Ex-Defence Secy., Police chief further remanded

• Decision on bail to be given on 9 July 
• State Counsel says IGP and Defence Secy. could have prevented attacks
• Says both received specific information 
• Defence argues no specific information was received
• Argues NIB chief’s letters only requested to carry out investigations on Indian intelligence
• Argues SIS chief only communicated with President, not with the two accused officials 

By Manopriya Gunasekara 

Former Secretary to the Ministry of Defence Hemasiri Fernando and IGP Pujith Jayasundara, who was sent on compulsory leave, were further remanded until 9 July over allegations of neglecting their duty on preventing the Easter Sunday bomb attacks.  The top officials were remanded by Colombo Chief Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne yesterday, after being arrested by the Criminal Investigation Department on Tuesday afternoon while receiving treatment in two different hospitals. 

The decision on bail application will also be given on the same day.

The CID presented a report on the investigation to the Court when the case was heard. Deputy Solicitor General Thusith Mudalige told the Court that the two accused failed to act on information shared during a meeting of defence officials on 9 April, regarding a possible attack on 21 April. He further said that a reminder has been sent on the morning of 21 April as well. 

The State Intelligence Chief’s reminder on the morning of 21 April included the names of the attackers, while the same details were also shared with both officials on 18, 19 and 20 April, Deputy Solicitor General Mudalige pointed out, informing the Court that despite the information being available, the accused failed to take action.

The AG ordered the arrest of the two top officials on several charges under several articles in Sri Lanka’s Penal Code, including “grave crimes against humanity.” 

The Deputy Solicitor General said that there is sufficient evidence that Jayasundera and Fernando have committed offenses for which they can be punished, under Sections 296, 298,327, 328, 329 and 410 of the Penal Code. 

The State Counsel also argued that the accused could have prevented the attacks, either by arresting the attackers, or by evacuating the victims from churches before the attacks. If either of these methods had been used, the severity of the attack could have been reduced, he told the Court. 

The Deputy Solicitor General also noted that the IGP has failed to inform the President, Prime Minister, State Defence Minister, Commanders of the Tri-Forces, the members of the Security Council, and religious leaders, despite receiving specific details of the attack. Further, he said that the IGP could also have imposed Police curfew as a preventive measure, noting that the information was not followed up on. 

President’s Counsel Anuja Jayaratne, appearing for the accused, told the Court that the letter sent by National Intelligence Bureau Sisira Mendis to former Secretary to the Ministry of Defence Fernando requested him to investigate and confirm the intelligence report from India, detailing a possible suicide attack by National Thowheed Jama’ath. The letter was then sent to IGP Jayasundara, President’s Counsel Jayaratne told the Court. He also said that although State Intelligence Service stated they issued letters on the attack, no specific information was given, although the letters said that investigations were being carried out on whether Zahran Hashim and followers of National Thowheed Jama’ath were preparing to carry out attacks.

The Counsel questioned how his clients were to stop the Easter Sunday Mass based on unverified information, noting that for action to be taken to prevent such an attack, Emergency law and the Prevention of Terrorism Act must be enacted by the President. Further, the Head of State Intelligence Service never shared information with his clients and reported only to the President, Counsel told the Court, arguing that under such circumstances, charging his clients for murder was not justified.