Sunday Dec 15, 2024
Sunday Dec 15, 2024
Wednesday, 12 February 2020 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By Chandani Kirinde
The war of words between Attorney General Dappula de Livera and Acting Inspector General of Police (IGP) Chandana Wickramaratne, over the Police’s failure to act on the AG’s directive to arrest and produce in Court interdicted High Court judge Gihan Pilapitiya, continued yesterday after Wickramaratne attributed the delay to Police being unsure of the judicial jurisdiction in which to initiate action.
Pilapitiya is under interdiction following a recommendation from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), after phone conversations he had with UNP MP Ranjan Ramanayake were leaked over the media. The High Court judge is facing charges under the Penal Code for conspiring with Ramanayake to fabricate false evidence, while Ramanayake, who is in remand custody since 15 January, is facing charges for interfering with the work of the Judiciary.
In response to Wickramaratne’s letter to the AG, stating the delay in initiating action against Pilapitiya was due to the Colombo Crimes Division (CCD) officers being unsure of which Court to initiate action in, the AG sent a hard-hitting response, expressing disappointment with the Acting IGP’s response.
“I am disappointed that until I wrote inquiring about what action you have initiated with regards to my directive, you did not seek my advice about the judicial jurisdiction matter. If officers of the CCD needed any such clarification, they were able to meet me or any other officers of the Department or contact them via telephone at any time,” the AG said in his letter sent yesterday.
The AG told the Acting IGP that information gathered from mobile phone service providers has revealed that the conversation took place at a location between the Nugegoda and Colombo areas and therefore the facts could be reported to the Nugegoda or Colombo Magistrate courts. He said that as two of the cases are already pending against Ramanayake in the Nugegoda courts, the facts related to Pilapitiya too could be reported to the Nugegoda courts, and action initiated immediately.
The IGP’s letter seeking clarification over jurisdiction was sent to the AG on Monday, in response to a letter that the AG sent last Friday, asking for an explanation from Wickramaratne as to why he had failed to comply with the directive issued by him on 23 January, to immediately invoke the judicial process in the Pilapitiya case.
The Acting IGP did not give any explanation for the delay, but instead sought advice from the AG under which judicial jurisdiction to initiate action. “We have initiated action against the first accused (Ramanayake) and filed the ‘B’ report in the Nugegoda Magistrate’s Court. When I summoned officers of the CCD and others investigating the case, I was informed that their investigations did not yield any information about the location in which the offence was committed,” the IGP said in his letter.
The AG had, in the letter he sent last Friday, cautioned the Acting IGP on the possible violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution if he fails to comply with his directive.
“All instruments of governance must act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution including Article 12 (1), which states ‘all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law read with Article 4 which sets out the manner in which the sovereignty of the People shall be exercised and enjoyed.’ Article 12 (2) of the Constitution states that ‘No citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion, place of birth or any one of such grounds,’” the AG said.
The Acting IGP disregarded the directive from the AG sent on 23 January, and instead appointed a five-member committee to study instructions issued by the AG, saying he would await the report of the Committee before taking action
