Friday Dec 13, 2024
Friday Dec 13, 2024
Saturday, 14 March 2020 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By S.S. Selvanayagam
Special Divisional Bench of Three Judges of Court of Appeal yesterday (13) issued order to former Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake, Arjun Aloysius and other petitioners to appear before Colombo Fort Magistrate without arrest or restraint in respect of the Treasury Bond scam.
The bench comprised Justices A.H.M.D. Nawaz (President/CA) Shiran Gooneratne and Sobitha Rajakaruna.
The Court in its order observed that the senior Deputy Solicitor General had moved to respond to the arguments made so far on the question of issuance of notices and granting of Interim Relief.
It stated that this raised the maintainability of the petitions bearing Nos. 63, 64, 65, 71 and 75 and sought time to make his argument to oppose.
Court was of the view that the question of notice would be decided after the Written Submissions. Meanwhile all the counsels for the Petitioners expressed concern and articulated their submissions that they were in peril of arrest if the senior Deputy Solicitor General was granted time.
Court, after having heard all the submissions, observed that it had to make a decision on whether it is a prima facie case on the propriety of the MC order.
Court held that it had come to the conclusion that in the best interest of all the parties and institutions, the parties shall appear at the Fort Magistrate’s Court before 4 p.m. on 13 March without any restraint and it directed the Magistrate’s Court to acknowledge their presence and that the Magistrate shall make no further order until Court had finally determined on the propriety of the order.
Court also ruled that in the event the petitioners fail to appear in Court, there was no impediment to 2nd to 4th Respondents in executing the warrant of arrest which is however under challenge before the Court of Appeal.
Court will decide on the question of law and fixed the argument on 17 March.
Faisz Musthapha PC with Rienzie Aresecularatne PC, Shaveendra Fernando PC, Senani Dayaratne, Faiza Markar and Riad Ameen instructed by Gowry Shangary Thavarasha appeared for Ravi Karunanayake.
Faisz Musthapha PC appeared for Petitioner Chithra Ranjan Hulugalle.
Navin Marapana PC instructed by Sanath Wijewardana appeared for Arjun Aloysius while Manoj Bandara with Asitha Gamage instructed by Sudath Perera Associates appeared for Central Bank employees Saman Kumara and S. Pathumanapan.
Senior Deputy Solicitor General Milinda Gunatilake appeared for the Attorney General and Acting IGP.
Petitioners cited the Attorney General, Acting IGP C.D. Wickramaratne, OIC of the Financial Investigation Unit 1 of the CID, SSP Ampavila, Fort Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake, and the Registrar of the Fort Magistrate’s Court as Respondents.
Petitioner Karunanayake in his petition stated he had a significant role in spearheading the election campaign of the United National Party for the Parliamentary General Election that is expected to be held on 25 April.
He stated he also intended to contest the Parliamentary General Election to be held on 25 April and therefore the Petitioner necessarily needed to carry out an election campaign for this purpose.
The Petitioner stated that Section 19.5.4 of the Report referred to the meeting held on 28 March 2016. According to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry the impugned meeting was chaired by him in the capacity of Minister of Finance.
He contends that notwithstanding the fact that he was the Minister of Finance at the material time, neither the Central Bank of Sri Lanka nor the State banks came under his purview, and neither the said
Banks nor their officers were obligated to concur or give effect to his inclinations, if any.
He states that it should be assumed that the said officers may have been acting on the directions and dictates of persons who in fact held legal powers of supervision and direction over them, and not by him.
He maintains that he appeared before the Commission merely as a witness, and not as a person concerned and/or implicated in any of the matters investigated by the Commission.
He claims the said order of the Magistrate dated 6 March issuing the said warrant of arrest is illegal, ultra vires and made without jurisdiction.
He disputes as such, he is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the said order of the Magistrate, dated 6 March, and a writ of prohibition preventing the Respondents and/or any person acting under their directions, from executing the said warrant of arrest.
He is asking the Court to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the decisions/instructions of the Attorney General and a writ of prohibition restraining the Respondents and/or any persons acting under the directions of any one or more of them from executing the said warrant of arrest.
He is seeking an order from the Court to quash the certificate filed by the 4th Respondent SSP in Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court Case bearing No. B/16089/2020, purportedly acting under Section 8 of the Offences Against Public Property Act, No. 12 of 1982.
He seeks an interim order staying the execution of the order dated 6 March issuing a warrant of arrest against him until the final determination of the instant application.
