Plot to harm CBK in 1997 Seeing as to why the landmark FR Judgment on Sirisena Cooray’s plea was sti

The Supreme Court verdict on Sirisena Cooray’s FR plea became an international sensation two decades ago when People’s Alliance Government of Chandrika Bandaranaike acted ultra vires.   

The judgment of the SC presided by Dr A. R. B. Amarasinghe, A. S. Wijetunga and Dr Asoka de Z Gunawardena, in the Fundamental Rights case, served as an indictment on the bureaucracy and Police of this country. It was internationally acclaimed as a landmark judgment on freedom and human liberty. 

A respected newspaper in India published the decision of our SC with a comment lauding the principles expressed in the judgment. It spoke of the importance of freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and enforced to the letter by the Supreme Court.   

Cooray and Soththi Upali Detained

The Criminal Investigation Department’s allegation of a conspiracy to assassinate President Chandrika Bandaranaike was justified by the State to arrest and detain Cooray, a former strongman in the Premadasa regime.   

The mere fact that Arambalage Don Ranjit Upali alias Soththi Upali one of the underworld activists, who was a staunch supporter of Sirisena Cooray during the Premadasa regime had bought a property close to the ancestral home of the President in Attanagalle, was sought after to give credibility to the conspiracy theory.   
State prosecutors attempted to confuse the public and the Judiciary by claiming that there were four confidential reports, which contained highly sensitive information and they would place before the court.   

The contents of these reports like the missing pages of the Bond Commission were said to be ‘highly confidential’ and could not be made public.  But the SC which perused these reports stated that they did not significantly add anything to the affidavit submitted by the Secretary to Ministry of Defence.   

The two regulations, Emergency and Public Security Act gave discretion to the Defence Secretary to issue a detention order

The State argued that the Secretary has absolute powers under the regulations and that the order of the Secretary cannot be questioned. “Does he not wield absolute power under it, especially when the accusation is the most serious that could be made against anybody, that he plotted to kill the Executive President.”

   
They further argued that the two regulations, Emergency and Public Security Act gave discretion to the Defence Secretary to issue a detention order for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of the nation.   

Revival of Purawesi Peramuna

Cooay, who returned from exile in 1997 was busy planning to commemorate his mentor and assassinated President Ranasinghe Premadasa through a revived Purawesi Peramuna [PP] realizing that the party that was deteriorating after its defeat in 1994 under the leadership of Ranil Wickremesinghe needed to be re-organised and rejuvenated.   

Premadasa backed Dudley to the hilt when the two giants Dudley and JR clashed in the early 1970s which ultimately led to a battle of island’s top legal luminaries on the Hulftsdorp hills before they were haulled down to his residence for peace talks by Paris Perera, the former Deputy Speaker.

The unexpected narrowing of differences and patching up disturbed the ambitious man, who had been adding fuel to the hilltop clash from his abode Sucharitha at the base of Hulftsdorp.   Ranasinghe Premadasa’s dream of achieving number two position appeared to be a lost cause when the leader and deputy dropped hostility. The disgruntled man conspired with his loyalists to teach a lesson to his guide and leader, Dudley by organizing an informal group within the Colombo’s UNP to agitate for party reforms.   The Citizen’s Front gathered momentum as it moved out of the city to the provinces, but was dismantled temporarily after the death of Dudley.   

Attempt to Implicate Sirisena Cooray

He was arrested on unverified information and vague suspicion under an Emergency Order.   

CBK’s attempt to implicate Premadasa’s faithful and loyal friend, Sirisena Cooray in an assassination conspiracy was triggered by Chandrika’s suspicion that Sirisena, whose competency, skill and organising capabilities in reviving the party were no secret. Cooray was arrested by a DIG-led Police party on June 16, 1997, and detained for three months in a house at 38 C Keppetipola Mw. Colombo 7.     

Application for Relief for Infringement of Fundamental Rights

A powerful team of lawyers led by K. N. Choksy PC, appeared for the petitioner. The respondents were represented by C. R. de Silva, PC –Additional S.G. with Kolitha Dharmawardena DSGS –S. Samaranayake, and N. Pulle.   

The petition said:   

“The detenue was arrested acting on an order of the Secretary, Ministry of Defence which states: “Where the Secretary is satisfied upon the material submitted to him with respect to any person, that with a view to preventing such person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the national security or to the maintenance of public order...It is necessary to do so, the Secretary may make an order that such person is taken into custody for a period not exceeding three months...” Respondents cited in the plea were R. K. Chandananda, Secretary to Ministry of Defence, W. B. Rajaguru, IGP and Attorney General.   

In his affidavit to court the Secretary stated by way of justifying his order that he was informed by the Inspector General of Police and other Senior Police Officers that they had received reliable intelligence that the detainee had discussed with others about assassinating the President of Sri Lanka or causing physical harm to her and to create unrest in the country.   

But admitted that he was not informed of the reason for his arrest.   

The Secretary, in his affidavit, stated:   

“ I state that T. V. Sumanasekera DIG, CID by a report dated 14.6.97 informed me that he had received reliable information that Mr Cooray had sought the assistance of certain members of a group involved in committing dangerous criminal acts to cause harm to or assassinate HE the President.”   

The IGP had informed the Secretary that Soththi Upali was closely connected to Mr Cooray and that Cooray had had negotiations with members of Soththi Upali’s gang about assassinating or causing physical harm to the President and creating turmoil in the country. What was the evidence? No steps had been taken to check the accuracy of the information.   

Mr.  Cooray has categorically denied in his affidavit dated 15th July 1997, that he had any connection with any member of the Soththi Upali group. He also stated that the statement that he was a close associate of Soththi Upali was false and made without a basis.   

JR, Gamini Dissanayake and Cyril Mathew famously employed them; CBK did it through her security chiefs and loyalists; Rajapaksas had a ring in forces and plenty at official level

He explained that he became familiar with Soththi Upali as one of several workers sent to him by President Premadasa to assist him in connection with the Presidential and Parliamentary elections of 1988 and 1989. He said,   “I have had no dealings with Soththi Upali and have not met or spoken to him since I ceased to be the General Secretary of the United National Party in 1994.”  Sirisena Cooray had been abroad from June 1996 and returned on the 28th of April 1997. He had read an article published on the front page of Sunday Times of June 22 under ‘Plot against the President’.   

Soththi Upali had purchased a plot of land from NHDA under UNP when Cooray was the Minister, prior to 1994; how could that ever have been evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate the President?   

Last paragraph of their Lordship’s verdict …

“….Sections 36 and 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, remain applicable to him. Those sections prescribe the procedure established by law that the officer carrying out the Secretary’s order should have followed. Section 36 which states: “A peace officer making an arrest without a wAarrant shall without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions contained as to bail take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case.” Section 37 states: “Any peace officer shall not detain in custody or otherwise confine a person arrested without a warrant for a longer period than if all the circumstances of the case are reasonable, and such period shall not exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate.”
“Mr, Cooray has been in detention from the 16th of June 1997 without being brought before a magistrate. For the reasons set out in my judgment, I declare that Mr Bulathsinghalage Sirisena Cooray’s fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the Constitution have been violated and that his arrest and detention is unlawful and illegal. I direct the first respondent, the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, to forthwith order the release of the said Mr Bulathsinghelage Sirisena Cooray from custody and detention. The State shall pay the said Mr Bulathsinhalage Sirisena Cooray a sum of Rs. 200,000/- as compensation and costs.

WIJETUNGA, J. - 1 agree
GUNAWARDENA, J. - 1 agree.
Relief granted.

-326 Sri Lanka Law Reports (1997] 3 Sri L.R

This is proof that every political party in the country since 1977 had used underworld figures in its campaigns and ‘projects’ while the State officials, IGPs and AGs played lap dog.    

The Writer can be contacted at- kksperera1@gmail.com