News
Justice Abrew says indictment politically motivated, not based on evidence
View(s):Counsel for Supreme Court Judge Sarath de Abrew, supporting a fundamental rights application against his indictment for sexual assault on a domestic aide, argued on Friday that the indictment was arbitrary and politically motivated and was not based on evidence or investigations.
The petition was taken up for hearing by a three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice K. Sripavan, Justices Priyantha Jayawardane and Upali Abeyratne.
Judge Abrew’s conusel, Manohara de Silva, PC, claimed that the Attorney General had not exercised his powers in a reasonable and fair manner in indicting his client.
Justice Abrew was indicted on November 20 for sexual assault on a female domestic aide while she was working at his home this year.
Counsel de Silva questioned the contradictions in the two complaints made by the maid to the Mount Lavinia Police. He said in the first complaint on June 26, the runaway maid told the Mount Lavinia Police that she was assaulted by the judge, but a few days later she lodged another complaint claiming she was sexually assaulted by him.
He brought to the notice of the judges the woman’s failure to say in her first complaint about sexual assault.
In the FR petition, Judge Abrew says the ‘alleged sexual abuse’ had taken place on 15 June, the first day she was hired to work at the residence, but the complaint was made on or about 30 June when she was in the custody of a police officer and a women’s rights group.
When asked why she did not mention the sexual assault in the first complaint, she had claimed that if she did so, the judge had threatened to kill her children.
Counsel de Silva said if the alleged incident had taken place, the maid could have alerted the judge’s wife, his daughter or the other maid, Leelawathi, who were in the house at the time of this incident.
He said the maid’s complaint that she was assaulted on several days before she ran away on June 26, was false because whenever the judge’s wife and daughter were going out of the house, they took the maid also along with them.
He said the maid’s claim that she was kept a prisoner at the judge’s house was also false because she had gone to a textile shop, several hospitals and a plant nursery with the judge’s wife and daughter.
Besides, the maid had sent text messages to the judge, the counsel said. He asked whether a victim of sexual assault would send text messages to her abuser. He said this showed that there was something amiss in the complaint made by the maid.
Mr. de Silva also said the maid in her first compliant claimed that on June 26 around 2 pm, the judge assaulted her with the butt of his pistol.
He said this was a lie because he was hearing cases till 1.30 pm at the Supreme Court and thereafter he worked in his chambers till 4 pm and he reached home only much later on that day.
The lawyer said it was evident that Justice Abrew was indicted on insufficient grounds. “The decision to indict the petitioner for alleged offences inter alia under section 365B of the Penal Code is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, malicious, unreasonable, politically motivated and violates the petitioner’s fundamental rights,” he claims in the petition.
Mr. Silva asked to record statements from the manager of the textile garment shop, doctors who treated Justice Abrew’s wife and daughter, and the proprietor of the plant nursery for a fair investigation.
He said that they could speak for or against Justice Abrew but their statements were vital for this case.
Countering the argument, Additional Solicitor General Yashantha Kodagoda, PC, said the Attorney General had not succumbed to any pressure and there was no interference from outside.
He insisted that the indictment was filed purely on the evidence available.
Meanwhile Justice Abrew has sent in his papers to the President stating he would retire from the judicial service from January 2. This was also mentioned in his petition to the Supreme Court.
\He said he was seeking premature retirement under extreme duress, “for the reason that the petitioner was assured through several sources that no indictment or other charges would be preferred against him by the Attorney General if he retires from service.”
He said that in the circumstances to avoid bringing embarrassment to the judiciary, he had decided to retire prematurely.
The FR case will be taken up in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Meanwhile the Colombo High Court issued summons on Justice Abrew to appear in court on January 12, 2016.