Buddha Bar: An Analysis Of Coleman Vs. Attorney General & Others
What happens when religion, that opioid placebo of the ignorant masses, blinds one to the true nature of one’s beliefs, in this case Buddhism, and obscures the central tenet of the Buddhist faith, which is one of tolerance, and instead breeds that which is most despicable of the manifestations of institutionalized religion, self-righteous prejudice and cultural xenophobia? The result is Coleman v. Attorney General and Others.
The facts of the case – the petitioner
It all began, when Naomi Michelle Coleman, herein onwards referred to as the Petitioner, a British national and nurse by profession, who characterizes herself as a “devout, practicing Buddhist,” had arrived at the Katunayake airport in 2014 to engage in a tour of Sri Lanka with a friend, the latter who was to arrive later.
Even though the Petitioner had received official clearance from the Customs and the Department of Immigration and Emigration to enter the country, she had nearer to the airport’s exit, been accosted by a trio comprised of a taxi driver, another person and a person claiming to be from the civil defence force, who had taken objection to the tattoo on her upper right arm, depicting Buddha seated upon a lotus flower, which according to an affidavit filed by the Petitioner was a respectful personal expression with the view of paying tribute to and showing her devotion to the Buddhist teachings via a “symbol of peace and compassion representing her travels to Buddhist countries and the lessons she had learned from Buddhist monks”, stating that such was unacceptable and thereafter had forced her to accompany them to the Katunayake Police Station. According to the petition, other uniformed officers outside the airport had neither taken notice of the tattoo nor taken any visible offence to it.
According to the Petitioner, what followed was a litany of abuse and harassment, specifically of arbitrary arrest at the hands of the Katunayake Police, events that transpired at the Negombo Magistrate’s Court (MC), detention at the Negombo Prison and the Mirihana Immigration Detention Camp, and ultimately, unlawful deportation, a process at each stage of which she was subjected to degrading treatment.
Apart from the Attorney General, the other respondents, in the order of listing in the petition, are a Police Sergeant and Police Inspector cum Acting Officer-In-Charge (OIC) attached to the Katunayake Police Station, the OIC of the Negombo Prison, the Inspector General of Police and the Controller General of Immigration and Emigration.
At the said Police Station, although the Acting OIC who questioned the Petitioner was not, according to the Petitioner, able to comprehend the answers provided by the Petitioner to his questions, no attempt was made to obtain a translator, with the taxi driver serving as the translator during the interrogation. Even though no statement was recorded from her, she was directed to make a written statement. Furthermore, the Petitioner, despite requests for the said information, had not been informed of the charges levelled against her (Neither did the ‘B’ Report subsequently submitted to the Negombo MC when the Petitioner was produced before Court provide details of the offence allegedly committed and the provisions of law under which she was arrested, charged or detained). She was also not afforded an opportunity to contact the British High Commission in Sri Lanka.
When she was detained behind bars in the Court cell at the Negombo MC, the Petitioner had had no opportunity to properly consult, instruct or obtain legal advice from the Attorney introduced by the Prisons Guards, the former who appeared for a fee of Rs 5,000. She had not been able to follow the Court proceedings which were conducted throughout in Sinhala by the Magistrate, the Court officials and the lawyer. As of the legal entitlements afforded to an alleged offender, Section 4(1)(e) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act, No. 56 of 2007 holds that, where the alleged offender cannot understand or speak the language in which the trial is being conducted, the said person is to be provided with the assistance of an interpreter. Also, while in the MC cell, the Prison Guard in charge of the Petitioner had subjected her to lewd, obscene, disparaging and sexually explicit remarks.
According to the Petitioner’s friend who was to accompany the Petitioner on their tour, who however ended up having to visit the Petitioner at the Court house, the Petitioner was “very pale and worried,”, “crying,” and “shaken,” by the whole ordeal. The friend too had been accosted by a female Officer and male Guards who had demanded money, and she had had to part with Rs 500. When she had brought and given food and water to the Petitioner at the Court premises, a Guard had put his hand on his pistol when she had attempted to hug the Petitioner. She too had subsequently been fleeced by the aforementioned taxi driver.
At the Prison, a Woman Police Constable (WPC) had after going through the Petitioner’s belongings, demanded Rs 10,000 from the Rs 13,000 she had had on her person and had attempted to take the Petitioner’s mobile phone too. The WPC had finally taken Rs 2,000. The aforementioned Prison Guard had continued with the verbal harassment, in language which the superior Court in its verdict deemed as “unacceptable,”, “horrifying and scandalous,”, and he too had demanded money.
She was then deported and her passport returned to her only once she had arrived on England soil.
The fundamental rights petition
