Need for judicial accountability in Natasha Edirisuriya case

The Supreme Court compelled the former Officer-in-Charge of the Cyber Crime and Intelligence Analysis Unit of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to tender a written apology to comedian Natasha Edirisuriya for her arrest under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act. The ruling marks a significant moment in the country’s ongoing struggle to reconcile the enforcement of law with the protection of fundamental rights. Yet, while the apology is symbolically important, it falls far short of addressing the deeper institutional failures that this case has laid bare.

In May 2023, Edirisuriya was arrested over allegations of “disrupting religious harmony” stemming from a comedy performance. The CID informed the Colombo Magistrate’s Court that she was being investigated under the ICCPR Act and provisions of the Penal Code. Bruno Divakara, the former owner of the social media platform that published Edirisuriya’s performance, was also arrested. Both individuals spent weeks in custody before being granted bail.

The spectacle that followed was troubling. The ICCPR Act, originally enacted to safeguard civil and political rights in line with Sri Lanka’s international obligations, was weaponised to suppress freedom of expression. A law designed to protect rights was turned into an instrument to curtail them. After more than a year of proceedings, consuming time, public funds, and the emotional well-being of the accused, the Attorney General eventually conceded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with Edirisuriya’s case.

The damage, however, had already been done. Weeks in remand prison are not a trivial inconvenience. They carry profound mental, emotional, and even physical consequences. For law-abiding citizens, the stigma and trauma of incarceration can reverberate long after legal vindication. An apology, while welcome, does not undo these harms.

The Supreme Court proceedings also saw the Attorney General undertaking to review procedures concerning the application of the ICCPR Act. This is a positive development. It suggests at least a recognition that the law’s invocation in this case was deeply flawed.

Where, however, is the accountability of the judiciary? It was a magistrate who remanded Edirisuriya and her colleague and kept them there for weeks. When the police present a questionable case, it is the court’s responsibility to scrutinise the evidence rigorously before depriving a citizen of liberty. The decision to remand these individuals required careful consideration of whether the legal threshold for detention has been met and whether less restrictive alternatives are available.

The Attorney General’s Department must also confront its own role. At the earliest stages, prosecutorial oversight could and should have intervened. The AG has both the authority and the responsibility to prevent ill-conceived prosecutions from proceeding. Allowing a case with no sustainable evidentiary basis to linger for over a year represents not merely inefficiency but a failure of constitutional stewardship.

There must be greater scrutiny and accountability within both the judiciary and the Attorney General’s Department. Internal reviews, clearer guidelines on the application of the ICCPR Act, and perhaps even independent oversight mechanisms should be considered. Crucially, there should be  compensation where fundamental rights are violated through wrongful arrest and prolonged detention.

Last week’s decision is a step forward. It affirms that fundamental rights are not empty promises. But if this case is to become a true watershed moment, it must catalysts  systemic reform. An apology from a single officer cannot suffice. Justice demands accountability at every level and the judiciary is by no means sacrosanct.