Categories: Articles

PCoI on political victimisation says Nissanka’s complaint within mandate

*Rajitha, Arjuna, Anura, and state counsel raise objections
*Commission will hear case; take concerns to SC, says PCoI Chair

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) probing allegations of political victimisation during the former Government decreed that it had decided that the complaint of the Avant Garde Group Chairman came within its mandate, despite the latter not being a public official.

PCoI Chair former Supreme Court Justice Upali Abeyratne asserted that the Commission had already decided that it indeed has the jurisdiction to investigate the complaint lodged by Avant Garde Chairman Maj. (Rtd.) Nissanka Senadhipathi, before commencing hearings.

“The Commission deliberated on the matter at the beginning and we decided that the complaint by the Avant Garde Chairman came within the ambit of the Commission. Only thereafter did we begin hearing the case,” Abeyratne said, adding that if anyone had concerns regarding this matter, they could take it up at a higher court of law such as the Supreme Court (SC).

The Commission made this declaration in response to arguments raised by the various counsels present to represent former Ministers Dr. Rajitha Senaratne, Arjuna Ranatunga, and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who were present before the Commission as respondents.

Upul Jayasuriya PC and Senior State Counsel Janaka Bandara Tennakoon were also present as respondents.

Counsels for the respondents argued that according to the Gazette notification which was published to establish the PCoI, its scope only stipulated the hearing of complaints lodged by public officials or members of the tri-forces who had been politically victimised, and that the Avant Garde Chairman, being a private individual, could not be considered a public official, and his complaint didn’t come under the mandate of the PCoI.

Senior State Counsel Bandara Tennakoon, at this point, requested the bench to either accept or reject the claim of the counsels that the Commission had gone beyond its scope so that the respondents could seek further legal recourse at a Court of Appeal.

However, the Chair refused to do so.

“I have very clearly stated our position and that we had taken a decision on the matter before beginning proceedings. Now, we are at the end of the hearings,” Justice Abeyratne said.

Thanuka

Recent Posts

LNP – No electricity tariff revision for this year: PUCSL

The Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) announced that electricity tariffs will remain unchanged…

2 hours ago

LNP – Vocational education key to economic growth, future success: Prime Minister

As a subject, vocational education directly contributes to the economy and should be considered a…

2 hours ago

LNP – Sri Lanka launches new initiatives to attract Indian tourists

Aiming to cash on growing outbound Indian tourists, Sri Lanka and Australia have launched new…

2 hours ago

LNP – President calls on state employees to fulfill people’s aspirations

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake stated that if the current government fails to meet the expectations…

2 days ago

LNP – Discrepancies in issuance of permits to expatriate workers to import electric vehicles

There have been abuses in the issuance of permits for expatriate workers to import electric…

2 days ago

LNP – Third review approved by IMF, SL to get next US$ 333 million tranche

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reached a staff level agreement with Sri Lankan authorities, paving…

2 days ago