Doing the right thing the wrong way

Former Member of Parliament Ranjan Ramanayake was granted a conditional pardon last week by President Ranil Wickremesinghe commuting his four-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for contempt of court. As part of these conditions Ramanayake apologised to the court for a remark he had made in August 2017 that led to his imprisonment and a subsequent remark made to the media that he would not retract his original statement.

According to the Sri Lankan law, a person imprisoned for more than two years will lose his political and civic rights for seven years unless a full Presidential pardon is granted. By offering a conditional pardon to Ranjan Ramanayake his ability to engage in politics has been curtailed for the next few years. President Maithripala Sirisena did not impose any such conditions when he pardoned Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara who was convicted of criminally intimidating Sandya Eknaligoda inside a Court in 2016 during the hearing of the disappearance of her husband.

The fact that Ranjan Ramanayake had to be released is without doubt. It is simply because he should not have been sent to jail in the first place. While Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara was convicted of contempt of court for disturbing court proceedings and intimidating a witness, Ranjan Ramanayake was sentenced for a statement made that the judiciary is corrupt.

It is a travesty of justice that a sitting member of parliament was sentenced to jail for four years for expressing his opinion. It is a further travesty that such judgement was passed solely by the very branch of the State that is being accused of corruption. 

In Sri Lanka the primary source of law for the crime of contempt of court is the Constitution that through Article 105 [3] provides for a broad and subjective interpretation by the Superior Courts. According to this provision, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have all the power to punish for the offence, whether the offence is committed in the court itself or elsewhere, with imprisonment and/or fine as the court may deem suitable. In other democracies there are specific legal provisions enacted by law that determine the crime of contempt and are not left to the arbitrary discretion of the court.

It can be argued that the power to pardon is granted to the Executive, in order to work as a ‘check’ on the powers of the Judiciary, since it would provide for one final means of rectifying any miscarriages of justice. In Sri Lanka where there is mandatory sentencing for certain crimes such as murder such Executive discretion to ease the sentence or offer a pardon in rare occasions becomes necessary. 

In this case President Wickremesinghe is correct to rectify an injustice done by the judiciary since the jailing of a parliamentarian for expressing an opinion is an abhorrent action and a overstepping by the judiciary, the only unelected branch of the State, and thus without a direct mandate of the people. The actions of some of the highest-ranking justices who have in the recent past apologised for granting political verdicts, accepted executive office after retirement and even become personal lawyers to politicians speaks volumes of the state of the judiciary. It is imperative that there should be space for such discussions in any reasonable democracy.

The fact that Ranjan Ramanayake was made to apologise for his ‘non-crime’ doesn’t bode well in checking this abysmal judicial excess. Unlike others who obtained presidential pardons in the recent past, the case of Ranjan Ramanayake was unique since his crime should not have been a crime nor should he have been subjected to such blatant injustice. Whether the judicial actions were legal or not according to the Constitution does not arise when the action is clearly unjust. President Wickremesinghe by not offering an unconditional, full Presidential pardon to former MP Ranjan Ramanayake has missed out on an opportunity to rectify a fundamental flaw in our judicial system.