The loss of respect for law enforcement officers among protesters was evident from recent events injuring 80 police personnel, the death of a sergeant in Kebitigollewa and the court officer of the Nuwara Eliya Magistrate’s Court being attacked by civilians for simply carrying out their lawful duties, the Attorney-General’s (AG) Department said in the Fort [...]

News

Journalist’s plaint against 2 police officers: AG refers to lack of respect for law enforcement, urges court to consider lawlessness

View(s):

The loss of respect for law enforcement officers among protesters was evident from recent events injuring 80 police personnel, the death of a sergeant in Kebitigollewa and the court officer of the Nuwara Eliya Magistrate’s Court being attacked by civilians for simply carrying out their lawful duties, the Attorney-General’s (AG) Department said in the Fort Magistrate’s Court this week.

The Court was hearing a private plaint filed by journalist Tharindu Jayawardena alleging that SSP Roshan Dias and ASP Nalin Dilruk of the Colombo Division had wrongfully prevented and obstructed a peaceful protest near Galle Face on October 10, 2022.

Making submissions on behalf of the AG, State Counsel Shaminda Wickrema rebuffed the argument of Saliya Pieris, PC, counsel for the complainant, that facts had been suppressed and misrepresented in the plaint “with the sole intention of misleading Court to issue summons” on the two senior police officers. He urged the Court to consider the lawlessness that would ensue if this state of affairs was allowed to continue.

On October 21, counsel for Mr. Jayawardena moved Court ex-parte to issue summons on the two police officers. In response, the AG on November 1 moved Court to recall the summons, stating that submissions will be made when both parties were present. The case was taken up before Fort Magistrate Thilina Gamage on Tuesday.

Mr. Pieris objected to the appearance of the AG who was not a party named in the plaint. In response, Mr. Wickrema submitted that it was the AG’s bounden duty to assist Court by divulging the correct and true facts, “in a situation where facts are suppressed and misrepresented in media and Court is lied to by the complainant”. The resultant effects have already caused great harm and jeopardised the functioning of not only the two police officers named, but also all police officers who act in good faith, he said.

Mr. Wickrema submitted that the complainant had lied to Court and wilfully suppressed that the police had acted in terms of section 95 of Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) in dispersing an unlawful assembly in a deliberate attempt to avoid seeking the AG’s sanction.

Mr. Jayawardena had sent an unsigned notice regarding the protest march electronically, where he had also “threatened” the police officers with fundamental rights cases and private plaints, Mr Wickrema said, contending that this smacked of a pre-planned effort to implicate these police officers from the outset.

Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code was clear, he said– no prosecution could be instituted against a magistrate, police officer and other Government officials acting under Chapter VIII of the CCP, without the AG’s prior sanction.

Mr. Pieris, PC, appearing on behalf of Mr Jayawardena, submitted that the complainant had notified police by electronic messages of the demonstration. The protesters had engaged in a peaceful protest march along the pavement, until the police set up a barricade and obstructed their movement.

The offence committed by the two officers culminated at the point that the barricade was set up, Mr Pieris contended. As such, he maintained that this prosecution was against the actions of the police officers prior to their actions under Chapter VIII of the CCP. Therefore, the AG’s prior sanction was not necessary for this prosecution.

Disagreeing that facts were suppressed in the plaint, Mr. Pieris further stated that the AG was not a “privileged suitor” and should abide by the law as all other litigants. As such, notice should be given to the other party, if the case is to be called by a motion.

The Case was fixed for Order on the 25th of November.

Mohan Weerakoon, PC, appeared on behalf of the two police officers with 37 other counsel. The Police Legal Division was represented by DIG Asanga Karawita.

Saliya Pieris, PC, appeared for the complainant, and State Counsel Shaminda Wickrema appeared on behalf of the Attorney-General.

Share This Post

WhatsappDeliciousDiggGoogleStumbleuponRedditTechnoratiYahooBloggerMyspaceRSS

The best way to say that you found the home of your dreams is by finding it on Hitad.lk. We have listings for apartments for sale or rent in Sri Lanka, no matter what locale you're looking for! Whether you live in Colombo, Galle, Kandy, Matara, Jaffna and more - we've got them all!

Advertising Rates

Please contact the advertising office on 011 - 2479521 for the advertising rates.