In a move that was not entirely surprising, President Maithripala Sirisena last week pardoned Venerable Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera, the General Secretary of the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) organisation who had been jailed for Contempt of Court. The presidential decision was not surprising because there was speculation that it would eventuate. Nevertheless, it will have significant repercussions on the current socio-political dialogue in the country.
The incident for which Venerable Gnanasara Thera was convicted dates back to 2016. On January 25, 2016, the monk interrupted proceedings of the Homagama Magistrate’s Court regarding the abduction of journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda, in which military intelligence officials were accused.
Venerable Gnanasara Thera, disagreeing with the proceedings of the Court, shouted at the presiding judge, then Homagama Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake, as the accused military men were refused bail. The same day, he also threatened the wife of the missing journalist, Sandhya Ekneligoda. Thereafter, Magistrate Dissanayake referred the matter to the Court of Appeal.
Several charges were laid against Venerable Gnanasara Thera with regard to his conduct in court. They included deliberately and intentionally addressing the court without obtaining permission, obstructing court proceedings, challenging the authority of the court, disrespecting the authority of the court and conducting himself in a manner prejudicial to the power and authority of the court to administer justice.
Court of Appeal
On August 8 last year, the Court of Appeal found Venerable Gnanasara Thera guilty of all the offences he was charged with. The monk was sentenced to nineteen years of rigorous imprisonment, to be served concurrently within six years.
In a fifty-six-page judgement, the Court of Appeal President Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Justice Shiran Goonaratne observed that the ingredients of all four charges framed against Venerable Gnanasara Thera have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal ruled that the conduct of the monk was contemptuous and punishable in terms of Article 105(3) of the Constitution.
“There is overwhelming evidence before this court, which has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct of the accused before the Magistrate had been with the deliberate intention to intimidate the Magistrate in order to obtain an order he had desired. The presence of the accused is not accidental or random but a deliberate and a planned presence calculated to somehow obtain the order desired by him, mainly bail for the suspects,’’ Justice Surasena said in his judgement.
“It is the fervent duty of this court to ensure that all courts and tribunals of this country are free from all forms of intimidation and undue influences to enable their smooth functioning towards administering justice according to the law of the country,” Justice Surasena, who has since been elevated to the Supreme Court, noted in his judgment.
Venerable Gnanasara Thera appealed against the verdict to the Supreme Court. On October 5, 2018, the Supreme Court, without any further consideration, dismissed the appeal. The bench comprised of Supreme Court Justices Nalin Perera, Eva Wanasundera, and Prasanna Jayawardene.
Previously, there was speculation on several occasions that Venerable Gnanasara Thera would be released but that did not occur. His release now, at a time of persisting tensions between communities in the aftermath of the Easter Sunday bomb attacks, has led to many organisations expressing serious concerns.
That is because Venerable Gnanasara Thera had acquired a reputation for his anti-Muslim rhetoric. He had addressed crowds gathered in Aluthgama before racial riots erupted there in 2014 that led to the deaths of four persons. The monk was not shy to promote his brand of militant Sinhala Buddhist supremacist ideology and was quite vocal in his utterances.
Following the Easter Sunday attacks, some sections of the media recalled that he had predicted the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the country but that his warnings had been ignored. In social media, there was criticism that the person who predicted this trend was languishing in jail while those alleged to have links with the Islamic terrorists who carried out the Easter attacks remained free.
Presidential pardon
This is not the first instance a presidential pardon has caused concern, nor is it the first instance a person charged with contempt of court has been pardoned by a President. However, most such pardons have been controversial and have led to accusations that they were politically motivated.
Perhaps the first such pardon to raise concern was that offered to Sunil Perera, better known as ‘Gonawela Sunil’ who was serving a sentence for rape. Perera, who had close links with the United National Party (UNP) was granted a pardon by then President J. R. Jayewardene. The move was widely criticised by opposition groups at the time. Perera was later assassinated by unknown gunmen.
President Ranasinghe Premadasa pardoned Manohari Daniels, who was convicted of aiding and abetting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to carry out a bomb attack opposite Zahira College, Maradana in 1987 that killed forty persons. Daniels was pardoned at a time when the Premadasa government was having ‘peace talks’ with the LTTE, as a gesture of goodwill in what was a bid to ensure the talks succeeded.
Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa has had his share of granting controversial presidential pardons. The first of these was to S. B. Dissanayake, who had been jailed for contempt of the Supreme Court. Dissanayake was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment by a five-Judge Supreme Court bench headed by then Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva in 2004 for defaming the court during a speech he made at Habaraduwa in 2003. However, he was released in February 2006, following Rajapaksa’s pardon.
Rajapaksa also pardoned Mary Juliet Monica Fernando, the wife of then Public Estate Management and Development Minister Milroy Fernando in March 2009. Ms Fernando had been sentenced to death for a double murder in Katuneriya in January 1992 and later had her sentence commuted to life imprisonment. At the time, Rajapaksa had to take some flak for his decision which was more a ‘favour for a friend’ rather than one made for political gain.
In 2012, Rajapaksa also granted a pardon to Sarath Fonseka who was serving a three-year prison sentence on various charges. Fonseka’s pardon was seen more as a response to mounting pressure for his release after he was court-martialled in the fallout from the 2010 presidential election where he ran against Rajapaksa. President Sirisena was to later quash Fonseka’s convictions, restore his civil rights and bestow the rank of Field Marshall on him, moves that were widely welcomed.
However, President Sirisena’s latest actions in pardoning Venerable Gnanasara Thera are unlikely to earn him such plaudits. Already, many parties and organisations have voiced their concerns and their main contention is that quite apart from the consequences of releasing the monk, it sends the wrong message about maintaining law and order.
“When the call of the hour was to be severe on all purveyors of hate equally, the President’s act of showing extreme leniency to the Buddhist monk sends a very strong message to the country. The message is that it is acceptable for violence to be instigated against the minorities,” The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) said in a statement.
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) also made similar observations. “The pardon raises a number of very serious concerns. It legitimises the view that it is possible to act with contempt for the judiciary, be punished through a legitimate judicial process, and then enjoy impunity through a pardon granted on political considerations,” the CPA noted, adding that the pardon “can only heighten the anxiety and fear being felt by Muslim Sri Lankans today”.
Legal principles and reasoning
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) went a step further on Tuesday, declaring that presidential pardons “should be based on sound legal principles and reasoning”. Any departure from these considerations would shake the very foundations of the rule of law and shock the conscience of those who value an independent judiciary, the BASL said, noting that it “is gravely concerned of this power being exercised in such a manner.”
Since his release, Venerable Gnanasara Thera has lived up to his reputation as a firebrand. He was photographed, along with his mother, attending a meeting with President Sirisena. He also held a media briefing where he reiterated his beliefs and made statements to the effect that he would “resume his struggle to save the country” making specific accusations and claims against authorities.
Concerns about the monk’s release have been two-fold. Firstly, it sends a message that the integrity and respect of the judiciary can be subjected to the whims and fancies of the Executive if the latter chooses to do so. Secondly, there are worries about the impact of Venerable Gnanasara Thera on a society that is already a tinderbox of ethnic tensions and whether his inflammatory statements could promote a mass backlash from the majority Sinhalese against the Muslim community.
It is interesting that, apart from the TNA, none of the other major political parties has been vocal about Venerable Gnanasara Thera’s release. All major parties including the ruling United National Party (UNP), the President’s own Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the main opposition Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) as well as the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) have all maintained a deafening silence on the issue until the time of writing.
Within the glorious uncertainties of Sri Lankan politics, what can be said with certainty is that the headlines made by Venerable Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera last week won’t certainly be the last we hear of him, what with a presidential election due to be held later this year.
Add new comment