Nethicumara’s FR preventing CID arrest fixed for support | Daily News

Nethicumara’s FR preventing CID arrest fixed for support

 

A Fundamental Rights petition filed by Shanil Nethicumara who is involved in his family business 'Salaka' seeking an Interim Order preventing CID from arresting him was today fixed for support on November 28 by the Supreme Court.

This is over an allegation that he posed death threats to Wijith Wijesuriya over Anika Wijesuriya giving evidence at the Bond Commission against Minister Ravi Karunanayake.

When the matter came up before three-judge-bench comprising Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, Justice Buwaneka Aluvihare and Justice Vijith Malalgoda, the Attorney General sought a further date to get instructions from the respondent parties.  

The petitioner has named IGP Pujith Jayasundara, CID Director Shani Abeysekara and the Attorney General as respondents.

Nethicumara states that what was essentially a personal dispute has been deviously manipulated by fourth Wijith Wijesuriya, the brother of Anika Wijesuriya and other interested parties into an allegation of threats to a witness before the Bond Commission.

Nethicumara said he became aware that Anika Wijesuriya who studied at the same school with him too was called to give evidence before the said Bond Commission, pertaining to an apartment allegedly purchased by Arjun Aloysius from Anika Wijesuriya, which was being occupied and subsequently allegedly purchased by Ravi Karunanayake.

The petitioner stated that on or about October 14 at round 1.30 am, he visited the night club named Love Bar Club located at 58A, Horton Place, Colombo 7 which is a usual location the he visits during weekends.

Nethicumara said after a few drinks of liquor from the club and later on towards dawn he walked up to the Gents’ Washroom and waited in the queue to enter the same.

The fourth Respondent Wijith Wijesuriya, who appeared to be under the influence of liquor came from behind a curtain at the entrance of the wash room and quarrelled with him accusing him of being instrumental in the breakup of the love affair between him and the Petitioner’s sister.

Nethicumara categorically states he never threatened the fourth Respondent in respect of Anika Wijesuriya’s evidence against MP Ravi Karunanayake.

He states that even though the exchange of words was a heated exchange it related to what transpired in the early hours of the day at the Club and the fourth respondent’s conduct in respect of his sister.

The petitioner states that he became aware through the media that Yasantha Kodagoda PC, Additional Solicitor General had on October 1 informed the Bond Commission, that the petitioner had made death threats against Anika Wijesuriya.

The petitioner states that when he became aware of the above on October 17he lodged a complaint with the Cinnamon Gardens Police Station against the fourth respondent for assaulting and threatening him at the said Love Bar Club on October 14.

Nethikumara said on October 18, several national newspapers too reported that Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda PC informed the Bond Commission October 17 that Anika Wijesuriya who gave evidence before the Presidential Commission fled the country due to death threats posed to her by various parities affiliated with Minister Ravi Karunanayake.

The Petitioner states that the newspaper articles implied that SASG Yasantha Kodagoda had informed the Bond Commission that the Petitioner posed death threats to Anika Wijesuriya directly.

The Petitioner states that he was taken by surprise to read the claim that Anika Wijesuriya fled the country due to death threats posed to her by the Petitioner, as he learned from reports published that Anika Wijesuriya left the country on October 6,2017, 7 to 8 days before from the date on which the telephone conversations occurred.

The Petitioner further states that it has been alleged in the media that, Anika Wijesuriya’s entire first week of October was spent in Bali and thereafter en route to London she had arrived in Colombo on October 5 in the aircraft bearing No EK 349 at 1.55 a.m.

The Petitioner states that as per the same article, from 2.08 a.m. of October 5, 2017 she was in Colombo until she left the country on an aircraft bearing No. EK 655 on October 6 at to 10.10 p.m. Nethicumara believes that Anika Wijesuriya was during the said time period spending a vacation out of the country and the position that she fled the country due to any death threats is far from truth.

Nethicumara states that in all the afore mentioned newspapers, it was reported that SASG Yasantha Kodagoda stressed that an investigation must be carried out with regard to the incident and that Police protection must be provided to family members of Anika Wijesuriya under Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act No 4 of 2015.

Nethicumara states that as per the newspaper articles, Anika Wijesuriya was already been named as a witness under the Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act No 4 of 2015.

Nethicumara states that by the contents of all newspaper articles aforementioned, the inference made was that he posed death threats to the 4th Respondent over Anika Wijesuriya giving evidence at the Bond Commission against Minister Ravi Karunanayake.

The Petitioner states that on October 20, a national newspaper reported that the Criminal Investigation Department had commenced investigations into the alleged incident of posing death threats to Anika Wijewardana and the investigation is carried out in relation to Minister Ravi Karunanayake and the Petitioner who was again described therein as a cousin son of the Minister Ravi Karunananyake.

The Petitioner states that he apprehends that he will be subject to arrest by the Criminal Investigation Department under the provisions of the Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act No 4 of 2015 which stipulates that bail can be granted only under exceptional circumstances by the Court of Appeal.

 The petitioner also seeking an interim order directing the CID Director to take appropriate steps according to law  to prevent  the owners or managers or employees of the Love Bar Club from tampering with the CCTV cameras installed at the club and from deleting/destroying any footage recorded in the system on October 14.

President’s Counsel Saliya Peiris with Sajith Jayawardena under the instructions of Sanath Wijewardena appeared for the petitioner. Counsel Asthika Devendra appeared for the respondent. Deputy Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne appeared for the Attorney General.  

 

 


Add new comment