posted October 01, 2000 07:24 PM            

Tamilnation > Sathyam > Somasunderam Nadesan > Paul Nallanayagam Trial > When
Nadesan Argued the Cause of Media Freedom... > Some Comments on 1971 Sri Lanka
Constituent Assembly & Draft Basic Resolutions > Senate Speech on Ceylon
Parliamentary Elections Bill, 1949 > Senate Speech on 1948 Ceylon Citizenship
Bill
Paul Nallanayagam Trial
"The prosecution evidence did not establish even the semblance of a case
against the accused, Mr.S.Nadesan Q.C. Counsel for Mr.Nallanayagam, submitted
in court yesterday.. At the outset, Mr.Nadesan referred to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 'We are one human family. Each
violation of a human right is a threat to the welfare and dignity of the
entire human family. If there was a violation of human rights in Sri Lanka,
it was not an internal matter of interest to Sri Lanka alone. The right of a
citizen or a human rights organisation to bring to the notice of the world
that there was a serious violation of human rights was not prohibited by any
provision in the Emergency Regulations." (Sri Lanka Daily News, 30 April 1986)
Report on Judgment of High Court
"Paul Nallanayagam, the President of the Kalmunai Citizens Committee, was
yesterday acquitted of the charges against him by the High Court of Colombo
after a widely publicised 48 day trial. He had been indicted on seven counts
under the Emergency Regulations. The charge sheet alleged that between April 1
and May 22, 1985 at Kalmunai he conspired to discredit and bring disrepute to
the government of Sri Lanka by speaking false rumours.
In a 166 page judgement, High Court Judge K.Viknarajah said the crux of the
charges in counts 2 and 5 was that Mr.Nallanayagam had implicated Special Task
Force ( S.T.F) officers by saying that they had helped the Muslims to commit
arson and cause damage to the village of Karaitivu. It was common ground that
the Muslims attacked the village of Karaitivu and caused serious damage to
persons and property. Although the charges were that the accused had falsely
implicated the S.T.F. no member of the S.T.F. gave evidence in this case. The
Judge held that the allegation that S.T.F. officers assisted the Muslims on
Karaitivu was not a rumour.
The Judge said that in the absence of any explanation from the S.T.F. officers,
on the evidence in the case he held the allegation that the S.T.F. were involved
in the incident at Karaitivu was more probable than not. In view of the
findings, it was not necessary to go into the question whether such a statement
caused public alarm or public disorder and he therefore acquitted the accused on
counts 2 and 5.
Referring to counts 4 and 7, the Judge said that the accused's position was that
he did not implicate the S.T.F. officers. He only conveyed the information given
by the parents and wanted an inquiry. The Judge held that the charges in count 4
and 7 had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Regarding count 1, the Judge said that he did not think that the accused was
engaged in exciting feelings of disaffection or hatred or contempt of the
government of Sri Lanka because it was to the government the accused had applied
for an inquiry.
The charge was that the accused conspired with others in committing the offence
of sedition. There was no evidence at all that there was any agreement between
the accused and any others to commit the offence of sedition. Therefore the
accused was not guilt to count 1 of the indictment.
Duties of a Citizens Committee official were responsible and onerous, especially
in the present context of events. They were the only persons to whom innocent
citizens could go for redress because members of parliament were more often in
Colombo than in their constituencies. In the discharge of their duties,
sometimes they were a source of embarrassment to the authorities, the Judge
observed...
According to the evidence... the accused was given the chance of escaping the
ordeal of being in detention and going through a trial if the accused retracted
the information he gave by saying that the information was based on false
premises. But the accused did not want to resort to these devices because it was
against his conscience. If he had no scruples, he could have made a statement
that the information he gave was based on false premises and he would not have
faced the ordeal of going through this protracted trial. This conduct of accused
assisted the court in assessing the evidence of the accused in its correct
perspective. I find the accused not guilty of the charges in the indictment and
I acquit him" ( Sri Lanka Sun, 18 July 1986)
Tamilnation invites your comments/letters/articles
Copyright 1998/2000 Tamil National Foundation- All Rights Reserved