Case
against a cop

Srinath
Wedisinghe and Ravi Karunanayake |
By
Wilson Gnanadass
Perhaps
for the first time in the country's history a learned
magistrate was compelled to tell Sri Lankan police officers
not to behave like dogs and donkeys.
This
was the highlight last week when a senior police officer
tried to act on instructions of some politicians
disregarding their responsibilities in trying to arrest the
vociferous United National Party (UNP) Kotte Organiser, Ravi
Karunanayake described as a 'bulldozer.' |
It
is no secret that Karunanayake is one of the biggest threats to
the United People's Freedom Alliance (UPFA) and it is also well
known that the state is attempting to tarnish his political image
and most of all tie his hands.
Chaos
The
drama began to unfold last Wednesday (23) at around 5.30 pm when a
police party attempted to arrest Karunanayake. Karunanayake was
about to leave his residence and go out when he was told that ASP
Srinath Wedisinghe from Thimbirigasyaya was there to see him.
Wedisinghe
was no stranger to Karunanayake as only two weeks ago Wedisinghe
questioned Karunanayake for almost six hours regarding the lease
of Abdul Cader Building when Karunanayake was the Commerce and
Consumer Affairs Minister. The allegation is that Rs. 25.5 million
was released out of public funds on Karunanayake's instructions to
prevent a building belonging to former UNP Minister A. R .M. Abdul
Cader from being confiscated by the Hatton National Bank.
Karunanayake
inquired from the officer what he wanted. The response thereafter
was cause for chaos.
Wedisinghe
told Karunanayake that he wanted to arrest him. Karunanayake
inquired as to whether he was in possession of a warrant to arrest
him and Wedisinghe confidently said yes.
No
court order
Karunanayake
at this time wanted to know the causes for the arrest, for which
the officer could not give a clear answer.
Karunanayake
thereafter informed the officer to take a seat and called his
lawyer G. G. Arulpragasam who was at the residence of Romesh de
Silva PC, along with Prof. G. L. Peiris and S. B. Dissanayake
discussing about Dissanayake's contempt of court issue. The
telephone call from Karunanayake made all three of them rush to
his residence immediately.
After
arriving at Karunanayake's residence Arulpragasam inquired from
Wedisinghe whether he possessed a warrant to arrest Karunanayake
and Wedisinghe answered in the positive.
But
when Arulpragasam wanted Wedisinghe to produce the court order,
Wedisinghe refused to do so. Wedisinghe said that the warrant was
at his office. Arulpragasam then asked the officer to show cause
for his attempt to arrest Karunanayake and the officer failed to
give reasons for the arrest.
Based
on this, Arulpragasam told the cop that he had 'no business' to
arrest his client Karunanayake. Wedisinghe having failed to
produce any material from a magistrate and having failed to give
reasons for his arrest tried to arrest Karunanayake by force, but
pulled back realising his folly given the presence of lawyers and
former Ministers Prof. Peiris, S. B. Dissanayake and Dr. Rajitha
Senaratne who also rushed to the scene at that time.
Unaware
Opposition
Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe who learnt about the incident
telephoned UNP Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya and instructed him to
inquire from the government whether government members were aware
of the arrest order and whether the order to arrest Karunanayake
itself originated from the government.
Jayasuriya
immediately telephoned Deputy Defence Minister Ratnasiri
Wickremanayake who was at the cabinet meeting. Wickremanayake
excused himself from the meeting and walked outside to talk to
Jayasuriya.
Wickremanayake
expressing dismay told Jayasuriya he did not have any knowledge of
the incident and that he was totally kept in the dark.
Wickremanayake then immediately contacted both the Public Security
Ministry Secretary, Tilak Ranaviraja and Defence Secretary Cyril
Herath and both informed the Minister that they were not informed
of the arrest order on Karunanayake.
Shocked
While
UNP Leader Wickremesinghe was keeping in touch with Karunanayake
over the phone, Jayasuriya telephoned relevant officials to find
out whether there was a legal order either from the Attorney
General's Department or a magistrate from a court of law to arrest
Karunanayake.
When
he telephoned the Inspector General of Police Indra de Silva, he
too was shocked about the arrest order and told Jayasuriya he knew
nothing about it.
By
this time former Hindu Affairs Minister T. Maheswaran and others
close to Karunanayake had arrived at his residence while more than
20 opposition members of parliament had also inquired about
Karunanayake's safety over the telephone. They also expressed
their solidarity.
Jayasuriya
then telephoned Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse who was leaving
the cabinet meeting and going out. A furious Rajapakse told
Jayasuriya that the cops have no right to arrest a member of
parliament without proper legal advice. He also told Jayasuriya he
was unaware of this.
"At
this rate, I will also be arrested," the Premier had said.
By
this time it was learnt that Wedisinghe had lied to Karunanayake
by saying court issued a warrant to arrest him. It also came to
light that Wedisinghe was acting according to the whims and
fancies of certain UPFA members of parliament.
It
was only last Monday (June 21) Karunanayake received a notice from
the Thimbirigasyaya police to be present at the police station for
a formal inquiry on Wednesday, June 23.
Action
However,
as Karunanayake had to attend to some other function on this date
his lawyer Arulpragasam informed the police that Karunanayake
would appear before the police on June 28.
Having
accepted Karunanayake's change of date Wedisinghe appeared on
Wednesday itself to arrest Karunanayake. This action alone
questions Wedisinghe's credibility. Wedisinghe is an officer in
charge of a sports division of the Police Department. However, he
has filed action against Karunanayake, Prof. Peiris and Dr.
Senaratne at the Fort Magistrate's court stating he is attached to
the Colombo Crime Division (CCD).
A
furious CCD Director, SSP Sarath Lugoda told The Sunday Leader he
is to take strict disciplinary action against Wedisinghe for
lying.
Lugoda
is to refer this matter to IGP Indra de Silva for necessary action
against Wedisinghe. Speaking to The Sunday Leader, Lugoda - who is
described as a 'honourable cop' - said he was disappointed that
Wedisinghe has tried to take the law into his hands. "No
police officer should be doing this. It is a shame," he said.
Ignorant
of the law
However,
the police filed an application in the Fort Magistrate's Court and
the case was taken up on Thursday with Colombo Fort Magistrate and
Additional District Judge, Sarath C. Karunaratne presiding.
President's
Counsel Daya Perera, Senior Counsel for Karunanayake and
Attorney-at-Law, Kalinga Indatissa appearing for Karunanayake told
the judge that the said police officer's action to arrest
Karunanayake after lying to him was an intentional and malicious
act to tarnish the image of the parliamentarian.
Perera
told the packed court house that he could not believe that a
police officer in charge of the sports division could handle a
criminal case. He also said he could not believe how a police
officer attached to the sports division of the Police Department
could file a case stating he is attached to Police Headquarters.
He said that the police officer who drafted the report was totally
ignorant of the law.
In
his report Wedisinghe accused Prof. Peiris, Dr. Senaratne and
lawyer Arulpragasam of obstructing him from carrying out his
duties at the time he went to arrest Karunanayake. Wedisinghe also
mentioned in his application that as he could not obtain the
addresses of the above mentioned members who had obstructed him,
he could not arrest them.
At
this time Prof. Peiris and Dr. Senaratne who attended court last
Thursday on their own volition produced themselves before the
magistrate. When the police officer was asked by the judge as to
why he could not find the addresses of the members of parliament
who were physically present in the court, there was no response.
Irresponsible
"Your
honour, I can't imagine that Professor Peiris at this old age
could have flexed his muscles to obstruct Wedisinghe and prevented
him from performing his official duties," Perera told the
courtroom.
Citing
Judge Mahanama Tilekaratne's case, Perera objected to the
application filed by the police officer seeking a warrant to
arrest Karunanayake and the magistrate refused to issue a warrant.
He
also pointed out that the state media was acting irresponsibly by
publishing news stories that were far from the truth. He condemned
the state media for its biased reporting without making any effort
to find out the truth behind an incident.
Meanwhile,
the magistrate also observed there was no need for a court warrant
to arrest a suspect and that investigators could arrest a suspect
and produce him/her in court if there was sufficient evidence for
an arrest.
Having
said this the magistrate also confirmed to those present in the
courtroom that there was no court warrant issued to the police
officer enabling him to arrest Karunanayake.
Severely
reprimanding the police officer the judge told him not to draw a
court of law into party political manipulations. He said:
"You can be anybody's cat's paw for political mileage but
don't involve the court."
Donkey's
job
It
is at this time the magistrate said that 'donkeys should not try
to do a dog's job.' "This is what happens when this takes
place," he said.
Meanwhile,
Dr. Senaratne in two separate petitions to National Police
Commission (NPC) Chairman Ranjit Abeysuriya PC and Speaker W. J.
M. Lokubandara respectively has stated that appropriate steps
should be taken against the police officer who was responsible for
the illegal and criminal action.
In
his letter to the NPC Chairman Dr. Senaratne has said: "Mr.
Srinath Wedisinghe ASP came to Mr. Karunanayake's house and
announced his intention of arresting the member of parliament. Mr.
Karunanayake's lawyers pointed out that this attempt to arrest
their client is entirely unlawful in that it violates the basic
requirements of the law in respect of making of a lawful arrest.
"Furthermore,
Mr. Wedisinghe's manner was threatening and oppressive during his
exchange of remarks with senior lawyers. I would urge you to take
appropriate steps against the police officer."
Infringement
of privileges
He
has also told the Speaker that the action of the police officer
constitutes a great infringement of the privileges of Karunanayake
as a member of parliament.
"I
would respectfully request you as custodian of the privileges of
the members of the house to take appropriate action in this
regard."
Queried
as to how the police officers found guilty of lying to the nation
would be dealt with, IGP de Silva said that it is up to the Police
Commission to look into the matter. He also said he has not been
officially informed of this lapse of the police officer.
Meanwhile,
NPC Chairman, Ranjit Abeysuriya told The Sunday Leader that it is
now confirmed that the police officer who took upon himself the
responsibility to arrest Karunanayake has not performed his duty
in keeping with the law of the land.
He
said according to Section 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code if a
police officer has reasonable suspicion on an individual he could
arrest him/her. "But a police officer must be able to explain
in detail his reasons/causes to arrest an individual. It is then
that his arrest becomes lawful," he pointed out.
Invisible
force
"Any
police officer may without an order from a magistrate and without
a warrant arrest any person; (a) who in his presence commits any
breach of the peace; (b) who has been concerned in any cognisable
offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or
credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion
exists," he said.
Meanwhile,
Opposition and UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe suspects an
invisible force within the UPFA functioning secretly without the
knowledge of most of the senior members of the UPFA government
merely to destablise the UNP.
He
has also suspected this unseen force to have had a hand in pushing
Wedisinghe to arrest Karunanayake.
Fingers
are also pointed at Deputy Minister Sripathi Sooriyarachchi who
repeatedly told a TV show that Wedisinghe was in possession of a
court warrant when the entire state body denied knowledge of this.
|
Who
is Wedisinghe?
1.
A key witness in Batalanda Commission against Opposition
Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe.
2.
A person who was also under investigation together with
another constable for involvement in dispatching human body
parts to UNP MP Ravi Karunanayake's residence and the
residence of Karunanayake's mother in law during the PA
regime.
3.
He was also handpicked by President Chandrika Kumaratunga as
Kollupitiya OIC after giving evidence in the Batalanda
Commission.
4.
There was also a signed petition sent to the Chairman
Batalanda Commission in 1996 by K. A. Upawansa Gunera- tne
accusing Wedisinghe of torture and extortion.
5.
There are also two cases pending in which Wedisinghe is
subject to investigation by a special investigative unit of
the Police Department on corruption charges.
6.
During the JVP terror era of the late 1980s five JVP
suspects aged between 15 to 16 allegedly murdered. Their
bodies were brought to Peliyagoda by Wedisinghe. Under
emergency regulations Section 55 (ff) investigation was
conducted and bodies destroyed. The parents of the JVP boys
are still searching for the missing boys at Wedamulla,
Weragoda.
*
* *
The
events that led to the leasing of the building in question
-
Firstly
it was decided at a meeting in March 2002 to rent space
to house the Investigation Section of the CWE, the new
Institution of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and the
Import and Export Control Department and the Consumer
Authority.
-
In
February 2002 a policy decision was made at the Commerce
Ministry that the target date for passing the Consumer
Authority Bill in parliament should be May 2002. It was
also estimated that the Consumer Authority would require
40,000 sq.ft of space.
-
The
need to house in a building with easy access to the
Ministry which as at No. 21 Vauxhall Street led to a
newspaper advertisement being placed on April 2002.
-
Chairman
of the Ministry Tender Board and Additional Secretary
Hettiarachchi evaluated the six offers received and
negotiated the lowest offer of Rs. 45 per sq ft, down to
Rs. 37/50 per sq.ft totaling Rs. 1.425 million per
month.
-
Based
on Hettiarachchi's report of May 17, 2002 the secretary
signed on June 21, 2002 a rental agreement forwarded by
ministry legal adviser Wickramarachchi. (This was to be
effective on August 1 2002.) Hettiarachchi wrote to the
owner confirming this when it was realised that the
Certificate of Conformity, which the owner had stated
would be forwarded to the Ministry by July 31 2003, was
getting delayed.
-
Due
to several clauses in the draft bill having to be
amended based on economic policy committee decisions
made on the draft text, especially regarding mergers and
acquisitions the bill could only be tabled in parliament
on November 21, 2002.
-
The
consumer legislation was passed in parliament on January
9, 2003 and Speaker's assent was received on March 17,
2003.
-
Payment
of the rent for the building on which an agreement was
signed effective August 1, 2002 was begun only after the
Certificate of Conformity for the building was produced
in February 2003. The first rent was paid for February
2003. There was no occupation of the building till the
rent was paid. Funds of Rs. 10 million were received
from the Finance Ministry to which a copy of the signed
agreement was sent.
-
Thus
no funds were spent for any occupation before the
Certificate of Conformity was physically produced.
-
Due
to circumstances beyond the control of the Ministry
there were changes in occupation and alternative tenants
were decided upon. For instance the Development
Lotteries Board which was allocated space in July 2003
and paid rent of Rs. 8 million. The Ministry's Mahapola
holds 50% shares in this institution. The EDI housed
itself in other premises, but agreed to pay rental on a
negotiated basis for the space agreed to be occupied by
EDI at the premises 231 Vauxhall Street.
-
The
Consumer Affairs Authority was directed to house itself
in alternative space in view of delays caused by
disputes and disagreements with the Vauxhall Street
owners on structural alterations.
- As
rental payments beyond December 2003 could not be made
due to lack of funds the building was handed back to the
owner at his request. Until then 11 months rents had
been paid from February to December 2003.
|
|