Connect with us

News

HRC finds five sections of new Act inconsistent with SC determination

Published

on

Justice Dehideniya and Prof. G. L. Peiris

Opposition’s criticism of Online Safety Law vindicated

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The ongoing controversy over the enactment of the Online Safety law (ONLINE SAFETY ACT, No. 9 OF 2024) in violation of the Supreme Court determination has taken a new turn with the Human Rights Commission (HRC) contradicting Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena’s declaration pertaining to the legality of the new law.

Dissident SLPPer Prof. G. L. Peiris told a media briefing, at his Kirula Road residence, on Monday (12), that the HRC, in a letter dated Feb 08, 2024, had informed Speaker Abeywardena that the new Act was not in line with the SC’s determination of the Online Safety Bill.

The HRC wrote to the Speaker just two days after the Speaker’s Office issued a statement dismissing repeated accusations over the manipulations in the enactment of new law. Prof. Peiris said that the HRC’s letter followed the Speaker’s endorsement of the Certificate on the Online Safety Bill on Feb 02, 2024, thereby making it the ONLINE SAFETY ACT, No. 9 OF 2024.

The former External Affairs Minister said the HRC’s letter, also copied to President Wickremesinghe, Public Security Minister Alles, and Attorney General Rajaratnam, PC, has pointed out that the SC’s recommendations hadn’t been accommodated in Section 13 (Clause 13 of the Bill), Section 16 (Clause 17 of the bill), Section 19 (Clause 21 of the Bill), Section 20 (Clause 22 of the Bill) and Section 27 (Clause 31 of the Bill).

The four-page letter has been signed by Justice L.T.B. Dehideniya, who received the appointment in late June last year.

Other members of the Commission are Prof. Thaiyamuthu Thaanaraj, Prof. Fathima Farzana Haniffa, Nimal G. Punchihewa and Dr. Gehan Dinuk Gunatilleke.

Prof. Peiris, who recently aligned himself with the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya, said that the Speaker owed an explanation. The HRC’s declaration has quite clearly proved that the new law was contrary to the Constitution and therefore couldn’t be accepted under any circumstances, Prof. Peiris said, alleging that though there had been previous infringements, the country never witnessed such blatant violation before.

Asked whether the SJB could seek the Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya’s intervention and procedures to follow in case Parliament failed to adhere to the SC’s recommendations and any similar blatant violation before, Prof. Peiris said: “Never as blatant a violation as this. Unfortunately, the Constitution provides in Article 80(3) that, once the Speaker certifies a Bill, it cannot thereafter be challenged in a Court of Law. However, there is explicit provision that, where the SC Determination specifies that particular sections can be passed with a simple majority only subject to amendments required by the SC, Parliament shall incorporate these amendments, otherwise enactment by a special majority of 2/3 is mandatory.

The former Constitutional Affairs Minister said: “We will argue that in view of this provision the Bill has not been validly enacted with mandatory constitutional requirements. If the SC Determination, or parts of it, can be disregarded with impunity, this makes pivotal Articles like 120 and 123 redundant. This goes to the very root of a valid legislative process.

The former law Professor stressed that there is an obiter dictum by the late Justice Mark Fernando that, where the legislative process is flawed, in that constitutional provision have been contravened, certifications the Speaker will not save the Bill.

At the onset of the briefing, Prof. Peiris said that in terms of seriously flawed new law enforcement authorities have made first arrest on Sunday (11) and seemed to be bent on using the draconian law to suppress the free media.

The Opposition would resort to what the emeritus law academic called suitable legal challenge.

Declaring that the HRC is deeply concerned over the glaring omissions in the Online Safety Act in terms of the Act’s full compliance with the SC’s Determination, Justice Dehideniya, on behalf of the HRC warned: “any such omission, and consequently, any remaining inconsistency with the Constitution, would have required that the Online Safety Bill be enacted only with a special majority in Parliament. Therefore, the failure to ensure full compliance with the Court’s determination may give occasion to serious concerns over whether the Act, in its current form, received the requisite number of votes in Parliament.”

Prof. Peiris emphasised that the HRC has confirmed the Opposition complaints”

Following a two-day debate, 108 MPs voted for the Bill and 62 against on January 24.

Pointing out that the HRC has taken up the issue with the Speaker after careful examination of the Bill and SC’s recommendations, Prof. Peiris emphasized that the Speaker should accept responsibility for the unprecedented development. Prof. Peiris urged the SLPP, too, to look into this matter as the ruling party could absolve itself of the responsibility for the pathetic state of affairs.

Prof. Peiris said that the Speaker’s Office should respond to the HRC. “We intend to vigorously pursue this matter as Speaker Abeywardena cannot be allowed to pursue his own agenda at the expense of parliamentary traditions,” he said.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

News

Gnanasara Thero absconding after SC ruling

Published

on

Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero was not at his temple in Rajagiriya when prison officials visited the premises yesterday to take steps following the Supreme Court ruling that nullified the presidential pardon granted to him, police sources said.

Prison officials who visited the temple on Nawala Road, Rajagiriya, were reportedly informed by those present that the Thero’s whereabouts were unknown. The development comes a day after the Supreme Court declared former President Maithripala Sirisena’s 2019 pardon of Gnanasara Thero null and void.

The three-member Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Janak De Silva, Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna and Sampath B. Abayakoon held that the pardon was arbitrary, violated the public trust and principles of natural justice, and was made beyond the proper exercise of the President’s constitutional discretion.

The case arose from Gnanasara Thero’s conduct at the Homagama Magistrate’s Court in January 2016 during proceedings relating to the disappearance of journalist and political cartoonist Prageeth Eknaligoda.

The Court of Appeal convicted him on four counts of contempt of court in 2018 and imposed concurrent prison terms amounting to six years. He had served about nine months when Sirisena granted him a presidential pardon on May 23, 2019.

The Supreme Court found that although Article 34 empowers the President to grant pardons, that power is held in trust for the people and is subject to constitutional limitations and judicial review. The Court concluded that Sirisena had effectively acted on the recommendation of the Additional Secretary (Legal) without demonstrating that he had independently considered the relevant material.

Justice De Silva held that the pardon was “arbitrary”, violated public trust and the rules of natural justice, and was ultra vires the President’s powers. The Court consequently found that the decision violated the fundamental right to equality guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

The ruling effectively restores the legal position under the original conviction, leaving Gnanasara Thero without the benefit of the 2019 pardon. The Supreme Court also clarified that a pardon does not erase a conviction or sentence, but merely relieves an offender from serving the sentence to the extent specified in the pardon.

Gnanasara Thero, the General Secretary of the Bodu Bala Sena, had been convicted over his conduct during proceedings concerning the disappearance of Eknaligoda, who went missing in January 2010 and has not been located.

Sandhya Eknaligoda, Prageeth Eknaligoda’s wife, was among those who challenged the presidential pardon before the Supreme Court, alongside the Centre for Policy Alternatives and its Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu.

The detailed account of the judgment indicates that the Court’s ruling primarily nullified the pardon and restored the legal effect of the original sentence, with the implementation of the sentence falling to the relevant authorities.

Police sources said that the Supreme Court, however, did not permanently close the door on executive clemency. It held that a future President could grant Gnanasara Thero another pardon, provided the power is exercised lawfully and after proper consideration of all relevant material.

The Supreme Court has so far overturned three presidential pardons granted to two former Presidents. In January 2024, the Court declared former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s pardon of former MP Duminda Silva unlawful and invalid. In June 2024, it invalidated two pardons granted by former President Maithripala Sirisena to Royal Park murder convict Jude Shramantha Anthony Jayamaha — the first in May 2016, which commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, and the second in October 2019, which released him from prison. Jayamaha, who was convicted of the murder of 19-year-old Yvonne Johnson, remains at large. Most recently, on September 10, 2026, the Supreme Court declared Sirisena’s 2019 pardon of Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero null and void, ruling that it was arbitrary and inconsistent with the Constitution.

Continue Reading

News

House to debate 22A, Judicature Bill next week

Published

on

Parliament is scheduled to debate the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill on September 24 and 25, subject to the Speaker’s announcement following the delivery of the Supreme Court determination on petitions filed against the Bills.

The programme for the Parliamentary Week from September 22 to 25 was decided at a meeting of the Committee on Parliamentary Business held on Thursday (10) under the chairmanship of Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne.

On each sitting day, Parliamentary Business under Standing Orders 22(1) to 22(6) will be taken up from 9.30 am to 10 am, followed by Questions for Oral Answers from 10 am to 11 am Questions under Standing Order 27(2) will be taken up from 11 am to 11.30 am.

On Tuesday (22), the Orders published in Extraordinary Gazette No. 2497/37 under the Petroleum Resources Act and the Promotion of Export Agriculture (Amendment) Bill will be debated from 11.30 am to 5 pm.

The Tredso Development Foundation (Incorporation) Bill, a Private Member’s Bill, will then be taken up for Second Reading before being referred to the Legislative Standing Committee.

An Opposition motion at the Adjournment Time will follow.

On Wednesday (23), the Chartered Institute of Media Professionals of Sri Lanka Bill will be debated from 11.30 am to 5 pm, followed by Questions at the Adjournment Time.

The Second Reading debate on the 22nd Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill is scheduled for 11.30 am to 7 pm on Thursday (24) and Friday (25).

Continue Reading

News

Wrong house targeted in underworld grenade attack: Two children killed

Published

on

Two children aged 11 and 17 were mistakenly killed and their 55-year-old father injured in an early morning hand grenade attack on Sirisangabo Mawatha on Friday. Police investigations later revealed that the attackers targeted the wrong house during an ongoing underworld clash.

Three police teams have been deployed to investigate the attack, which occurred at around 3 am.

According to police, a man who arrived near the house in a three-wheeler knocked on the front door before throwing a grenade into the premises and fleeing.

The victims were identified as 17-year-old Kasun Rashmika and 11-year-old Duminda Gihan. Their 56-year-old father, Nalin Thusantha Perera, was seriously injured and admitted to the Kalubowila Teaching Hospital.

Police said the injured man’s brother was allegedly a close associate of a drug trafficker known as ‘Sando’ and had also been accused of involvement in drug trafficking.

The brother lives in a house adjoining the one targeted in the attack, and police suspect the grenade may have been thrown at the wrong house.

Police are also investigating information that the attack was allegedly carried out at the direction of several overseas-based drug traffickers, identified as Pandithage Shantha Kumara alias ‘Kos Malli’, Samantha Perera alias ‘Chuwa Samantha’, ‘Kudu Avishka’ and ‘I.D.’

Police said the attack was believed to be linked to an ongoing conflict between two underworld factions, which have targeted each other’s associates in shootings and grenade attacks. More than 20 people have reportedly been killed in such attacks.

Security agencies are also investigating alleged links between one faction and overseas-based criminals including Kanjipani Imran, Unakuruwe Shantha, Dubai Gagana and Handaya.

Security agencies have also received information that overseas-based criminals identified as Kanjipani Imran, Unakuruwe Shantha, Dubai Gagana and Handaya are allegedly behind the supply of firearms and drugs to the faction associated with Kos Malli and Chuwa Samantha.

Continue Reading

Trending