CBSL officer files FR

A Central Bank official filing a fundamental rights petition has sought the Supreme Court to prevent him from being questioned by Attorney General’s Department officers assisting the Bond Commission until the final determination of his petition.

The Petitioner S. Pathmanathan in his petition seeks an order from the Court not to interdict him or serve charge sheets on him.

He complains against the some officials of the Attorney General’s Department that they had humiliated him in a degrading manner in the course of Presidential Commission Inquiry into the Treasury Bond matter.

Petitioner S. Pathmanathan who is a senior Manager of Public Debt Department of the Central Bank cited Senior Additional Solicitor Generals Dappula de Livera and Yasantha Kodagoda along with Senior Deputy Solicitor General Milinda Gunatillake, Deputy Solicitor General Dilan Ratnasinghe, Senior State Counsels Shahida Barrie, Dr Avanti Perera and Nayomi Wickramasekera, State Counsel Danushan Ganeshayogan who are assisting the Bond Commission as well as Members of the Monetary Board Dr R. H.Samaratunge, Mrs M. Ramanathan, C.D.K.Pereira and Nihal Fonseka, Central Bank Governor and the IGP and the Attorney General as Respondents.

The Petitioner in his petition filed through his instructing Attorney Dinesh Vidanapathirana is complaining of the activities of several members of the Attorney General’s Department in the course of the proceedings of the said inquiry.

He alleges that during the inquiry he had been subjected to threats, intimidation, duress, harassment, humiliating treatment and unlawful invasion of privacy at the hands of the officials of the Attorney General’s Department during interrogations namely Senior Additional Solicitor General, Additional Solicitor General and Deputy Solicitor General Milinda Gunatilleke.

He laments that he had been subjected to the said humiliations amounting to cruel inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.

He alleges that the members of the Attorney General’s Department have subverted the purpose of the Commission of Investigation Act and deliberately prevented the truth from emerging and sought to deprive Commissioners and the Country as a whole of access to the facts and evidence.

He is seeking an Interim Order from the Court to prevent the officers assisting Bond Commission (Attorney General Department) from taking any steps to require, summon, compel his presence at any interrogation, consultation or other such meeting until the final determination of his petition.

He alleges the actions of the respondents amount to an infringement and imminent infringement of his fundamental right to the freedom from torture, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of lawful occupation and profession as well as consultative jurisdiction under article 129(1) which reads: If a any time, it appears to the President of the Republic that a question of law or fact has arisen or is likely to arise which is of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer that question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thins fit, within the period specified in such reference or within such time as may be extended by the President, report to the President it opinion thereon. (S.S.Selvanayagam)