Prof.Sarath Wijesuriya asked to show cause in Contempt of Court case | Daily News

Prof.Sarath Wijesuriya asked to show cause in Contempt of Court case

The Convener of National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ) Prof.Sarath Wijesuriya was present before the Court of Appeal to show cause as to why he should not be punished by court for Contempt of Court yesterday.

At a previous occasion the Court of Appeal had issued summons on Prof.Wijesuriya regarding a Contempt of Court action filed by Attorney Sampath Vijitha Kumara and retired Army Officer Anil Wasantha Alwis.

When the application came up before two-judge-bench comprising Justice Deepali Wijesundara and Justice Achala Wengappuli, the matter was fixed for August 26.

The petitioners are concerned with the contemptuous statements made by the Prof. Wijesuriya, at public gathering and via public media on the judges, scandalising the judiciary and the entire system of administration of justice in order to advance the calculated motive of diminishing public confidence in the judiciary.

Through this petition, the petitioners are urging action against Prof.Wijesuriya as per Article 105(3) of the constitution on the offence of Contempt of Court by several speeches made by him on several occasions. The petitioners are urging to punish the respondent for the offence of Contempt of Court under Article 105 (3) of the constitution.

The petitioners stated that on or around October 15, 2016 the Independent Cinema Movement of Sri Lanka has uploaded a voice cut of the respondent on Youtube, expressing his views on the court order for halt the screening of Prasanna Vithanage’s film ‘Usaviya Nihadai’ (Silence in Court).

The petitioners further stated that Prof. Sarath Wijesuriya delivered another speech on or around September 13, 2016 at the book launch of ‘Jana Aragalayaka Diya Salakuna’ at Public Library, Auditorium where he uttered the contemptuous statement. The petitioners further stated that August 21, 2018, at a press conference organized by National Movement for Social Justice, the respondent had made another contemptuous statement.


Add new comment