brand logo

PCoI on Political Victimisation report: PCoI respondents to go to Courts, LfD 

31 Jan 2021

  • Report has no basis: MP Sumanthiran PC 

  • Says will take action based on legal advice 

  Most of those who named as respondents in the complaints filed before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) to investigate incidents of political victimisation – who were themselves complainants before various law enforcement authorities and judicial bodies against the complainants at the said PCoI – are likely to go before Court seeking orders to nullify the PCoI’s decisions and recommendations, The Sunday Morning learnt.  The three-member PCoI appointed by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in January 2020, and chaired by retired Supreme Court Judge Justice Upali Abeyratne, had a mandate to investigate incidents of political victimisation that are alleged to have happened to public officers, employees of government corporations, and members of the armed forces and the police service. These incidents are alleged to have taken place during the period between 8 January 2015 and 16 November 2019, during the tenure of the United National Front-led “(Yahapalana) Good Governance” Government.  Other members of the PCoI included retired Court of Appeal Judge Justice Daya Chandrasiri Jayathilake, and retired Inspector General of Police Chandra Fernando.  With regard to the implementation of the decisions and recommendations contained in the report of the said PCoI, which was handed over to the President recently, the Cabinet of Ministers on 18 January approved the submission of the report to Parliament, and to take necessary steps to implement the decisions and recommendations of the report.   Complainants before the PCoI have alleged the abusive and improper use of authority, power, and state resources, and undue influence exerted by third parties on the investigating law enforcement authorities, namely the Police Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID), the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), police special investigations units, and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC).  Contacting The Sunday Morning in this regard, a Convener of the Lawyers for Democracy (LfD) organisation Lal Wijenayake further claimed that the PCoI has cleared guilty parties who lodged complaints with the PCoI citing political vengeance wrought by the original complainants, specifically claiming that cases had been filed against them by the original complainants at the Police FCID, the CID, and the CIABOC for political reasons, and have instead ordered the original complainants listed as respondents before the PCoI to be charged.  “Most of those who have been made respondents in the cases filed before this PCoI, who were themselves complainants before various law enforcement authorities and judicial bodies against the complainants at the said PCoI, will likely go before Court seeking orders to nullify the PCoI’s decisions and recommendations,” he claimed.  Issuing a press release in this regard, the LfD claimed that Sri Lanka still clings to the Special PCoI Act, No. 7 of 1978, as amended by the Special PCoI (Special Provisions) Act, No. 4 of 1978, for what they described to be the dastardly purpose of making dark characters white. The LfD was of the view that it is high time Sri Lanka repeals this piece of legislation, because to clear persons pronounced guilty of criminal acts as innocent of those acts is also, in their reading, vindictive. “It is surprising that there are moves to make the complainants into these charges against criminals to be proclaimed as the accused. This will mean that a Commission, which is not a court of law, has the right to make observations and/or decisions above the established courts of law. This is a blatant violation of the rule of law and the independence of the Judiciary (vide Bandaranaike v. Weeraratne and Two Others 1/1978 SLR 412),” the release further read.  J.C. Weliamuna PC, who is also a Convener of the LfD, was also issued notice by the PCoI previously, in connection with the hearings into the complaints.   MP M.A. Sumanthiran PC, who had also been named a respondent to complaints that had been lodged with the PCoI, when contacted by The Sunday Morning in this regard, said that since the PCoI’s report had no foundation at all, it was not something that had any standing.  “Summons had been issued to me for not appearing before the PCoI on a particular day. I received the relevant summons on an evening of a day when there were parliamentary proceedings also, and I subsequently raised a privilege issue regarding the matter, which the Speaker said he would address.  “Further, I applied for the relevant PCoI proceedings, but did not receive such. Also, I have been implicated in a complaint by Batticaloa District Thamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal MP Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan alias Pillayan, when it was the Attorney General who indicted him. I have no knowledge of such.”  He further said that he will take whatever action necessary as advised by his lawyers. 


More News..