The Court of Appeal quashes the magisterial inquiry against High Court Judge Gihan Pilapiitya

The Court of Appeal today issued a writ of Prohibition preventing the Nugegoda Magistrate from proceeding with the magisterial inquiry against High Court Judge Gihan Pilapitiya in connection with a telephone conversation he allegedly had with former Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake. The Court of Appeal further issued a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of Nugegoda Magistrate to name High Court Judge Pilapitiya as a suspect pertaining to magisterial inquiry in connection with this incident. The Court of Appeal two-judge-bench comprising Justice Sobhitha Rajakaruna and Justice Dhammika Ganepola made this order pursuant to a writ petition filed by former High Court Judge Gihan Pilapitiya who also sought an order preventing the IGP and his agents from arresting him regarding this incident. The Inspector General of Police had earlier informed Court that investigations carried out against High Court Judge Gihan Pilapitiya had not revealed sufficient evidence to proceed with the magisterial inquiry. 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. In his petition, Petitioner Gihan Pilapitiya states that he filed this Application in his capacity to safeguard his liberty as well as in the interest of preserving the independence of the Judiciary and rule of law. The Petitioner says he is a Judicial Officer having been appointed on the 1st January 2003 and up to the time of his interdiction, was serving as a Judge of the High Court of the Republic 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 of such tapes related 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 known as herself 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.