Aruna Laksiri Unawatuna (AAL)

It was reported in several media today that a lawyer who appeared in a court and presented facts was remanded and suspended from practicing as a lawyer until the case is over. In a publication by Manopriya Gunasekara in the Lankadeepa website titled ‘අධිකරණයට අපහාස කළ නීතීඥවරයෙකු රිමාන්ඩ්‘, it is mentioned that 3 judges of the Supreme Court have ordered the Attorney General to file charges of contempt of court against the lawyer.  

The Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka enacted the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act No. 8 of 2024 with effect from 01 February 2024 to make provisions for the uniform application of the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution provide for the procedure in punishing the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution and provided for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

By the said Act, it has been questioned whether the lawyers or parties presenting legal arguments, legal facts, documentary or oral evidence before the court have been given the opportunity to do their work freely, independently, without threat to live safely and without insults.

It is the duty of the judge to consider the facts presented by each party before him and judge according to the law, and when a lawyer presents legal matters in court, if a judge takes steps to deprive him of his professional rights or remand him, a situation arises where a lawyer must understand the judge’s personal attitudes and personal aspirations before appearing in the court. It is a situation that is not suitable not only for the independence of the judiciary but also for a fair trial, thereby causing an unbiased judgment to be lost and legal schools that act on the judges personal attitudes and goals begin to emerge.

In observing the above news, Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act No. 8 of 2024  should be formally reviewed and the judges’ dignity, security, protection and integrity should be respected as well as the lawyers’ dignity, security, protection and integrity.

The civilized world should not approve of granting the jurisdiction to the accuser to remand the accused or the suspect. If it is approved, the principle of natural justice which says that it is inappropriate to solve one’s own case is also broken.

A judge who imposed a life imprisonment by altering the evidence in his sole discretion in a High Court case is still serving.

Judiciary is a golden temple which provides protection of law. The people who are battered by the illegal hand of the executive come to the court for safe. Adjudication of one’s own case, not giving the opportunity to question one’s own statements and reports, and finally taking the judgment to be taken at the first instance is an adverse feature of the rule of law on the existing law related to the law on punishment for Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act No. 8 of 2024.The legislators should work to amend them.

If supporting the legal issues in the court or using the rights given by the law leads to remand in the first instance, such a law is self-evidently against morality.

* A translation of the article ‘චූදිතයෙකු ජීවිතාන්තය දක්වා සිරගත කළ හැකි වන ලෙස සාක්ෂි සටහන් වෙනස් කළ විනිසුරු තවමත් නඩු අහන රටේ, අධිකරණයේදී නීතිය කතා කරන නීතීඥයන් රක්ෂිත බන්ධනාගාර ගත කරන අධිකරණයට අපහාස කිරීමේ නීතිය නිවැරදි කළ යුතුය…!’ (2024.03.20)
https://neethiyalk.blogspot.com/2024/03/blog-post.html

https://neethiyalk.blogspot.com/2024/03/in-country-where-judge-who-changed.html

නීතීඥ අරුණ ලක්සිරි උණවටුන
B.Sc(Col), PGDC(Col), සමායෝජක,
වෛද්‍ය තිලක පද්මා සුබසිංහ අනුස්මරණ නීති අධ්‍යාපන වැඩසටහන. දුරකථන 0712063394