The Leader of the Opposition Ranil Wickremesinghe, yesterday accused the Government of attempting to use the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act to suppress the media.
Participating in the emergency debate, the Opposition Leader said that the provisions in the Act are only applicable to terrorists and not journalists. He said that government’s attempt to reintroduce criminal sanctions against media personnel was a threat to media freedom.
“They are attempting to use the temporary provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act to bring in criminal defamation through the back door. These laws were enacted in 1979 to replace the Proscription of the LTTE Act 1978, since, by that time the Government had identified a number of terrorist groups. This legislation is based on a UK legislation. The then Minister of Justice the late K. W. Devanayagam when introducing the Bill stated: ‘Part I of the Bill deals with the offenses which are not new to the laws of this country. They are offenses that already exist in the law. But under the special circumstances in which we are dealing with terrorists and the attendant consequences, this comes within the ambit of the special law where the punishment is enhanced.’
Then, these provisions apply only to terrorists. This is also clear from the preamble where it states that this law is against elements, groups or persons or associations that advocate the use of force, advocate the commission of a crime, resort to the acts of murder, resort to murder of Members of Parliament, Local Authorities, Police officers and witnesses and commit acts such as armed robbery, damage to State property and other acts involving actual coercion, intimidation or violence as a means of or in and accomplishing a governmental change within Sri Lanka.
Furthermore, this legislation does not take away the freedom of speech and expression, including publication, contained in Article 14.1 (a) of the Constitution and the right to speak and express your views and to publish them without censorship. The Preamble itself says, ‘Whereas the Parliament continues to affirm that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for the Rule of Law and those grievances should be redressed by constitutional methods.’ This law then imposes certain restrictions on this right when it is used to further activities of above mentioned groups by a person who belongs to such organisations.
In this case, the government has not respected the Rule of Law. It did not produce any evidence to establish that Tissainayagam was a member of the LTTE. If they had evidence they should have produced it in Court. He has been prosecuted as the Editor of a website, that is, as a media personnel. This certainly was not the intention when we passed the PTA. It was to be confined to terrorist groups.
The government should seek redress only by Constitutional methods and not be subverting the Constitution. As a result, all journalists face a new danger, if the government thinks they can prosecute them for communal disharmony irrespective of being a member of terrorist group.
The Government relied on the case Hugh Vs London Express. This case has no relevance. It pertains to civil defamation. Presumptions in a civil case do not apply to criminal cases. The standard required to prove civil case is a balance of probabilities. Therefore it is easy to rebut any legal presumption arising in a civil case. In a criminal case, the required standard is beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, a greater degree of conviction is required in the criminal cases. Therefore, the government introduced the Hough Vs London Express case in an attempt to equate this offense to criminal defamation.