| dc.description.abstract | Sri Lanka has long standing
legislation, protecting official secrets in the
interests of national security. Yet, these laws are
yet to clearly demarcate the boundaries of such
terminology, which may result in the
infringement of fundamental rights such as the
right to expression, publication and
dissemination, guaranteed in the Constitution of
1978; neither does Sri Lankan law permit the
release of material it categorizes as ‘official
secrets’ for the public good. Thus, if a public
servant were to act as a whistleblower, she
would not have the defence of public interest. To
this end, the article seeks to analyse two recent
case studies that occurred in the United States,
prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, a
statute which could well be deemed Sri Lanka’s
counterpart. Through such evaluation, the
writer seeks to caution against similar action
being taken against any Sri Lankan citizen who
might release information, to further
accountability and transparency in the
government. The writer posits that lessons could
be learnt from such a comparative analysis,
suggesting that the defence of public interest be
made a part of Lankan jurisprudence when it
comes to civic minded citizens and a clear
definition be provided for pivotal terms such as
‘official secrets’ and ‘national security.’ Leaving
room for ample interpretation of legal
terminology might result in injustice, repression
and legal uncertainty. Clarity and curtailment
would aid greatly towards establishing trust in
public authorities, the tri forces, state
accountability and ultimately foster sustainable
national security. | en_US |
