Connect with us

News

AG undertakes High Court Judge will not be summoned over Yoshitha Rajapaksa case

Published

on

  •  Initial report detailed High Court Judge summoned another Judge regarding order.
  • Writ application filed by three senior Bar members protecting Rule of Law.
  • Dr. Romesh de Silva PC argued Judges cannot be questioned on judicial orders.
  •  Court issued interim order stopping steps on the summons.
  •  Attorney General later gave undertaking Judge would not be summoned as witness.
  •  Petitioners accepted relief; proceedings ended as principle accepted

 In a first time occurrence in the history of the country, a High Court Judge, at the request of the Attorney General’s Department, issued summons on another High Court Judge in order to question him regarding the correctness and accuracy of an order made by him.

The matter arose in criminal proceedings instituted against Yoshitha Rajapaksa.

Thereafter, three senior members of the Bar instituted filed a writ application in the Court of Appeal seeking to quash the summons, stating that their objective was to protect the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary. The Petitioners were President’s Counsel Uditha Egalahewa, President’s Counsel Farman Cassim and senior Attorney-at-Law Sugath Caldera.

The case was taken up on June 2 and Dr. Romesh de Silva, PC, appearing for the Petitioners and leading several President’s Counsel, submitted in the Court of Appeal that the application had been filed in the public interest to safeguard the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary.

Counsel drew the attention of Court to the Constitution, which recognizes the independence of the Judiciary as an intangible heritage of the people of Sri Lanka. He submitted that Sri Lanka had consistently recognized and protected judicial independence.

Dr. de Silva expressed appreciation to the three Petitioners for having come forward to protect the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary. He stated that it was the duty of the Bar to protect the judiciary, because Judges by nature of their office cannot defend themselves.

He submitted that a Judge could not be questioned regarding an order made by him in his judicial capacity. Counsel contended that judicial orders are subject to appeal and that, ultimately, orders of the Supreme Court are final and conclusive. He argued that no Judge, whether of a primary court or the Supreme Court, could be questioned regarding the correctness or accuracy of an order delivered in the exercise of judicial functions.

Counsel accepted that a judicial order itself may be subjected to scrutiny and analysis in an appropriate forum. However, he submitted that the Judge who delivered the order could not be questioned concerning its correctness.

Referring to the facts of the present case, Dr. de Silva submitted that the High Court Judge had been summoned to explain the basis upon which he had made the order in question. He maintained that, irrespective of the correctness of the order itself, the sole issue before Court was whether a Judge could be compelled to answer questions regarding an order delivered by him. Counsel submitted that such a course was totally impermissible.

State Counsel, in lengthy submissions, objecting to the interim order and notice informed Court that the intention behind summoning the Judge had been to question the Judge regarding the procedural steps adopted by him and to demonstrate that the order had been made contrary to law.

The Court of Appeal, comprising the President of the Court of Appeal Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justice Priyantha Fernando, thereafter adjourned to consider the matter and subsequently issued an interim order preventing any further steps being taken pursuant to the summons that had been issued.

The interim order was made operative for a period of one week in order to afford the Attorney General an opportunity, if necessary, to make further submissions.

When the matter was next called on June 12, State Counsel informed Court that the Attorney General had reconsidered his position and would give an undertaking to the Court of Appeal that the High Court Judge would not be summoned to give evidence.

Upon a request made by Dr. de Silva and after hearing submissions, the Attorney General further undertook that the Judge’s name would be removed from the list of witnesses filed in the High Court.

The Petitioners took the position that the undertakings furnished by the Attorney General substantially granted the relief sought in the application and accordingly stated that the proceedings could be brought to an end, as the principle contended for by the Petitioners had been accepted.

Dr. de Silva thanked the Attorney General for his reconsidered position.

It is noted that the State Counsel who appeared on behalf of the Judge who had issued the summons had previously appeared as junior counsel for the State before that same Judge when the summons had originally been issued at the request of the State.

 Dr. Romesh De Silva PC with

Mr. Ikram Mohommed PC

Mr. Manohara De Silva PC

Mr. Rohan Sahabandu PC

Mr. Sanjeewa Jayawardena PC

Mr. Saliya Peirs PC

Mr. N.R Sivendran AAL

Mr. Niran Anketell AAL

Mr. S.V Niles AAL

Mr.Pasindu Bandara AAL

Mr. Sahan Ginige AAL appeared for the Petitioners. Mr Oswald Perera State Counsel with Sajitha Bandara State Counsel appeared for the Attorney General and the second Respondent Hon Udesh Ranatunga under whose hand the Summons has been issued. Mr Chandaka Jayasundera PC appeared for Hon Sahan Mapa Bandara the third Respondent on 12th June 2026.



Latest News

Sun directly overhead Kokkuvil, Nallur, Kodikamam and Nagar Kovil at about 12.11 noon today (28)

Published

on

By

The sun is going to be directly over the latitudes of Sri Lanka during 28th of August to 07th of September due to its apparent southward relative motion.

The nearest places of Sri Lanka over which the sun is overhead today (28) are Kokkuvil, Nallur, Kodikamam and Nagar Kovil about 12.11 noon.

Continue Reading

News

Eight politicians in drug kingpin probe

Published

on

Police to arrest and question four former ministers, others over links to Basik

By Norman Palihawadane

Police are investigating alleged links between suspected major drug trafficker Shiran Basik and a number of prominent politicians, with eight of them due to be arrested and questioned as investigators widen their probe into his financial dealings and network of associates, police headquarters, according to a senior police officer.

Among those set to face questioning include a sitting MP, four former ministers, and at least one of them is a female. Police are also investigating allegations that Basik provided large sums of money to politicians during election campaigns and extended other financial and material benefits to political figures.

Investigators are also looking into claims that two politicians were provided with facilities to construct houses and hotels, while efforts are under way to establish the extent of political support and assistance allegedly provided to Basik.

The Colombo Central Crime Investigation Bureau (CCIB) is expected to question the politicians based on information reportedly disclosed by Basik during interrogation. Two electoral organisers are also expected to be taken into custody as part of the ongoing investigation, according to police sources.

Meanwhile, statements are being recorded from managers and employees of several businesses allegedly linked to Basik, while investigators continue to examine information and records recovered from his mobile phone.

Basik, 48, was brought back to Sri Lanka on August 14 after being arrested in Dubai and deported. He was taken into custody by officers of the Criminal Investigation Department’s Airport Unit at Bandaranaike International Airport and subsequently handed over to the CCIB for further investigation.

Police initially obtained a 72-hour detention order to question Basik before securing approval to detain him for 90 days.

Basik, a resident of Dehiwala, is facing investigations over alleged large-scale drug trafficking as well as firearms, and unlawful assembly of weapons-related offences. Police are also examining whether he had any involvement in recent prison-related incidents and have said information has emerged linking him to the 2012 Welikada Prison riot.

The investigation has also expanded to Basik’s alleged assets and business interests in Sri Lanka and overseas.

Police have said information uncovered during questioning indicates that Basik had claimed ownership of five hotels along Colombo’s Marine Drive. Investigators have also identified two houses and two mobile phone shops in Boralesgamuwa allegedly linked to him.

A court has ordered a comprehensive examination of bank accounts linked to Basik, with the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka to conduct a review of his financial accounts. A separate investigation into his wealth and properties is being conducted by the Illegal Assets Investigation Division.

Investigators are also examining claims that Basik owns properties, including hotels and vehicles, in several European countries, as well as a high-value vehicle in Dubai. These claims remain subject to further investigation.

Basik had left Sri Lanka for Dubai in 2018, where police said he lived a lavish lifestyle while operating businesses. He was arrested by UAE authorities before being deported to Sri Lanka.

During initial questioning, Basik told investigators that Dubai police had stopped and searched him at a shopping mall and examined his mobile phone. He claimed that footage relating to Iranian missile and drone attacks was found on the device and that he was subsequently questioned over alleged links to Iran.

Police are continuing to examine the circumstances surrounding his arrest and deportation, as well as the information contained in his mobile phone and other evidence gathered during the investigation.

The ongoing probe is being conducted under the supervision of Senior DIG Ranmal Kodituwakku and SSP Kamal Ariyawansa.The allegations against Basik and the politicians named in connection with the investigation have not been established in court, and the investigations remain ongoing.

Continue Reading

News

CJ first SC judge to benefit from 22A, if enacted: BASL

Published

on

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has opposed the proposed “Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution”, saying it raises serious concerns over judicial independence and the rights and interests of the public.

In a statement signed by BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya and Secretary Nalin De Silva, the association said it had challenged the constitutionality of the proposed amendment before the Supreme Court.

The BASL noted that the Chief Justice would be the first Supreme Court judge to benefit from the proposed amendment if it becomes law. It also referred to widespread speculation that the amendment was being expedited to facilitate an extension of the incumbent Chief Justice’s tenure, which is due to end on December 1, 2026.

Full text of the statement:

“The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has taken a principled position opposing the Bill titled the “Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution” on the basis that it raises serious concerns regarding the independence of the Judiciary and the rights and interests of the people. Accordingly, the BASL has challenged the constitutionality of the proposed amendment before the Supreme Court.

“It is observed that it will be the Honourable Chief Justice who will be the first Judge of the Supreme Court who will benefit from the 22nd Amendment, if this Bill is enacted into Law.

There is widespread belief that this amendment is being rushed to facilitate the extension of the tenure of the Honourable Chief Justice which would otherwise complete on 1st December 2026. In this backdrop, in the recent past, we have witnessed allegations being made in Parliamentary Proceedings as well as on Social Media concerning the Judiciary including the incumbent Chief Justice.

“During this period, the BASL has also been subjected to unfounded attacks on social media and other platforms.

“The Judiciary, like every other institution exercising public power, must remain subject to legitimate scrutiny and accountability. Judgments, judicial conduct and the administration of justice may properly be subjected to fair, informed and responsible criticism. Where credible concerns or allegations arise regarding any member of the Judiciary, including the Chief Justice, they should be examined objectively and addressed through the appropriate constitutional and parliamentary processes which are in place, with due regard to fairness and due process.

“At the same time, everyone must exercise responsibility when making allegations concerning individual judges, lawyers and others. Personal attacks based upon unsubstantiated allegations can undermine public confidence in the administration of justice and affect the independence and integrity of the judicial process and the system of justice

“Judicial independence is not intended to shield any individual from legitimate scrutiny or accountability. It is a safeguard for the people, ensuring that disputes are determined impartially and that individual rights, the Rule of Law and the constitutional order are protected.

“The BASL therefore calls upon all organs of the State, all parties concerned and the media to respect the role of the Judiciary and the system of administration of justice, while ensuring that any genuine concerns are addressed fairly, responsibly and through the procedures established by the Constitution and the law.”

Continue Reading

Trending