President faces contempt of court allegations over remarks on May 25 judgment

Colombo, May 05 (Daily Mirror - Riled by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s claim that he had prior knowledge of a judgment to be delivered on May 25, the Joint Opposition is now planning to address a letter to the Chief Justice, drawing his attention to this very distressing situation.

The Joint Opposition is also planning to bring the matter to the notice of international professional institutions within the Commonwealth and elsewhere, amid concerns that it represents a serious crisis involving the judiciary and the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary.

Addressing a press conference, former External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris, a professor of law, said yesterday that the President made a speech referring to a case that had been heard on April 30.

The President said that the judgment in this case will be delivered on May 25.

“Then he asked people to be prepared to cheer lustily for this judgment. This is a pending case before the court. The judgment has not been delivered, but the President claims to have prior knowledge of it. He knows what the judgment is, he likes it, and he wants the people to cheer it, to receive it with enthusiastic applause,” Prof. Peiris said.

Commenting on the basic principles relating to this matter, Prof. Peiris said that evidence had to be heard from both sides by the court.

“Then the court has to assess the evidence and arrive at a judgment in a totally independent spirit. The judge is guided by his conscience and the law, nothing else. The judge is certainly precluded from discussing his judgment with any third party. He cannot discuss it with any third party. Now, here at the very least, there is pressure being brought to bear on the judge, not by an ordinary person but by no less than the President of the Republic,” he said.

Referring to Chapter IV of the Constitution, which deals with the independence of the judiciary, he said there are special powers and responsibilities given to the Chief Justice in terms of Article 105(3) to deal with matters related to contempt of court.

“This is clearly, by any standard, in my view, contempt of court because the President is now commenting on a judgment still to be delivered. So this is a subtle assault on the basic values enshrined in our Constitution — the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers, and so on,” he said.

“Then the question is whether it is fair to subject a judge to this kind of pressure, of this degree of intensity, and exercised at this level. Is it fair to expect a judge to withstand this kind of pressure? In the circumstances of our country today, there are very few institutions which command the confidence and respect of the public at large. One of those institutions is the judiciary. It is the duty of us all to ensure that this independence is preserved in its fullest integrity, and that we should all, irrespective of party affiliation, come together to resist any attempt made to compromise the independence of the judiciary. This is one of the pillars of our Constitution, which we are committed to defend,” he said.