The Hon. Ajith P. Perera

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, the Opposition supports this Government’s Bill to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure. We accept that modern technology should be promoted in the administration of justice and used pragmatically to resolve practical issues that have arisen. After long efforts to update the Code of Criminal Procedure which we have used for decades, the Government has now brought this Bill, and I thank the Government for that. For seven to eight years there have been attempts to amend it, and as we learned at the Oversight Committee, there were about four attempts to present this Bill. Passing it now is a timely necessity.

¶ 02 Hon. Presiding Member, especially when witnesses or victims are abroad, and when suspects are in remand but cannot be safely or feasibly transported to court due to security or limited State resources, the importance of proper legal provisions became apparent. During the COVID-19 pandemic, even without enabling laws, we practically used technology in limited ways to keep justice processes running uninterrupted. However, for a more orderly approach, timely and proper legal provisions are necessary. Therefore, first, I thank the Government for presenting this Bill.

¶ 03 Hon. Presiding Member, Hon. Sunil Watagala, Deputy Minister, is a lawyer with about three decades in our courts. He will understand what I say. I wish to point out several gaps for improvement—either at Committee Stage or later.

¶ 04 First, when a witness or victim testifies from a foreign country, we propose to issue a form of commission to a State diplomatic officer in that mission. What is the rank of that officer who is entrusted with this judicial responsibility? Missions have officers of varying seniority. In taking evidence under such a commission, independence from external influence, freedom from improper intervention, ensuring suitable facilities, and secure transmission of the evidence to Sri Lanka must be guaranteed. The Bill does not state the minimum rank of the officer responsible, nor does the commission form specify it. That is a shortcoming.

¶ 05 A similar issue arises domestically when recording evidence. The form No. 25 refers to an oath or affirmation administered by a “commissioner or court officer.” Here too, especially in environments like prisons, a witness, victim, or deponent must have the freedom and safety to speak without pressure. As a lawyer long engaged in court work, I feel the law should make stronger provisions to guarantee that freedom.

¶ 06 So, who exactly is the officer receiving this commission and what rank must he or she hold? Can a low-ranking officer be tasked in matters of life and death? This needs clarity.

¶ 07 We know testimony given from prison or by inmates who have faced grave threats can determine life-or-death outcomes, long custodial sentences or even capital punishment. Ensuring their freedom to testify is vital.

¶ 08 On costs: where the Government requests arrangements, Government will bear the costs. But if the victim makes the request, who bears costs? If a witness who is neither complainant nor victim requests this, who pays? I expect the Government to clarify.

¶ 09 Hon. Presiding Member, digitalization is the key theme here. To streamline civil and criminal processes with technology and raise the quality of justice delivery, the world is using digitalization. We began this long ago and progressed to a point. I have contributed as a Minister, as an MP, and as Chair of the Bar Association’s Digitalization Committee. Rapid implementation across all courts is essential.

¶ 10 Further, I must note something that occurred here yesterday. A first-time MP behaved in a disorderly manner ignoring Parliamentary tradition and has already been punished by Parliament. But I was dismayed that our experienced and learned Hon. Minister Sunil Handunnetti invited that MP and used unduly low and unparliamentary words, such as “oya,” “who are you,” “what are you doing” on the floor. In Sinhala we address as “Hon. Member,” “Hon. Minister,” “Oba Thuma,” or the equivalent in English/Tamil. Even if we totally disagree, Parliament is the supreme forum for debate. Members must speak with restraint and use parliamentary language. I was surprised to hear such words from the experienced Hon. Sunil Handunnetti. Irrespective of party or rank, we must respect one another. If we break these traditions and normalize that, we demean this august House and its processes. I draw the attention of the Hon. Speaker and all Members to this.

¶ 11 Thank you very much.