News
Petition against Mohan Peiris in Supreme Court
The recent crisis over the independence of the judiciary has taken a new turn with two petitioners seeking an order to investigate allegations against Mohan Peiris and a change in the Supreme Court bench he appointed to hear a case filed by them.
The petition filed in the Supreme Court sought an order — a Writ of Mandamus – for the Commission probing allegations of bribery and corruption to initiate action against Mr. Peiris. They charged that while serving as Attorney General, Mr. Peiris had shown no interest to proceed with the case against Colombo Dockyard Ltd (CDL) to claim Rs. 619 million in taxes from the sale of 21 marine craft.
The petitioners — Customs Deputy Superintendent T.R Rathnasiri and lawyer Nagananda Kodituwakku — also protested against the nominations of Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, Justice Sisira de Abrew and Justice Priyantha Jayewardene to the bench to hear the case as they were appointed by Mr. Peiris in his capacity as Chief Justice at the time.
The Petitioners said investigations conducted so far had revealed that CDL had sold 21 marine craft by illegally claiming Board of Investment concessions.
The CDL had not applied for BOI and Customs permission for the sale of 21 marine craft. They alleged that tax evasion in this deal amounted to more than Rs. 619 million.
The petitioners said this allegedlyfraudulent deal had taken place in 2000 but investigations were inordinately delayed and it went to the Supreme Court in 2009.
They alleged that Mr. Peiris had misused his office to put off the case on several occasion. Finally on August 30, 2010, the case was dismissed by the Supreme Court since the Attorney General had not properly briefed the court.
The first petitioner said he had filed a Fundamental Right case against the alleged excesses of Mr. Peiris but a bench appointed by Mr. Peiris had dismissed the case.
Later the petitioners went to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption. They then went to the Court of Appeal seeking a directive for the Commission to probe these allegations. But the Court of Appeal said it had no jurisdiction and asked the petitioners to go to the Supreme Court.
The petitioners allege that Mr. Peiris had abused his office and thereby caused colossal losses to the state. Therefore, the allegations warranted an investigation by the Bribery Commission.