SUNIL PERERA

SUNIL PERERA

VS.

RANJAN RAMANAYAKA

SUPREME COURT
DE ABREW, J.
MALALGODA, J.
SURASENA, J.
SC/RULE/1/2018
AUGUST 25, 2020

Article 105(3) of the Constitution-Contempt of court jurisdiction of the Supreme Court-Contempt committed in the court and outside the court-Public statement by a Minister that 95 percent of judges and lawyers are corrupt

The respondent, who was a member of Parliament and a non-cabinet Minister, made a statement to the media on 21.08.2017 near the Prime Minister's official residence, stating inter alia that the majority of Sri Lankan judges and lawyers are corrupt. This was given publicity by several television channels in their news bulletins.

Thereafter the respondent made further statements on 14.12.2017, 23.03.2018, 04.06.2018, 18.06.2018 and 05.09.2018 in the premises of the Supreme Court saying he would not under any circumstances withdraw his previous statement even if he is consequently sentenced to life imprisonment.

On a Rule being issued on the respondent to show cause why he should not be found guilty and punished under Article 105(3) of the Constitution for committing the offence of contempt of court, the respondent gave evidence under oath and stated that the reference to judges was unintentional and a slip of the tongue and he only meant to speak about corrupt lawyers, not judges.

Held :

1. The respondent admitted in his evidence that the use of the word "judges" in his first statement on 21.08.2017 was a mistake and that he did not correct this mistake in his subsequent statements.

2. If the reference to judges in his first statement was a mistake, he could have easily corrected this mistake and apologised in

his subsequent statements. His subsequent statements clearly demonstrate that his intention was to refer to judges, not only to lawyers.

3. According to Article 105(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to deal with the offence of contempt of court whether such offence is committed in court or elsewhere.

4. The charge of contempt of court levelled against the respondent is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent is convicted and sentenced to a term of four years rigorous imprisonment.

Cases referred to :

1. Nagalingam v. Lakshman De Mel 78 NLR 231

2. The King v. Kitchilan 45 NLR 82

3. In Re Bramblevale Ltd [1970] 1 CH 128

4. Croos v. Dabrera [1990] 1 Sri LR 205

5. Perera v. The King (1951) AC 482

RULE under Article 105(3) of the Constitution for Contempt of Court.

Rasika Dissanayake with Sadun Senadhipathi for the Petitioner.

M.A. Sumanthiran, P.C., with Viran Corea and J.C. Thambiah for the Respondent.

Sarath Jayamanne, P.C., A.S.G., with Suharshi Herath, S.S.C., for the Attarney-General.

cur. adv. vult.

January 12, 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The following Rule was read to the Respondent by the Registrar of this court on 8.8.2018 and he pleaded not guilty.

CHARGE SHEET

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

In the matter of a Rule in terms of Article 105(3} of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka against Sadda Vidda Rajapakse

Palanga Pathira Ambakumarage Ranjan Leo Sylvester Alphonsu alias Ranjan Ramanayake.

SC.Rule No. 01/2018
SC (Contempt of Court) Case No. 04/2017

Ranawaka Sunil Perera,
43/1 1, Walawwatta Road,
Gangodawila,
Nugegoda.

Complainant

-Vs-

Sadda Vidda Rajapakse Palanga Pathira
Ambakumarage Ranjan Leo Sylvester Alphonsu

Alias

Ranjan Ramanayake,
No. A 5, Members of Parliament's Housing
Scheme,
Madiwela, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte.

Respondent

TO: THE RESPONDENT ABOVE NAMED

WHEREAS at all times material to this mater, you were a Member of Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, holding the portfolio of Deputy Minister of Social Empowerment;

WHEREAS you were interviewed by media personnel immediately outside the premises of Temple Trees, the Official Residence of the Hon. Pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document