The Supreme Court has detailed how a politically motivated complaint, an unusually swift police response and the conduct of investigators were used to pursue a political agenda against former senior police officers Ravi Seneviratne and Shani Abeysekara ahead of the 2024 Presidential Election.
The court ruled that former IGP Deshabandu Tennakoon and then-CID Homicide Branch OIC Chief Inspector D.K. Induka Silva violated the fundamental rights of Seneviratne and Abeysekara through the investigation.
Retired DIG Palitha Siriwardena, whose complaint triggered the investigation, was also found to have acted with a political motive and in connivance with the executive.
The Supreme Court ordered Siriwardena to pay Rs. 50,000 each as compensation to Seneviratne and Abeysekara.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by Siriwardena on June 24, 2024, alleging failures by the two former senior officers in relation to investigations preceding the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks.
The Supreme Court found that the timing and circumstances surrounding the complaint were significant in determining its political purpose.
Seneviratne and Abeysekara had been involved with the “Retired Police Collective,” which campaigned in support of the National People’s Power (NPP) ahead of the 2024 Presidential Election. They organised a public meeting at Maharagama on June 9, 2024.
Four days later, Siriwardena and another retired senior police officer held a counter-campaign and media briefing criticising the two petitioners. Siriwardena’s written complaint to the IGP followed on June 24.
The court noted that the complaint concerned alleged failures connected to the Easter Sunday attacks nearly five years earlier but was lodged shortly after Seneviratne and Abeysekara openly entered the political campaign.
Justice K.M.G.H. Kulatunga observed that the sudden emergence of these concerns at that particular point was “too much of a coincidence” and strongly indicated a political motive or agenda behind the complaint.
The court also rejected reliance on the Jayaki De Alwis Committee report to justify the complaint, noting that the complaint was made on June 24 while the report was dated September 14, 2024 and therefore did not exist when the complaint was lodged.
The court described the subsequent reliance on the report as “more of an afterthought” in responding to the allegation of mala fides.
The judgment found that Siriwardena and the other retired senior police officer had effectively mounted a counter-campaign aimed at neutralising the political advantage Seneviratne and Abeysekara could generate among retired police officers.
“The timing, circumstances, and context put it beyond doubt” that Siriwardena’s actual motive, purpose and objective in lodging the complaint was to support another political group, the court said.
It consequently rejected his assertion that the complaint had been made in the public interest.
The court later found that Siriwardena had acted mala fide in lodging the complaint with a political motive and appeared to have also acted with personal ill will.
The judgment said the complaint, when considered together with the corresponding conduct of Tennakoon and Silva, demonstrated that Siriwardena was not merely making a complaint but was seeking executive assistance to achieve a political objective.
The court described it as a “concerted and pre-planned political campaign” aimed at advancing the interests of the political party holding governmental power at the time, or at least damaging an opposing political party.
Unusually swift police response
A central factor in the Supreme Court’s findings was what happened after Siriwardena made the complaint.
The judgment found that then-IGP Tennakoon immediately acted on the complaint and forwarded it to the CID to commence an investigation.
The complaint was lodged on June 24 and had reached the CID by June 29. Siriwardena’s statement was recorded on July 6, followed by statements from four other police officers, including Senior DIG Nilantha Jayawardena. CID information books and other documents were also taken into custody.
The Supreme Court said there was material showing that police acted with “extreme speed and unusual interest” in entertaining the complaint and reporting facts to the Magistrate.
When considered together with the surrounding circumstances, the court said this led to a strong inference that the then-IGP and CID officers were acting to pursue or advance political interests against an opposition party.
CID reports aimed at discrediting petitioners
The Supreme Court particularly criticised the conduct of Chief Inspector Induka Silva.
The judgment noted that reports filed in the Magistrate’s Court contained extensive details about social media videos and other material against Seneviratne and Abeysekara.
The court found that including such material in extreme detail was unnecessary in the normal course of information presented to court and demonstrated a malicious intention to publicly discredit the petitioners.
It concluded that Silva had been pursuing “a different agenda for an ulterior purpose and motive, in the guise of conducting an investigation on a complaint.”
The court found sufficient evidence, on a balance of probabilities, that Silva and Tennakoon acted maliciously to assist Siriwardena and advance his political objectives, which appeared to support those holding political power at the time.
Their conduct amounted to mala fide use and abuse of their lawful authority to advance political interests, the judgment said.
The court further found that the unusual speed of their actions and the unnecessary and irrelevant material included in reports showed that the objective was not genuinely to investigate a crime or offence.
Instead, the court said the purpose was to achieve an ulterior political objective and obtain political advantage, or at least weaken those opposed to the political leadership then in power.
Risk of arrest ahead of election
The Supreme Court also found that Seneviratne and Abeysekara’s fears that the process could lead to their arrest and detention in the run-up to the Presidential Election were “quite real and well-founded.”
Their filing of the fundamental rights application on August 15, 2024 impeded that process, the court observed.
The court found an imminent danger of the two being arrested and detained for political reasons and held that Tennakoon and Silva had violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of the Constitution.
The judgment stressed that law enforcement powers cannot be deployed to advance partisan political interests.
The court observed that political parties holding governmental power have at times sought to use police powers to advance political objectives, while some police officers have been willing to abuse their powers to assist those in power and counter or neutralise political opponents.
In this case, the court found on a balance of probabilities that Tennakoon and Silva abused their police powers to unlawfully counter and neutralise the petitioners’ political campaign, thereby advancing the interests and aspirations of the “political masters in power.”
“The abuse of executive power for partisan political ends strikes at the very foundation of constitutional government,” the Supreme Court said, stressing that public power must be exercised for lawful public purposes and never as an instrument to advance the electoral or political interests of those temporarily holding political power. ( Newswire)
The post SC details how politically motivated complaint led to probe against Ravi, Shani appeared first on Newswire.