SPOTLIGHT

Night games at Diyawanna - fact or fiction?

Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva

By Frederica Jansz  Controversy surrounds serious allegations being made against Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva, after five police officers have charged they found the Chief Justice engaged in indecent behaviour in a public area. Hotly denying the charge that he had been seen in some kind of a compromising position with a lady, the CJ, responding to the police entry, has dismissed the allegations as absurd and baseless. In a letter to the police chief, 24 hours after Chief Inspector Wirasena had lodged an entry naming Sarath Nanda Silva as the man caught in a compromising position with a lady friend at Jayawardenapura, the CJ angrily responded stating, "This is a totally absurd state of affairs. I am absolutely unaware of this situation."

The CJ in his letter to Police Chief, Indra de Silva claims he had been in his office until 8 p.m. on Tuesday the 6th, as is his usual practice on working days. He says he had discussions with several persons who came for interviews and thereafter left his office accompanied by police security from the Narahenpita police. He claims he made one stop on the way home to make some purchases and after arriving at his house remained inside throughout the night. He states this would be confirmed by the Narahenpita police.

According to the CJ, he has surmised that the allegation made by five police officers, four from the Talangama police station and one attached to the Command and Information Room, "could be part of a scheme to discredit him in view of cases pending before the Supreme Court."

On the strength of this letter, the United National Front on July 8, issued a statement pointing out that the CJ having made this statement is very serious and that the Chief Justice needs to explain publicly what he meant by this reference and to identify the cases in question in fairness to the litigants.

The bottom line however is this. If indeed five police officers have fabricated this charge against a no lesser personage than the Chief Justice of this country, then it is a matter of the utmost seriousness and demands a full-scale investigation.

In this context, the Inspector General of Police is then justified in having said that he will launch a full inquiry against the five police officers to determine if indeed foul play has been committed by the five cops. If it is indeed so, why these five police officers, four from the Talangama police and one chief inspector attached to the IG'S Command / Police Information Division, have chosen to frame the CJ in this manner is cause for very serious concern.

Fabrication?

The question that arises is could these five police officers, one of whom hails from a different division in the police force to that of the Talangama police, have jointly planned to fabricate such allegations against the Chief Justice?

The other question that arises is how the Police Chief can jump to the presumption that five of his own men have been engaged in a plot to character-assassinate the CJ even before a formal inquiry into the matter is concluded is indeed food for thought. (see box for IGP's comments)

'Impeccable track record'

We have little doubt that the Chief Justice, if we are to go by his impeccable track record, is hardly capable of committing an indecent act with a lady who was not his wife or chosen partner in life, Damayanthi Jayasekera. And that too, not in private, but on a public highway.

This maybe why the CJ acted promptly and righteously by bringing the matter to the notice of the Police Chief no sooner the rumour mill got working on alleged night games down Diyawanna way and became the story of the hour in legal circles.

Implicating statements

But apart from the gossip, what is of serious concern as this whole drama was enacted throughout last week beginning last Tuesday night, are not just one but two statements made by Chief Inspector Wirasena, who claims he was a witness to this incident and positively identifies the CJ as being the male person present in a vehicle with a young lady.

The police officer is attached to the IG's Command / Police Information Division.  Refusing to budge from his previous statement made on the night of the alleged incident, Wirasena in a second recorded statement to SP Luxman Kaluarachchi at the command police information division has reiterated what he said in his first statement and insists that the gentleman calling himself Sarath Nanda Silva at the scene was none other than the Chief Justice.

Apart from these two statements are notes the four police officers attached to the Talangama police also made in their books on Tuesday night. A senior police officer speaking on conditions of anonymity corroborated what CI Wirasena has said in his two statements asserting that the four police officers have in their notes also identified the male person in this incident to be Sarath Nanda Silva, who had allegedly identified himself as such on that fateful Tuesday night.

The alleged incident had taken place at approximately 8.45 p.m. on Tuesday, July 6. CI Wirasena alleges he came upon the altercation 15 minutes later, and stopped his motorcycle when he saw some police officers were experiencing difficulty in investigating a parked and locked car.

According to Wirasena's second statement, he reiterates his previous position that he made an entry on July 7, at 9.25 p.m. at the IG's Command / Police Information Division where he is employed in the computer division.

In his first statement, Wirasena says, he had been travelling on his motorbike from his home at Jayewardenagama to report for work at the computer section of this division, which is housed adjoining the Mirihana police station.

He states he had been motoring along the Diyawanna highway when he had noticed a group of police officers investigating with some difficulty a black vehicle parked on the right side of the road. He states that it was very dark on the road at the time. He asserts that since he could see the police officers were having a hard time investigating the vehicle, he stopped his motorcycle on the right side of the road just in front of the black vehicle and kept his headlight on to make it easier for the officers to investigate. His statement goes on to say that with great difficulty, a police officer managed to get the identity card of a young girl inside the car but the elderly man sitting beside her, wearing a tie was refusing to present any form of identification to the police officers. Wirasena claims that when the cops continued to insist, persisting with questioning him, he angrily replied that he was Sarath Nanda Silva.

In his second statement, Wirasena maintains the same position, adding that he saw a girl in the driving seat of the blackish vehicle and an elderly man in the front passenger seat. He states, "I identified him as Sarath Nanda Silva." Wirasena maintains in his second statement, that he called one of the police constables to his side and told him that the man is Sarath Nanda Silva, the Chief Justice. Thereafter, Wirasena says he told the PC to handle him with respect. "wadath acharyaseelee wenna" (be more respectful) he warned the constable, but instructed the PC to verify the name of the gentleman concerned.

This the PC had done, Wirasena states, maintaining the man had then responded claiming to be Sarath Nanda Silva. The police officers had then asked him who the lady was and he had replied, "She works for my staff." Thereafter the cops had saluted him and told him he could go.

Hierarchy informed

Wirasena made a second statement following his first entry after the initial entry was seen on Wednesday morning by SP Kaluarachchi, who had immediately informed his superior DIG Mahinda Balasuriya that there was a log entry naming the Chief Justice in an incident.

DIG Balasuriya had instructed Kaluarachchi to send him an extract of the entry together with a covering letter. Thereafter, Balasuriya instructed Kaluarachchi to record a second statement from Chief Inspector Wirasena. That is how the more detailed statement of Wirasena came to be recorded.

Meanwhile, when the story broke in Hulftsdorfp on Wednesday, Anoma Goonetilleke, Secretary, Bar Association of Sri Lanka had attempted to telephone her husband DIG Crimes, Jayantha Wickremaratne, in order to find out what the true position was. But Wickremaratne at the time could not be contacted, as he was busy at the bombsite at the Colpetty police station.  Anoma Goonetilleke was heard expressing concern having been a long-standing friend and associate of the CJ. Anoma Goonetilleke has appeared for Damayanthi Jayasekera in her divorce case, where the Chief Justice has been named as a co-respondent. 

Registration confusion

There was some confusion however with regard to the first entry made by CI Wirasena, where he has identified the "black car" to be bearing registration number WPJA 8720. A check with the Registrar of Motor Vehicles found that a vehicle bearing this number is registered in the name of one Balasuriyage Ranil Prabath Wijeysinghe of Mihintale, Anuradhapura.

Wirasena has also stated that the address of the female in this incident given at the scene was 25/07 High Level Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 6. But when we double-checked this address, we found it to be fictitious.

There are two scenarios, which emerge from this whole episode. They are both equally serious. The first being that if indeed these police officers fabricated this incident and are guilty of framing the Chief Justice then it is a matter of very serious concern and consequences. A false entry of this nature, if proved to have been fabricated is an act punishable under the Penal Code Section 189 and 190 and subject to a seven year jail term as well as a fine.

After all, it is not the first time such attempts to bring disrepute against judges have been made and it will probably not be the last. This must be what the CJ was referring to, when he dismissed the first entry made by CI Wirasena to be false and baseless and an attempt to discredit him in view of a series of cases pending before him.

If, on the other hand the Chief Justice is found guilty or that it is proved that the CJ was indeed the man in that car caught in a compromising position with a young lady, then it is not the incident itself that is cause for serious concern, but the fact that the CJ has been caught lying.

Furthermore, the Chief Justice himself has through his statement brought the Supreme Court into the picture and only an independent investigation will help clear the air.

He also owes it to his litigants to explain what exactly he means by such an attempt by police officers being made purely to discredit him. Does this mean such cases to be heard by the CJ, which conclusions are still pending is somehow public knowledge at least to certain sections of the police force?

Chief Inspector Wirasena has gone so far as to state in his first entry that he being the senior police officer present at the scene even signed the Patrol Information Books of the four junior police officers as per their requests following the notes they made in relation to the incident.  He has identified the four police officers in his first entry to be PC 32054 Pushpakumara, PC 36010 Wijeyratne, RPC 25043 Senaratne and RPC 25332 Laksiri, all of whom are attached to the Talangama police.

What needs to be determined now is if these five police officers are lying or if their statements tally with the subsequent letter issued by the CJ where he states he left his offices last Tuesday night at 8 p.m., stopped on the way home to make some purchases reaching his residence perhaps around 9 p.m. The five police officers collectively maintain this incident took place between 8.40 p.m. and 9 p.m. last Tuesday July 6th.

The question also arises why five policemen should seek to frame the Chief Justice. By Friday, speculation was rife, attempts were made by interested parties to pressurise the four policemen from Talangama to state that they named the Chief Justice in their notes on the instructions of Chief Inspector Wirasena.

It was said that two of the police constables had inquiries pending against them and indications made the charges would be dropped if a statement to the effect that CI Wirasena forced them to name the Chief Justice was made.  But by Friday morning, there were no retractions by the five policemen while the Chief Justice was equally insistent, he was being framed.

Now the inquiries are expected to shift to parliament, with the opposition wanting a select committee to ascertain whether there was indeed a conspiracy to discredit the Chief Justice-a probe the government will find hard to resist if it indeed has the interest of the Chief Justice and the judiciary at heart.