The Court of Appeal today ordered that the interlocutory petitions filed by former State Intelligence Service Director Suresh Saleh challenging his arrest and detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be called for further consideration on the 6th of this month.
When the interlocutory petitions were called before the Court of Appeal bench comprising Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Priyantha Fernando, President’s Counsel Sanjeewa Jayawardena, who appeared for petitioner Suresh Saleh, stated in court that he would not object to the interlocutory petitions.
He also said that he was happy that His Eminence Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith had filed an interlocutory petition against his client’s petition.
Thereafter, Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath, appearing for the respondents including the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department, Shani Abeysekara, stated that he would object to the consideration of these interlocutory petitions.
Citing several specific previous case decisions, the Deputy Solicitor General argued that it was not possible to grant approval to these interlocutory petitions based on those case decisions.
However, the Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeal stated that he would also draw the attention of the court to the matters presented by these interlocutory petitioners.
The Presiding Judge asked the lawyers to limit their speeches related to the petitions to ten minutes, stating that his court would hear all the interlocutory petitions filed for and against Suresh’s petition.
Thereafter, President’s Counsel Manohara de Silva, who appeared on behalf of Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekara, the convener of the Patriotic National Movement, who had filed an interlocutory petition, stated that his clients had filed this interlocutory petition in view of the abuse of power by the executive.
The detention orders issued to detain the petitioner were completely contrary to the law. He said that the respondents had not presented any evidence to the court that the petitioner was involved in the Easter attacks. He further stated as follows:
”My clients filed this interlocutory petition to protect the rule of law and the sovereignty of the people. The investigators here have been appointed by the Catholic Church. Leader of the House and Minister Bimal Ratnayake had stated in a statement in Parliament that at the request of the Cardinal, the head of the Catholic community, Shani Abeysekara was appointed for this investigation. I have also submitted the relevant Hansard report to the court. Can a fair investigation be expected under this situation? How can we expect justice for Suresh Saleh from the investigators selected by an aggrieved party in the Easter attacks?
Several investigation committees related to the Easter attacks have recommended that action be taken against Shani Abeysekara and Ravi Seneviratne under the Criminal Code. How can the arrest and detention of the petitioner be justified under this situation? An officer of the Attorney General’s Department has stated to a retired security force member who appeared before a court that he cannot accept the words of those people who come with pieces of iron bars hanging from them. This is the attitude that exists towards security forces members today. This is a dangerous situation. This situation is a reason to discourage young people from joining the security forces.”
Appearing for the Patriotic People’s Movement, which filed another interlocutory petition, President’s Counsel Uditha Igalahewa stated before the court that there is no legal impediment for the interlocutory parties to file such interlocutory petitions. He also submitted several case decisions confirming this to the court.
Stating that the Prevention of Terrorism Act cannot be used to inconvenience individuals in this way, the President’s Counsel said that investigators are not allowed to misuse the Act.
He pointed out that the Supreme Court had recently given a ruling regarding the arrest of Wasantha Mudalige and that the Supreme Court had emphasized through that ruling that the Prevention of Terrorism Act cannot be misused.