Archives

by Rodney Martinesz

The Supreme Court yesterday suggested the deletion of two sub sections in Clause 5 (e) of the 17th Amendment Bill governing the conduct of the Proposed Independent Elections Commission.

This followed representations made on behalf of Media Institutions pertaining to the proposed Article 104 B, more specifically Sub Article (5) (a) and (b) of the Bill.

According to Petitioners Wijaya Publications, Upali Newspapers and Leader Publications, the clause would have the effect of the Private Media including print media being compelled to disclose their political affiliations to the Elections Commission.

These provisions provide for arbitrary, unlimited and unconstitutional powers vested in the Elections Commission to issue directions which have not been defined in respect of the Private Media including print media.

President's Counsel Ranjith Abeysuriya submitted that the provisions were a violation of Article 10 of the Constitution.

An Attorney-at-Law J. C. Weliamuna told Court that the Commission should not be permitted to issue directives which is contrary to Article 3, 10 and 12 (1) of the Constitution.

Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva, PC interrupted to state that what was proposed were guidelines which are already in existence and nothing would flow from this.

Ranjith Abeysuriya stated that the guidelines should be defined.

The CJ stated that it was left to the Media Institutions whether or not they follow these guidelines. Their conduct may be included in the report of the Elections Commissioner.

Counsel submitted that the disclosure of one's political affiliations was an assault on the freedom of conscience and an attempt to muzzle the press.

The CJ suggested the deletion of these two clauses to the Attorney General.

Upul Jayasuriya appearing for the Free Media Movement (FMM) submitted that the Competent Authority did not cover the entire gamut of the State Media but confined their powers to Rupavahini and SLBC.

"There are other media institutions like Lakhanda and Lake House which are indirectly controlled by the State and there will be a situation where we will be caught up in Article 10". He wanted all these to be described as "State owned media" under the new law.

Chief Justice: The Court cannot introduce laws. We can only exclude them.

Attorney General K. C. Kamalasabeyson with regard to the arguments raised stated that there was no sanction imposed on the media proprietors to divulge any political affiliation. It was a voluntary act.

To a question raised by the CJ, if the whole appointment process would not be an infringement on the powers enjoyed by the President under the Constitution, the AG stated that although the President acted on the recommendations of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition the eventual appointing authority was the President.

"No appointment shall be made except under their recommendations".

But this does not mean that the President is compelled to act on that recommendation, the AG stated.

Justices P. Edussuriya and Hector S. Yapa were the other judges.

Ranjith Abeysuriya PC with Suranjith Hewamanne, J. C. Weliamuna and M/s Priyadharshani Dias instructed by M/s Lilanthi de Silva appeared for the petitioners.

Upul Jayasuriya appeared for the FMM.

Attorney General K. C. Kamalasabeyson PC with Additional Solicitor General Saleem Marsoof PC and Nerin Pulle SC appeared for the State.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager