Alleged abduction and murder of youth in Trinco: Mother of victim turns to SC; appeals for justice

By S.S. Selvanayagam

A mother, lamenting the impugned abduction, detention and execution of her son and three other colleagues of her son allegedly by Navy officers from Colombo, has appealed to the Supreme Court seeking fair play and justice to the victims.

The petitioner, Saroja Govindasamy Naganathan alias Maharachchige Sarojini Perera, filed her petition through Attorney-at-Law Brintha Chandragesh seeking Leave to Appeal disputing the impugned order of the Court of Appeal which dismissed her writ petition and declined to issue notices to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal in its decision inter alia has held there is no proper basis for claiming judicial review and also the case is not suitable for full investigation at a hearing.

The Petitioner cited the Attorney General and former Navy Commander Wasantha Karannagoda as Respondents-Respondents as well as three others as Petitioners-Respondents.

She states her son Rajiv Naganathan had been selected to study medicine at a leading university in London and was to leave the country on 18 September 2008. The day before he was to leave, i.e. the 17 September 2008, he, along with Vishvanathan Pradeep, Thillekeshvaran Ramalingam, and two others, namely Mohamed Saajith and Jamaldeen Dilon Mohammed, left Rajiv’s home at about 9:30 p.m., for Rajiv to get a haircut after which they were to go for a party that night. From this point, the boys disappeared.

Several months later, in January 2009, she had received a telephone call from son Rajiv wherein he had told her that he, along with the other young boys and girls, had been detained by the Navy. During several phone calls thereafter he indicated he was initially detained at the ‘Pittu Bambuwa’ and subsequently was being detained at the Trincomalee Navy Base (at an illegal detention centre named ‘Gun Side’), she states.

She states her son had told her that several other young girls and boys had been brought there and killed and he feared he too would be thus killed.

The last phone call she received from her son was on or around 21 May 2009 and certain individuals sought ransom for the safe return of her son and others abducted, she laments.

Parallel to the inquiry held by the Chief Magistrate of Colombo investigations were proceeding in the Fort Magistrate Court, in relation to, inter alia, alleged connections several Navy officers had maintained with the LTTE, she states. 

Much later, she had come to know that the CID suspected her son had been murdered soon after his final phone call to her on or around 21 May 2009, she bemoans. Pursuant to the investigations, a decision had been reached by the previous Attorney General to prosecute several individuals including the 2nd Respondent Wasantha Karannagoda, she states.

She states that as the Chief Justice was of the opinion that owing to the nature of the offence or the circumstances of the offence, in the interests of justice, a trial at bar should be held and that the Chief Justice, by order under his hand, directed that the trial of such individuals including the 2nd Respondent Wasantha Karannagoda should be held before the High Court at Bar by three judges without jury. 

Charges were framed under the Penal Code and several charges are framed against the 2nd Respondent Wasantha Karannagoda but such Charge Sheet was not served on him, she apprehends.

She states that by CA (Writ) 77/2020 the 2nd Respondent sought to stay the proceedings against him at the High Court at Bar and an interim order was granted by the Court of Appeal. 

Thereafter, on 4 August 2021, the High Court at Bar HC (TAB) 1448/2020, was informed that the Attorney General had decided not to further prosecute the 2nd Respondent, she was dismayed.

She and others challenged such decision of the Court of Appeal  by CA (Writ) 424/2021 and on 21 September 2021, averring that the petitioners were parents of the victims of the crimes which were being adjudicated who were abducted and illegally detained at the ‘Pittu Bambuwa’ and thereafter at ‘Gun Site’ in the Sri Lanka Naval and Marine Science Faculty premises in Trincomalee which was under the direct control of the 2nd Respondent Wasantha Karannagoda, the former Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy, she states. 

She points out the former Navy Commander Rear Admiral Travis Sinnaiya had made a statement indicating that the 2nd Respondent had ordered him not to interfere with the affairs of the aforesaid ‘Gun Site,’ where the 2nd Respondent had direct control over and that the 2nd Respondent was aware of the illegal detention of the victims.

She claims the 2nd Respondent had knowledge of the abduction and illegal detention of the victims at the time and later deliberately refrained from disclosing such in his Police complaint and attempted to avoid the Police and refused to assist investigations.

After lengthy investigations of more than 10 years, an indictment duly signed by the Registrar of the High Court against 14 Accused including the 2nd Respondent who is the 14th Accused, in HC (TAB) 1448/2020 was presented to Court, she states.

The 2nd Respondent thereafter filed a Writ Application and the Court of Appeal granted an interim order staying the proceedings of the HC (TAB) against the 2nd Respondent, she states. 

On 4 August 2021, Senior State Counsel informed the High Court that the Attorney General had decided not proceed with action against the 2nd Respondent, she bemoans.

The Petitioner’s Writ petition seeks to quash the decision recorded in HC (TAB) by the Attorney General to withdraw the indictment and/or the charges levelled against the 2nd Respondent, she states.

On 1 November 2021, the Additional Solicitor General moved the Court of Appeal to tender certain reports prepared by the Attorney General’s Department, on a confidential basis for perusal of the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal by the Order dated 10 November 2021 dismissed the application of the petitioners declining to issue Notice, she states.

Considering the gravity and nature of the offence, the interest of justice and all the material available to the Attorney General at the time, a High Court at Bar was constituted by the Chief Justice and an indictment issued, signed by the Registrar of the High Court and without any material being disclosed, and without permitting the Petitioner to be notified about any changes (if any), and comment on the same, it is manifestly unfair, arbitrary and irrational, for the 1st Respondent to now change his position vis-à-vis the High Court at Bar and the connected proceedings, she maintains.