Proceedings of November 02
Defence Counsel Nalin Ladduwahetti (NL): The last time you were questioned about Mr. Amal Jayasinghe. Do you recall?
Witness Frederica Jansz (FJ): I remember
NL: You first mentioned a name Mr. Amal Perera
FJ: Yes
NL: After you were reminded that it was not Mr. Amal Perera you said it was Mr Amal Jayasinghe.
FJ: Yes
NL: The last day after leaving courts you sent a SMS message to Mr. Amal Jayasinghe.
FJ: Yes
NL: You wrote an article mentioning Mr. Amal Jayasinghe’s name on August 1, 2010.
FJ: Yes
NL: That was because you did not get an award whaich you thought you should have got.
FJ: That was because the rules were violated
NL You consider receiving an award at the Editors’ Guild award ceremony an achievement?
FJ: For any journalist it is a recognition of his or her service
NL: You had a great liking to get such an award
FJ: As I mentioned earlier it is a recognition of the newspaper.
NL: In 2002 too you applied for this award
FJ: Yes
 |
| Frederica Jansz: The witness |
NL: That year you did not get an award
FJ: Yes, according to that category we did not receive the award.
NL: At that point you lodged a complaint with the Cinnamon Gardens Police
FJ: That was not only against Mr. Amal Jayasinghe, but against two others. That was because the files due to be returned to me had been lost.
NL: Didn’t you lodge a compliant with the Cinnamon Gardens Police against Mr.Amal Jayasinghe and the others alleging that they got together and stole your application and hence deprived you of the award?
(DSG appearing for the prosecution objects at this point)
FJ: My complaint was regarding the disappearance of a file containing a set of my investigative articles.
NL: Are you aware that the police investigated into this matter about your articles?
FJ: Afterwards the lost articles were found in the office.
NL: Isn’t that your office?
FJ: Yes.
NL: It was found in a box in your office and after it was found Amal Jayasinghe was informed of it by your former Editor?
FJ: It was not inside a box in the office. It was on the table of another editor.
NL: What you are saying is that Mr.Lasantha Wickramatunga and Mr.Amal Jayasinghe spoke
(DSG appearing for the prosecution objects)
NL (continues - shows witness a souvenir); In this article Mr. Amal Jayasinghe states, “The Applicant’s Editor later apologized to me saying that her entry has been subsequently traced – to a box that was ensconced in their own pressroom. Such are the hazards of the occupation. Looking at it from another perspective, the episode underscored how seriously our fellow journalists treat the awards, something which augurs well for the media industry". Hadn’t he written that?
FJ: It was Lasantha Wickramatunga who said to lodge the complaint. He sent a vehicle to go to the Cinnamon Gardens Police Station. The articles were not found in a box but on the table of another editor.
NL: This souvenir was printed for the 2008 awards?
FJ: Yes
FJ: The last day you gave evidence to court was on October 15?
FJ: Yes
NL: Since then three editions of the Sunday Leader have been published?
FJ: Yes
NL: In all those editions you have carried special reports in your newspaper that have criticized the manner in which other newspapers have reported this case. Is that correct?
FJ: No. Not all newspapers. Only regarding Wijeya Newspapers which published these articles.
NL: Are you saying the articles were published only by Wijeya Newspapers?
FJ: The Daily Mirror and the Sunday Times had distorted the facts that emerged during the case.
NL: Did you write articles only against the Daily Mirror and the Sunday Times all three weeks?
FJ: Not three weeks but two weeks it was reported about the manner in which the Daily Mirror and the Sunday Times distorted the court proceedings.
NL: Only those two papers. The Island and the Divaina reported? Did you report on the Lakbima newspapers? The Lankadeepa newspaper?
FJ: What I have especially said is that the Island newspaper reported correctly.
NL: You are saying the Island newspaper reported the truthful facts?
FJ: Yes
(Here permission was sought from Court to submit the Irudina and Sunday Leader of 17.10.2010 to court. Page 12 was handed over as evidence)
NL: On page 12 of the paper, an article titled “Mumbo Jumbo” has been published under the name of Sumaya Samarasinghe which criticized the manner in which the Daily Mirror reported the case. Isn’t it so?
FJ: Yes. It was pointed out that the Island did not report it correctly in one instance.
Prosecution addressing the Court:
How can the witness be criticized for reportage of the case which has been reported by others. It is not under her name. However, if you can advise the witness in this regard, I have no objection.
The Court:
We strongly advise the witness not to publish anything pertaining to this case as she is giving evidence in a case pending before this court.
NL: On 17.10 your paper gave the Sunday Times an Oscar for correctly reporting the case, didn’t it. “I believe giving credit when it is necessary and in this case the Oscar for accuracy goes to the Sunday Times, the only paper that seems to have staff capable of correctly reporting on court proceedings. The Island newspaper too as well as its sister paper the Divaina should be applauded for an accurate reporting of the proceedings”.
 |
| Sarath Fonseka: The accused. Pics by Saman Kariyawasam |
FJ: Yes
NL: That is what you have written
FJ: Yes
NL: You are saying the Sunday Times correctly reported this case?
FJ: Yes
NL: They got the Oscar award for reporting very accurately?
FJ: Yes
NL: There is an article written by someone called Sumaya Samarasinghe?
FJ: Yes
NL: Who is this Sumaya Samarasinghe?
FJ: She is a journalist working under me.
NL: What is her specialized area? Is she a feature writer?
FJ:She is mainly a writer on arts and a film critic. She is also a sub-editor.
NL:Did the others who write news articles in your organization and those who write special reports refuse to write this article?
FJ: Absolutely not.
NL: Isn’t that why you got a film critic and a DVD. reviewer Sumaya Samarasinghe to write this?
FJ: No
NL: Has this Sumaya Samarasinghe written anything other than film and DVD reviews in the Sunday Leader in the past three months?
FJ: No
NL: So you used a person who has never stepped into a court house to criticize reporters who report court proceedings on a daily basis?
FJ: She has definitely seen the inside of a court house.
NL: Did she come here when you were giving evidence?
FJ:She was not in court. No reporter from the Sunday Leader was here.
NL: Then she has no way of knowing that what the Daily Mirror has reported is wrong or right?
FJ:She reads all the newspapers. She is also attentive to the proceedings of this case.
NL:Does she take the court proceedings of this case and examine them?
FJ: Yes, she has copies of the court proceedings.
High Court Judge Warawewa: Are these copies obtained from the court?
FJ: Yes. They are in office. I haven’t brought them to court.
Court: Can you produce them the next day?
FJ: Yes I can
Court: Were they obtained after payment from the certified copies section?
FJ: Yes. The lawyer paid and obtained them.
(The witnesses was notified to bring the copies during the next day of hearing)
At this time the Defence Counsel sought permission of the court to submit copies of the Sunday Leader dated 24.10.2010 and its pages 12 and 13.
NL: You have written this?
FJ: Yes
NL: Isn’t this known as the devil in blue?
FJ: Yes
NL: Is that you?
FJ: Yes
NL: Now in this article also your favourite subject has come up again? The Guild Awards?
FJ: Yes
NL: You have protested that Mr.Iqbal Athas was given an award?
FJ: Yes
NL: You have said that Mr.Iqbal Athas did not write any article to the newspaper in 2009 and still he was given the award?
FJ: Yes. In 2009 he did not write the Defence column. But he got the award.
NL: Did you find out the facts and write this? Think carefully about this and reply.
FJ: Yes. I am not the only one who wrote about this. Journalists from three other newspapers wrote this.
NL: Do you look at other people’s reports and write?
FJ: No
NL: Did you not inquire to see if this report is right or wrong.
FJ: I did inquire.
NL:Then you say clearly that Mr.Iqbal Athas has not written anything in 2009
FJ: It’s stated clearly that he did not write any articles to the Defence column.
At this juncture the Court was shown a copy of the Sunday Times dated 4.01.2009 and its Page 5 was drawn to the attention of the witness.
NL: Then who has written this?
FJ: Iqbal Athas has written this
(It was submitted to Court as evidence)
NL: In which year?
FJ: 4.01.2009
NL: This is the January 2009 newspaper. The first Sunday.
FJ: Yes
NL: He has written the Defence column to that?
FJ: Yes
NL: Then you have agitated saying that he has not written a single article in 2009 and that is wrong?
FJ: I have not said that. He did not write a Defence column throughout the year. Different persons have written the Defence column.
NL: Look at your Sunday Leader newspaper carefully. In page 12 in the last column you have said not a single article was written by him.
FJ: Yes. I have written that.
NL: You have written in your article that Mr.Athas has not written a single article in the Defence column in 2009.Isn’t that right?
FJ: Yes
NL: Isn’t that wrong?
FJ: If one is to win an award, one must write a column on a regular basis.
NL: Mrs.Jansz, you have clearly stated that you should have received the award and it was given to Mr.Iqbal Athas in a wrong manner.
FJ: I am not an applicant to that category?
NL: You applied for the Scoop of the Year?
FJ: Yes I applied for the Scoop of the Year. But it has no connection to the award given to Mr. Iqbal Athas. That is a different category.
NL: You have not given the correct information to your readers?
FJ: It is the exact situation. The relevant rules have been violated. The editor of the Sunday Leader did not make any application under this category. If other editors have made an application, they have been cheated.
NL: I will ask this in a simpler manner. You have said that Iqbal Athas has not written a single article in 2009 and he was given the award?
FJ: Yes, I have written like that.
NL: Now according to the Sunday Times that is before you, he has written an article in 2009?
FJ: Yes, according to this newspaper he has written one.
NL: At least he has written one?
FJ: Yes
NL: When you were inquiring into this, if you had looked up at the internet edition of the newspaper of January, you would have found an article Mr.Iqbal Athas had written. Isn’t it so?
FJ: Yes
NL: Did you have no intention of making such an inquiry?
FJ: I did inquire
NL: Then it was not on the internet?
FJ: I did not find it.
NL: Did you search and not find it or did you not search and hence not find it?
FJ: I searched but I did not find.
NL: Did you not ask anyone before writing like this and inquire if this is correct or not?
FJ: I did ask.
NL: But you published wrong information in the newspaper.
FJ: It is not a wrong article. It is not a completely wrong article. As I said earlier he did not write articles throughout the year and hence he is not qualified to receive the award.
NL: But you have not written that because he did not write consistently he should not get the award?
FJ: I have written that it does not cover the whole of 2009
NL:Can you read the last paragraph in English?
FJ: “How else can one explain the blatant circumvention of rules and regulations stated in black and white for a panel of judges to follow in relation to the ‘Scoop of the Year’ award for 2009 (which went to the Sunday Times news desk for a series of articles) as well as the awarding of a prize, the ‘D.R.Wijewardene Award for Earning the Appreciation of the Peers and Public’ to Iqbal Athas, for consistently reporting on defence matters for the year 2009 when he never wrote a single Defence copy during the whole of 2009. His last column was on December 28, 2008.”
NL: Now according to the article you wrote you have informed your readers that Iqbal Athas did not write a single article in 2009?
FJ: I have not used the word "consistently"
NL: You have said he did not write a single article?
FJ: Yes
NL: You have told something wrong to your readers?
FJ: No, what I have said is that there were no articles written to that column consistently in 2009.
NL: Did you write the editorial titled “You buy the lie”
NL: Yes
FJ: Do people buy a lie when they buy your paper?
FJ: No
NL: Now in that editorial also you have gone to your favourite subject of your wish to win the Editors’ Guild award?
FJ: Yes
NL: Mrs. Jansz, You sent an application for this category?
FJ: Yes
NL: You stated all the correct facts in that?
FJ: When submitting the application?
NL: Yes:
FJ: Yes
NL: Do you remember the application form?
FJ: Not the full details
NL: You can enter either in an Individual category or in a Team category.
FJ: Yes
NL: It has two boxes to choose from?
FJ: Yes
NL: You applied in the individual category?
FJ: Yes. There is another category where the newspaper can submit an application for a Team entry.
NL: Isn’t there also a requirement that if your article has been disputed, then you also have to mention that in your application?
FJ: Yes
NL: Did you inform your article was being disputed?
FJ:We made two submissions in the Scoop of the Year category. One was on the Golden Key depositors’ list while the other was on the White Flag issue. There was no dispute at the time the application was submitted.
(At this point Defence Counsel submitted to Court a specimen form by which an application is made for an Editors’ Guild award. The witness was also shown it)
NL: You submitted an application like this?
FJ: Yes
NL: It states that if the article submitted has been disputed or has been corrected or challenged, it must be mentioned in the application.
FJ: Yes
NL:A clarification has been sought regarding your article.
FJ: Yes
NL: Did you put that in your application
FJ: Yes, with the application I put the clarification as well as an article called “Her Story”
NL: The clarification and the article titled “Her story” were sent with the first article? There is a separate box to mark if a clarification, correction has been sought regarding an article or if it has been challenged?
FJ: Yes
NL: You marked it as such and sent it?
FJ: I sent the clarification attached to the application.
NL: You stated in an article in your paper that other than the Sunday Leader, Ravaya and the Lakbima newspapers none of the other newspapers has editors who stand up for the right issues.
FJ: Yes
NL: You have written about yourself in your own articles?
FJ: I have said about the other editors in my newspapers also. Not only about myself.
NL: Aren’t you the editor of the Sunday Leader?
FJ: Yes, but there are other editors with me.
NL: Doesn’t the Oscar receiving Editor fall into this category?
FJ: No, because he has reported wrongly about court proceedings.
NL: In the past three weeks first you wrote against the reporters, then against the editors and finally against the publishers?
FJ: Yes
NL: You wrote against the publishers of Wijeya newspapers, the Island publishers as well as the publisher of Lakbima?
FJ: What were written were the political affiliations of the publishers of these three groups of newspapers.
NL: Why did you suddenly decide to write a series of articles attacking newspaper reporters, editors and the publishers?
FJ: It wasn’t sudden. I have consistently maintained that there is no free media in this country. But during the past three weeks I have been writing about wrong reporting. This is important news. We brought this issue forward as persons engaged in journalism in this country.
NL: Didn’t you attack the reporters, editors and publishers because they did not report the court proceedings according to the manner in which you wanted it reported. Isn’t that why you attacked them saying the court proceedings were not reported accurately?
FJ: Definitely no. It was done because the reports were wrong and misleading.
NL: If you had the records of the evidence, instead of attacking the other newspapers, what you should have done is report it correctly in your newspaper, isn’t it so?
Court adjourned for November 4
.
Proceedings of November 4
High Court Trial-at-Bar Judge (President)
Deepali Wijesundara
Have you brought the court proceedings in keeping with the order given to you on the other day?
FJ: Yes. (File was handed over to the judges)
Judge W.T. M. P.B. Warawewa: Where is the receipt issued when you obtained these copies?
FJ: I am not aware about the receipt. This has been obtained through Varners law firm. There is a receipt for that.
Judge Warawewa: Where is the receipt issued from the courts?
FJ: This is the receipt from the law firm
(A junior officer of the law firm who appeared said that she was not aware about the details of the matter)
Judge Wijesundara: These are photo copies
Judge Warawewa: There is no provision for a witness to see the proceedings during the period of the witness being cross examined
DSG: It can be obtained by following the correct procedures
Judge Warawewa: The Defence or the Prosecution could obtain a copy, but the witness can’t obtain it.
DSG: It has been obtained through a law firm.
Judge Warawewa: If it is obtained through a lawyer, Court should give permission. There is no other way.
NL: Since the documents need to be inspected I request that the documents be held back in the possession of the Courts.
(Permission was granted).
NL: In the 24th issue of your paper you criticized the Sunday Times newspaper.
FJ: Yes
NL: In the article you criticized the Sunday Times you said that only the Editors of the Ravaya, Lakbimanews and Sunday Leader had good Editors.
FJ: Yes
NL: In the October 31 issue you criticized the Lakbima as well.
FJ: No
(Defence Counsel reads out from the newspaper)
FJ: In that I mentioned about the owners. I said Mr. Thilanga Sumathipala is an MP.
NL: On the previous week you said that the Lakbima Editor is straightforward and in the next week you say the newspaper is influenced by politics.
FJ: No, the article was about the independence of the media.
NL: Is there a link between the management, the Editors and what appears in the newspapers.
FJ: No
NL: Isn’t it the management that decides
FJ: Yes, to some extent.
NL: Isn’t it that some of the Editors leave the place if they are not happy about the direction which the paper is taking.
FJ: Yes, on some occasions.
NL: Are there reasons for the change of the Lakbimanews stance from the 24th to the 31st
FJ: On the 31st paper we published about the management and their political connections.
(DSG objected to the Defense counsel seeking permission from the witness to mark the Lakbima newspaper as a document in the case)
DSG: There is an attempt by some newspapers to publish certain items in a manner that it brings down the mental status of the witness.
Judge M.S Razeen: It is the witness who has been writing various things during the past few weeks.
Judge Wijesundara: The question is not what the other papers are writing, but what is being distorted and written by the witness in her paper.
Judge Warawewa: Charges could have been brought against the witness for contempt of court for distorting the events in the Courts, but we have severely admonished her.
(Thereafter an articled titled ‘WE WE WE US US US” . Lakbima newspaper of October 24, 2011 was marked and further cross examination continued)
NL: The article had been written by Mr. Rajpal Abeynayake, the Editor of the paper. According to him it is not the Sunday Times, but it is the Sunday Leader which is good to wrap fish.
This article has been written on the same day you mentioned that the particular Editor was one of those who stands tall for what is right.
FJ: It is the following week.
NL: You say there is no understanding between the Management and the Editor.
FJ: You have worked with us and you are well aware that at the Sunday Leader there is no pressure from the Management or the owners.
NL: You are not aware of the facts. I have never worked at the editorial of the Sunday Leader.
FJ: Mr. Ladduwahetti was a shareholder of the Sinhala paper. We worked together when we were at the Colombo Commercial building.
NL: I never worked at the Sunday Leader paper. I have never worked with you.
FJ: The other editors, the Chairman and staff will testify that you worked. You also worked as the lawyer.
NL: Without the direction of the management, the Editor cannot take the paper according to his directions.
FJ: It can be done.
NL: You mean that the Editor can decide on the line of the paper, even though the management has invested in it and expects profits.
FJ: It can be done.
NL: Did you follow the same practice at the Sunday Times, when you worked there.
FJ: I was speaking about the Sunday Leader. I never worked as an Editor at the Sunday Times and therefore cannot comment about it.
NL: Do you have any objections to producing the application you sent to the Editors’ Guild along with the White Flag story (Interview with Mr. Fonseka) for an award.
FJ: No
NL: This document cannot be called to Courts without the witness agreeing to it as it is a privileged document. I have a photocopy of it.
Judge Warawewa: A witness does not have privileges. Therefore if necessary this document can be produced.
NL: As you know each newspaper has methods of confirming the news before publication.
FJ: It could be confirmed through documents or pictures or by contacting the relevant persons.
NL: Isn’t it that the best practice in the world to get the story confirmed from at least three parties.
FJ: Yes
NL: It is known as the BBC standard
FJ: Yes
NL: Could you explain how you got the news item confirmed regarding the ‘white flag’ issue.
FJ: Regarding the comments made by Mr. Fonseka I contacted Brig Shavindra de Silva and the (former) military spokesman Udaya Nanayakkara to try help to contact him. I also tried to get Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and that too was not successful.
NL: Of the persons you named who confirmed the story
FJ: Shavindra de Silva declined to comment. Mr. Basil Rajapaksa was aware about this, but he did not know anything about his brother’s involvement or Norway’s involvement. Brig. Nanayakkara said that he had spoken to the Army Commander and Shavindra de Silva, but they did not want to comment.
NL: Could you say Shavindra de Silva not commenting about it is a confirmation of the story.
FJ: It is neither a denial nor a confirmation
NL: Did Mr. Basil Rajapaksa confirm this story.
FJ: He said he was aware of this story.
NL: What story
FJ: I asked him whether he was aware that Tiger leaders came to surrender with white flags. He said he was aware of it. He denied that it was discussed with Norway or that those who came with the white flags to surrender were facilitated.
NL: Did Mr. Basil Rajapaksa confirm or deny the story
FJ: He denied that it was discussed with the Norwegians or the surrender was facilitated. When I asked him whether Tiger leaders came with white flags to surrender, he said ‘yes’.
NL: Brig. Nanayakkara said that Shavindra Silva and the Army Commander cannot comment due to the positions they held.
FJ: Brig Nanayakkara said that he will discuss the matter with Shavindra Silva and the Army Commander and comment.
NL: When they said they declined to comment, did you take that as a confirmation.
FJ: I accept that it was not a confirmation
NL: You published something which was not confirmed by anyone
FJ: What I published was a statement made by former Army Commander and former Chief of Defence and Presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka.
NL: Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa was the key person in this news item.
FJ: Yes
NL: Did you try to get Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa
FJ: When I contacted him at his office they said he was not available. I left my number with the officers who answered. I called back as well and he was not in office. He did not call me back as well. I got the interview on December 8, but I tried to contact Mr. Rajapaksa on 11th, Friday.
NL: Why did you wait until Friday.
FJ: As our paper could have come under attack. There have been similar instances earlier. Therefore I did not try to contact him before Friday.
NL: Didn’t you think that when you contacted the Army Commander, Shavindra de Silva and the military spokesman that Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa will not be informed of this?
FJ: I thought so. I thought Shavindra Silva had to get permission.
NL: You did not contact Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa until Friday as he would be alerted about this
FJ: Yes
NL: As an Editor were not you aware that he would be going on his field trips on Friday.
FJ: No.
NL: How many people did you speak to, to confirm the story regarding the white flag issue?
FJ: Four persons
NL: They were Brig Udaya Nanayakkara, Army Commander Jagath Jayasuriya, Mr. Basil Rajapaksa and Shavindra Silva.
FJ: Yes I tried to speak to them
NL: Though nobody confirmed it, you still went ahead and published it.
FJ: Yes
The headline of the item was “Gota ordered them to be shot” quoting Sarath Fonseka. This was in inverted quotes.
NL: Do you have evidence to prove that these were the same words used by Mr. Sarath Fonseka
FJ: Yes, I recorded it in my note book
NL: Have you taken the words down "Gota orders them to be shot".
FJ: Yes sometimes, if he had said to kill, I may have written ‘to shoot’.
NL: If it is in inverted quotes shouldn’t it be the same words.
FJ: Usually, yes
NL: But you say it is the same words used by Fonseka
FJ: Yes
NL: Do you mean though it is in inverted quotes the words could be changed.
FJ: Yes, if the meaning is not changed different words can be used
NL: On December 13, 2009 how many interviews of Mr. Sarath Fonseka were published.
FJ: Three were published. Two under the name of Rakmish Wijewardena and one under my name.
NL: The ordinary interview was under the name of Rakmish and the one you sent for the award under your name.
FJ: Yes
NL: Has Rakmish Wijewardena any connection with this article.
FJ: No
NL: Have you said that the news was exclusive
FJ: Yes
I have written what Mr. Fonseka said. Though he said that he heard from a third party I have not mentioned that in the introduction.
NL: In the second graph you have mentioned the words mentioned by Mr. Fonseka
FJ: No, it is not mentioned that it was from a third party.
NL: In the third graph is the quote from what Mr. Fonseka said.
FJ: Yes
NL: Was that written from memory or from the notes you had.
FJ: According to my notes
NL: Has that been reported in the same manner in your notes.
FJ: No I have taken down short notes, I do not know shorthand. I have the summary.
NL: What are your educational qualifications?
FJ: After A/Ls I followed a course in journalism at Aquinas.
NL: You say that within inverted quotes it is not necessary to use the same words told by the person and different words could be used.
FJ: The spoken language could be changed so that the meaning does not change and grammatical errors could be corrected.
NL: Are all the words used in the quotes mentioned in the note book.
FJ: I do not know short hand. I have not taken down all the words, but the summary has been noted.
NL: Are those notes mentioned in the same manner.
FJ: Yes, I believe so. I remember Mr. Fonseka saying he heard about it two days after the war.
(Mr. Ladduwahetti at this pointed marked the lead story of the Daily Mirror newspaper of May 21, 2009)
NL: What has appeared in the Daily Mirror is also mentioned in the fourth paragraph in your story in the identical manner.
FJ: Not in the same manner. Similar words used in my article had appeared in the Daily Mirror.
(Defence Counsel compared word to word of the Daily Mirror report and the Sunday Leader report and told Court the words were similar)
NL: It is through a miracle or through general usage that the same words have been used.
FJ: I have quoted Dr. Palitha Kohona. I have taken that from the Cyber news. I have mentioned that.
NL: You have not mentioned that the news from the Cyber news has been changed.
FJ: No
NL: Did you change what you got from the Cyber news.
FJ: No, I have not re-written their news item, I have written the paragraphs different.
(At this stage Mr. Sukumar Rockwood representing the Sri Lanka Press Institute produced the originals of the application forms submitted by Ms. Jansz for the Editors’ Guild Awards, on a request from Court)
Defence Counsel marked the file with the applications submitted to the Editors’ Guild Awards.
NL: For the question in the application whether your article has been challenged you have mentiond “NO”.
FJ: Yes
NL: Is this your signature
FJ: Yes
NL: When did you submit it.
FJ: April 16, 2010.
NL: Has your Managing Editor signed
FJ: Yes
NL: You have filled it in your handwriting.
FJ: Yes
NL: What is the remark made on it
FJ: "Seen and rejected".
NL: How many have signed
FJ: Two
(At this point three other applications submitted by the witness for the Editors’ Guild awards were shown and in the box where the question had been posed whether the particular item had been challenged or disputed she had marked ‘NO’)
NL: Have you mentioned that this particular item had been challenged.
FJ: When we submitted this application the news item had not been challenged in Court.
NL: What did Mr. Fonseka send to the Leader newspaper on December 20, 2009.
FJ: That was a clarification, but not challenging the news item.
NL: Isn’t it mentioned in the application that if there is a clarification, correction or retraction it should be attached.
FJ: Yes. But that did not mention about a dispute. Mr. Fonseka has not disputed the article.
NL: In this application it has been asked whether it has been disputed or challenged
FJ: Yes
NL: It is mentioned that if any corrections, clarification or retractions have been made after the publication, they should attached.
FJ: My news item was not disputed or challenged. Mr Fonseka’s clarification was a confirmation of what he said.
Further hearing postponed till November 9. |
E-mail
