Easter Sunday attacks: AG to study court order before any appeal
The Attorney General’s Department (AG) will study the judgment on the acquittal and release of former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando and former Inspector General of Police Pujith Jayasundara over the Easter Sunday attacks to see if there are grounds for appeal.
AG’s Department sources said once copies of the judgment were obtained, officers would study it in detail before deciding whether to appeal. A decision will come afterwards.
A three-judge Trial-at-Bar of the Colombo High Court acquitted and released both Mr Fernando and Mr Jayasundara on Friday from charges of criminal negligence in failing to prevent the Easter Sunday terror attacks.
The AG had indicted them on 855 counts, all of which were rejected by the court without calling the defence to plead.
The bench comprising Judges Namal Balalle ( President), Aditya Patabendige and Mohamed Irshadeen said the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the two accused had been criminally negligent in their duties after receiving prior information regarding an impending attack that occurred on Easter Sunday of 2019.
The court also held that former State Intelligence Service ( SIS) Director Nilantha Jayawardena, who was a prosecution witness, must be held responsible for what happened as he had failed to share information he received of an impending attack at the National Security Council (NSC) meeting held on April 9, 2019. If that information was presented at the NSC meeting, the matter could have been discussed among all senior security and intelligence officers present, the court order stated.
The AG had filed 855 charges against the two accused on grounds of criminal negligence, murder and attempted murder in relation to the multiple attacks on churches and tourist hotels. The attacks killed 275 people and injured more than 500. Though the AG initially brought one case against both accused, the court directed that he file separate cases.
The judges noted that the prosecution’s own evidence showed that there were divisions within the then Government during the period of the crime and that as a result, the former Defence Secretary had been placed in a helpless situation when taking inde pendent decisions. Meanwhile, evidence produced by the prosecution also showed that former Police Chief Pujith
Jayasundara had passed on information he received regarding an attack to senior officers on the ground.
Evidence given by the then State Minister of Defence, Ruwan Wijewardene, had shown that there was a power struggle within the Government at the time and that the former Defence Secretary was not able to get security and intelligence agencies to work together, the court held. Meanwhile, information of an impending attack was also not brought to the attention of the accused during the Intelligence Review Meeting or any other meeting where such intelligence was discussed.
Noting that the prosecution had been unable to produce strong evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, the judges said that the AG should have decided whether to file indictments against them after analysing the investigation reports against the accused.
While the prosecution had listed more than 1200 witnesses, only six witnesses were called for one case while four were called for the other. Court also noted that though the prosecution could have called the then Chief of National Intelligence, Sisira Mendis, to give evidence in the case against Mr. Fernando, it chose not to do so.