News
FR petition postponed as 2 of 3 Judges decline to sit
View(s):The Fundamental Rights (FR) petition filed by a Central Bank (CB) employee who appeared before the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the Bond issue, was postponed till Nov.10, consequent to two of the three Judges on the Bench, declining to hear the case. Petitioner, S. Pathumanapan, a CB employee cited Dappula de Livera P.C. and other officials of the Attorney General’s (AG) Dept assisting the CoI to Investigate and Inquire into the Issuance of Treasury Bonds (TB) among the 20 respondents.
Petitioner states he had been summoned to appear before the CoI on Mar.20, 2017, when he had duly presented himself before it and had been interviewed at the Commission premises by two AG Dept officials. Petitioner, thereafter, provided a statement in English, to the CID officer, primarily concerning personal details and the process of EPF bidding at the Feb.27, 2015, TB auction.
On Saturday, Jul.29, 2017, Petitioner had been informed by a superior at the Public Debt Dept of the CB, via a telephone call, about a ‘consultation’ scheduled at the AG’s Dept, on the same day at 3.30 pm. Petitioner states that, when he went for the meeting, the 1st to the 5th Respondents, all officials of the AG’s Dept assisting the CoI, had questioned him in an “ aggressive, threatening and humiliating manner”, called him a liar, told him he was in big trouble, and said the Petitioner’s face was full of guilt, he alleged in the petition.
They had also taken the phone from his hand, got him to unlock and gone through its contests without his permission. This interrogation had continued till around 6:30 pm. He had been resummoned on Sept.6 and subject to similar treatment by the said officials, the Petitioner said. When the 3-member Bench comprising Justices Vijith Malalgoda, Sisira de Abrew and Justice Priyantha Jayawardena took up the case, two of the Judges declined to hear the case.
Justice Jayawardena said two of the Respondents in the case are his close friends and hence, he would not hear the case, while Justice de Abrew said the Respondents cited in the petition, including members of the AG’s Dept and two Supreme Court Judges sitting in the CoI, were known to him.
However, Justice Malalgoda informed he would do his professional obligation to hear the petition.
Petitioner pleaded for leave to proceed with his application, as well as an Interim Order preventing his interdiction and/or issuance of a charge sheet, until the final hearing and determination of this matter.