AG says he wont go for show trials

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Attorney General Yuvanjan Wijeyatilake, refuting recent criticism of him and his
department in relation to major allegations, has pledged he will not give into pressure
to go in for show trials without substantial evidence. In an exclusive interview with the
Sunday Times, the Attorney General said:
Q: You have sent a fresh directive to the IGP to accelerate
investigations into the charges made in the writ application
against KP. When did you issue the first directive?
A: I must explain to you that the sequence of events leading up
to the recent advice given to the IGP to investigate allegations
against KP was as follows: 6 months ago, I inquired from the
police whether there was material available against KP with
regard to his involvement in 193 incidents listed in the Petition in

Attorney General Yuvanjan

Wijeyatilake

the Court of Appeal case (CA Writ Application No.08/2015). It was a few days prior to
the last court date in that case that the police sent us a dossier containing information
pertaining to some of the incidents in issue. What we informed the Court of Appeal
was based on that information submitted to us. The police had informed us that in the
46 incidents studied by them up to that point of time, KPs involvement had not been
revealed. This was exactly what the Counsel representing me in the case conveyed to
court. Counsel had also informed court that, with regard to the remaining incidents, we
will brief the Court of Appeal as soon as the relevant material is communicated to us
by the Police Department, consequent to their investigations.
You must appreciate that, in terms of the existing law, the Attorney General cannot

conduct criminal investigations, nor can the AG give directions on how to conduct
investigations. We certainly do not participate in the conduct of criminal investigations
either. You may recall that, from 1973 to 1979, the Administration of Justice Law
created the position of Director of Public Prosecutions, and the DPP as he was then
called, had the power to direct the manner in which criminal investigations were
conducted. Even then, the DPP did not participate in the conduct of investigations.
Q: Does the AG have any supervisory role over CID investigations. Did the police seek
your advice in the past few months over these investigations?
A: As I explained, the AG does not have any supervisory function over criminal
investigations conducted by the police. For that purpose, there is a separate
supervisory mechanism within the Police Department. We only advise the police. Upon
the completion of criminal and forensic investigations, we consider the institution of
criminal proceedings based on investigational material submitted to us by the police,
and if an affirmative decision is taken, we either indict the suspect in the High Court or
advise the police to charge the suspect in the Magistrates Court. For instance, if the
police investigations do not reveal sufficient or admissible evidence against any
person, the AG would not be in a position to indict him.
Q: Where is KP? Is he under protective custody in Kilinochchi?
A: I dont know where KP is. You will have to get this information from the appropriate
authorities.
Q: What is meant by protective custody?
A: Custody, where the objective of such custody is to protect the person being held in
custody or the detention of a person for their own protection.
Q: Was there no need to arrest him?
A: If there is sufficient evidence to believe that KP has committed any offence, he
should necessarily be arrested in terms of the law.
Q: Are the investigations relating to KP only related to the writ application what about
his being wanted by India in connection with the Rajiv Gandhi assassination; gun

running and other cases?

A: As I explained before, investigations are the domain of the police. You would
probably have to direct this question to the appropriate authority.
However, it is necessary to clearly understand the role of the Attorney General as
there appears to be some confusion. In criminal law matters, criminal prosecutions in
the High Courts are led by State Counsel based on findings in investigations by the
police. However, the case under discussion is not a criminal prosecution, but a case
only seeking a Writ of Mandamus from the Court of Appeal compelling the State to
initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the 193 incidents set out in the Petition. The
importance of police investigations and discovering evidence is for the purposes of
potential criminal proceedings in respect of alleged offences in this case the 193
allegations. However, the decision to initiate criminal proceedings can only be taken
after considering the evidence presented to us by the police.
Q: Did the Government of Sri Lanka ask the Cambodian Government to keep a tab on
Sri Lankans visiting Cambodia as a result of KP using that country as a base for LTTE
gun running?
A: As that is a matter pertaining to foreign relations, it is best that these questions be
raised with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Q: Have there been any investigations into the LTTE bank accounts maintained by
KP?
A: That too is a question to be raised with the IGP as it pertains to investigations
conducted by the Police Department.
Q: The Interpol had issued a Red Notice on KP after he was declared a most wanted
terrorist. Didnt the CID give a proper brief about the allegations against KP?
A: That is a very general question pertaining to Interpol matters. But if you are referring
to the 193 allegations cited by the Petitioner in the Writ Application before the Court of
Appeal, our queries to the Police Department were based on these incidents and we

specifically called for observations of the police on those. Thus, the response of the
police was also focused on those matters only. They explained to us that they did not
have sufficient time to brief us on all of the 193 incidents. You must understand that,
the Attorney Generals Department is not involved, or required to be, in charge of an
overall criminal investigation process against KP. We were merely responding to the
writ application and we had to rely necessarily on the briefing we got from the police.
Q: KP is known to have taken the war from one stage to the other leading to the
highest level. Were these details not made available in the findings?
A: I assume that my previous answers would adequately answer this question.
Q: What was the basis on which the case against Avant Garde was dropped?
A: I did not direct that the Avant Garde investigation be closed. I merely considered the
investigational material submitted to us by the police and whether there was sufficient
material for the institution of criminal proceedings. Based on the available material, it
was decided that charges could not be framed under the Firearms Ordinance, the
Explosives Act, the Prevention of Terrorism Act or the Penal Code. I merely conveyed
my opinion on the matter to the police. The hard fact is, I have to consider the
investigational material objectively. I did so. I have to see whether the available
material has the potential of being converted into admissible evidence in a court of
law. I did that as well. I also have to consider whether there is a possibility of framing
charges based on the presently available material and whether that could be
successfully relied on by a prosecutor of my Department. I did so, and concluded that
the material that the police had submitted to us was insufficient to frame charges. That
was the basis of my advice to the police. However, at the time I was aware that the
Bribery Commission had already commenced investigations into allegations of
corruption relating to the Floating Armoury. So I gave the CID specific instructions to
provide to the Bribery Commission any evidence in their possession with regard to this
aspect.
Q: In a statement issued by you this week, it is said that there are no criminal charges
that could be preferred against anyone. Can you please elaborate?

A: That is incorrect. My statement does not make such a general comment that no
criminal charges could not be preferred against anyone. I only clarified that, in the
Avant Garde case, the material made available to me was not sufficient to frame
charges as explained by me earlier. My statement and that of the Legal Officers
Association of my Department, elaborate in detail the background to this.
Q: Have you had interested parties applying pressure regarding this matter?
A: Pressure has only come from some media organisations asking for a show trial and
not from individuals or the Government. And in any event, I dont succumb to such
pressure.
Q: Constitutional coup? Can you tell us what is happening?
A: First of all, I am not supervising this matter because I have given a statement as a
witness. But I can tell you that the material submitted to our Department has been
considered and the CID has been provisionally advised to conduct further
investigations.
Posted by Thavam