Senior lawyers file petition in CA against Cabinet Minister for contempt

By S.S. Selvanayagam
Senior lawyers including the Mannar Bar Association and the Galle Law Association Presidents yesterday filed a Petition seeking the Court of Appeal to punish the ruling UPFA Cabinet Minister Rishad Badiudeen for contempt of court.

They instated these proceedings with a view to ensure that there will be no repetition by anyone of interference with proper functioning of the Courts, and also to ensure proper administration of justice.
They filed the petition through Lilanthi de Silva under Article 105(3) of the Constitution which reads, “The Supreme Court of the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Sri Lanka shall each be a superior court of record and shall have all the powers of such court including the power to punish for contempt of itself, whether committed in the court itself or elsewhere, with imprisonment or fine or both as the court may deem fit. The power of the Court of Appeal shall include the power to punish for contempt of any other court, tribunal or institution referred to in paragraph 1(c) of this Article, whether committed in the presence of such court or elsewhere.”
Petitioners are President’s Counsel Geoffrey Alagaratnam, Dr. Sunil F.A. Cooray, Lal Wijeyanayake, Chandrapala Kumarage, Mannar Bar Association President E.C. Feldano, Galle Law Association President Nalani Kamalika Manatunga and President’s Counsel A.S.M. Perera.
They cited Minister Badiudeen from Vanni Electoral District representing the United People’s freedom Alliance.
They are asking the Court in the first instance to issue a Rule on the Respondent directing him to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of court.
They are also asking the Court to punish him for the offence of Contempt of Court.
They state the Executive Committee of the Bar Association passed a resolution on 20 July and its expressed concern about the matter of incident in Mannar Courts which adversely affects the Independence of the Judiciary and undermines public confidence in the administration of justice.
On July 16, a ‘B’ Report has been filed in Case Number B 396/2012 in the Magistrates Court of Mannar. The Magistrate had made the order dated 16 July and on 17 July, the Respondent telephoned the Magistrate and demanded that he reverse the said order.
On 18 July, the Magistrate had received a further call from the Respondent, at this time from a private number.
On 18 July, the Respondent had met the Secretary of the Judicial Services Commission and requested that the Magistrate of Mannar be transferred forthwith.
The Secretary of the JSC had prior to the dates material to this action had received a telephone call from the Respondent.
Petitioners allege that the aforesaid visit and communication with the Secretary of JSC is an interference with the due and proper working of the judiciary and/or of Court.
The actions of the Respondent is an interference with the due and proper process of Court, and is an affront to the Judiciary and to Court and an attempt to undermine the independence of the Judiciary and the authority of Court and the Judiciary.