Justice Priyantha Jayawardane recuses himself from hearing FR on Bond Commission

By S.S. Selvanayagam

Justice Priyantha Jayawardane recused himself on personal grounds from hearing the Fundamental Rights petition filed by a Central Bank official against the officers of the Attorney General’s Department in the backdrop of two respondents from the AG’s Department being his close friends.

Justice Sisira J. De Abrew also expressed his apparent reluctance as he came from the AG’s Department but intimated that if there was a situation where there was a quandary in constituting the Bench, he would be willing to hear.

Justice Vijith K. Malalgoda expressed his view that he too was from the AG’s Department but lately he had no hesitation in hearing this petition.

M.A. Sumanthiran PC with Niran Anketell, Junita Arulanantham and Joshua Crossette Thambiah appearing for the Petitioner cited Justice A.R. M. Amarasinghe on judicial conduct, ethics and responsibilities that there should never be instances where there is no judge to hear the case.



Sumathiran as well as Senior Additional Solicitor General Farzana Jameel with Deputy Solicitor General Nerin Pulle informed Court they had no objection in nominating any judges except two Respondent Commissioners in the Bond Commission to hear the case.

A Central Bank official filing a Fundamental Rights petition has sought the Supreme Court to prevent him from being questioned by the Attorney General’s Department officers assisting the Bond Commission until the final determination of his petition.

The Petitioner S. Pathumanathan in his petition cited Senior Additional Solicitors Dappula de Livera and Yasantha Kodagoda, Senior Deputy Solicitors General Milinda Gunetilleke and Dilan Ratnayake, Senior State Counsels Shaheeda Barrie, Dr. Avanti Perera, and Nayomi Wickremasekera and State Counsel Danushan Kaneshayogan – all of them are assisting the Bond Commission in the investigation – as well as Central Bank Governor Dr. Indrajit Coomaraswamy, appointed members of the Monetary Board, Central Bank Legal and Compliance Department Director P.V.L. Nandasiri, Presidential Commission Chairman Justice K.T. Chitrasiri, members Justice Prasanna Sujeewa Jayawardena and Kandasamy Velupillai along with Murtaza Jafferjee, IGP Pujitha Jayasundara and the Attorney General as Respondents.

Petitioner complains against some officials of the Attorney General’s Department, stating that they had humiliated him in a degrading manner in the course of the Presidential Commission Inquiry into the Treasury bond matter.

Petitioner S. Pathumanapan who was a senior Manager of Public Debt Department of the Central Bank and an Assistant Superintendent, EPF and bid on behalf of EPF at the Bond acution in 2015  cited  Senior Additional Solicitors General Dappula de Livera and Yasantha Kodagoda along with Senior Deputy Solicitor General Milinda Gunatillake, Deputy Solicitor General Dilan Ratnasinghe, Senior State Counsels Shahida Barrie, Dr Avanti Perera and Nayomi Wickramasekera, State Counsel Danushan Ganeshayogan  who are assisting the Bond Commission as well as Members of the Monetary Board Dr R. H.Samaratunge, Mrs M. Ramanathan, C.D.K.Pereira and Nihal Fonseka, Central Bank Governor and the IGP and the Attorney General as Respondents.

Petitioner complains of the alleged treatment he suffered at the hands of the Senior Additional Solicitors General and Deputy Solicitor General acting with other respondents the threats, intimidations, duress, harassment, humiliating treatment and unlawful invasion of privacy amounting to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.

He alleges that by failing to permit him to testify before the Bond Commission and seeking to intimidate, threaten, harass and otherwise penalise him for taking a position inconsistent with that they had suggested to him, the Respondents from the Attorney General Department had subverted the purpose of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry Act, prevented the truth from emerging, and sought to deprive the Commissioners, the President and the country as a whole of access to his facts and evidence.

By seeking to punish and victimise him including by attempting to cause disciplinary proceedings to be instituted against him despite the singular lack of any evidence against him led at the Commission, the Respondents assisting the investigation have abused their power and authority for collateral purposes, he alleges.

The 18th Respondent Murtaza Jafferjee – a private citizen with no power or authority to conduct investigations for and/or on behalf of the Commission or the State – for the purpose of intimidating him and securing evidence required for their purpose, the 1st Respondent Senior Additional Solicitor General and 1st to 8th Respondents who are assisting the interrogation have acted in violation of the law, he alleges.

He is seeking an Interim Order from the Court to prevent the officers assisting the Bond Commission (Attorney General’s Department) from taking any steps to require, summon or compel his presence at any interrogation, consultation or other such meeting until the final determination of his petition.

He alleges the actions of the respondents amount to an infringement and imminent infringement of his fundamental right to the freedom from torture, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of lawful occupation and profession as well as consultative jurisdiction under Article 129(1) which reads: If at any time, it appears to the President of the Republic that a question of law or fact has arisen or is likely to arise which is of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer that question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, within the period specified in such reference or within such time as may be extended by the President, report to the President its opinion thereon.