Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara has weighed in on the controversy surrounding a statement made by National People’s Power (NPP) MP Lakmali Hemachandra during a Provincial Coordinating Committee meeting, clarifying that he does not believe her remarks amounted to contempt of court or interference in the judicial process.

He made these comments on the political programme Derana 360, hosted by Kalindu Karunarathne.

The controversy arose from a public statement MP Lakmali Hemachandra made to state officials regarding the eviction of numerous families residing on land belonging to the Road Development Authority (RDA). The dispute involves approximately 12 remaining plots of six perches each. These families, some of whom have lived there for about 25 years, are currently separated from the RDA-owned section by a fence and have reportedly expressed willingness to relocate if provided with an alternative site.

MP Hemachandra reportedly stated that the court order should not be enforced against these families because they had nowhere else to go.

When asked about this by the host, Minister Nanayakkara referenced a statement he had previously given to the Daily Morning newspaper, emphasising that he did not consider the MP’s statement to constitute contempt of court, nor did he believe it interfered with the judicial process.

The Minister noted that while the legal determination of “contempt of court” is ultimately up to the courts, political authorities have the mandate to make policy decisions—and a policy decision itself does not amount to contempt of court.

He elaborated on the eviction process, explaining that the government cannot remove individuals from state land without a court order. However, once an eviction order is issued, it usually does not specify a timeline for implementation.

Minister Nanayakkara expressed support for the underlying intent of the MP’s intervention, suggesting that the government has a responsibility to ensure proper resettlement for affected individuals before carrying out evictions. He added that if all existing eviction orders were strictly enforced immediately, a significant portion of Colombo residents—perhaps one-third—would be displaced.

While acknowledging that the phrase “do not implement the court order” could set a potentially negative precedent, he stressed the importance of considering the statement within the broader context of administrative discussions within the District Coordination Committee.

He maintained that MP Hemachandra’s intention was to request a delay in enforcement until alternative arrangements were made, cautioning against focusing solely on isolated phrases, which could lead to misinterpretation, especially on social media.

“I believe that this is not contempt of court,” he confirmed.

The Minister also noted that Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala, who was present at the meeting, immediately clarified that the government had no intention of interfering with an existing court order. Minister Nanayakkara concluded that while MP Lakmali Hemachandra should have chosen her words more carefully, her overall intention was clear.