Ex-Intel Chief Suresh Salley Obstructed Probe and Withheld Key Information

COLOMBO (News 1st); Former State Intelligence Service Director Suresh Salley remains under detention orders because investigators have uncovered sufficient evidence during the course of the investigation, the Attorney General informed the Court of Appeal today.

Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath, appearing on behalf of the Attorney General, told the Court of Appeal that Salley has been obstructing the investigation by providing false information and preventing investigators from obtaining relevant information.

She made these submissions when 12 intervening petitions filed in relation to the writ application submitted by Suresh Salley, challenging the legality of his arrest and detention, were taken up before court today.

Following is the translated excerpt of the submissions made by Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath:

"My Lords, the petitioner has stated that he left for India on January 3, 2019 to attend a defence training programme and returned only in December of that year. Along with this case, the petitioner has submitted copies of both his diplomatic passport and official passport to court. During questioning by the Criminal Investigation Department regarding his passports, the petitioner stated that he had handed over his diplomatic passport to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs after completing his duties at the Sri Lankan High Commission in Malaysia. However, he has submitted a certified copy of that diplomatic passport to court. If the passport had indeed been handed over to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, how was he able to submit a certified copy of it to court? A passport contains 64 pages, yet only selected pages from the petitioner's diplomatic passport have been submitted. In the case of the official passport, only four pages have been produced before court. Investigators asked the petitioner a very simple question, but he did not provide an honest answer even to that. Investigators also requested the passwords to his mobile phone and computer. The petitioner declined to provide them. As a result, investigators had to obtain court orders to gain access to the passwords of his devices. This is the manner in which the petitioner has conducted himself throughout this investigation. These intervening petitions have been filed in support of him. The petitioner was arrested and detained for questioning because sufficient evidence was uncovered during the investigations."

Intervening petitions have been filed by Venerable Bengamuwe Nalaka Thera, Venerable Ahungalle Siri Gunananda Thera, Venerable Yapanaye Sugatha Wansa Thera, Venerable Medagoda Abhayatissa Thera, Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekara, Dr. Wasantha Bandara, and the National Patriotic Movement.

The petitions were considered before a bench comprising Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justice Priyantha Fernando.

The Deputy Solicitor General further argued that the intervening petitions lack a valid legal basis.

Accordingly, she requested the court to dismiss the petitions without granting leave to proceed.

Following is the translated excerpt of the submissions made by Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath:

"My Lords, all the matters raised by the intervening petitioners are already contained in the main petition itself. The intervening petitioners merely repeat the same arguments advanced by the petitioner. There is no necessity for intervening petitioners to reiterate issues that have already been placed before court by the petitioner. They claim to be intervening on grounds of public interest. However, this case does not involve such a public interest issue. This case concerns the petitioner's personal grievances, including the alleged deprivation of his personal liberty resulting from the investigation. If there has been any unlawful act in relation to the arrest of a suspect during an investigation, the appropriate legal remedy would be to file a Fundamental Rights petition before the Supreme Court. There is no legal basis for seeking writ relief before the Court of Appeal in such circumstances."

The Court of Appeal is scheduled to deliver its ruling on whether leave will be granted to proceed with the intervening petitions on September 7.