The Respondents of the petition are Acting IGP C.D. Wickramaratne, Director of CID SSP W. Thilakaratne, Chief Inspector Karunatilaka of the CID, OIC of the SIU Unit 3 Deepani Menike, OIC of the CID Mihindu Abeysinghe, as well as the Attorney General Dappula de Livera asPetitioner Gowry Shangary Thavarajah filed the petition upon her personal knowledge, from documents and information made available to her and from instructions.The petitioner has received instructions from the Hizbullah family, namely his Egyptian wife Mariam M. Khalifa and his father Neina Mohamed Hizbullah.The petitioner state that Hizbullah has been denied the assistance and advice of an Attorney-at-Law and has been informed that no access would be provided to him in the future;
She further claims that the said Attorneys-at-Law who sought to assist, advice and represent Hizbullah have been denied the meaningful exercise to their right to do so.
In the petition she further states that Hizbullah has been denied the effective exercise of his Right to be heard and be properly represented by an Attorney-at-Law before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Petitioner seeks the court to;
(a) Grant leave to proceed in the first instance;
(b) Grant and issue Interim Orders directing the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th Respondents until the hearing and final determination to:
(c) Permit designated lawyers representing Hizbullah to have access to him on such dates and times as determined by the Supreme Court as well as to permit in the same manner his wife, siblings and parents to visit him on such dates and times as determined by Court.
She is asking an Interim Order from the court to immediately produce Hizbullah before the relevant Magistrate’s Court and/or before this Court, as well as another Interim Order directing his release from custody on such terms and conditions which the Court deems reasonable, pending the hearing and final determination.
She seeks the Court to make Interim Order suspending and/or varying the operation of the purported Detention Order and/or the decisions contained therein pending the final hearing and determination.
She seeks a Declaration from the Court that the acts and/or omissions of one and/or more of the Respondents inclusive of the arrest and/or detention and/or issuance of a Detention Order in this respect constitute infringements and/or imminent infringements and/or continuing infringements of his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
She asks for Declarations that his arrest is unlawful, void ab initio and of no force or effect in law and his detention is unlawful, void ab initio and of no force or effect in law; as well as an Order quashing and/or declaring that the purported Detention Order and/or the decisions contained therein are unlawful, void ab initio and of no force or effect in law.