Heated argument over CoI's power to summon AG
The judicial powers of the Commission of Inquiry ( CoI) investigating acts of political victimisation were the topic of a heated exchange of words this week between the commission and the Attorney General’s representative.
The heated argument took place during a commission hearing after the Attorney General was issued notice to appear before the commission.
Appearing for the AG, Senior Additional Solicitor General ( SASG) Sarath Jayamanne PC outlined the limits of the powers vested with the CoI and drew the commission's attention to the consequences if the AG tried to interfere with judicial proceedings or influence a case that was being heard.
The AG had been noticed to appear before the CoI where the High Court Trial at Bar case filed against Samarappuli Roshan alias “Ali Roshan” and seven others before the Colombo High Court Trial-at-Bar.
Mr. Jayamanne insisted that the CoI had no powers to question the AG regarding his duties.
In the case against eight defendants, including Ali Roshan, the Trial- at- Bar had ordered the CoI’s Secretary, Pearl Weerasinghe, to hand over investigation reports related to the case to court. The order came after the prosecution told court that investigation officers’ evidence could not be recorded in the absence of these files.
On two occasions, the Trial- at- Bar issued notice to the COI’s Secretary to appear in court for failing to hand over the relevant documents.
The CoI, meanwhile, issued notice to the AG to explain why its Secretary was summoned by court. SASG Jayamanne strongly objected to the Commission issuing notice to the AG and also produced an eight page statement outlining his objections.
The statement pointed out that a CoI appointed under the Commission of Inquiry Act was not vested with any judicial powers and that such a CoI would not be empowered to review any decision by the AG in the guise of the powers of investigation or inquiry conferred in terms of the Act. Therefore, such powers could only be exercised by a court of law.
Mr Jayamanne asserted that the CoI had no powers to question a judicial action and stressed that no outside party could intervene in an ongoing court case.
The SASG’s statement drew an angry response from CoI Chair man, re t i red Supreme Court Justice Upali Abeyratne, who insisted that the CoI was acting as per the powers vested with it.
The AG’s Department Counsel shot back saying that by holding onto the investigation files, the CoI was obstructing judicial proceedings. He pointed out that interfering in judicial proceedings was a punishable offence.
At this point, the CoI Chair man accused Mr. Jayamanne of trying to create an unnecessary conflict between the Commission and the judiciary. The SASG strongly denied the accusation and questioned the Commission as to why it continued to hold onto documents that were necessary for a court case.
The CoI questioned the SASG as to why he was not speaking about mistakes in the indictments filed against the accused. In response, the SASG argued that the CoI was not the forum to speak on such matters and noted that if any of the defendants felt that the AG had wrongfully filed indictments against them, they could always complain to a higher court.
The CoI chairman observed that the Commission had been appointed to rectify such wrongs. Countering the argument, the SASG said the Commission had no legal powers to do that and that it could not influence an ongoing court case. He insisted that the Commission must take action to hand over the documents.
In the end, the CoI agreed to hand over the investigation files sought by the High Court Trial- at- Bar through its Secretary.