27th, 2004  Volume 10, Issue 50

Home

News

Politics

Issues

Focus

Editorial

Spotlight

Insight

Sports

Business

Review

Arts

Letters

Nutshell

Interviews

Fashion

Archives

SPOTLIGHT

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.

Back to the Page....


News Politics

Issues

Editorial Spotlight Sports Bussines Letters Review Arts Interviews Nutshell 

 

 

 

Leader Publication (Pvt) Ltd.
1st Floor, Colombo Commercial Building., 121, Sir James Peiris Mawatha., Colombo 2
Tel : +94-75-365891,2 Fax : +94-75-365891

email : editor@thesundayleader.lk