The Island Editorial

A welcome judgment

Various news reports in the state media and elsewhere last week clearly suggested that the government had seen the writing on the wall even before Friday’s Supreme Court judgment on the Sunday Leader case. Hence the reassuring noises that were made indicating that the censorship was to be relaxed soon. In the event, the judgment nullified the censorship by holding that the Competent Authority, Information Director Ariya Rubesinghe, had no power or authority in law to act under the Emergency Regulation under which he had enforced the censorship.

There had obviously been a mess-up by whoever was responsible for giving legal effect to the government’s intentions because there is no doubt that the government did in fact want a censorship and had picked on Rubesinghe to be the Competent Authority. It will, of course, be possible to correct the mistakes that were made by properly framing the relevant regulations. But with fundamental rights challenges looming in the courts, it is clear that the politicians who take these decisions must pick their way carefully if they do not wish their acts to be struck down all over again.

Censorship is a limitation of the people’s democratic right to know what their rulers are doing and what is happening around them. Such measures should never be enforced for political advantage and is permissible only under extreme conditions when the publication of what the New York Times calls ``all the news that is fit to print’’ would gravely endanger the people themselves. The challenge that the security forces in the north faced following the Elephant Pass debacle may have necessitated some restrictions, but not the blanket censorship that was slapped down under an omnibus Emergency Regulation.

The implementation of the censorship, from which the Lankan media has got at least a temporary respite following last week’s judgment, left much to be desired. The information department lacked the competence to do an undoubtedly challenging job and the politicians compounded the problem as they often do by bringing obviously partisan supporters into the machine. Rubesinghe at least is a permanent government official who presumably has no (or should have no) politics as far as his official business is concerned. But the country was treated to the sorry spectacle of a well known PA political activist being appointed to act for him when the information chief was ill and on another occasion when he was abroad. It has also been reported that such persons actually participated in the censorship even when Rubesinghe was at his desk.

The censorship was also very badly done with no consistency. Reports allowed in some publications were disallowed in others. News that had been previously published was subsequently disallowed. A ridiculous censorship was imposed on the foreign press here and although everybody including the censor knew that it was unenforceable, the farce continued. It was then lifted with sanctimonious statements made that the foreign press had behaved ``responsibly’’ and hence the relaxation when it was common knowledge that the restrictions were being blatantly broken. Don’t those who take these decisions realize how ridiculous it is to blot out television reports when the same news comes through on shortwave radio?

We are very glad that the Sunday Leader is now back in print. This newspaper is well known for exposing many scandals involving incumbent politicians and the fashion with which it was dealt - illegally as it has now turned out to be - may well be considered to have smacked of vengeance. If the paper was guilty of any infringement of the law and a penalty imposed on it in good faith, the concerned authorities would have had a leg to stand on. But it was manifestly unfair to seal a press that was printing the Irida Peramuna and also undertaking commercial printing for a private company. Surely the authorities did not lack the resources to enforce the ban on the Leader without hurting other publications? Unfortunately, a compliant bureaucracy anxious to please its political masters, don’t see beyond their noses. Sealing a press was how a newspaper ban was enforced in the past, so they did the same thing all over again even though the circumstances were different.

One argument used for the need for a censorship was to prevent any communal backlash in the aftermath of the Elephant Pass debacle. For our part, we are convinced that however much the Tigers may wish it, the people of this country are now too wise to repeat incidents such as those of July 1983. It must also be remembered that those communal riots could easily have been nipped in the bud had the law enforcers done their jobs. It has been said that the necessary orders were not given at that time. Be that as it may, the people are confident that the incumbent president will not be guilty of any such lapse. And nobody can accuse the media today of being irresponsible in the matter of communal accord.

In the spirit of the emerging consensus between the PA and the UNP on the constitution making process, let us hope that any restrictions on the press that may be reimposed should only be for unimpeachable military reasons and for nothing else. If the services commanders do not think a censorship is necessary, that should be the last word on the subject. Last time the censorship was imposed, the army commander went on record saying he did not ask for it.