News
Kurunegala mayor, suspects await ruling on arrest warrants
The Court of Appeal will rule on August 24 on whether to proceed with a writ application filed by Kurunegala Mayor Thushara Sanjeewa and four others seeking an order to quash the arrest warrants issued by the magistrate following the demolition of an archaeologically-significant building in Kurunegala.
The writ was taken up in the Court of Appeal on Wednesday before Justices A.H.M.D. Nawaz and R.M.S. Rajakaruna.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the magistrate’s arrest warrant was illegal on the basis that the magistrate did not have the power to do so.
The mayor and four others — municipal commissioner, municipal engineer, work supervisor and backhoe driver are charged with the destruction of the historic Buwanaka Hotel in Kurunegala, commonly referred to as the former Royal Court of King Buwanakabahu II.
Senior Additional Solicitor General Mr. Sarath Jayamanne PC told the court that similar to how the police are empowered to arrest the suspects without a warrant if they have a reasonable suspicion that they have committed offences, the magistrate is also empowered to assist the police during the investigation by issuing arrest warrants if requested.
He argued that it is provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, and will take place only if the magistrate, too, is convinced, based on the evidence, that there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspects have committed the offences.
Magistrates have issued arrest warrants to assist the police on other occasions, he said.
The petitioners argued that the police need not have gone to the magistrate, and could have arrested the suspects without a warrant.
But Mr Jayamanne said the police sought a warrant exercising an abundance of caution as well as maintaining transparency. In open court, the police had to show basis for the arrest and satisfy the magistrate as well.
The issuance of the warrant shows that the magistrate, too, had agreed with the police’s opinion that the individuals were complicit and should be arrested.
Mr Jayamanne laid out many factors that should be weighed by the court when considering the applications. He implored the court to consider the ramifications that issuing a writ would have; it would open the floodgates where even murderers would be allowed to remain free simply by filing a writ and asking for interim relief that they should not be arrested.
The counsel for petitioners argued that the magistrate ordering an arrest warrant was illegal on the basis that the magistrate did not have the power to do so.
However, Mr Jayamanne explained that similar to how the police are empowered to arrest the suspects without a warrant if they have a reasonable suspicion that they have committed offences, the magistrate is also empowered to assist the police during the investigation by issuing arrest warrants if requested.
The destruction was done with no regard for the emphatic instructions of the Archaeological Department that the building not be changed or altered without prior approval from them, the court was told.
Expert reports have shown that a backhoe was “driven in a haphazard manner, crashing into the columns of the building, causing instability not only in the ancient columns but also in the roof itself’’.
The police reported facts to the Magistrates’ Courts on August 7.
Expert reports from the directors general of the Archaeology Department and National Building Research Organization were also obtained and considered by the magistrate.
According to the suspects, the building became unstable on July 14th, and the roof collapsed, resulting in nearly the entire building collapsing later. They say that they had stored some combustible material in the building, and therefore they had to enter to retrieve it.
However, the expert reports by the DG of Archaeology as well as the DG of the National Building Research Organization show that this version of events is not accurate, the court was told.
The court was informed that the buildings come under the Antiquities Ordinance.
The petitioners were represented by Mr. Rienzie Arsecularatne PC, Mr. Kalinga Indatissa PC, Mr. Shavindra Fernando PC and A.L.M.N. Ameen.
The Attorney General was named as one of the respondents in all five applications, and was represented by Senior Additional Solicitor General Mr. Sarath Jayamanne PC, along with Senior Deputy Solicitor General Vikum de Abrew, Deputy Solicitor General Madhawa Tennakoon, Senior State Counsel Manohara Jayasinghe, and State Counsel Krishan Gunathilaka.