Actor Ranjan Ramanayake made his bed and has to lie on it. However, at in some circles it is being inferred that he has been dispatched to jail by “hidden forces” and has nothing to do with the matter of his own accord. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Elements that propagate such canards must know that courts are separate from the political process, and that the actor was imprisoned for Contempt of Court. He brought the Judiciary into disrepute.
The courts are the last recourse for aggrieved citizens. If the citadels of justice are demeaned and nobody looks to these institutions to deliver justice, that would be a tragedy.
Therefore, the sentence imposed on Ramanayake must be treated with utmost respect. This individual seems to have a certain desire to portray himself as a victim. His utterances in this vein even after his sentencing shows the judges exercised good judgement in putting him away for some time. He may not reform himself, but his imprisonment would serve as a deterrent to those who have similar disrespect.
He has also attempted to obstruct judicial processes by influencing prosecutions and though there was evidence, it was not the offence he was sentenced for. He tried to be judge, jury and executioner all in one.
When his politically motivated plans were thwarted, he turned against the Judiciary because the institution simply will not allow him to be a self-appointed arbiter of what is good and bad, or lawful and unlawful.
Political gamesmanship stops where the Judiciary is concerned. That the courts are respected as the last citadels of justice is all the more important because there would be trial by media if the courts were to abdicate their role or were constantly subject to politically motivated attacks.
These are important issues on which the very existence and viability of the social fabric rests. If it is cricket, we could say it is just not cricket and forget about it. Recent events in cricket may be illuminating, even though they are enacted far away from the Chambers of Justice.
When England Captain Joe Root was dropped and survived to continue his innings recently at the Test in Galle, there was a DRS call that had to be made by the Third Umpire. The review showed clearly that the ball had been dropped and hit the ground before it was picked up, and the Third Umpire rightly ruled the batsman not out. However, the alert cameraman caught the Sri Lankan coach having “lost it’, as the commentator bluntly observed.
Coach Mickey Arthur seems to have thought that the batsman was out and it appeared as if he had not focused on the entire review. The coach was seen clarifying with match officials about the decision. However, this is cricket and Arthur will not be hauled up for ‘Contempt of Third Umpire.” However, he would have been reprimanded if he made the same gestures on-field had he been a player, and not the coach.
Ramanayake probably never played any serious cricket, but if he did, he would have learnt how to play the game, and that the umpire’s word is law. The offence of Contempt of Court must be viewed in the context of the sustainability of society and the social contract. The judicial process could certainly be subject to review and comment in terms of polite academic discourse in legal publications where scholars can suggest — with due reference to the law — that there could have been alternative legal interpretations made regarding certain decisions.
This is certainly different from litigants berating the Judiciary when court judgements do not go their way or outsiders berating the Judiciary when they cannot play judge, jury and executioner.
There has also been a tendency of various Commissions that function as quasi-judicial bodies being subject to commentary that is not conducive to their smooth functioning. Reasonable commentary is passable, but outright disrespect of the Commissions or conduct tantamount to contempt of these bodies should be treated with equal severity as are matters of Contempt of Court. These legally empowered bodies are in pursuit of very onerous goals — such as the Commission presiding over matters regarding the Easter Sunday carnage.
A certain commentator recently asked why the two persons indicted in the US Courts were not brought before the said Commission. That comment may be misinformed but certainly does not appear to be made with negative intent. Commission findings have been subject to review after the fact, in responsible forums that can make reasonable statements about Commission reports. But, when such bodies have not completed deliberations and are still functional, they are considered on par with judicial bodies and cannot be treated with disdain or contempt.
Some Opposition politicians had no compunctions about the establishment of such bodies when their Government was in power but have been dragging their feet in cooperating with Commissions now that another Government has appointed them. Apart from the legal ramifications, such conduct smacks of hypocrisy unbecoming of those that hold elected office.
