Lawyers for former ministers Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila and MP Dilith Jayaweera told the Court of Appeal on Wednesday that criticism of police and criminal investigators cannot amount to contempt of court.
The court began hearing a contempt complaint filed by the Colombo Fort Magistrate against several people, including the three politicians. The complaint concerns public statements about investigations involving former State Intelligence Service Director Suresh Sallay.
The case is before a three-judge bench of Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justices Chamath Morais and Adithya Patabendige. Further consideration is set for Thursday.
President’s Counsel Manohara de Silva, appearing for Gammanpila, argued that criticism of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) cannot automatically be treated as an attack on the judiciary. He said arrests and criminal investigations are executive functions and that the police and the Attorney General’s Department are not part of the judiciary.
De Silva said his client’s statements referred to alleged misconduct by investigators, including former CID officer Shani Abeysekara, and did not accuse the courts of wrongdoing. He questioned the legal basis for treating such remarks as contempt under the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act, No. 8 of 2024.
Background
President’s Counsel Ali Sabry, appearing for Jayaweera, questioned how the Magistrate could conclude that his client intended contempt on the strength of one sentence from a television interview. Sabry argued that Jayaweera’s wider remarks expressed growing public confidence in the judiciary over the handling of the Sallay investigations.
Sabry alleged that investigators relied selectively on part of the interview to support the complaint. He accused the CID of misleading the court and misusing judicial processes, and asked whether the police were in effect trying to exercise powers that belong to the judiciary through the contempt proceedings. These are the allegations of defence counsel, and the court has not ruled on them.
President’s Counsel Maithri Gunaratne, appearing for respondent Asanka Navaratne, also argued that police officers belong to the executive branch and are not judicial officers. He said criticism of police conduct does not, by itself, amount to contempt of court.
Separately, President’s Counsel V.K. Choksy, appearing for lecturer Mahinda Pathirana, told the court that his client had deleted the Facebook post cited in the proceedings and had issued an unconditional apology.
What it means
The hearing puts before the Court of Appeal a question about where the line lies between criticising police conduct and showing contempt for the courts. The defence argument, as presented on Wednesday, is that the two are separate.
The complaint has been filed under the 2024 Act named in court, and the three judges have not yet decided whether the statements amount to contempt. The respondents are accused, and nothing has been proved against them. Anyone commenting publicly on pending investigations or court matters will be watching how the bench treats the arguments on Thursday.
