• Victim’s daughter writes to PM calling for P’ment impeachment of AG
• Alleges AG unfit to serve due to gross abuse of power or gross neglect of duty 
• Brother Lal seeks Govt. stance on AG’s call 

In the wake of the controversial decision made by the Attorney General (AG) Parinda Ranasinghe (Jnr.), Presidents Counsel to discharge three suspects implicated in the case involving the murder of editor and lawyer Lasantha Wickrematunge and the alleged subsequent cover-up, AG’s Department sources stated that the decision made by the AG can only be overturned through obtaining a writ appealing against the said decision. 

When contacted by The Daily Morning, a highly placed source at the AG’s Department speaking on terms of anonymity noted that any party wishing to overturn the decision should seek a writ. This was in response to a query made by The Daily Morning following the Government's announcement that it is reviewing the AG’s decision, as per the Cabinet Spokesperson.

Previously, the AG’s Department, defending the decision, claimed that the lack of evidence against the said suspects was behind the decision to recommend their discharge. 

Meanwhile, the daughter of the murdered editor and lawyer Lasantha Wickrematunge, Ahimsa Wickrematunge, in a letter to the Prime Minister, called for the impeachment of AG Ranasinghe Jnr. PC for the alleged gross abuse of power or gross neglect of duty in connection with the criminal proceedings on the assassination of Lasantha Wickrematunge. She added that the “only way to fulfil the Government’s pledge to repair the justice system is to impeach him (the AG) before the Parliament and to seek his removal from office as he is no longer fit to serve as the AG”. 

Copies of the letter have been sent to the Justice Minister and the Opposition Leader. 

This letter comes in the wake of the recent action (on 27 January) taken by Ranasinghe Jnr. to discharge three suspects in the inquiry at the Mount Lavinia Magistrate’s Court (MC) (case number B 92/2009) into the assassination of Lasantha Wickrematunge. According to the letter sent on 27 January by Ranasinghe Jnr. to the CID Director on case no. B 92/2009 at the Mount Lavinia MC, with copies of the same to the Mount Lavinia Magistrate, the Director of the Police Legal Division and an Officer-In-Charge of a particular CID section, the AG has informed that he/she (CID Director) should inform the Magistrate that he (AG) does not intend to pursue legal proceedings against three suspects – Premananda Udalagama, Hettiarachchige Don Tissasiri Sugathapala (at the time of the murder, attached to the Mount Lavinia Police as an Inspector, and who was the initial inquiry officer), and Witharana Arachchige Sirimevan Prasanna Nanayakkara (at the time of the murder, the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Colombo South Range) – and that they could be released from the case. Further, the AG has instructed the CID Director to report on the Court's action upon being informed of the same to him (AG) within 14 days of the receipt of this letter.

Lasantha Wickrematunge was ambushed in broad daylight and assassinated on 8 January 2009 within the high security zone surrounding the Ratmalana Air Force Base. His assailants and those involved in the alleged cover-up are yet to be identified. The CID is investigating the same. 

The letter further read: “This decision was no accident. It was no innocent mistake. It is the result of the culture that Ranasinghe Jr. has fostered and allowed to flourish in several parts of the AG’s Department – a culture of nonchalance, callousness, complacency and utter disregard for their duty to victims of crime and the witnesses who risk their lives to protect the integrity of the justice system”

 Ahimsa Wickrematunge also pointed out that “A review of these facts alone, all of which have been reported in open court, cannot lead any right-minded individual to conclude, as Ranasinghe did, that there was “no material” to support an allegation of the destruction of evidence by Nanayakkara or Sugathapala. If there was a gap in the evidence, any competent prosecutor would have directed the CID to conduct further investigations, not to throw out one of the most critical investigative avenues in this case outright. To understand the gravity of Ranasinghe’s neglect of duty and abuse of prosecutorial discretion, it is important to consider the circumstances under which the AG’s Department opened a file into my father’s assassination (CR1/40/2020). The new CID leadership post-November 2019 cherry-picked a smattering of evidence and forwarded a request to the AG’s Department in 2020 to discharge all suspects and to wind down the investigations. The material forwarded did not highlight most of the facts. The then AG, Dappula De Livera PC, instructed his officers to decline the CID request and to withhold a formal response. The National Police Commission confirmed to me on 11 January 2021, that the then CID Director, SSP Prasanna Alwis, was suspected of sabotaging my investigations related to my father. I wrote on 9 March 2021, copying the AG, highlighting the risks to the integrity of the investigations. Yet, it is these doctored and cherry-picked extracts from five years ago that Ranasinghe relied upon to reach his decision to drop the cases against Udalagama and Nanayakkara”. 

Elsewhere, the Young Journalists Association organised a protest in front of the Supreme Court premises yesterday (6) against the AG’s said decision. 

Speaking at the protest, Lasantha Wickrematunge’s brother, Lal Wickrematunge, questioned the basis of the AG’s decision. He claimed that the decisions made by the AG’s Department on the same case should not be changed over time. “Earlier, they objected to the suspects being released on bail. Then, they did the same again. Now, they have discharged them. How can the decision change like this? The AG’s Department is not one person; it is an institution. This is not acceptable,” he added. He also noted that the Government should announce its stance on the AG’s decision, as its’ mandate includes delivering justice to the victims of such politically motivated crimes. “This Government came to power to deliver justice for such crimes. We are looking forward to hearing the Government’s response to this decision,’ he said.  

In addition, the YJA demanded an explanation from the AG’s Department regarding the reasons for this decision. The President of the YJA, Tharindu Iranga Jayawardhana, stated that the AG must clarify his decision to the public, as the AG’s Department is funded by public funds and, therefore, accountable to the public. 

However, upon handing over a letter outlining their concerns to the AG’s Department, Jayawardhana claimed that an AG’s Department representative had informed them that the AG’s Department is not obliged to clarify matters to the public. 

Attempts to contact Justice Minister, attorney Harshana Nanayakkara, Justice Ministry Secretary Ayesha Jinasena PC, the Presidential Secretariat’s Legal Director, attorney J.M. Wijebandara and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka President, Anura Meddegoda PC proved futile.

PHOTO Lalith Perera