Connect with us

Features

Felix Dias’ draconian laws helped conspirators’ acquittal

Published

on

60th Anniv. Of Coup ’62-Legal Aspects

by KKS PERERA

The UNP and the Tamil parties vehemently opposed the controversial The Criminal Law (Sp Provisions) Act, No.1 of 1962. The government was determined to bring the coup accused to book ‘by hook or by crook’. The bill was post-hoc and applied with retrospective effect. Trying the accused under the normal laws of the land would have created two problems for the authorities. Primarily, punishments laid out in the existing laws were insufficient to deal with a conspiracy to overthrow an elected regime. (This situation may not have been previously envisaged). Secondly, and more importantly, the evidence extracted from suspects during interrogation would not be available under oath in a court of law; and it would prove difficult to build up a case against them without the use of such confessions. The new law created new courts, new offenses and enhanced punishments.

It also purported to give legal effect [ex post facto] to the confinement for 60 days of any persons alleged to have committed an offense against the State. It broadened the class of offenses that the three judges chosen by the Minister of Justice for the examination without a jury and consent to arrest without a warrant, for waging war against the Queen. The new law stipulated minimum penalties for the offense; and for scheming to wage war against the Crown. Section 11 of the new Act provided that the AG might, before or at any stage during the trial, pardon any accomplice with a view to obtaining his evidence.

Section 12 amended the laws regarding evidence that no confession made by an accused in the custody of a police officer could be proved against him and that a confession by one of several co-defendants could not be used against the others, were changed. It allowed statements made in the custody of a police officer who was not below the rank of an Assistant Superintendent, to be used against any of the suspects charged. It laid on the accused, the burden of proving that a statement by him was not voluntary. It removed the effect of several sections of the Evidence Ordinance. Many vital and age-old protective rules of evidence were removed. The Act included a clause for removal of the right of appeal to any court in Ceylon (except to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London), in Trials before three judges without a jury.

Criticism of the new Act-

Debating the bill in the House on February 23, 1962, the opposition members made highly critical speeches denouncing certain clauses:

J R Jayewardene-MP- ‘’Section 440 A of the Criminal Procedure Code in sub section (b) says this:

‘The governor may, by warrant under his hand, direct that the person charged shall be tried before the Supreme Court at Bar by three judges without a jury.’

Now this new Bill seeks to omit the words, ‘the person charged shall be tried’ and insert the words, ‘the trial of such offence shall be held’. We want to know what the reason is for that’’.

Dr N M Perera-

‘’What is the difference?’’

J R Jayewardene- “The amended section will read: ‘The Governor may under his hand direct that the trial of such offence shall be held…’ Why exclude certain words and why include certain words?’’

A Amirthalingam MP–FP

“We speak of a particular person being tried of an offence. But here we are told of the trial of the offence. This is absurd…it conveys no sense…in a piece of legislation, every word matters’’.

J R Jayewardene– “You can commence a trial-at-bar… without a single accused being present in court. There are sections which say the accused need not be present. You can commence a trial without a scrap of evidence being led in magistrate’s court. You can commence a trial, without any charge’’.

V A Kandiah- TC

‘’This is a very serious matter. It undermines the judiciary itself. It undermines and destroys all our respect for administration of justice’’.

HANSARD-Feb 23, 1962:col. 2511/2519

JRJ stated his party strongly resists any attempt to overthrow an elected regime by unlawful means or by force, they were similarly opposed to enactment of this type of Draconian legislation.

Legal action against suspects – misfortune continues:

The AG filed action against 24 suspects on June 23, 1962. Judges were nominated by the Minister of Justice to constitute the bench of Trial-at-Bar no. 2 of 1962, which commenced at a special court set up at Flag Staff Street, Navy Headquarters before Their Lordships, Mr Justice T S Fernando Q.C.[President], Mr. Justice L B de Silva and Mr Justice Sri Skanda Rajah.

GG Ponnambalam QC, raising a preliminary objections, stated: “the judicial power of a state is vested in the hierarchy of the judiciary. We must be careful to distinguish the judicial power of the state and the powers of the judge which is sometimes referred to as judicial powers.”

EG Wikremanayake QC, pleaded that the constitution of this court was contrary to law, with all the lawyers defending their clients following suit.

Ponnambalam continuing his submission, stated that the sovereignty of the legislature to enact Law was limited. Justice Fernando—”I think court has no power to deprive the legislature of its right to pass legislation. The court must exercise its powers very carefully.”

Ponnambalam said that the courts need not examine the motives and objects of these Acts but when any provision of an Act was questioned in court, the court should examine it. In Ceylon, the legislature’s powers are limited. Ceylon is not a sovereign legislature in that respect. However, on October 3, 1962, at the end of submissions, the judges declared that they have no jurisdiction to hear the case…, the Minister had acted ultra vires in making a direct appointment of the three judges. The government drafted a fresh Bill that allowed the Chief Justice to appoint the judges. The adversity, however, did not end there. The second court dissolved itself as well, citing an instance of one of the judges, Hon A W H Abeysundera, QC, who served as Attorney General having for a short period, been involved in the investigations.

The AG’s position was that, due to subsequent unanticipated developments, the plan to topple the government was called-off by the perpetrators.

The judgment stated:

“The evidence in support of an indictment charging conspiracy is generally circumstantial. It is not necessary to prove any direct concert or even any meeting of the conspirators; as the actual fact of conspiracy may be inferred from the collateral circumstances of the case…. Upon each of the isolated acts, a conjectural interpretation is put; and from the aggregate of these interpretations, an inference is drawn”.

Queen Vs Liyanage; NLR-202

President of Trial-at-Bar, M C Sansoni J, delivering the judgment on April 5, 1965, stated, (excerpts from the judgment):

“In our order of 25th February 1963, we stated that ‘we share intense and almost universal aversion to ex post facto laws in the strict sense’. The third charge, that of conspiring to overthrow the government, was framed in terms of the retroactive amendment of section 115 of the Penal Code, made by the Criminal Law (Special) Act No I of 1962.

Eleven sentenced: 10 years RI and Confiscation of Property.

They entered into an agreement with a common design. There may be one person round whom the rest revolve-or a chain of conspirators each communicating only with the one next to him.” see–R. v. Meyrick [121 Or. App. Rep. 94 at 1021.]”—-Queen vs Liyanage-, NLR-205

The court also held that:

“We have not forgotten that some of the prosecution witnesses, who are obviously accomplices, were giving evidence under a conditional pardon, ‘with halters round their necks’; and with a natural inducement to earn it. Is their evidence to be forthwith struck out or disregarded? ….”

Queen Vs Liyanage–NLR -213

The Trial-at-Bar bench quoted in their judgment, an extract as declared by Willes J. in Mulcahy v. The Queen [1 (1888) 3 H. L. 306 at 321.],: “As soon as he has subverted the Government, the rebel is out of danger” (unlike the murderer and the thief). As the penal law is impotent against a successful rebel, it is consequently necessary that it should be made strong and sharp against the first beginnings of rebellion; against treasonable designs which have been carried no further than plots and preparations,” it further said, “We convict 11 defendants on all the counts; and we impose on each of them, a sentence of ten years RI, the minimum prescribed by law, also forfeiture of properties …”

-M C Sansoni, President, Justices H N G Fernando, & LB de Silva.

Justice L B de Silva, whom the son of CC Dissanyake refers to as: “My father’s partner at bridge, was one of the three judges who conducted the trial at bar and convicted him.” –TDSA Disanayake.-‘Politics of S.L’-Vol III.

The Judicial Committee of Privy Council comprising Lord McDermott, Lord Pearson, Lord Morris, Lord Guest and Lord Pearce held:

“The Ceylon Government has no powers to pass the new law …., which is utlra vires, bad in law, and had denied a fair trial.” Lord Pearson delivering the verdict further stated: “This is an appeal against…Supreme Court of Ceylon…each of the 11 appellants was sentenced to…they were not tried by a Judge and jury…the trial was long and complicated…all the accused were in very rigorous custody…” Concluding the verdict they stated…, “…Although Criminal legislation which can be described as ad hominem and ex post facto, may not always amount to an interference with the functions of the judiciary….the convictions cannot stand. … these appeals should be allowed and the convictions should be quashed.”

Excerpts from writer’s Manuscript on 1962 Coup, titled, ‘Bloodshed ’62: Aborted or Abandoned?’—kksperera1@gmail.com



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Religious extremism set to gain from rising Israel-Iran hostilities

Published

on

The costs of extremism; the Twin Tower blasts of 9/11.

Many of the international pronouncements on the current dangerously escalating Israel-Iran hostilities could be seen as lacking in adequate balance and comprehensiveness. The majority of these reactions could be said to be failing in addressing the aspects of the conflict that matter most.

For example, there is the recent UN General Assembly resolution on the crisis which calls for an ‘immediate, unconditional and lasting ceasefire in the Gaza’ and which goes on to urge ‘Member States to take necessary steps to ensure Israel complies with its international legal obligations.’ An immediate and durable ceasefire is indeed the number one requirement in the Middle East today but could it be ‘unconditional’? Could it ignore the principal requirement of Israel’s security? These posers need to be addressed as well.

Besides, it is not only Israel that should be compelled to meet its ‘international legal obligations.’ All the states and actors that feature in the conflict need to be alerted to their ‘international legal obligations’. While it goes without saying that Israel must meet its international legal obligations fully, the same goes for Iran and all other Middle Eastern countries that enjoy UN membership and who are currently at odds with Israel. For instance, Israel is a UN member state that enjoys equal sovereignty with other states within the UN fold. No such state could seek to ‘bomb Israel out of existence’ for example.

As a significant ‘aside’ it needs to be mentioned that we in Sri Lanka should consider it appropriate to speak the truth in these matters rather than dabble in what is ‘politically correct’. It has been seen as ‘politically correct’ for Sri Lankan governments in particular to take up the cause of only the Palestinians over the decades without considering the legitimate needs of the Israelis. However, a lasting solution to the Middle East imbroglio is impossible to arrive at without taking into account the legitimate requirements of both sides to the conflict.

The G7, meanwhile, is right in stating that ‘Israel has a right to defend itself’, besides ‘reiterating our support for the security of Israel’ but it urges only ‘a de-escalation’ of hostilities and does not call for a ceasefire, which is of prime importance.

It is only an enduring ceasefire that could lay the basis for a cessation of hostilities which could in turn pave the way for the provision of UN humanitarian assistance to the people of the Gaza uninterruptedly for the foreseeable future. There is no getting away from the need for a durable downing of arms which could engender the environment required for negotiations between the warring parties.

Meanwhile, some 22 Muslim majority countries have ‘warned that continued escalation threatens to ignite a broader regional conflict that could destabilize the Middle East’ and called ‘for a return to negotiations as the only solution regarding Iran’s nuclear program.’ This statement addresses some important issues in the crisis but one hopes that the pronouncement went on to call for negotiations that would take up the root causes for the conflict as well and pointed to ways that could address them. For instance, there is no getting away from the ‘Two State Solution’ that envisages peaceful coexistence between the principal warring parties.

The ‘Two State Solution’ has been discredited by sections of the world community but it outlines the most sensible solution to the conflict. As matters stand, the current escalating hostilities, if left unchecked, could not only lead to a wider regional war of attrition but bring about the annihilation of entire populations. There is no alternative to comprehensive negotiations that take on the issues head on.

Besides, all who matter in the current discourse on the crisis need to alert themselves to the dangers of appealing to the religious identities of communities and social groups. When such appeals are made religious passions are stirred, which in turn activate extremist religious outfits that operate outside the bounds of the law and prove difficult to rein-in. This was essentially how ‘9/11’ came about. Accordingly, speaking with a sense of responsibility proves crucial.

In fact, it could be argued that a continuation of the present hostilities would only benefit the above outfits with a destructive mindset. Therefore, comprehensive and constructive negotiations are of the first importance.

The above conditions should ideally be observed by both parties to the conflict. Israel, no less than the Islamic and Arab world, needs to adhere to them. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has no choice but to say ‘No’ to extremists within his cabinet and to ‘show them the door’, inasmuch as hot-headed extremists in the Islamic and Arab world need to be opposed and alienated by the relevant governments.

Meanwhile, the US is on a duplicitous course in the Middle East. Whereas it has no choice but to rein-in Israel and convince it of the need to negotiate an end to the conflict, it is choosing to turn a blind eye to Israel’s military excesses and other irregularities that are blighting the Gazans and the ordinary people of Iran. It ought to be plain to the Trump administration that it is promoting a barbaric war of attrition by continuing to provide Israel with the most lethal weaponry. Currently, it is anybody’s guess as to what the US policy on the Middle East is.

The Islamic and Arab world, on the other hand, should come to understand the imperatives for a defusing of tensions in the region. Decades of conflict and war ought to have made it clear that the suffering of the populations concerned would not draw to a close minus a negotiated peace that ensures the wellbeing of all sections concerned.

As pointed out, the security of Israel needs to be guaranteed by those quarters opposing it. This will require the adoption of a conciliatory attitude towards Israel by state and non-state actors who have thus far been hostile towards it. There needs to be a steady build-up of goodwill on both sides of the divide. If this is fully realized by the Arab world a negotiated solution will be a realistic proposition in the Middle East.

Continue Reading

Features

She deserves the crown

Published

on

We had no luck coming our way at the Miss World 2025 contest – not even our immediate neighbour, India – but I’m glad that Miss Thailand was crowned Miss World 2025 as Thailand happens to be my second home … been to Amazing Thailand many times, courtesy of the Tourism Authority of Thailand.

In fact, even before the Miss World 2025 grand finale, which was held at the beautiful venue of the HITEX Exhibition Centre, in Hyderabad, Telangana, India, my colleagues at office all predicted that Miss Thailand, Opal Suchata Chuangsri, would emerge as the winner.

Yes, indeed, Miss Thailand not only won the hearts of millions but also became the first ever Thai to claim this much sought-after title.

Prior to winning the title of Miss World 2025, Opal Suchata was Thailand’s representative at Miss Universe 2024 and took home the third runner-up title.

Her Miss Universe crown, unfortunately, was subsequently forfeited, due to a contract breach, but she did not let that demotivate her, though, and went on to compete and win the title of Miss World Thailand 2025.

Coming from a family that was in the hospitality industry, her upbringing, in this kind of environment, made her aware of her culture and helped her with her communication skills at a very young age. They say she is very fluent in Thai, English, and Chinese.

Obviously, her achievements at the Miss World 2025 contest is going to bring the 22-year-old beauty immense happiness but I couldn’t believe that this lovely girl, at 16, had surgery to remove a benign breast lump, and that made her launch the ‘Opal For Her’ campaign to promote breast health awareness and early detection of breast cancer, which also became the topic of her ‘Beauty with Purpose’ at the Miss World 2025 contest.

Opal Suchata intends to leverage her Miss World title to advocate for other women’s health issues, as well, and sponsor a number of charitable causes, specifically in women’s health.

Her victory, she says, is not just a personal achievement but a reflection of the dreams and aspirations of young girls around the world who want to be seen, heard, and create change.

What’s more, with interests in psychology and anthropology, Opal Suchata aspires to become an ambassador for Thailand, aiming to represent her country on international platforms and contribute to peace-building efforts.

She believes that regardless of age or title, everyone has a role to play in inspiring others and making a positive impact.

And, what’s more, beyond pageantry, Opal Suchata is an animal lover, caring for 16 cats and five dogs, making her a certified “fur mom.”

She also possesses a special musical ability—she can play the ukulele backwards.

Opal Suchata is already a star with many expressing admiration for her grace, leadership, and passion for making a difference in the world.

And there is also a possibility of this head-turner, from Thailand, entering the Bollywood film industry, after completing her reign as Miss World, as she has also expressed interest in this field.

She says she would love the opportunity and praised the Indian film indstry.

She akso shared her positive experience during her visit to India and her appreciation for the Telangana government.

Congratulations Opal Suchata Chuangsri from Amazing Thailand. You certainly deserve the title Miss World 2025.

What is important is that the Miss World event is among the four globally recognised beauty pageants … yes, the four major international beauty pageants for woment. The other three are Miss Universe, Miss Earth and Miss International.

Unfortunately, in our scene, you get beauty pageants popping up like mushrooms and, I would say, most of them are a waste of money and time for the participants.

Continue Reading

Features

Wonders of Coconut Oil…

Published

on

This week I thought of working on some beauty tips, using coconut oil, which is freely available, and quite affordable, as well.

Let’s start with Coconut Oil as a Moisturiser…

First, make sure your skin is clean and dry before applying the coconut oil. This will allow the oil to penetrate the skin more effectively.

Next, take a small amount of coconut oil and warm it up in your hands by rubbing them together. This will help to melt the oil and make it easier to apply.

Gently massage the oil onto your face and body, focusing on dry areas or areas that need extra hydration.

Allow the oil to absorb into your skin for a few minutes before getting dressed.

Start with a small amount and add more if needed.

* Acne and Blemishes:

Apply a small amount to the affected area and gently massage it in. Leave it on overnight and rinse off in the morning. Remember to patch test before applying it to your entire face to ensure you don’t have any adverse reactions.

* Skin Irritations:

If you’re dealing with skin irritations, coconut oil may be just what you need to find relief. Coconut oil has natural anti-inflammatory properties that can help soothe and calm irritated skin.

Simply apply a thin layer of coconut oil to the affected area and gently massage it in. You can repeat this process as needed throughout the day to keep your skin calm and comfortable.

* Makeup Remover:

To use coconut oil as a makeup remover, simply apply a small amount onto a cotton pad or your fingertips and gently massage it onto your face, in circular motions. The oil will break down the makeup, including waterproof mascara and long-wearing foundation, making it easy to wipe away.

Not only does coconut oil remove makeup, but it also nourishes and hydrates the skin, leaving it feeling soft and smooth. Plus, its antibacterial properties can help prevent breakouts and soothe any existing skin irritations, so give coconut oil a try and experience its natural makeup removing abilities, and also say goodbye to acne and blemishes!

Continue Reading

Trending