News
Champika’s arrest- a clear question of the Rule of Law
View(s):The 19th Amendment enacted by the previous Government created and provided a framework for the AG, Judiciary and Police to act independently. But a framework will not help unless those who man these institutions assert and exercise their independendence and professionalism 
The circumstances that led to the arrest of former Minister Champika Ranawaka last week and the manner in which the JHU Leader was arrested have serious implications for the Rule of Law in the country. For all intents and purposes Ranawaka has been arrested in respect of an accident that took place in 2016 when one Sandeep Gunawardene was badly hurt.
In the absence of an official Police spokesperson who could give authentic information one has to piece together bits and pieces of information in the media to understand the basis on which the string of events that led to the arrest of the former Minister took place.
According to media reports the accident took place at the Sarana Road Sri Jayawerdenepura Road (Parliament Road) junction at about 10 p.m. when Sandeep and his friends were returning from a motor show at the BMICH. The affidavits of Sandeep’s friends given soon after the incident state that he was riding a 1000 cc motor cycle and seemed to suggest that Sandeep had hit the rear of the vehicle that the former Minister was alleged to have driven.
As a result of the incident Sandeep had suffered serious injuries and has not yet fully recovered as evidenced by the television visuals broadcast last week.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the arrest of Champika Ranawaka last week has been the media coverage which has all but found him guilty through a media trial which is biased and not accurate with regard to the details of the incident. In fact media keep referring to the incident as a hit and run accident when there are statements contained in the affidavits of Sandeep’s friends that in fact the motor cycle had hit the rear of the jeep which was involved in the accident. The media does not state who the eye witnesses who spoke to the nature of the accident nor do they refer to the fact that there was also a different version of the incident by Sandeep’s friends.
In the Court proceedings that followed the accident the motor cycle rider was fined Rs. 3500 for negligent riding,
A finding with regard to the contested facts relating to the accident are best left to be decided by a competent court after trial. But what is of relevance for the Rule of Law is the process followed by the law enforcement authorities.
The fact that the Police acted with a pre determined objective of arresting the former Minister is evident from their conduct. If some new evidence had emerged that prompted the Police to re-open the case and conduct fresh investigations, such a course of action should have been undertaken in a different manner.
The logical process would have been to first question the Police officers who conducted the original investigations, the driver of Champika Ranawake and the CCTV footage which is said to have been examined by the original investigators as well as fresh evidence that may have emerged of the incident and report such findings to Court with the Attorney General seeking to reopen the case.
A similar process was followed by the Police in the case of Rugby player Thajudeen’s case. The investigation was begun afresh and the Police officers who conducted the original investigation were questioned and other evidence gathered before the Police made an application to Court to reopen proceedings and make an application to court to exhume the deceased’s body.
It was after all these steps were pursued and the fresh evidence placed before the Court that the determination of accidental death that was originally returned was changed to a finding of homicide and two officers involved in the initial investigation were arrested on charges of suppressing evidence.
In the Champika Ranawaka case the Police seem to be following the reverse process by arresting Ranawaka and then looking for evidence. An example of this is the visit to the residence of the driver of Champika Ranawaka to question him after the ex Minister’s arrest.
The decision of the Attorney General’s Department to order the arrest of the former Minister has also raised quite a few eyebrows. More so since the AG’s Department did not take any action when Sandeep was fined by the Courts after the accident when he pleaded guilty to a traffic offence and in the absence of any reports of new evidence emerging.
In fact when the Police went to arrest Champika Ranawake at his residence he had challenged the Police that they had no warrant to do so. At a news conference held the following day Member of Parliament Udaya Gammanpila who is also an Attorney at Law had defended the Police action stating that they had the authority of the Attorney General which he stated was more powerful than a warrant. Apart from the fact that the validity of this argument is questionable, such a defence of Police action would have been more appropriately made by a Police spokesman rather than a politician being forced to act as unofficial Police spokesman.
The speed with which the AG’s Department has acted is also being discussed in legal circles as being contrasted with the way many files relating to alleged transgressions prior to November 16, 2019 in the custody of the Department had not being attended to .
The Island newspaper in its editorial of Friday December 20, 2019 raises this same question. It goes on to state as follows: “ The AG’s Department has refused to accept Ranawaka’s claim that he was not involved in the accident but also the judicial decision at issue. It has woken up from its slumber like Rip Van Winkle. Why didn’t it raise objections previously? One may argue that the case may not have been reopened but for the recent regime change. Why didn’t it respond to calls for justice earlier? An explanation is called for.”
One of the open and shut cases in the custody of the AG’s Department which does not require much investigation as it was played out in front of TV cameras and in the full glare of publicity is the behavior of Parliamentarians during the October 26, 2018 crisis. The Parliamentary report of the internal investigations conducted by the august body has been sent to the AG several months ago and does not require much further investigation.
It will be a national beneficial action if those against whom there is evidence are brought to trial before the forthcoming Parliamentary elections. This will enable the voter to make an informed decision when exercising his fracnhise at the Parliamentary Election
Apart from the impact on the Rule of Law, the Champika Ranawaka incident has political implications. Soon after the accident occurred in February 2016 the friends of Sandeep addressed a Petition to then President Maitripala Sirisena requesting his intervention to address Sandeep’s concerns. Today Maitripala Sirisena is co-Chairman of the SLPP-SLFP Alliance and a criticism of what happened in 2016 is a reflection on him as well.
(javidyusuf@gmail.com)