The Public Service Commission (PSC) has responded to the Attorney General’s recommendation that disciplinary action be taken against Deputy Solicitor General Azard Navavi and State Counsel Malik Azeez, who were entrusted with the file on National Thowheed Jamaat (NTJ) and its leader Zahran Hashim, for lapses in handling the case, the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) investigating Easter Sunday attacks was informed yesterday.

This was revealed when Attorney General (AG) Dappula de Livera’s Coordinating Officer, State Counsel, Nishara Jayaratne appeared before the PCoI.

The commission prevented the counsel disclosing the PSC decision.

A request by Shavindra Fernando, PC, who appeared for Navavi, to declare Jayaratne guilty of contempt of PCoI was rejected by a majority of the Commissioners.

AG Dappula de Livera’s Coordinating Officer, State Counsel, Nishara Jayaratne was ordered to appear before the PCoI considering a request made by Shavindra Fernando, PC, on 15 December 2020.

On that day, it was revealed that the Attorney General had recommended disciplinary action against Deputy Solicitor General Azard Navavi and State Counsel Malik Azeez, who were given the file on National Thowheed Jamaat (NTJ) and its leader Zahran Hashim as far back as 2017. A preliminary inquiry on the duo by a three member committee had also been concluded and the investigators recommendations together with charge sheets had been sent to the Public Service Commission (PSC), Additional Solicitor General, Sumathi Dharmawardena told the PCoI, yesterday.

On 05 December Deputy Solicitor General Navavi said that the Attorney General’s Department had paid attention to the file on NTJ leader Zahran Hashim, sent by Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) seeking their advice, only three weeks after the Easter Sunday attacks. Chairman of the PCoI asked Navavi what the AG’s Department did about the file on Zahran, sent by the TID for legal advice. Navavi said that he received the file on 07 June 2017 and that he designated State Counsel Malik Azeez, who was under him, to handle the file. Both men insisted that the TID had not furnished the information it had in its possession about NTJ and Zahran until 2019.

Additional Solicitor General, Sumathi Dharmawardena was called before the PCoI to shed more light on the matter. Dharmawardena is also in charge of administration at the AG’s Department. Dharmawardena said that in 2019, he testified before the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on the Easter Sunday attacks on the file TID had sent.

Dharmawardena added that he had drawn Attorney General Dappula de Livera’s attention to the final report of the PSC on or around 24 February 2020. The following day, Livera had recommended that an inquiry be conducted on Navavi and Azeez. Initially, the investigation was to be conducted by Deputy Solicitor General, Susantha Balapatabendi.

However on 13 March 2020, a three-member committee consisting of Senior Additional Solicitor General, Sarath Jayamanne, Balapatabendi and Senior Deputy Solicitor General, Mayadunne Corea was appointed. Jayamanne resigned from the committee on 29 May 2020 and on 01 June 2020, Additional Solicitor General, Priyantha Nawana was made the head of the Committee, Dharmawardena said.

The committee completed the investigation in July 2020 and the report had been sent to him, Dharmawardena said. The document contained draft charge sheets. It was given to Acting Solicitor General Sanjay Rajaratnam for further recommendations. On 27 July 2020, Rajaratnam had recommended disciplinary action, Dharmawardena said.

Shavindra Fernando, PC, who appeared for Navavi then brought Dharmawardena’s attention to a letter the AG sent to acting IGP on 18 June 2020. In the letter Livera has said law officers of the AG’s Department had done nothing wrong.

Fernando: “On 10 June 2019, the coordinating officer to the AG repeated the claim in a press release. It is obvious that AG didn’t think Navavi and Azeez had done anything wrong.” Fernando then asked the PCoI to summon State Counsel, Nishara Jayaratne as she was responsible for issuing press releases.

Jayaratne arrived at PCoI last Friday and soon got into a heated argument with Fernando, who accused her of contempt of PCoI. Jayaratne, who had appeared without a lawyer, sought legal advice and PCoI granted her time till yesterday.

Jayaratne yesterday appeared with another counsel from the AG’s Department and Fernando objected to it. However, Senior Deputy Solicitor General Vikum de Abrew said the counsel could appear on behalf of Jayaratne.

De Abrew also said that PSC had responded, on 15 December 2020, to the report the AG’s Department sent on Navavi and Azeez.

Chairman of the PCoI: “If you want to say something about what the PSC said about your recommendation, please let us know through the Department.”

Then the cross examination of Jayaratne began.

Shavindra Fernando PC: “The letter the AG sent to the acting IGP on 18 June 2020 states that the law officers of the AG’s Department had done nothing wrong. Isn’t this his opinion on the matter?”

Senior Deputy Solicitor General Vikum de Abrew said: “My learned friend has asked this question 18 times before. The witness has already responded.”

Fernando: “I am repeating myself because I didn’t get a straight answer. The letter to the acting IGP reflected the AG’s opinion. Isn’t that so?”

Jayaratne: “This letter doesn’t contain the AG’s opinion. It contains instructions to the then acting IGP. Twice the AG said, “I advise.” There are two sides to a coin. The AG advises the acting IGP to conduct further investigations because the file is incomplete. On the other hand, we don’t need to inform the acting IGP if our law officers have made lapses.”

Fernando then told PCoI that Jayaratne was not giving straight forward answers just like she had done the previous day. He again urged the PCoI to consider Jayaratne guilty of contempt of PCoI.

Jayaratne said that it was unfair to make the allegation and that it was an attempt to tarnish her image. She said: “I never insulted the commission. I answered all the questions. They are trying to tarnish my reputation and the post I hold.”

The Chairman of the PCoI said that she was guilty of contempt, but the other commissioners were of the view that she was not.