MAGISTRATE BARS DUMINDA’S COUNSEL
Asks lawyer to obtain written consent CID claims Bharatha’s bodyguard fired first shot
A Colombo Magistrate at the inquiry into the killing of Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra yesterday ruled that Counsel for Duminda Silva cannot appear on behalf of him in the magisterial inquiry without written consent from Mr. Silva.
Colombo Additional Magistrate Prasanna Alwis
The Magistrate said according to Medical reports filed in court on October 10 and November 22, 2011 Duminda Silva was in a semi conscious state and was unable to talk or write
made this observation while delivering his order over the appearance of President’s Counsel Hemantha Warnakulasuriya at the magisterial inquiry into the killing of four people in- cluding for mer Parliamentarian and President’s adviser Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra at Mulleriyawa.
The Magistrate said according to Medical reports filed in court on October 10 and November 22, 2011 Duminda Silva was in a semi conscious state and was unable to talk or write. Since he cannot instruct the counsel to appear at the inquiry on his behalf at least his relatives should instruct the counsel to appear.
The judge said no such fact was revealed in court so far and therefore if the court allowed the counsel to appear on behalf of Duminda Silva it could cause dissension by him.
The Magistrate also said the cases cited by Counsel Hemantha War nakulasuirya in respect of his appearance did not have any relevance to the present state of the case. Therefore, he ruled that the Counsel cannot appear for Duminda Silva and his pleadings and submissions will not be recorded.
The Magistrate said if Duminda Silva or his relatives provided written consent allowing Hematha Warnakulasuriya to appear on behalf of Duminda Silva the court would consider it.
At the onset of the inquiry yesterday the CID infor med court that they had completed their investigations and the extracts were sent to the Attor ney General on January 27 and were awaiting instructions.
They claimed according to witnesses the first shot that injured Duminda Silva was fired by Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra’s bodyguard R.gamini.
If Duminda Silva or his relatives provided written consent allowing Hematha Warnakulasuriya to appear on behalf of Duminda Silva the court would consider it.
THE MAGISTRATE Hemantha Warnakulasuirya has no right to object to the granting of bail to his client.
COUNSEL ABEYNAYAKE
Counsel Upul Kumarapperuma watching the interests of Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra said earlier the CID filing a re por t in court submitted that two bullets had been released from the firear m of R.GAmini and upto yesterday the CID never said that the shot that injured Duminda Silva was fired by Gamini.
However now they had fabricated a story to make Gamini a suspect in the shooting incident, the counsel said.
Counsel Hemantha War nakulasuriya appearing for Duminda Silva said according to investigations the first shot was fired by Gamini who might have been the person who shot all four victims and therefore said he should not be granted bail.
Counsel Jagath Abeynayake appearing for Gamini said Mr. War nakulasuirya had no right to object to the g ranting of bail to his client.
He said the CID had submitted that the witnesses had said in their statements that his client Gamini shot Duminda Silva.
However, witness Joseph Charles Anthony by an af fidavit had affir med that he never told the CID that he saw Gamini shooting Duminda Silva. The counsel moved to grant bail to his client.
Counsel for the tenth suspect Sur- anga Premalal complained to the Magistrate that the court on the last date of the case ordered the Prisons Superintendent to produce his client before the JMO to examine the injuries and re por t to Court on the alle ged assault that took place in the prison. But the authorities had not car ried out the order and therefore had caused contempt of court.
The Magistrate directed the CID to file two se parate cases against the two factions and said according to investig ations Gamini had committed an of fence that falls under Section 300 of the penal Code and the Fire Ar ms ordinance which are subjected to death sentence or life time imprisonment.
He also said the suspect could only be bailed by the High Court and the magistrate did not have jurisdiction to bail him. The 16 suspects were further remanded till February14.