Those present at the media briefing from left: S. T. Jayanaga PC, Prof. G L Peiris, Upul Jayasuriya PC and Dr. Nadish De Silva, Senior lecturer at Department of Law, Open University of Sri Lanka
The Joint Opposition has raised concerns regarding the government’s proposal to setup a three-judge Trial-at-Bar to take up the case against former President Ranil Wickremesinghe. The case against Wickremesinghe is the alleged misappropriation of state funds during a visit to Britain to attend his wife’s doctorate graduation.
During a recent media briefing, former Foreign Minister Prof. G. L Peiris, who raised the issue on behalf of the Joint Opposition, said that it is the Attorney General who can decide on filing a criminal case against any individual. “In order to file a case or a charge sheet against someone there has to be ample evidence. Even if there’s evidence the practicality of filing a case has to be considered. If people suspect that the AG has been pressured, then it affects the entire judicial system,” he added.
Peiris further said that it is the Chief Justice who has the authority to decide on a Trial-at-Bar. “It is only he who could announce the decision to setup a Trial-at-Bar. But the Chief Justice has not made any such announcement to this date. If a third person is making statements outside courts, then it is an outright violation of the law.”
He further said that law enforcement authorities such as the Police operates according to the law. “No institution is above the law. Already a Right to Information (RTI) application has been filed to find out how much money was spent on sending a police team to the UK to inquire about Mr. Wickremesinghe’s visit. But these details have not yet been revealed, raising concerns about transparency,” he underscored.
In his comments, President’s Counsel Upul Jayasuriya said that there are several institutions involved in the administration of justice. “But whether these institutions are able to operate independently remains a doubt. The Attorney General is referred to as the ‘Fountain of Justice’. Nobody can interfere with his decisions and he needs to take decisions independently. But there were various rumours regarding the Attorney General at one point and the legal fraternity stood with him. Today, the Police too has come under scrutiny. It seems that political interferences have caused a breakdown of these institutions,” he added.
Jayasuriya further said that Ranil Wickremesinghe is being blamed for alleged misappropriation of Rs. 16.2 million. “But a judgment issued in 2022 (SC/FR/195/2022) indicates a loss of Rs. 650 billion to the state as a result of changing laws and not obtaining taxes from institutions and businessmen. The then political leaders and Central Bank officials were named as accused in this case. A complaint has also been lodged at the CIABOC. But there have been no investigations regarding the accused. In 2011, a 160-member contingent took off to Trinidad and Tobago to obtain hosting rights for Commonwealth Games spending Rs. 789 million. Special flights were purchased for this purpose. Australia won the hosting rights. So it looks like these decisions regarding the security of a President is not based on decisions made by the Attorney General or CID but there seems to be a vested political motive,” he said.
President’s Counsel S. T. Jayanaga said that when an individual is elected as a President, he is entitled to perks, benefits and responsibilities. “The state should provide his security irrespective of whether he is going for an official duty or on a personal tour. Since 1978, with the introduction of the executive presidency there are two Police units to provide security for VIPs and for Presidents. There are around 1000 officers in the Presidential security unit and they have been trained overseas. All their expenses are borne by the state. Mr. Wickremesinghe toured to Cuba, USA and UK and his security detail accompanied him throughout this tour. A President has to be accompanied by security even going for a wedding. Threats won’t disappear when a President goes on a personal tour. So if there have been some expenses spent on a President’s security, they are justifiable expenses and not a misuse of state or public funds,” Jayanaga underscored.
Dailymirror