Eva, aren't you ashamed..? How can you hear Gota’s case while abstaining hearing Basil’s similar case?

(Lanka-e-News- 09.June.2015, 4.00PM) The Supreme Court yesterday 8th consummated the earlier decision it gave to temporary halt Gotabaya Rajapaksa taken into custody for four criminal charges and the temporary order is valid only to the IGP, DIG Financial Crime Investigation Department (FCID) and director CID.

Following is the four criminal charges against Gotabaya
The notorious Mig aircraft deal
Selling arms to international terrorists pretending giving security to ships from sea pirates.
Mihin Lanka corruption
The delinquency on purchase of shares from Lanka Hospitals

From yesterday’s Supreme Court decision it was implicated that there is no impediment to take Gotabaya Rajapaksa into custody for allegations for assassinating parliament MP Raviraj, MP Joseph Prarajasingham, the murder of five students in Trincomalee, the murder of 11 local French aid workers, killing unarmed surrenders who carried white flag, disappearing of Prageeth Ekneligoda, giving orders to fire unarmed workers on protest, giving firing orders for the people who demanded uncontaminated drinking water, abducting and killing of four Red Cross workers and other loads of allegations leveled against him.

The Supreme Court gave its decision after considering a motion filed by the Attorney General. This petition was taken by biased and corrupt judges of the Supreme Court Eva Wanasundara and Sarath Abrew. 

It was amusing to note that Ewa Wanasundara who was contradictory to the ethics of judges briefed a media reporter about her beloved life with Mahinda Rajapaksa sometimes back was in the Supreme Court bench.

It became further funny that following Gotabaya’s court decision Eva Wanasundara abstained from the panel of judges to a similar case of Basil Rajapaksa for personal reasons. How this woman not able to give a judgment to Basil Rajapaksa on personal grounds can give a judgment to Gotabaya Rajapaksa? If the fact is personal reasons for Basil, this is none that than the good rapport with the Rajapaksa family. Why didn’t it apply for Gotabaya? Alike she abstained from Basil’s case she should have abstained from Gotabaya’s case without making the judiciary a joke. It appears that she has is faithfully obliging her loyalty for the price she bought. To hint that yesterday she told the Supreme Court that she was in great difficulty for appearing yesterday’s case during her 34 year old career. She said that she considers all cases with same equality and she doesn’t give a preference. If it is so why did she abstain from appearing for Basil’s case?

Meantime additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda who appeared behalf of the Attorney General exercised a unique service and briefed facts in the courts for four hours. 

However legal scholars say that according to clause 127 of the 1979 Code of Criminal Procedure Act Ewa Wanasundara and Sarath Abrew has given this decision for Gotabaya Rajapaksa violating the magistrate’s clause to give instructions and enactment in favour to investigate a crime conducted by the police

---------------------------
by     (2015-06-09 19:23:04)