Sri Lanka's Minister of Industries and Commerce Rishad Bathiyutheen has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the Appellate Court order to show- cause over contempt charges.
Minister Bathiyutheen has filed the appeal before the Supreme Court against the order by the Court of Appeal for him to show-cause why he should not be punished for allegedly threatening the Magistrate of Mannar.
The Appellate Court issued the order in response to a contempt of court case filed by a group of seven lawyers over the Minister's alleged attempt to thwart the course of justice by intimidating a Magistrate and trying to revoke the magistrate's ruling. Bathiyutheen was accused of threatening and intimidating the Mannar Magistrate A. Judeson on July 18 over a court ruling against a group of recently resettled Muslim fishermen in the Mannar district of the northwestern region. The Minister in his appeal to the Supreme Court has stated that the Court of Appeal had on September 5, ordered him to tell court why he should not be punished for contempt of the court. He has noted that the Court of Appeal has issued the directive overruling three preliminary objections made by his counsel that contempt proceeding could not be maintained against him. -->
The Appellate Court issued the order in response to a contempt of court case filed by a group of seven lawyers over the Minister's alleged attempt to thwart the course of justice by intimidating a Magistrate and trying to revoke the magistrate's ruling. Bathiyutheen was accused of threatening and intimidating the Mannar Magistrate A. Judeson on July 18 over a court ruling against a group of recently resettled Muslim fishermen in the Mannar district of the northwestern region. The Minister in his appeal to the Supreme Court has stated that the Court of Appeal had on September 5, ordered him to tell court why he should not be punished for contempt of the court. He has noted that the Court of Appeal has issued the directive overruling three preliminary objections made by his counsel that contempt proceeding could not be maintained against him. -->





No comments:
Post a Comment