(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is the full text of a letter, dated 23 July 1998, sent by ARTICLE 19 to Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Media, Colombo, Sri Lanka (Fax: +00 94 1 440488): ARTICLE 19, the International Centre Against Censorship, is concerned about a number of issues relating to media freedom that have arisen […]
(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is the full text of a letter, dated 23
July 1998, sent by ARTICLE 19 to Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Media,
Colombo, Sri Lanka
(Fax: +00 94 1 440488):
ARTICLE 19, the International Centre Against Censorship, is concerned about
a number of issues relating to media freedom that have arisen in recent
weeks. These include, particularly, the governmentâs re-imposition of direct
censorship under the emergency regulations and the apparent lack of progress
that has been made by the Sri Lankan police in investigating the recent
armed attacks on the homes of two newspaper editors.
We are also greatly concerned about two journalists, P. Manikavasagam and
Sri Gajan, both of “Virakesari”, who are currently reported to be held
incommunicado on the Fourth Floor of Police Headquarters in Colombo, so
occasioning fears for their safety. We would appreciate receiving prompt
clarification of the reasons and legal basis for their arrest and detention,
and would urge that they are granted immediate access to legal counsel,
their relatives and an independent medical practitioner. If they are being
held on account of their pursuit of their profession as journalists or on
account of their peaceful exercise of freedom of expression, we urge that
they be released immediately and unconditionally.
We remain gravely concerned about the re-imposition of direct censorship
under the emergency regulations. In our view, this represents a seriously
retrograde step which further undermines the cause of media freedom in Sri
Lanka, to which your government previously expressed commitment. We note
that the current censorship regulations differ from those used previously
but they remain far broader than is necessary to protect genuine national
security interests, and it is clear that they are again being applied in an
arbitrary and unjustifiable manner. In our report, Silent War: Censorship
and the Conflict in Sri Lanka, published in March 1996, we provided a
detailed analysis of the operation of the direct censorship in force between
September and December 1995. This showed clearly how material and
information which fell outside the range of subjects specified under what
were already broadly-framed censorship regulations was also cut by the
governmentâs censors: some of this was of an apparently trivial nature but
other material deleted by the censors had serious human rights or
humanitarian ramifications. Further, some of the deleted material contained
no evident threat to national security; some was material which had already
been published in other media abroad or even locally; some was information
already well-known to the general public; and some material appeared to have
been cut with the intention of withholding from the public about important
political issues. In some instances, the censors actually altered
information contained in the original reports submitted by the press.
On the two previous occasions that direct censorship has been in force
during the period of this government, it has been implemented by a civilian
Competent Authority. Now, however, we note that the Competent Authority is a
military officer, and fear that he may be interpreting the notion of
national security in an even more broad and far-reaching manner than that
utilised during the previous periods of direct censorship. This appears to
be borne out somewhat by information which we are receiving from journalists
and editors, who complain that direct censorship is again being imposed in
an arbitrary manner. The censor, we understand, is often requiring material
to be suppressed which cannot be justified in strictly national security
terms. In this connection, we wish again to refer you to the Johannesburg
Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to
Information, which have previously been made available to the Sri Lankan
government, and which draw on international and regional law and standards
to set out the extent to which restrictions on expression can justifiably be
imposed to protect a legitimate national security interest.
ARTICLE 19 is also very concerned about the apparent lack of progress being
made by the Sri Lankan authorities in investigating, and bringing to justice
those responsible for, recent armed attacks on the homes of Iqbal Athas, the
Defence Correspondent and Consultant Editor of the “Sunday Times”, and
Lasantha Wickrematunge, Editor of the “Sunday Leader”. Such attacks on the
homes of leading media commentators constitute a most ominous development
and, if the perpetrators are not quickly identified and brought to justice,
may have a serious chilling effect on the Sri Lankan media as a whole, to
the detriment of democracy, the public interest and your governmentâs
international standing.
We believe that the government should attach very high priority to ensuring
that those responsible for these attacks are identified, apprehended and
brought to trial. Yet, by contrast, it appears that the investigation into
the attack on the home of Iqbal Athas has, after initial activity and the
identification of only two suspected perpetrators, now all but stalled with
no charges yet brought. Meanwhile, he continues to experience harassment at
his home. The investigation into the attack on Lasantha Wickrematunge
appears to have halted almost as soon as it had begun. Yet, the attack on
the “Sunday Leader”âs home in June was a very serious affair, with those
responsible able to fire off two magazines from a T56 automatic rifle at the
house and then, despite the noise that the attack generated and the presence
of security road blocks in the area, to make their escape undetected.
As we would expect, following the attack the government provided an
assurance that it would be fully investigated but little appears to have
been achieved. We understand that President Kumaratunge gave instructions
some weeks ago that the matter should be handled by the CID, but the CID has
yet to record even a first complaint from the victim of the attack.
Moreover, we have been informed that no forensic examinations has been
undertaken at the scene of the crime and that the Wickrematunge family was
told that if they wished the Government Analyst Department to examine the
vehicle damaged in the attack, for example, they should deliver it to the
Department themselves.
We look forward to receiving your response to these matters.
Malcolm Smart
Deputy Director
Note: **for background information on the cases of P. Manikavasagam and Sri
Gajan, journalists with “Virakesari”, see IFEX alert of 20 and 17 July 1998;
for background on the re-imposition of direct censorship under the emergency
regulations see IFEX alert of 9 June 1998; for background on the cases of
Iqbal Athas and Lasantha Wickrematunge see IFEX alerts of 18 June, and 19
and 16 February 1998**
