Lawyers' right at Police stations approved
By S.S.SELVANAYAGAM May 22, 2012 | |
Deputy Solicitor General Shavindra Fernando yesterday (21) informed the Supreme Court the regulations covering the rights of Attorneys-at-law to represent their clients at police stations has now been approved by the President under section 55 of the Police Ordinance and sent to the government printer to be included in the gazette. The Bench comprising Justices N.g.amaratunga, Suresh Chandra and Chandra Ekanayake listed the matter to be mentioned on July 5.
Petitioner D.w.c.mohotti in his Fundamental Rights violation petition had cited Bambalapitiya Police OIC, IGP Jayantha Wickremaratne and National Police Chairman Neville Piyadigama and the Attorney General as Respondents.
Sanjeeva Jayawardane appeared on behalf of the Petitioner Lawyer. President’s Counsel Shibly Aziz with Rohan Sahabandu appeared for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.
In a motion, the Respondents indicated that they wished to settle the said case and in pursuance thereof, when this matter was called on April 3, 2009 parties agreed to settle this matter and the Court directed the parties to file Terms of Settlement by way of motion.
The terms of settlement are as follows:
1. The IGP shall forthwith frame and issue formal rules under and in terms of section 55 of the Police Ordinance as amended duly approved by the Minister, for the purpose of inter alia recognizing and protecting the rights of an Attorney-at-law to represent or protect the interests of his/her client at any Police Station, Police Head Quarters and/or any other permanent unit, base, post or such like, that has been established by the Police anywhere in the country, whether such client is a suspect or otherwise;
2. The IGP shall forthwith cause the same to be also duly incorporated in the Departmental Orders of the Police;
3. The IGP shall at all times implement and enforce the said rules issued under Section 55 of the Police Ordinance and copies of such rules shall be issued to the OIC of every Police Station, Head Quarters and/or any other permanent unit, base, post or such like that has been established by the Police situated island-wide and it shall be the responsibility of such OIC to issue copies to every officer under his purview and command and to generally disseminate information with regard to the content and due and strict observance of such rules anywhere in the country;
4. There shall be established as provided for in the said rules, a special committee comprising of a senior officer of the Attorney General’s Department not below the rank of Additional Solicitor General, who shall also be the exofficio Chairman of the said Committee, the other members shall comprise of the President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, the Director (Legal) of the Police, and a serving member of the National Police Commission;
5. The said Committee shall be charged with the function of monitoring and facilitating the due and proper observance of the above mentioned Police Rules and reporting any breaches thereof to the IGP and generally, to do all such acts that shall serve to promote and foster better relations between the members of the Legal Profession and members of the Police;
6. Such Committee shall also be entitled to make recommendations and report to the IGP, the Attorney General and the National Police Commission, as the case may be, with regard to any breach of such rules and in respect of the proceedings that should be launched thereon, against the officer in question;
7. The meeting of the said Committee shall be convened with reasonable regularity by the Chairman of the said Committee and in addition thereto, in the event of a request being made by any one or more members of the said Committee, as the case may be
| |
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Still No Trace Of Pattani Razeek
- One Year After Disappearing
Poster campaign calling for the release of Razeek
By Abdul H. Azeez
It’s been one year since the abduction of human rights activist Pattani Razeek. On February 11, 2010, whilst on a field visit to Kurunegala, Razeek reportedly voluntarily got into a white van and was never seen again.
The circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Razeek are both strange and intriguing, for instance, for days after he disappeared, family and colleagues would get SMSs from his mobile number telling them that he was safe in Kurunegala. The messages were followed up by calls soon enough, also from Razeek’s phone, but this time claiming to be from his supposed abductors. The trip Razeek made to Kurunegala was rather unusual as he usually does not engage in such field trips, according to Jansila Majeed a colleague who approved his vehicle for the trip.
As for his abductors, they were even stranger. They would call his colleagues at the Community Trust Fund, the organisation he was a founder and trustee of, and accuse them of mishandling organisational funds. They called a number of his female associates and accused them of having illicit relations with him, and they also called his family on February 23, 2010 and demanded Rs 20 million as ransom.
His family, even though not very rich, still came through with the money, thanks to the help of many friends and members of CTF but even more strangely, even before they could even communicate to his abductors that they had the money, all contact ceased; they never heard from Razeek or his abductors ever again.
The Plot Thickens
The abductors, however, made some early mistakes that managed to provide some clues as to who they were. The kidnappers were using Razeek’s phone for all communications to his family and associates, this phone line eventually got disconnected because no one paid the bills. His abductors then purchased three more SIMs using Razeek’s national identification card number and in a remarkable move right out of a spy movie, asked his son to secretly come to a pre-arranged location in order to collect the SIMs.
His son, Razeek Riskan Mohammed relating the incident, said that he then proceeded to the Wattala Mosque on April 27, 2010 and found two SIM cards under a tree there. He told The Sunday Leader that the SIMs had been wrapped in a small piece of cloth. Upon contacting the abductors, who had hung on to the third SIM for that reason, he was told to give the second SIM to Mustafa Nihmath, a former founder and trustee general of CTF.
Nihmath refused the SIM, saying that he wanted no part in the proceedings. But Riskhan continued talking to his father’s abductors via the SIM he had received until they finally cut off contact in mid September. “The last call we received was a demand for Rs 20 million cash. We managed to negotiate the sum down to Rs 10 million”. The family collected the funds from well wishers and friends, but no word was received from the kidnappers again.
Previously on April 3, another set of instructions led Razeek’s son-in-law Zainudeen to the Gunasinghapura mosque where he found objects that belonged to Razeek such as his glasses, drivers licence and motorbike insurance papers under a carpet.
The circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Razeek are both strange and intriguing, for instance, for days after he disappeared, family and colleagues would get SMSs from his mobile number telling them that he was safe in Kurunegala. The messages were followed up by calls soon enough, also from Razeek’s phone, but this time claiming to be from his supposed abductors. The trip Razeek made to Kurunegala was rather unusual as he usually does not engage in such field trips, according to Jansila Majeed a colleague who approved his vehicle for the trip.
As for his abductors, they were even stranger. They would call his colleagues at the Community Trust Fund, the organisation he was a founder and trustee of, and accuse them of mishandling organisational funds. They called a number of his female associates and accused them of having illicit relations with him, and they also called his family on February 23, 2010 and demanded Rs 20 million as ransom.
His family, even though not very rich, still came through with the money, thanks to the help of many friends and members of CTF but even more strangely, even before they could even communicate to his abductors that they had the money, all contact ceased; they never heard from Razeek or his abductors ever again.
The Plot Thickens
The abductors, however, made some early mistakes that managed to provide some clues as to who they were. The kidnappers were using Razeek’s phone for all communications to his family and associates, this phone line eventually got disconnected because no one paid the bills. His abductors then purchased three more SIMs using Razeek’s national identification card number and in a remarkable move right out of a spy movie, asked his son to secretly come to a pre-arranged location in order to collect the SIMs.
His son, Razeek Riskan Mohammed relating the incident, said that he then proceeded to the Wattala Mosque on April 27, 2010 and found two SIM cards under a tree there. He told The Sunday Leader that the SIMs had been wrapped in a small piece of cloth. Upon contacting the abductors, who had hung on to the third SIM for that reason, he was told to give the second SIM to Mustafa Nihmath, a former founder and trustee general of CTF.
Nihmath refused the SIM, saying that he wanted no part in the proceedings. But Riskhan continued talking to his father’s abductors via the SIM he had received until they finally cut off contact in mid September. “The last call we received was a demand for Rs 20 million cash. We managed to negotiate the sum down to Rs 10 million”. The family collected the funds from well wishers and friends, but no word was received from the kidnappers again.
Previously on April 3, another set of instructions led Razeek’s son-in-law Zainudeen to the Gunasinghapura mosque where he found objects that belonged to Razeek such as his glasses, drivers licence and motorbike insurance papers under a carpet.
Suspects
Meanwhile, the family had lodged complaints both in the Mundal and Kurunegala police stations. CTF had also lodged a complaint at the Puttalam police. One of the first things that was done was to put a trace on the SIM card that was calling Riskhan. The number was eventually traced to a phone (EMI number 352880100917420) belonging to one Shahabdeen Naushard of 414A, Nagawillawwa, as indicated by the police report concerning the case. This led to the police naming Naushard as the chief suspect.
All attempts to arrest Naushard have failed so far however. He initially applied for anticipatory bail citing reasons that reliable sources say included the fact the he could not get away from his job responsibilities working for Minister Rishard Bathiudeen. He had also cited potential damage to his reputation as grounds for requesting anticipatory bail.
Minister Rishard Bathiudeen told The Sunday Leader that he no longer worked with Naushard since his portfolio changed from the Ministry of Resettlement, adding that any claims Naushard is making on the petition alleging that Bathiudeen needed his work were fabricated.
No grounds for bail
A senior lawyer told The Sunday Leader that anticipatory bail by precedent can only be applied for if there are exceptional circumstances in support of it. In cases where the non-arrest of the suspect can cause public unrest, and especially if the suspect is wanted based on sufficient evidence then the court cannot award anticipatory bail. He cited precedents given by cases featuring individuals such as Prabath Ediriweera, Ravi Karunanayake and Thilanga Sumathipala.
Naushard’s application for bail was overturned by the Magistrate’s Court and is now being contested in the High Courts. The lawyer representing the family of Razeek, Lakshan Dias, told The Sunday Leader that the family was requesting court permission in order to be a part of the hearing in the anticipatory bail case. “We are intervening using the Criminal Procedure Code Section 260 and Judicial Administration Act Section 41 so that we can assist the courts and intervene in the case as the aggrieved party.”
The bail petitioners were given time until March 23, 2011 to formulate their response to the request made by the aggrieved party.
Strange goings on
Many staff members of the CTF that The Sunday Leader spoke to were convinced that the disappearance of Razeek had strong involvement with his activities in the organisation. One trustee pointed to the fact that Razeek was on the verge of organising a meeting of the trustees to sort some organisational problems he was having with Nihmath, the former trustee general.
When contacted by The Sunday Leader, Nihmath denied that there were any problems or issues between him and Razeek. Nihmath denied also that he had been involved in any CTF related activities after his resignation in March 2009.
Another group of staff members meanwhile have petitioned Minister Bathiudeen with what they felt were wrongful actions of the trustee board of CTF and claiming that large scale fund mismanagement had occurred. The matter was put to the NGO Secretariat which is overseen by the Defence Ministry for investigation.
Posters and leaflets appeared all over Puttalam town shortly after Razeek’s abduction accusing CTF of playing out public funds and also accusing several female members of the organisation of having relations with Razeek. The leaflets called for the intervention of Minister Bathiudeen to sort out the organisation’s problems.
Bathiudeen, speaking to The Sunday Leader said that he had held some hearings in the public interest, but had found no connection between the internal goings on of CTF and the disappearance of Razeek.
Appeals and protests
In addition to police complaints, a complaint has been lodged with the National Human Rights Commission. Appeals have been made to the President, Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, the Attorney General and Inspector General of Police. Numerous protests and pasting and distribution of posters have taken place in Razeek’s hometown and in the Puttalam District along with community meetings attempting to get to the root of the matter. Complaints have also been sent to UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders and UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances.
Appeals have been issued by international human rights organisations the latest of which was Amnesty International which issued a strongly worded statement urging the government to “Immediately investigate and disclose the fate and whereabouts of Pattani Razeek, who went missing on February 11, and immediately inform his family.” His family is distraught. “My mother has fallen ill from all the pressure resulting from my father’s abduction. We don’t know what has become of him, our only hope is that he is still alive,” said his son. The questioning and arrest of the only suspect so far in this case would definitely help in uncovering the truth.
Meanwhile, the family had lodged complaints both in the Mundal and Kurunegala police stations. CTF had also lodged a complaint at the Puttalam police. One of the first things that was done was to put a trace on the SIM card that was calling Riskhan. The number was eventually traced to a phone (EMI number 352880100917420) belonging to one Shahabdeen Naushard of 414A, Nagawillawwa, as indicated by the police report concerning the case. This led to the police naming Naushard as the chief suspect.
All attempts to arrest Naushard have failed so far however. He initially applied for anticipatory bail citing reasons that reliable sources say included the fact the he could not get away from his job responsibilities working for Minister Rishard Bathiudeen. He had also cited potential damage to his reputation as grounds for requesting anticipatory bail.
Minister Rishard Bathiudeen told The Sunday Leader that he no longer worked with Naushard since his portfolio changed from the Ministry of Resettlement, adding that any claims Naushard is making on the petition alleging that Bathiudeen needed his work were fabricated.
No grounds for bail
A senior lawyer told The Sunday Leader that anticipatory bail by precedent can only be applied for if there are exceptional circumstances in support of it. In cases where the non-arrest of the suspect can cause public unrest, and especially if the suspect is wanted based on sufficient evidence then the court cannot award anticipatory bail. He cited precedents given by cases featuring individuals such as Prabath Ediriweera, Ravi Karunanayake and Thilanga Sumathipala.
Naushard’s application for bail was overturned by the Magistrate’s Court and is now being contested in the High Courts. The lawyer representing the family of Razeek, Lakshan Dias, told The Sunday Leader that the family was requesting court permission in order to be a part of the hearing in the anticipatory bail case. “We are intervening using the Criminal Procedure Code Section 260 and Judicial Administration Act Section 41 so that we can assist the courts and intervene in the case as the aggrieved party.”
The bail petitioners were given time until March 23, 2011 to formulate their response to the request made by the aggrieved party.
Strange goings on
Many staff members of the CTF that The Sunday Leader spoke to were convinced that the disappearance of Razeek had strong involvement with his activities in the organisation. One trustee pointed to the fact that Razeek was on the verge of organising a meeting of the trustees to sort some organisational problems he was having with Nihmath, the former trustee general.
When contacted by The Sunday Leader, Nihmath denied that there were any problems or issues between him and Razeek. Nihmath denied also that he had been involved in any CTF related activities after his resignation in March 2009.
Another group of staff members meanwhile have petitioned Minister Bathiudeen with what they felt were wrongful actions of the trustee board of CTF and claiming that large scale fund mismanagement had occurred. The matter was put to the NGO Secretariat which is overseen by the Defence Ministry for investigation.
Posters and leaflets appeared all over Puttalam town shortly after Razeek’s abduction accusing CTF of playing out public funds and also accusing several female members of the organisation of having relations with Razeek. The leaflets called for the intervention of Minister Bathiudeen to sort out the organisation’s problems.
Bathiudeen, speaking to The Sunday Leader said that he had held some hearings in the public interest, but had found no connection between the internal goings on of CTF and the disappearance of Razeek.
Appeals and protests
In addition to police complaints, a complaint has been lodged with the National Human Rights Commission. Appeals have been made to the President, Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, the Attorney General and Inspector General of Police. Numerous protests and pasting and distribution of posters have taken place in Razeek’s hometown and in the Puttalam District along with community meetings attempting to get to the root of the matter. Complaints have also been sent to UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders and UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances.
Appeals have been issued by international human rights organisations the latest of which was Amnesty International which issued a strongly worded statement urging the government to “Immediately investigate and disclose the fate and whereabouts of Pattani Razeek, who went missing on February 11, and immediately inform his family.” His family is distraught. “My mother has fallen ill from all the pressure resulting from my father’s abduction. We don’t know what has become of him, our only hope is that he is still alive,” said his son. The questioning and arrest of the only suspect so far in this case would definitely help in uncovering the truth.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Who Is He? Who Said So?
By Raisa Wickrematunge
Thushara Jayaratne is a name not many may remember. The Law College student was the centre of some controversy last year. He claimed that the questions in an open book Commercial law paper (held December 3, 2010) had been leaked to none other than the President’s son, Namal Rajapaksa.Jayaratne also said that Rajapaksa had taken the exam in an air conditioned room, apart from the other candidates, even though there was plenty of room in the common examination hall. Jayaratne went to several people with his complaints: the Registrar at the Law College, the police, international rights groups. Not many were willing to accommodate him, he said at the time. The Human Rights Commission said the complaints fell outside their purview. An anonymous caller from the Law College Registrar’s Office asked him to drop the issue or leave. But Jayaratne was undaunted.
What followed after, he claimed, amounted to sustained threats and acts of intimidation. When he last spoke to The Sunday Leader in April, he was hiding in a safe house, in fear for his life, and was only contactable through Skype.
Between the months of December and April, Jayaratne received death threats. He was abducted by two men in civilian clothing on March 3, who appeared to be from the military. After getting a statement, they released him. He was assaulted by another two people outside his home on March 28.
Afraid, Jayaratne fled to a safe house on April 14. It was at this point that he first spoke to this newspaper.
But since then, he says, the situation has only escalated.
On May 9, Jayaratne said in an email, he received a call from the police headquarters (0112473894) asking him to report to the crime branch for an inquiry that day. The caller threatened that if Jayaratne did not comply, he would be abducted, together with his parents. Jayaratne decided against going to the police, out of fear for his safety. Two policemen later visited Jayaratne’s parents on May 14, taking away recent photographs of him.
Then on June 5, two police officers from the Colombo headquarters questioned the owner of a tea shop near the Sri Jayawardenapura University, asking about Jayaratne’s activities and his whereabouts. Jayaratne had once visited this tea shop regularly, when he had worked at the nearby Green Movement offices. Several of his friends also haunted the shop. The officers said they had received a letter from a foreign organisation on Jayaratne’s case. They said he needed to make a statement to the police headquarters, or submit a letter saying he did not wish for an inquiry. The officers provided a number (0776002269) to be given to Jayaratne to call for further information. When he eventually switched his mobile phone on, he noticed he had a missed call from the same number. However, Jayaratne was petrified of being arrested and detained on false charges. He therefore decided, once again, not to go to the police.
All was quiet until July 22, the day of the Pradeshiya Sabha elections. At the time, Jayaratne was staying at a church in Hatton. Jayaratne was on his computer at around 11 pm when he heard someone talking downstairs. His cook said in Tamil that ‘the lawyer had come.’ The visitor, however, was speaking in Sinhala. When Jayaratne stepped out, he noticed that the visitor owned a blue four wheel drive.
Jayaratne was clad in a shirt and sarong. His phone was hidden in his jacket. “I was always expecting trouble,” he explained.
Abruptly, he was pushed into the vehicle and taken to the tea estate in front of the Church. There were four men inside, including the driver. The group drove into the estate and forced Jayaratne out of the vehicle. They questioned him for 15 minutes, asking him who was ‘behind his work’ and why he was staying at the Church. Jayaratne was teaching some of the Tamil students English. He told the police that he was preparing for his exams, and had come to the Church to study. The men asked for his address in Colombo, and to protect his parents, Jayaratne gave a false address. At one point, he was shoved hard, so that his sarong fell off. The men also photographed him for identification purposes. He was ordered to come to the Hatton police station with more information on July 25. The men then left him in the plantation, and Jayaratne found his way back to the Church two hours later.
He immediately moved from Hatton to a safe house near Colombo, where he is now staying. Jayaratne says that though he has dialed the police emergency hotline 119 after each incident, no action has been taken to protect him or investigate his complaints. On May 30, he wrote again to the National Human Rights Commission only to be told in writing the next day that the matter fell outside their mandate.
The next day, Jayaratne filed a Fundamental Rights Application with the Supreme Court (case SCFR 223/2011), claiming his rights under Article 12 (1) and (2) of the constitution had been violated by the Law College, which released the final results for the exam before a final determination on the inquiry into the examination related ‘irregularities’. The first hearing on the case was held on Thursday (1).
Incidentally, on Monday, August 29, the Law College held an event marking its 137th anniversary. The Chief Guest on the occasion was President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was awarded honourary status at the College. Jayaratne said this was unprecedented in College history. “The Law College has always respected the Chief Justice, and never entertained politicians as guests. This goes against tradition,” he said. Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was also present at the ceremony.
It is notable however, that the Law College Principal and the police spokesman both dismissed Jayaratne’s complaints as pure hearsay. The Principal told The Sunday Leader that an investigation had been held on the matter, while police spokesman Prishantha Jayakody pointed out that Jayaratne’s evidence was almost exclusively based on a conversation overheard at the canteen. “He has no direct evidence that the paper was leaked. It is just a rumour,” Jayakody said on an earlier occasion. “They were unfounded allegations,” the Principal said in April. He added that Jayaratne had been given a fair hearing, with legal representation. IUSF Convenor Udul Premaratne was among those who accompanied Jayaratne to the hearing.
UPFA MP Namal Rajapaksa meanwhile said he had never heard of Thushara Jayaratne. He added that though he moved with many different cliques within the College, he had never encountered Jayaratne before. He added that even the student union heads had never heard of him. As to the allegations, Rajapaksa said there was no question of the papers being leaked.
Rajapaksa explained that he studied with a group of 10 to 15 people, and they had discussed the subject both before and after the exam, as normal students did. He also denied that he was given a separate room to sit in. “It was a normal classroom, and I did not sit for the exam alone,” he said.
Interestingly, Jayaratne’s fears for his life seemed to have eased somewhat. Where he would once only communicate via Skype, he is now contactable via mobile phone. His Facebook profile states, “I am the person complaint [sic] Namal Rajapaksa exam violation at Sri Lanka Law College,” in the Education section. “I am interested in the rule of law,” he adds, before providing his mobile number on the social networking site.
It would seem that authorities are largely dismissive of Jayaratne’s complaints as being groundless. Rajapaksa himself denied the allegations. Jayaratne, meanwhile, maintains that the paper was leaked, and is worried that his case will not receive a fair hearing.
Case Postponed Till October 25
The Fundamental Rights application which came before a three judge Bench in the Supreme Court on Thursday September 1, was postponed till October 25, Jayaratne’s lawyer, Lakshan Dias said. The bench comprised Justice Shirani Thilakawardene, Justice M. Imam and Justice Chandra Ekanayake. Justice Thilakawardene refused to hear the case as she is a member of the Incorporated Council of Legal Education which has been named as a respondent. It was agreed to postpone the case until a new Bench is constituted.
The Attorney General brought forward two objections on the time bar and jurisdiction of the case. Dias brought forward the objection that the petitioner genuinely fears for his life considering the nature of the case
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)