Insight By Sunil Kumar

Jan 26th 2024

There is an unwritten law that suggests:” Religious leaders should never dabble in politics” as it is not their call. Yes! there is that case of a certain Archbishop Desmond Tutu in S Africa where he too was accused of dabbling in politics with no right to do so! but in relatively different and exceptional circumstances. However, if the case involves religious persecution it seems only correct for a leader whose religious faction as well as those of others is affected to speak up. When the Archbishop of Colombo His Eminence Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith speaks out against the Anti Terrorism Bill which he has done in no uncertain terms, it seems quite out of order and a far cry from keeping the faith and leading his flock. Perhaps a guideline for all other Religious groups to follow as well.

Protect the flock using the tenets of religious teaching and the goodness therein.

His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith has filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill, recently presented to the parliament by the Sri Lankan government as a replacement for the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).

The petition, which names the Attorney General as the respondent, contends that various provisions within the Anti-Terrorism Bill are incompatible with the Constitution. Cardinal Ranjith has called upon the Supreme Court to rescind it where it seems a mere matter of interpretation on his part causing some trepidation.

Given the consideration that the Administrative Leadership including the President is well equipped with their command of the Constitution of the country, it seems an affront to their knowledge and cognizance of the same for a religious leader to challenge and question its viability in a country rife with many needs that require even more than what the new Anti Terrorism Bill entails as it is a means to control criminality and the subversive element of Sri Lanka which are rife and on an ongoing basis there are subversives planning covert upending and overthrowing the rule of law so it would be a means to protect the country and boosting her National Security which logically is a felt need for Sri Lanka given all the happenings of the not too distant past.

Perhaps there could be amendments to the bill to suppress the abuse of power as the Cardinal contends and as far as the freedom of expression goes it seems a misconception that it does not exist in the very fabric of the Constitution which of course if necessary needs to be further emphasized although there are factions which take advantage if it to cause mayhem and disorder so there needs to be an even balance about how it is laid down by law and the related law enforcement advised to relate accordingly within the metes and bounds of the law under the duress of punitive action if necessary.

Among the Cardinal’s primary concerns is the apprehension that, if enacted in its current form, the Anti-Terrorism Bill would grant extensive powers to the Tri-Forces, Police, and Coast Guard, enabling them to make arrests without reasonable suspicion which seems unmitigated paranoia where Sri Lanka has not exceeded this power beyond any norm by comparison to ‘most’ countries other than to defend her Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity which Sri Lanka has every right to do, the arguments in his petition that it would be a direct violation of fundamental rights, including the constitutionally protected freedom of expression seems unnecessarily apprehensive and a matter of definition and interpretation.

Cardinal Ranjith may be probably within his contention as a religious leader in his plea to surmise the Supreme Court which has urged the highest judicial authority to mandate a parliamentary vote with a two-thirds majority and a subsequent referendum for the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Bill but it is not for him to demand it. When the Cardinal contends that such a measure is crucial to ensure that the legislation aligns with constitutional principles and safeguards citizens’ rights it appears to be mere conjecture. Is he acting as a legislator one wonders?

It could also be an incentive for the enemies of the State to heighten their demands to cause further unrest within Sri Lanka, something which has been effectively quelled in the past, and the New Bill perhaps a mere booster towards securing and fortifying legislation imperatively essential for the country with a burgeoning population.

The Anti-Terrorism Bill, presented to the parliament on January 10, has sparked significant debate and concerns among various sections of society but overall seems to be a felt need given all the related dynamics.