation, and recommend preventive measures to address such issues.

Continue Reading

Trending