Lawyers representing several political figures accused of contempt of court have questioned how statements criticising the police and criminal investigators could be treated as contempt of court, arguing that police officers do not exercise judicial authority.
The arguments were presented before the Court of Appeal today as it began hearing a contempt of court complaint filed by the Colombo Fort Magistrate against several individuals, including former ministers Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila and MP Dilith Jayaweera.
The complaint relates to public statements made concerning investigations involving former State Intelligence Service Director Suresh Sallay.
Appearing for Gammanpila, President’s Counsel Manohara de Silva argued that criticism directed at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) could not automatically be considered an attack on the judiciary.
He pointed out that arrests and criminal investigations were executive functions rather than judicial functions, while the police and Attorney General’s Department did not fall within the judiciary.
De Silva argued that 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 criticism as contempt under the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act, No. 8 of 2024.
Meanwhile, President’s Counsel Ali Sabry, appearing for MP Dilith Jayaweera, questioned how the Magistrate could conclude that his client intended to commit contempt of court based on a single sentence taken from a television interview.
Sabry argued that Jayaweera’s broader remarks had expressed growing public confidence in the judiciary over the handling of investigations involving Sallay.
He alleged that investigators had selectively relied on part of the interview to support the complaint, accusing the CID of misleading the court and misusing judicial processes.
Sabry further questioned whether the police were effectively attempting to exercise powers belonging to the judiciary through the contempt proceedings.
President’s Counsel Maithri Gunaratne, appearing for respondent Asanka Navaratne, also argued that police officers represented the executive branch and were not judicial officers.
He maintained that criticism of police conduct did not, by itself, amount to contempt of court.
Separately, President’s Counsel V.K. Choksy, representing lecturer Mahinda Pathirana, informed the court that his client had deleted the Facebook post cited in the proceedings and subsequently issued an unconditional apology.
The matter was heard before a three-judge bench comprising Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justices Chamath Morais and Adithya Patabendige.
Further consideration of the complaint was scheduled for tomorrow. (Newswire)