Supreme Court Judge Yasantha Kodagoda today recused himself from hearing the Fundamental Rights petition filed by former CID Director Shani Abeysekara.
Through this petition former CID Director is seeking an order preventing CID from arresting him in respect of the allegations mentioned at the Kuliyapitiya Magistrate’s Court relating to Easter Sunday attacks.
Justice Kodagoda who was a member of today’s bench, declined to hear this petition citing personal reasons.
President’s Counsel Saliya Pieris appearing for the petitioner moved court that the petitions filed by Shani Abaysekara and former CID Chief Ravi Seneviratne be taken up together on the next date since they encounter the same issue.
Taking into consideration the facts the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice S.Thurairaja, Justice Yasantha Kodagoda and Justice Mahinda Samayawardena fixed the petition for support on April 7.
Former CID Director also seeking an order restraining President Gotabaya Rajapakse from issuing a detention order in terms of section 9(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in his capacity as the Minister of Defence in respect of the allegations set out in a B-Report filed at the Kuliyapitiya Magistrate’s Court.
Shani Abaysekara said he became aware that on February 10, 2022 , a B report has been filed by Chief Inspector Lalitha Dissanayake alleging that as a result of the serious omissions made by the Petitioner paved the way to the Easter Sunday Attack.
Abeysekara further said the respondents are attempting to falsely implicate him by launching a biased, illegal and unreasonable investigation based on a false and belated anonymous petition alleging that he was derelict in his duties during the investigations of NTJ and Saharan.
The petitioner said the respondents are seeking to have him arrested and detained under the PTA or remanded him in mala fide.
The petitioner states that respondents ASP Meril Ranjan Lamahewa, Chief Inspector Niroshini Hewapathirana and Chief Inspector Induka Silva being the supervising officer and the inquiring officers respectively have an animosity towards the petitioner since petitioner has taken several disciplinary actions against them while he was in service.
The petitioner states that therefore these respondents are disqualified to hold any inquiry against the petitioner on the anonymous petition.
