|
|
|
  |
| Sunday, 20 February 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
The case of Theja Gunawardhana D. N. Pritt who defended Theja Gunawardhana, publisher of a weekly paper called Trine in a landmark libel suit filed against her by the Kotelawala Government in the newly Independent Ceylon, talks about the case and the remarkable qualities of a woman who has done much to raise the standard of life and education among the underprivileged, in his autobiography titled 'The Defence Accuser. Continued from last week The trial We appeared before three judges of considerable ability, a European Chief Justice, a Sinhalese, and a Tamil. The prosecution called their witnesses one by one, and Mrs. Gunawardhana sat in the high dock, the most quiet and composed figure in the Court, silently dominating it by her impassive dignity, whilst the lawyers below fought over matters which from her attitude might have had nothing to do with her, but in fact involved her reputation and her liberty. Cross-examining I need not describe the whole of the long trial, but must give the general story and mention one or two incidents. One of the principal witnesses was Mr. Bandaranaike; in my cross-examination of him, which was easily kept on a friendly footing, I first invited him to agree that Trine had been under his control and not that of my client at the time of the publication; this of course he had to do. I then took him through each of the many charges in the alleged libel, and asked two questions about each of them, viz: "Have you yourself not published almost exactly the same story in a Sinhalese-language paper published by yourself (incidentally without being prosecuted)?" And:"Do you not yourself believe that the stories are true?" He was bound to answer, and did answer, these questions almost wholly in the affirmative. We thus secured four great advantages; firstly, we obtained the maximum political advantage by getting the defendant's story brought before the public; secondly, we went half way to proving our 'justification'; thirdly, we got these advantages weeks earlier than we would otherwise have done; and, most important of all, we got the advantage of making our justification good in part at that early stage, with the result that, if we succeeded in defeating the prosecution for want of proof that my client had written the article, we should still be seen clearly to have been fighting to 'justify', with a good deal of evidence to support us. I wanted to call the Prime Minister, Sir John Kotelawala, as a witness on a point where his evidence was material. Whilst in England any litigant can himself issue a subpoena-that is, an order to a person to attend as a witness-at any time, subject merely to a limited power in the Court to set aside a subpoena as vexatious, the rule in Ceylon and many other countries is that only the Court can issue a subpoena; so we applied for a subpoena addressed to the Prime Minister. He was about to go abroad on official business, and there was just about time to subpoena him and to get his evidence before he went. But the curious delays that then came about in the machinery of the Court, sufficient in all to prevent the subpoena being served before he left, confirmed one's suspicions of the way things happen in political cases. (The Governor-General himself did not give evidence; there was no imperative reason for him to do so.) Prosecution evidence finished One way or another, the prosecution evidence came to its close early in December, 1954: and I then made my submission that the prosecution had failed to prove that Mrs. Gunawardhana had written or published the article. The police had searched the office of Trine, but they had found neither the original manuscript not the corrected proof of the article; and the evidence had proved against Mrs. Gunawardhana no more than that she had been at the publishing office at times when the article might well have been going through the press. This was manifestly insufficient, for there could be many reasons for her presence there; she was not only a director of the company but was taking over control as from the following day. So the Court ruled, correctly, that there was no evidence to justify the defence being called on and acquitted her. Had it not done so, the case would have lasted some weeks longer, as we should have had to call many witnesses in our efforts to establish the truth of the charges. Crowds await decision Public interest had naturally been greatly aroused throughout the case, for my client was widely known and loved, and the Government which had launched the prosecution was by no means popular. When the Court's decision was to be given, the crowds were so great that the announcement was postponed two or three times, in the hope that the crowds would disperse. After some four hour's wait in the heat, the crowds scarcely diminished; and when the decision was given there was tremendous enthusiasm. Mrs. Gunawardhana, and to a lesser degree myself, had some difficulty in preventing ourselves being carried through the streets of the city in triumph. The prosecution tried hard to find some way of challenging the acquittal before the Privy Council; the possibilities of appeal, either direct or indirect, from acquittals under any procedure deriving from the English system are very small indeed, but the prosecution made various applications, giving us very short notice; and when I went to the excellent library of the Supreme Court to get the necessary textbooks to prepare my arguments, I found that all the books I needed were mysteriously not available. However, after some months of effort, the prosecution dropped all attempt to proceed further, and also discontinued a charge which they had started against another person alleged to have had something to do with the publication. Mrs. Gunawardhana thus achieved a complete victory. Celebrations After the acquittal, I was invited, with my wife, to attend various celebrations in one or two parts of the island. My respect for legal etiquette and my anxiety lest excuses should be found to prevent my going to the island again if there were any further proceedings, were sought to be assuaged by assurances that nothing political would be said. The problem was settled for myself by the misfortune of my developing gout in both feet, which immobilised me completely. The celebrations went ahead, my wife attending on my behalf. They were magnificent and most moving; but they were about as non-political as a May Day speech by William Gallacher, the mildest phrase that my wife heard being: "Pritt will bring this Government down!" A pleasant but fateful dinner Before we left the island, the Chief Justice invited my wife and I for dinner, and we had a very pleasant evening. I feared that the Government might use this act of courtesy against him, although the case, so far as he was concerned, was now over; but he was very anxious to entertain us, and I thought that he could judge better than I whether he was running any risk. (He sought to 'balance' the dinner a little by including among the other guests the Chief of Police!) But not many months later I learnt that he had been bullied by the Government into resigning his office. Concluded |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
