President Rajapaksa had no hand in revoking detention of Riyaj- Counsel

Easter carnage

By Chitra Weerarathne-October 21, 2020

President’s Counsel Sanjeewa Jayawardena, yesterday, told the Court of Appeal that the President had never had any hand in revoking any detention order issued against Riyaj Bathiudeen, the brother of Rishad Bathiudeen.

At the outset Faiz Mustapha PC, who appeared for the petitioner Riyaj Bathiudeen told the Court of Appeal that the petitioner had not been involved in terrorist activity, according to investigation reports of recent times. Petitioner was entitled to resist wrongful arrest. It was not a case of hiding. It was avoiding wrongful arrest. There was no responsible suspicion for the arrest of Riyaj. There was no basis to arrest him originally or now. The only basis was a telephone conversation with an Islamic extremist who had attempted to bomb the Cinnamon Grand Hotel. The calls had been business oriented and nothing else. The mobile phone used by Riyaj, had been linked to so many other phones on miscellaneous deals.

Riyaj had received telephone calls on the export of copper, which was a business deal. No basis at all for the arrest of Riyaj Bathiudeen. Attempts should not be made to arrest Riyaj on incomplete investigations, the Counsel said.

Sanjeewa Jayawardena, PC appeared for the intervention against the writ application by Riyaj Bathiudeen. One is by the Reverend Father Lawrence Ramanayke and the other by another concerned party counsel.

The President had assured that at no time he had said that he had a hand in the revoking of any detention order against Riyaj, Counsel explained. Riyaj Bathiudeen has had several phone calls with the brother of the person who attempted to bomb the Hotel, in 2019. The counsel said hundred members of Parliament in September 2020 complained to the President that the Investigations against Riyaj had not been properly conducted. They said any detention order against him should not be revoked. The security of the People was vital.

There were photographs of Riyaj sitting together with Zahran, the NTJ Leader, counsel added.

The Additional Solicitor General Sarath Jayamanna, PC, told the Court of Appeal that on September 19, 2020, Riyaj had withdrawn his fundamental rights violation petition against state officials. On September 22, Riyaj withdrew his Habeas Corpus application against state officials. Hence no litigation remained over any type of harassment. The bombings were the most deadly act committed on April 21, 2019, which killed so many persons, all over the country. When evidence surfaced people had to be arrested, the ASG said.

The ASG explained that the family had acquired assets by money laundering. The accounts of Riyaj and his wife were huge and unbelievable.

The arrest would be completed at the end of the on-going investigation. The writ application, at this stage was premature, he added. The Attorney General had only ordered that investigations be conducted where necessary, ASG Jayamanne added.

Riyaj Bathiudeen had filed a writ application in the Court of Appeal, requesting the Court to prevent his likely arrest by the CID. He had said it was baseless to arrest him. Rev. Father Lawrence Ramanayake, of ‘Sethsevana’ Archbishop’s House, Borella, Colombo had filed an Intervention, objecting to the writ application by Riyaj Bathiudeen. The priest has said that Riyaj was a suspect as regards the Easter Sunday attacks of April 21, 2019. Those suicide blasts killed 256 persons and injured 500 others.

Sanjeewa Jayawardena, PC, appeared with Rukshan Senadheera and Maneesha Dissanayake, instructed by Sanjay Fonseka for the intervenient.

The bench comprised Justice Mahinda Samayawardene and Justice Arjuna Obeysekera. The Court of Appeal reserved the order on whether to issue notice on the respondent police officers and to grant interim relief for Riyaj Bathiudeen for October 21, 2020.

 Jana-Handa Versus Gotata-Baya

By Kumar David –OCTOBER 21, 2020

Prof. Kumar David

Jacinda Arden’s star is rising, the sun is melancholy over Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s dream of an empire where he and his military will be masters of all they survey. Both scored landslide victories – actually Gota’s in Nov 2019 and the SLPP alliance’ in August 2020 polled a larger share than Jacinda’s 49%. There is one more similarity but otherwise the contrast between what they stand for and where they intend to take their nations could not be more stark. That similarity is that Jacinda’s government and the Gota Administration both got hold of COVID by the scruff and snuffed it out. Well at least I hope so; when and where a feared second wave may strike and whether it will be dreaded ‘community transmission’ one can never say. Nonetheless, this shared achievement must be recognised. 

The similarities end there. What are the differences between PM Arden and President Rajapaksa?

a) Jacinda stands for an open democratic polity; she is not a dictator in waiting.

b) There is nothing like the draconian 20th Amendment that she intends to foist on the people and authoritarianism will go against every fibre of her being. For Gota, absolute power is the objective.

c) Jacinda is committed to pluralism; racism is anathema. Often, she went out comfort hurt people – non-white non-Christians. Minorities do not live in fear in NZ.

d) JA’s administration is not hand in glove with the military.

e) Both are pragmatists but JA does not rule by personal fiat overruling established procedures and norms

f) Gotabaya commands a slavish Parliament and a servile Cabinet, Jacinda does not

g) The courts in New Zealand are free; a recent crucial ruling proved that our judiciary is sycophantic.

To retain a balanced view, we must also take note of the big differences between the two countries.

h) GDP per capita in New Zealand is US$ 42,000, ours is a lowly US$ 4,100 (PPP).

i) NZ is not coming out a 30-year civil war which eroded democracy, gave the LTTE and the military a taste for blood and polarised communities. White racism legally ended in NZ decades ago.

j) In NZ people are not soaked in, nor is their consciousness submerged in racism.

k) NZ parliament is not semi-educated and corrupt, its Cabinet no refuge for those of corrupt repute. 

I put it to readers that though (h) to (k) are true, only (h) and (i) can be trotted out as excuses for the (a) to (g). An equally important consideration is the difference in character and ideological makeup of the two leaders. Nevertheless, it would be untrue to say that Gota’s administration is already unbridled authoritarian. Alarm bells are ringing and the red lights are blinking and 20A will translate the probable into the actual. 

Read More