Sri Lanka: Petition against State media coverage

BY S.S.SELVANAYAGAM| IN Media Freedom | 07/03/2010

          http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/news/front-page-news/5177.html

A fundamental rights violation petition was filed against the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (SLRC) and the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) for the alleged abuses of State resources and partisan use of State media resulting in the violation of the people’s sovereignty in the recently held Presidential election.

Priyanthi Subhashinie Perera, Helen Joanna Beryl Gray and Deborah Marianne Philip in their petition cited the Rupavahini Corporation, its Chairman Prof. Ariyaratne Athugala, its Chief Executive Officer Karunaratne Paranavithana, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Chairman Hudson Samarasinghe, Elections Commissioner Dayananda Dissanayake and the Attorney General as respondents.

The petition stated that the 2nd respondent Karunaratne Paranavithana and the 4th respondent Hudson Samarasinghe were SLFP organizers for Ratnapura district and Colombo West respectively.

The petitioners alleged that the acts and omissions of the first five respondents have resulted in the use of State media resources in a manner partisan to candidate Mahinda Rajapaksa and against candidate Gen. Sarath Fonseka, contrary to Article 93 of the Constitution, resulting in the violation of the petitioners’ franchise and the fundamental rights to equality and equal protection of the law as well as freedom of speech and expression.

They complained that the respondents continuously acted in defiance of the media guidelines issued by the Elections Commissioner and that the continued acts of the respondents in willful defiance and disregard of the directives/guidelines of the Elections Commissioner and in disregard of the Competent Authority, resulted in the Elections Commissioner withdrawing the appointment of the Competent Authority.

They alleged that out of total air time allocated for election related items, during a specified period, the news bulletin of Lakhanda and SLBC Sinhala National Service allocated 95% and 97% of air time respectively was allocated to candidate Rajapaksa while the main opposition candidate was given only 5% and 3% air time respectively.

They also alleged that out of the total air time allocated for election related items, during a specified period, the news bulletin of Rupavahini allocated approximately 100% of air time to candidate Rajapaksa while the main opposition candidate was given virtually no air time.

They said SLBC Chairman Hudson Samarasinghe had previously been barred by the Competent Authority from conducting programmes after he had obstructed the work of the said Competent Authority appointed by the Elections Commissioner.

They complained the respondents also broadcast allegations against candidate Fonseka including suggestions that his son-in-law had been wrongfully and/or improperly involved in arms procurement contracts carried out by the Government but failed to give effect to the right of reply contained in the media guidelines or the direction of the

Elections Commissioner that candidate Fonseka be afforded reasonable air time to respond to statements defamatory of him which had been aired by the said State media institutions.

They also complained that the respondents of the Rupavahini also refused to accept and/or air paid advertisements submitted by candidate Fonseka and that the respondents of both media carried false statements suggesting that candidate Fonseka could not stand for election to the office of President as he was not a registered voter.

They pointed out after the close of the poll, the Elections Commissioner issued a statement confirming that it was not a requirement that a Presidential candidate be a registered voter.

They alleged that quite apart from the falsity of the statement which would have discouraged voters supporting candidate Fonseka from exercising their franchise, the publishing by the respondents, of clandestine propaganda on the day of the election contravened both the letter and spirit of the media guidelines.

They complained the respondents had acted in wilful defiance and contempt of the order dated January 15, 2010 of the Supreme Court, wherein the Supreme Court directed all electronic and print media to comply with the guidelines issued under Article 104B(5)(a) of the Constitution.