COMMUNICATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION
UNDER
THE FIRST OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL
RIGHTS
THE UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE ON
HUMAN RIGHTS
C/O OHCHR – UNOG
1211 GENEVA 10, SWITZERLAND.
Date: On this 25th day of March
2013
I.
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE AUTHOR OF THE
COMMUNICATION
1.1. The
Author of this communication is T. R.
Ratnasiri, 54 years of age, a citizen of Sri Lanka
and a Deputy Superintendent of Customs of the Department of Sri Lanka Customs.
1.2. The
AUTHOR IS REPRESENTED BY Nagananda
Kodituwakku, Attorney-at-Law (Sri Lanka) & Solicitor (UK). A Power of
Attorney nominating him as the Counsel
for the Author is annexed hereto marked ‘X’.
1.3. The all
communications pertaining to the instant application may be directed to the
address of N
Kodituwakku & Co, No.99, Subadrarama
Road, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka.
II. STATE CONCERNED
The State Party to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (‘the Covenant’ or ‘ICCPR’) and the First
Optional Protocol against which the communication is directed is the Democratic
Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.[1]
III. ALLEGED BREACHES OF THE ICCPR
a)
the Author’s and
his Informant’s right to equality and
equal protection of law and their
right to a fair trial by a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal established by law, guaranteed under Article 14(1) and the Article 26 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The agencies and officers of the concerned State Party involved in
the violations referred to in this communication are:
1) P.B.Jayasundara, Secretary to the Ministry of
Finance (hereinafter
sometimes referred to as “ST”;
2) Mohan Peiris, The Attorney General (Dec 2008 – Sep 2011) &
Chief Justice since 15th January 2013, (herein after sometimes referred to as the `former AG’)
3) Sarath Jayathilake, the former Director
General of Customs ( October
2002- May 2010) (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the `former
DGC’ )
4) Thilak Perera, Director of Customs, Customs
Department of Sri Lanka (hereinafter
sometimes referred as the Inquiry Officer)
5) Sudharama Karunarathan the former Director
General of Customs (May 2010 to Jan 2012) (hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the DGC)
6) Board of Investment of Sri Lanka (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the
BOI)
7) Colombo Dockyard Ltd (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the CDL)
8) Attorney General (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the AG)
SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. The Author T.R Ratnasiri, 54 years of age
and a citizen of Sri Lanka is a Deputy Superintendent of Customs of the Department
of Sri Lanka Customs, residing at 23/4, Makola South, Makola, Sri Lanka.
2.
The Author, further
to credible information (ref: the document
marked ‘P1’) received from a
private informant, initiated an investigation into a major revenue fraud on 11th
October 2000. The informant had relied on a paper advert (ref: the document marked ‘P2’)
published by Customs, promising ‘handsome cash rewards’ for accurate
information provided on revenue frauds.
3.
The Author commenced
the investigation and completed it on 12th October 2001 (ref: investigation summary marked ‘P3’). It revealed that the CDL had
sold 21 marine craft in the local market, manufactured out of raw material
imported tax free, meant only for the export bound products. It was then
revealed that the CDL had collected 619 million rupees of the tax component
from the buyers (Sri Lanka Ports Authority and the Sri Lanka Navy) and
thereafter misappropriated the entire tax component, without remitting the same
to the Customs. At the time, the
investigation was being conducted by the Author, the CDL, in an act of
conceding guilt, had deposited a sum of over 94 million rupees in two
instalments i.e. on 25th July 2001 and 15th August 2001
with Customs, to be applied against as
a part of the total revenue element misappropriated by
it.
4.
The Author states
that on 07th February 2002 a formal Customs Inquiry (P/Misc/93/2000)
into the fraud was commenced by the Director of Customs, Thilak Perera, the
Inquiry Officer, but the progression of the inquiry was severely affected by
various delaying tactics adopted by the CDL to absolve itself from the penal liability. The inquiry dragged on for two
years with no decision being taken by
the authorities concerned.
5.
Then on 05th
March 2004, the then DGC, disregarding objections raised by the Author, on 14th
February 2004 (ref: the document marked ‘P4’), granted a General Tax
Amnesty to CDL (ref: the document marked ‘P5’) relieving it from all the tax
liabilities. The Author then challenged the DGC’s wrongful executive action
before the Court of Appeal (Case No: CA/1397/2004) on 25th June 2004
to protect public interest and the interests of the informant concerned.
6.
The Author states that further to this Court action, the, then Attorney General, Mohan Peiris, on 09th
February 2005 gave an undertaking (ref:
the document marked ‘P6’) through
Court that the Customs Inquiry (P/Misc/93/2000) would be resumed and completed
‘as expeditiously as possible’ and
the Author, further to
the said undertaking, withdrew
the said Court action.
7.
The Author states
that thereafter the Customs Inquiry against the CDL was resumed on 10th
March 2005 but on 02nd June 2005, the CDL refused to attend the inquiry, on the
ground that the Customs lacked jurisdiction to ‘recover’ ‘other levies’ [Goods and Services Tax
(GST), National Security Levy (NSL), Turn over Tax (TT) and Stamp duty],
payment of which had been evaded by it.
8.
The Author states
that thereafter on 29th August 2005, the CDL filed an action (Case
No: CA/1413/2005) in the Court of Appeal against the continuation of the
Customs inquiry. The said action was based on the premise that the Customs had
no authority to recover ‘other levies’
referred to above.
9.
The Author states
that after a period of over 4 years of filing this action, the Court of Appeal
on 27th April 2009, issued a Writ of Prohibition, against the
continuation of the Customs inquiry for non-payment of ‘other levies’. The said judgement (ref: the document marked ‘P7’)
also contained a reference that even the Customs duty ‘could be recovered’
under Section 18A of the Customs Ordinance, a relief the CDL had not even
prayed for. The Author states that this provision is provided in the Customs
Ordinance “only for the recovery of duties ‘short levied’ and not to invoke in
the cases where the revenue is wilfully defrauded”. Obviously it was a case of misrepresentation of facts to the court.
10.
The Author states that therefore, on 13th May
2009, the then DGC, urged (ref:
the document marked ‘P8’) the then Attorney General, Mohan Peiris, to appeal against the said Court ruling [CA/1413/2005] and when Mohan Peiris failed to
initiate any action on the matter, the then Solicitor General, Priyasath Dep,
(now a Judge in the Supreme Court), further to representations made to him by
the Author and the officers of the
Customs Legal Affairs Directorate, filed action [SC/SLA/100/2009] before
the Supreme Court on 05th
June 2009, challenging the Court of Appeal order.
11. The Author states that the then Attorney General Mohan
Peiris failed to take any tangible action to proceed with the said appeal [SC/SLA/100/2009] as well, and then his inaction was exposed by ‘Sunday Leader’, a leading newspaper in
Sri Lanka, on 06th September 2009 (ref: the document marked ‘P9’). It was alleged that Mohan
Peiris was abusing the office of the Attorney General to settle this case where
public funds of 619 million was at stake. [In fact in the year 2001 when Mohan
Peiris was in the private bar he had been reported (ref: the document marked ‘P10’ dated
16th February 2001) to the then Chief Justice by the then Director
General of Customs for abuse of office, dishonesty and gross professional misconduct].
12. The Author states that in this backdrop, on 04th November 2009, a meeting was held
at the office of the Attorney General, Mohan Peiris, which was attended by the
Solicitor General, Priyasath Dep Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) Sanjay
Rajarathnam, DGC, Director Legal Affairs of Customs, and the Author. And at the
said meeting, the Attorney General Mohan Peiris advised the DGC to continue
with the Customs inquiry with a guarantee given to defend the Custom’s right to
proceed with the Inquiry against the CDL. Expressing his opinion on the
references made in the Court of Appeal Judgement (CA/1413/2005) regarding the
‘recovery of Customs duty under Section 18A’, he said that it was a mere obiter, (a judicial comment whilst delivering a
judicial opinion but one that is unnecessary to the decision of the case and
therefore not precedential).
13.
Then, after a lapse of six months, on
10th May 2010, the Attorney General, Mohan Peiris, did a U-turn and
informed the DGC that he would withdraw the Appeal [SC/SLA/100/2009]
that had been fixed for support on 30th Aug 2010 and advised the DGC
to recover the Customs levies (misappropriated by the CDL) under Section 18A of
the Customs Ordinance, which was meant only for recovery of Customs duty ‘short
levied’ as mentioned in paragraph 9 above (ref:
the document marked ‘P11’)
14.
The Author states that in the meantime,
the DGC Sarath Jayathilake was removed from the office with effect from 24th
May 2010 and replaced by Mrs Sudharma Karunarathna. The new DGC, after
having observed that the Attorney General had expressed a completely
contradictory opinion on the matter on 04th Nov 2009, took a firm
stand and on 03rd August 2010, informed the Attorney General, that ‘considering the colossal revenue loss
involving in the case’ it was inappropriate to withdraw the case (ref: the document marked ‘P12’).
15.
The Author states that thereafter, on
16th August 2010, the DGC was summoned for a meeting to the office
of the P B Jayasundara, the Secretary to the
Finance Ministry (ST). The said meeting was also attended by the senior officers of the Customs
Legal Affairs Unit (LAU). At the said meeting the ST
ordered the DGC to follow the advice given by the Attorney General,
Mohan Peiris, [regarding the
Supreme Court action filed against the CDL] , yet refrained from confirming his order in writing. Then the
officers (Lawyers) of the Customs LAU informed the ST
that there were several important points of law to be argued in the
case, which would have a direct impact in the collection and protection of the
Government Revenue. The ST had simply ignored their submissions and warned them
either to follow his orders or to leave the Customs and join the private bar. (It is relevant to mention that P B
Jayasundara, the ST, is a person
convicted for cheating by the Supreme Court in the case SCFR/209/2007 where he
had pleaded guilty and paid a fine of Rs. 500,000.00 on 21st July
2008. It has been held by the Supreme Court P B Jayasundara should not take up
any public office in the Government of Sri Lanka).
16.
The Author states that, then on 23rd August 2010 the Customs
Officers Trade Union made representations to the DGC and requested her not to
act on ST’s verbal order , which was not in
the public interest and urged her to request the said instructions in writing (ref: the document marked ‘P13’).
17.
The Author states that thereafter, on
30th August 2010, the Attorney General Mohan Peiris completely disregarding the written instructions
given by the DGC, withdrew the case [SC/SLA/100/2009] from the Supreme
Court. In the process he deceived the Supreme Court that he was acting as per
the instructions of the DGC
(ref: the minute entered in the
document marked ‘P15’ and the Court
order marked ‘P14’).
18. The Author states that, after the withdrawal of the
case, on 01st September 2010, the DGC’s office received a ‘hand
delivered’ letter from the Attorney General in which the date of the letter was
recorded as 26th August 2010, which gave an impression that the DGC
had been informed of the withdrawal of the Supreme Court case (ref: the document marked ‘P15’) in advance. According to the
content of this letter, the Attorney General had informed the DGC that the
Appeal would be withdrawn and that the revenue losses incurred by the Customs,
should be pursued under Section 18A of the Customs Ordinance, effectively
affording the CDL a preferential treatment and granting time as long as 20
years to pay the quantum of revenue defrauded, a concession of which the honest tax payers who voluntarily comply
with law are never afforded (ref: DGC’s observation at para 43 of ‘P31’).
Fundamental Rights Petition filed before the Supreme Court
19.
The Author states that thereafter, on
24th of September 2010, the Author filed a Petition (ref: SCFR/536/2010 as amended on 22nd
December 2011 (ref: the document marked P16)
as per the directions of the Court dated 05th December 2011, marked ‘P17’) in the Supreme Court of Sri
Lanka, challenging the withdrawal of the Supreme Court case [SC/SLA/100/2009]
by the Attorney General Mohan Peiris. In the said Petition his Executive act
of withdrawing the case against the written instructions of the Director
General of Customs (DGC) and thereafter giving directions to the
DGC to ‘recover’ the revenue losses
incurred by the Customs, under Section 18A of the Customs Ordinance, effectively violated the Author’s and his
informant’s right to ‘equality before the law without any discrimination to the
equal protection of law’ recognised under Article 26 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(also protected under the Article 12(1) of Domestic Law) was challenged.
The Author states that by his deceitful act the Attorney General Mohan
Peiris had allowed the CDL to go scot free, effectively evading penal sanctions
specified by the Customs law being taken against it, for the serious revenue
crime committed against the State. The Author states that had the fraudster been dealt with
as required by law like any other case, the informant in the case would have
been rewarded with a substantial cash reward for his precise information given
to Customs about the revenue fraud committed by the CDL.
Abuse of
legal process by the Respondents and some Judges in the Supreme Court
20.
The Author states that since, filing of
this case (SCFR/536/2010) the Author had been completely denied a fair
treatment. The Supreme Court, not even considered the Application for granting
of ‘leave to proceed’ for more than 2 1/2 years, whereas the Constitution of
Sri Lanka requires the Supreme Court to hear and determine a fundamental right
application within two months of its filing in the Supreme Court. The Author
states that the Respondents cited in the case persistently resorted to adopt
all delaying strategies to have the case died a natural death by denying the Author
any opportunity to support the case for more than 16 occasions. In the
meantime, several Judges in the Supreme Court refused to take part in the
hearing, citing ‘personal reasons’.
21.
The Author states that on 27th
March 2012, when the matter was taken up for support, the Court was not ready
to proceed with it and hence ‘as usual’ it was re-fixed for support on 02nd
July 2012. Thereafter, further to a motion filed in Court by the AG, ‘with no
notice served on the Author ’, the Court had called the matter on 21st
June 2012 and postponed it to 06th September 2012. In this backdrop,
having noted that the matter had been called and postponed for a long date
without the knowledge of the Author , a motion on 04th July 2012 was
filed in Court seeking an earlier date (11th, 12th or 13th
July 2012) to support the case (ref: the document marked ‘P18’).
Blatant abuse of
Office by the Supreme Court Judge Hettige for improper purposes
22.
The Author states that on 09th
July 2012, the Supreme Court Judge Hettige, simply disregarded the motion filed
by the Author referred to above and ordered that the matter be taken off the
support list of cases fixed for 06th Sep 2012 and to list the case
only to be mentioned on 06th September 2012, to fix a date for
support of the Petition as usual.
23.
The Author states that then the Author’s
Counsel, Nagananda Kodituwakku, on 11th July 2012, made a written
complaint to the Chief Justice, Dr Bandaranayake, reporting Judge Hettige for bias
and abuse of office of a Supreme Court Judge (ref: the document marked ‘P19’).
24.
The Author states that thereafter,
further to the directions given by the Chief Justice (through the CJ’s
Secretary), another motion (ref: the
document marked ‘P20’), with an
affidavit affirmed by the Author dated 05th July 2012 (ref: the document marked ‘P21’) was filed in Court by the Author
on 20th July 2012, seeking an earlier date to support the
application on 02nd, 06th or 08th of August
2012. This motion was then referred to the very same Judge Hettige, who was
compelled to reverse his previous order and to re-fix the matter for support on
06th Aug 2012.
25.
The Author states that yet again on 06th
August 2012, the Counsel for the CDL was not present in Court citing ‘personal
reasons’ and ‘as usual’ it was again re-fixed for support on 10th
Sep 2012. Then again, further to an application made by the AG citing ‘personal
reasons’ the case was re-fixed for support on 05th October 2012,
despite strenuous objections raised by the Author’s Counsel, Nagananda
Kodituwakku against endless postponements.
26.
The Author states that on 26th
September 2012, the Author’s Counsel, Nagananda Kodituwakku was forced to
return to the UK, due to threats posed to his life for his appearance in the
case. Before his departure (25th September 2012), the Counsel had
made a complaint to the Police, about the apparent threat to his life (ref: the document marked ‘P22’).
27.
The Author states that the matter was
taken up on 05th October 2012, and postponed to 22nd
January 2012 for support. Then on 12th December 2012, having
returned to Sri Lanka, the Author ’s Counsel filed another motion (ref: the document marked ‘P23’), elaborating inordinate
delays deliberately caused by the CDL and the Attorney General, and
seeking an earlier date to support the
application. Then the Court re-fixed the matter for support for 20th
December 2012.
28. The Author states that on 20th December
2012, supporting of the Petition before a Bench Presided over by the Chief
Justice Dr Bandaranayake was again dodged by the Respondents.
29. In the meantime on 15th January 2013 Chief
Justice Dr Bandaranayake was forcibly removed and Mohan Peiris, the main
Respondent in the instant case was appointed to the office of the Chief
Justice.
30. The Author states that in this background
another motion dated 28th January 2013 (ref: the document marked ‘P24’)
was filed in Court informing that the main respondent in the case, Mohan Peiris
had been appointed to the Office of the Chief Justice, and his counsel was
under threat and he had been warned not to proceed with the case. The Counsel
had made another complaint to the police in this regard on 23rd Jan
2013, also informing his intention to lay by the matter until the Rule of Law
would be restored in the Country. The Author states that a copy of this entry (ref: the document marked ‘P25’) too was filed in Court along
with the motion dated 28th January 2013.
31. The Author states that on 31st January 2013
his case was taken up before a Bench presided over by the main respondent Mohan
Peiris (appointed to the office of the Chief Justice) and the Counsel for the Author informed the Court
that the matter was about the misconduct of the then AG Mohan Peiris and he was
disqualified from hearing the case and accordingly the matter was postponed for
support on the following day (01st February 2013).
32. On 01st February 2013 the matter was taken
up for support before a Bench comprising of Justice Hettige, Justice
Wanasundara and Justice Ratnayake, but Justice Ratnayake withdrew citing
‘personal reasons’. Then Justice Hettige
presided over the 2-Judge Bench and decided to hear the case, ignoring the
great public importance in the case, where the person appointed to the office
of the Chief Justice was the main respondent, and hence the matter should have
been taken up before a properly constituted fuller Bench.
The prejudiced
Bench hears the case
33. The Author states that his Counsel vehemently objected
to Justice Hettige taking part in the hearing, since he had been formally
reported to the Chief Justice Dr Bandaranayake, on 12th July 2012
for bias. It was submitted that Justice Hettige’s taking part in the hearing
was amounting to violation of the natural justice maxim ‘Rule against Bias’. Yet, Justice Hettige simply refused the
objections raised, went on to hear the case with Justice Wanasundara and
ordered the Counsel to support the application for leave to proceed.
34. The Author states that immediately thereafter, the
Attorney General raised a preliminary objection against presenting the
case. The Attorney General’s argument was
based on the ground that the Author had challenged a ‘Judicial Decision’,
[dismissal of the Supreme Court action (SC/SLA/100/2009)] which was not an Executive act and therefore,
the Author should not be allowed to present his case for ‘leave to proceed’.
35. The Author states that the Counsel for the Author, then
submitted that the grounds for the Petition were not at all based on any Judicial
act and, the right violation challenged by the Author, had been prompted by an
Executive Act performed by the Attorney General Mohan Peiris as clearly demonstrated in the documents marked ‘P15’ and ‘P31’ filed in Court. It was further submitted that the withdrawal
of the case, was amounting to an act of deceiving the Supreme Court as the
Court had been made to believe that the AG had the concurrence of the DGC to
withdraw the case. It was further submitted to Court that the Attorney General
Mohan Peiris, after having withdrawn the case, had the audacity to send a
concocted ‘back-dated’ letter to the Director General of Customs which was ‘hand delivered’ (with a wording
that ‘I am of the considered view that
there is no merit in pursuing this appeal and in the circumstances, the said
appeal would be withdrawn and to pursue action against the Respondent CDL to
‘recover’ the revenue defrauded by the CDL under Section 18A of the Customs
Ordinance’), and received at the DGC’s office only on 01st Sep
2010, two days after the withdrawal of the case. The Author states that both
the AG and the Counsel for the CDL refuted these submissions and sought a
ruling (a Court order suspending the Author’s Counsel from practice of Law)
against the Counsel for the Author, Nagananda Kodituwakku, alleging that the
Counsel was making ‘baseless allegations against the then Attorney General now
being appointed to the office of the Chief Justice and ‘abusing the legal
process’ to make ‘groundless allegations against the CDL, which had duly paid
all levies due to the Customs’.
36. The Author states that the
2-Judge Bench paid no attention or interest to examine the documents referred
to by the Author’s Counsel. The Court held with the preliminary objections
raised by the AG, which were based on completely unfounded and WRONG FACTS, and
dismissed the Author’s application for ‘leave to proceed’ denying him a ‘fair
trial’ before a competent and properly constituted Bench. The Court further
went on to issue a cost order against the Author (ref: the document marked ‘P26’).
37. The Author believes that the
order made by the Bench presided over by Justice Hettige was ab initio void as the said Bench had
failed to observe one of the two pillars of the rules of natural justice, the ‘Rule against bias’, which was clearly
demonstrated from Judge Hettige’s own misconduct (which was reported to the
Chief Justice Dr Bandaranayake) and hence the order made by the 2-Judge Bench
on unfounded FACTS presented by the AG had no legal effect.
Revision
application refused by prejudiced Judges
38. The Author states that on 14th
February 2013, he filed a Motion (ref:
the document marked ‘P27’) and a
Revision Application (ref: the document
marked ‘P28’) in Court, which
was listed ‘only for mention’ on 26th
February 2013, before a Bench presided over by Justice Shirani Thilakawardene
and two other Judges, Justice Ratnayake and Justice Wanasundara. In the motion
the Author requested a Bench comprising of five judges to hear and determine
his Revision application, which was of paramount public importance, as the
facts in the case were related to the gross misconduct and dishonesty of the
then Attorney General Mohan Peiris, who had been appointed to the office of the
Chief Justice with effect from 15th February 2013.
39. The Author states that, disregarding the fact that the case
was fixed only for mention on that day
(26th February 2013), the Court, presided over by the Judge Thilakawardane
directed the Author ’s Counsel, Nagananda Kodituwakku, to support the
application, also disregarding the request made by the Author for a 5-Judge Bench to hear the case.
40. At the hearing of the revision
application the original ruling by
the 2-Judge Bench was challenged on two counts. First, it was contested on the basis that the order made by the
2-Judge Bench was void as the 2-Judge bench had violated the natural justice
maxim ‘Rule Against Bias’ and hence
the order made by the 2-Judge bench was ab
initio void.
41. The second
point raised was that the ‘decision has been made on WRONG FACTS given to
the prejudice of the Author and hence liable for revision’. And it was
submitted to Court that in the instant case, the ruling made by the Bench
presided by the Judge Hettige has been made on absolutely WRONG FACTS presented
by the AG that the Author had challenged
a Judicial act and not a right violation committed by an Executive or
Administrative act, (which was MANIFESTLY
WRONG, as the Right violation
challenged by the Author had been
prompted by an Executive act committed by the Attorney General, which is
clearly demonstrated in the document marked ‘P15’) and
the said ruling had been given to the prejudice of the Author hence there was a serious miscarriage of
justice, made through manifest error (per
incuriam).
42. Yet, the Author states that the Bench
presided over by the Judge Thilakawardane refused to consider the two grounds
submitted by the Counsel for revision of the original order. And finally the
Court held that ‘It sees no reason to
vacate the original order made on 01st February 2013’ and
dismissed the application.
43. The Author states that immediately after dismissing the
application, Judge Thilakawardane signalled the news editor of ‘Ceylon Today’
(another leading newspaper in Sri Lanka), Stanley Samarasinghe, who was in the
Court room, to report at her Chamber and adjourned the proceedings for a few
minutes. At the Chamber, the editor was advised by Justice Thilakawardane, to
confine the reporting of the case, strictly relying on the ruling that she
would make available to him (an affidavit
dated 05th March 2013 of the news editor Stanley Samarasinghe in
this regard is enclosed herewith marked ‘P26’).
And sometime thereafter, Justice Thilakawardane had provided the said news
editor with an ‘uncertified copy of the judgement’ (ref: the document marked ‘P27’)
dated 26th February 2013.
44. The Author
states that the copies of judgments are not issued by the Judges but by
Registry of the Supreme Court on the payment of a prescribed fee. Therefore,
the Author states that any prudent person with common sense would agree that the
conduct shown by the Justice Thilakawardane after the hearing only demonstrates
her clear prejudice in the case.
IV.
EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES
The Author states that domestic
remedies available to him have been exhausted and he has not invoked the
jurisdiction of the Human Rights Committee and in respect of the matters
pleaded in this Petition and requests the documents attached hereto to be
deemed to be part and parcel of this Petition.
V.
LIMITATION
This application is admissible ratione temporis. The Supreme Court of
Sri Lanka’s final order on 26th February 2013 was delivered after
the First Optional Protocol came into force for the State Party.
VI.
OTHER IMTERNATIONAL PROCEDURES
This matter has not been
submitted for examination to any other procedure of international investigation
or settlement.
VII.
CONCLUSION
It is submitted that the Author and the
informant have suffered a violation of his rights as guaranteed by Article 14(1)
and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
VIII. RELIEF
SOUGHT
Accordingly,
the Author hereby requests the Committee on Human Rights to declare:
a)
that the
Government of the Republic of Sri Lanka has violated the Author’s and his Informant’s right to equality and equal protection of law
and their right to a fair trial by a
competent, independent and impartial
tribunal established by law, guaranteed under Article 14(1) and the Article
26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
b)
that P B
Jayasundara, holding the office of the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance,
Sri Lanka and Mohan Peiris, holding the office of the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of Sri Lanka are unfit to hold any public office in the Republic
of Sri Lanka
_________________________________________
Signed by the Author, T R Ratnasiri
Dated: 25th March 2013
Annexes
I.
Chronology of events
01-04
II.
Confirmation of the receipt of information
about the fraud dated 11-10-2000 [P1]
05
III.
Advert published by Customs in the ‘Daily
News’ [02-04-1999] appealing for
information on frauds [P2] 06
IV.
Investigation summary furnished by the Petitioner [P3] 07
V.
Written representation by the Petitioner
against the termination of the inquiry dated 14-02-2004 [P4] 08
VI.
Notification of Tax Amnesty granted by DGC to
CDL dated 05-03-2004 [P5] 09
VII.
Ruling of the of the Court of Appeal in
CA/1397/2005 dated 09-02-2005 [P6]
10-11
VIII.
Ruling by the Court of Appeal in CA/1413/2005
dated 27-04-2009 [P7] 12-16
IX.
Urgent request [13-05-2009] by the DGC
addressed to AG to appeal against the CA 1413/2005 ruling [P8]
17-18
X.
‘Sunday Leader’
[06th Sep 09] on alleged attempt of withdrawal of the of the SC
Appeal Application [P9] 19
XI.
Affidavit dated 16-02-2001 by the DGC W D L
Perera on misconduct and dishonesty of Mohan Peiris [P10] 20-22
XII.
AG’s letter dated 10th May 2010
about the withdrawal of the SC Appeal application [P11] 23
XIII.
The DGC’s instructions dated 03rd
Aug 2010 addressed to AG against withdrawal of the Appeal [P12] 24
XIV.
The letter dated 23rd Aug 2010 by
Customs officers Trade Union addressed to DGC [P13] 25
XV.
The Order made in SC/SLA/100/2009 dated
30-08-2010 [P14]
26-29
XVI.
The AG’s letter (26th Aug 2010)
received at the DGC’s office on 01-09-2010 [P15] 30
XVII.
Right Violation Petition to Supreme Court
(SCFR/536/2010) as amended [P16]
31-43
XVIII.
The Court proceedings dated 05th December
2011 [P17] 44-46
XIX.
The motion dated 04th July 2012, filed in
Court by the Petitioner [P18] 47-48
XX.
Written
complaint to the Chief Justice dated 12-07-2012 against Justice Hettige’s
misconduct [‘P19] 49
XXI.
The motion dated 20th July 2012
filed in Court [P20] 50-51
XXII.
The affidavit by the Petitioner dated 05th
July 2012 [P21] 52-53
XXIII.
Complaint to Police about threat to the life
of the Counsel (25th September 2012) [P22] 54
XXIV.
The motion filed in Court by the Petitioner
dated 12th December 2012 [P23] 55-56
XXV.
The motion dated 28th January 2013 (P24) 57-62
XXVI.
Complaint to Police by the Counsel dated 23rd
January 2013 (P25) 63-64
XXVII.
Supreme Court order in SCFR/536/2010 dated 01st
February 2013 [P26] 65-71
XXVIII.
The motion dated 14th February
2013 seeking revision of the order in SCFR/536/2010 [P27] 72-76
XXIX.
Revision application to the Supreme Court
dated 14th February 2013 [P28] 77-93
XXX.
Affidavit dated 5th March 2013 by
Stanley Samarasinghe, news editor ‘Ceylon Today’ [P29] 94-95
XXXI.
The order of the Revision hearing dated 26th
February 2013 [P30] 96-100
XXXII.
DGC’s observation on the Petition sent to the Attorney
General [P31] 101-106
---
[1] Sri Lanka acceded to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) on 11 June 1980 (entry into force on 11
September 1980) and to the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR on 3 October
1997 (entry into force on 3 January 1998).
No comments:
Post a Comment