Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka)

SC STAYS BC CASE AGAINST MOHAN PEIRIS AND JUSTICE NAWAZ

SC directed the parties to file objections Case filed against three suspects

- BY S.S. SELVANAYAG­AM

The Supreme Court yesterday stayed the proceeding­s in the Colombo Magistrate’s Court in the case filed by the Bribery Commission (BC) against former Chief Justice Mohan Peiris and the incumbent superior Court Justice A.H.M.D. Nawaz, until the final determinat­ion of the writ petition.

The Bench comprising Justices Eva Wanasunder­a, Nalin Perera and Prasanna S. Jayawardan­e issued the interim order pursuant to the writ petition filed by former Chief Justice seeking to quash the decision of the Bribery Commission to institute proceeding­s against them in the Colombo Magistrate’s Court.

Court directed the parties to file objections and counter objections and fixed the matter for hearing on July 19.

Petitioner Mohan Peiris cited Justice Nawaz, Bribery Commission Chairman Justice T.B. Weerasuriy­a, Members of the Bribery Commission Justice W.L.R. Silva and Neville Guruge, Director General of the Bribery Commission Sarath Jayamanne, the Attorney General and Colombo Chief Magistrate Lal Bandara as respondent­s.

Gamini Marapane PC with Nigel Hatch PC, Dr Harsha Cabraal PC, Palitha Kumarasing­he PC and Navin Marapana appeared for the Petitioner Mohan Peiris. K.kanag Iswaran PC appeared for Justice Nawaz. Romesh de Silva PC with Sugath Caldera and Manjula Fernandopu­lle and Niran Anketell appeared for the Bar Associatio­n of Sri Lanka. J.C. Weliamuna PC appeared for the Bribery Commission. Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Rajaratnam appeared for the Attorney General.

The Bribery Commission had earlier filed a corruption case against Mohan Peiris (former Chief Justice and former Attorney General), A.H.M.D. Navas (former Solicitor General and current Court of Appeal Justice) and M.M.C. Ferdinande­s (former Secretary of Lanka Electricit­y Company) in Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court.

The case was filed against the three suspects on charges of preparing a wrongful Attorney General’s opinion to avoid taking criminal investigat­ion on irregulari­ties and corruption reported in land purchases for LECO between December 1 and 30, 2010 when Mohan Peiris was the Attorney General.

the Attorney General’s opinion received that there was no need of a criminal investigat­ion on the matter

According to the Bribery Commission it was revealed that the CID had earlier initiated an investigat­ion into the alleged irregulari­ties at the LECO (Lanka Electricit­y Company). But the Secretary of the LECO had then sought the opinion of the Attorney General over the need of a criminal investigat­ion on the matter.

Later the Attorney General’s opinion received that there was no need of a criminal investigat­ion on the matter. Bribery Commission said that the Attorney General’s opinion had wrongfully prevented the CID from continuing the investigat­ion on the allegation at the LECO and certain alleged people, who had been involved in the irregulari­ties, from being charged in a criminal case.

Bribery Commission filed charges under Section 70 (Corruption) of the Bribery Act and Sections 102 (abetment) and 113 (a) (Conspiracy) of the Penal Code.

The Petitioner­s was of the view that the Attorney General’s opinion which was given over the matter was solely within the official capacity and that there was a legal privilege under the Evidence Ordinance which prevents the Bribery Commission from questionin­g the Attorney General over his opinion on a matter.

However, the Counter argument was moved that the then Attorney General had violated the code of practice when delivering the opinion (no need of criminal investigat­ion over the allegation) by ignoring the clear evidence transpired at the onset of the matter.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Sri Lanka