The Court of Appeal today directed the Attorney General to inform the court today (13) whether the magisterial inquiry initiated at Nugegoda Magistrate’s Court against High Court Judge Gihan Pilapitiya would proceed any further or not.
The Court of Appeal Justice Justice SobhithaRajakaruna and Justice Dhammika Ganepolamade this order under a writ petition filed by High Court Judge Gihan Pilapitiya, who sought an order preventing the IGP and his agents from arresting him regarding the controversial telephone conversations he had with former Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake.
The Court of Appeal has already issued an order directing police not to arrest High Court Judge Gihan Pilapitiya without an order issued by a competent Court.
The petitioner, High Court Judge GihanPilapitiya, is also seeking an interim order suspending the operation of the direction of the Attorney General to the Acting IGP to cause his arrest regarding these controversial telephone conversations.
In his petition, Petitioner Gihan Pilapitiya states that he filed this Application to safeguard his liberty, as well as in the interest of preserving the independence of the Judiciary and rule of law.
Pilapitiya says he is a Judicial Officer, appointed on the 1st January 2003, and at the time of his interdiction, was serving as the High Court Judge in Embilipitiya. The Petitioner further stated that during his entire career as a Judge he served the country and its people without any fear or favour and dedicated himself for the cause of dispensing justice and upholding the law to the best of his ability.
The Petitioner states that while serving as a High Court Judge the police recovered several tape recordings from the premises of Parliamentarian Ranjan Ramanayake. The Petitioner states that one such tape relates to a conversation between the Petitioner and the said Ranjan Ramanayake.
The Petitioner states that he received a letter dated 8th January 2020 from the Judicial Services Commission asking him to explain. The Petitioner states that as per newspaper reports, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has recommended the interdiction of the Petitioner to the President. The Petitioner states that subsequently, the President interdicted the Petitioner.
The Petitioner states that he is not guilty of any offence under the law. The Petitioner states that it was in the public media that an Officer of the Attorney General’s Department described herself as the “Coordinating Secretary to the Attorney General” has stated that the Attorney General has directed the Petitioner to be arrested.
The Petitioner states that it is reported in the press that the Attorney General has called for an explanation from the 1st Respondent to carry out the orders of the Attorney General to arrest the Petitioner. The Petitioner states that it was reported in the press that the Attorney General is not satisfied with the explanation given by the IGP.
