By Udara Soysa –

Udara Soysa

The arrest and subsequent legal battle of Sri Lankan comedian Nathasha Edirisooriya highlight grave concerns about the misuse of laws meant to protect freedoms but instead weaponized to suppress dissent. Her acquittal on all charges later on after months of legal entanglements, marks a crucial victory for free speech in Sri Lanka but leaves troubling questions about the abuse of state power.

The Arrest: A Blatant Misuse of Law

On May 27, 2023, Nathasha Edirisooriya was arrested at Bandaranaike International Airport by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). Her crime? Jokes about her Buddhist upbringing during a comedy show titled *Modibhimanaya* (*Fool’s Pride*), which were later uploaded to YouTube. Charged under Section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act and Sections 291A and 291B of the Penal Code, she faced allegations of inciting religious hatred and wounding religious feelings. Despite no evidence of her jokes inciting hostility or violence, she was denied bail initially and detained for 39 days.

Misapplication of ICCPR Act

The ICCPR Act, designed to prevent incitement to violence, has often been misused to suppress free expression in Sri Lanka. As emphasized in the Colombo High Court’s July 2023 bail decision, the Act should align with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects freedom of speech. The Court also referenced the UN Rabat Plan of Action, stressing the need to prove actual incitement, imminent harm, and intent to provoke hostility—none of which applied to Edirisooriya’s case.

Further criticism came from international organizations. The UN Human Rights Office condemned the misuse of the ICCPR Act, arguing that blasphemy-like restrictions are incompatible with international human rights law. They identified Nathasha’s case as part of a broader pattern of suppressing creative and critical voices in Sri Lanka.

Acquittal: A Victory for Justice

The Fort Magistrate’s Court finally dismissed all charges in 2024, citing a lack of evidence to sustain the prosecution. This decision followed widespread public and international outcry, with human rights activists pointing out the chilling effect such legal actions have on artistic and satirical expression.

The judgment vindicated Nathasha and reaffirmed the importance of protecting humor and satire as critical elements of democratic discourse, even when they “offend, shock, or disturb” segments of society. However, her lengthy detention and the ordeal of facing unfounded charges underscore the systemic issues within Sri Lanka’s legal and law enforcement frameworks.

Broader Implications: Suppression of Creative Freedom

Nathasha’s case is not an isolated incident. Sri Lanka has a history of using vague and overbroad laws to stifle dissent. The targeting of artists, writers, and activists under the guise of maintaining religious harmony reflects an erosion of democratic norms. This abuse of power not only violates individual rights but also curtails public discourse on critical societal issues.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale

While Nathasha Edirisooriya’s acquittal is a triumph, her story serves as a sobering reminder of the fragility of free speech in Sri Lanka. It highlights the urgent need for legal reform and accountability to prevent the misuse of laws that undermine democratic freedoms. In a country grappling with complex socio-political dynamics, fostering an environment where humor and criticism can thrive without fear of reprisal is essential for progress.

*Udara Soysa is a practicing attorney at law based in Sri Lanka