The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, I will begin by recalling points made by the previous speaker. He may not understand the law well, but we have studied it. I spoke about a particular Supreme Court judgment. Under the Public Security Ordinance, a proclamation issued by the President and approved here by a 120-majority becomes a resolution of Parliament; thereafter can the Supreme Court overturn it? If the then President—Ranil Wickremesinghe or whoever—had not made that decision, this Parliament would have been burned. Those who spoke of burning Parliament from Poldduwa Junction—those recordings still exist; they now sit here.

¶ 02 We opposed Ranil Wickremesinghe when Parliament was convened to stop that destruction, but he acted within the law and Standing Orders to conduct the presidential election in Parliament. That Gazette was for that. We opposed it, but we said you cannot question it outside Parliament.

¶ 03 Secondly, under the Standing Orders this is 41/07/8122 with many factors—I repeat, I am 100% for removing Deshabandu Tennakoon. The question is about proper procedure. When then Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was removed, we opposed it as wrong and marched accordingly. Likewise, I say today we cannot dismiss “sub judice.” That is why I raised it here—not to side with the Rajapaksas. I do not side with them.

¶ 04 There are nine cases pending in the Supreme Court against Deshabandu Tennakoon. I greatly respect the present Chief Justice and Justice Yasantha Kodagoda. I also said Justice Padman Surasena should not be placed in this office (as Chief Justice) at that time because he was presiding over nine cases against this respondent and had given an FR judgment against him. When the same judge becomes Chief Justice and presides, how can an accused expect fairness? That was my first point.

¶ 05 Second, the Committee report was handed over on 21 July; the next day, on 22 July, the President appointed him Chief Justice. Is that right or wrong? I ask only that. I have no personal issue with him; I believe he is an upright Chief Justice. My raising these does not absolve Deshabandu. If wrong, all of us are wrong.

¶ 06 Also, one allegation is that he failed to prevent the Easter attack though he had information. Our own Minister said he did not act. You removed Nilantha Jayawardena for not giving information. The Chairman of the Police Commission sat on this Committee. The Committee says Deshabandu knew and did not act. If he knew, that means Nilantha gave him the information; he did not act; thus remove him. But the one who gave the information is also removed, while Ravi Seneviratne, who received the intel, is today the Secretary. Where is the fairness? If wrong, all are wrong.

¶ 07 I have here the circular issued by C.D. Wickramaratne which clearly sets out how Community Police Committees are formed—without politics. But your new circular on Public Safety Committees requires the guidance of the Chair of the District/Divisional Development Committee—who is the area’s MP. He must guide it. Across the 14,022 GN divisions, you are politicizing these structures. Do not misrepresent: back then we did not interfere. Today you have interfered with cooperative societies, death donation societies, youth societies, the National Youth Services Council—politicized all. Public Safety Committees are now fully politicized per your circular—appointing even “Division Officers” under the guidance of the Development Committee Chair. This never existed before.

¶ 08 Next, on Indian agreements. The Foreign Minister told this House that under the Right to Information Act anyone can obtain the agreements signed with India. But when petitions were filed by Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekara and others, and by “ViniVida,” the Supreme Court called them and the Attorney-General filed an affidavit stating that, in view of national security and India’s request for confidentiality, copies of the MoU, Cabinet Memorandum and decisions could be submitted to Court under confidential cover if required. What is this? For years you shouted that previous governments hid agreements with India or the US; now you refuse to table your own. Bring the Indo-Lanka agreements here. When we sought them under RTI, they were refused. Therefore, Acting IGP, please do not become another Deshabandu. Those who brutalized innocents during Aragalaya must not be returned through another Deshabandu.

¶ 09 We request that the Indo-Lanka agreements be tabled; likewise, those with the US. Do not say national security to hide them. When we signed anything back then, you took people to the streets. Now table your agreements. With that request, I conclude. Thank you.