National Security and Freedom of Expression in Sri Lanka: Friends or Foes

Abstract

— Freedom of expression is a corner post of democracy. Article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides the international norm. Second Republican Constitution of Sri Lanka guarantees the same in Article 14 (1) (a). It is subject to derogation in the interest of national security as accepted nationally and internationally. Sri Lanka has encountered three bouts of organized violence which endangered national security. This essay examines whether restriction of freedom of expression in the interest of national security in Sri Lanka was within international standards. Article 15 (7) of the Constitution, Public Security Ordinance (PSO), Prevention of Terrorism Act and Proscribing of LTTE Act provide limitations on freedom of expression in the interest of national security. Emergency regulations (ER) proclaimed by the President as per PSO have been employed predominantly to restrict the same. Such restriction has mostly been censorship exercised by presidentialy appointed bodies. Sri Lankan Judiciary is not empowered to consider validity of ERs unless a citizen petitions about an infringement of his fucndamental rights by the same. Judiciary has usually been deferential of administrative actions performed under ERs. Necessity and proportionality are two internationally recognized requirements for limiting freedom of expression in the interest of national security. Supreme Court recognized the requirement of necessity in Joseph Perera case though this precedent was not followed in later cases. It is concluded that circumscribing freedom of expression in the interest of national security was not within the international framework essentially. Employment of such restrictions has furthered national insecurities.