Lawyers take victimization report to Bribery Commission

Claiming that the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) on political victimisation has engaged in corruption by way of exceeding their mandate, a group of lawyers filed a complaint at the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) yesterday (09).

A group of 10 lawyers filed this case against the PCoI on political victimization, which was established through the Extraordinary Gazette Number 2157/44. The lawyers claimed that investigations have been conducted by the PCoI based on complaints lodged by individuals who do not fall under the categories of persons listed in the Gazette, which gave powers to the PCoI to investigate cases of state officials, employees of state corporations, and members of the armed forces and Police who allegedly suffered from political victimization during the tenure of the United National Front-led Government.

Complaints lodged to the PCoI by Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, Jaliya Wickramasuriya, Nissanka Yapa Senadhipathi, Rohitha Bogollagama, Udayanga Weeratunga, Thiru Nadesan, and Udaya Gammanpila have been listed as some of the cases that do not fall under the listed categories.

“It has been observed that the PCoI has taken steps beyond its powers to investigate on complaints lodged by persons that do not fall under the listed groups, and thereby wasted and misused a significant amount of state funds.”

PCoI Chairman Supreme Court Justice (retd.) Upali Abeyratne, Court of Appeal Justice (retd.) Daya Chandrasiri Jayathilake, and Inspector General of Police (retd.) Chandra Fernando have been listed in the complaint, as members of the PCoI.

Attorneys-at-Law Senaka Perera, Zainul Luthufi, Manju Sri Chandrasena, Achala Seneviratne, Thambiah Jeyaratnarajah, Hemantha Wickramasinghe, Namal Rajapaksha, Ashoka Wijewardhana, and Chula Adikari requested the Chairperson of the CIABOC to take necessary legal action against the PCoI.

Earlier, Perera, Seneviratne, Jeyaratnarajah, and Rajapaksha had written to the Chief Justice requesting to determine whether the final recommendations of the said PCoI constitute an act of being in contempt of court, and to take necessary action if deemed so, as the PCoI had provided recommendations to courts or concerning court decisions, whereas the Gazette has not given such powers to the PCoI. 

Share this article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *