Testifying before PSC could create conflicts of interest: AG

• AG Dappula De Livera tells Committee he has to prosecute those responsible for Easter attacks, cannot also be a witness
• PSC deliberates on AG's submissions and grants permission for SDSG to testify instead

There was high drama at the Parliament Select Committee (PSC) probing the Easter attacks yesterday, when Attorney General Dappula De Livera answered his summons and then set out reasons as to why he could not testify before the legislative committee. 

The Attorney General was summoned to the PSC meeting in Committee Room 1 of the Parliamentary Complex to answer questions regarding the Interpol Blue Notice issued against Easter bombing mastermind Mohammed Zaharan. The TID had written to the AG's Department in 2017, seeking legal instructions about how to proceed against Zaharan and his extremist group. 

To avoid key questions, Livera held that he was responsible for filing indictments on court cases on the terror attacks, and if the PSC entertained him as a witness, there would be a conflict of interest. 

“If I testify, it would hinder me in discharging my duties as the Attorney General. If I testify before the committee as a witness, that would compromise my role as the Attorney General in future, particularly with regard to the cases, and I would not be able to discharge my duties. As the Attorney General, I represent the President, the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet. A few Cabinet Ministers are sitting in this Committee as members as well. That means I will testify before my clients. On the other hand, there are court cases regarding the same issue. So, I have to represent the President, Prime Minister, and Cabinet in that. So, there is a clear conflict of interest,” he explained. 

Before the Select Committee permitted Livera to leave, the members of the legislative committee held that subordinates who will appear before the committee will answer further questions. 



“My next submission is that I am advising the police in investigating the same matter. If I testify, these proceedings will be affected because my testimony here could be submitted before the Court and made a part of the proceedings, so certain proceedings would be affected. I would be cited as a witness in the very same proceedings to which I am the counsel as the Attorney General instructing the Police. Therefore, I would be disqualified to appear before the Cabinet of Ministers,and that would thereby interfere my duties as the Attorney General. Me testifying as a witness here and then passing indictments on the criminal procedures on the Easter Sunday attacks, too, would be compromised,” he explained. 

Senior Deputy Solicitor General Sumathi Dharmawardena and Senior State Counsel Abdul Malik Aziz represented the AG and provided testimony before the Committee instead. (AH)

AG’s Department admits it failed to instruct TID about activities of Zaharan

Testifying before the Parliamentary Select Committee appointed to investigate the Easter Sunday attacks, the Attorney General’s Department accepted the fact that they had failed to instruct the Police Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) promptly to enable law enforcement agencies to take early action against Zahran Hashim and prevent the deadly attacks that occurred on 21 April.  

• ASG and Senior State Counsel claim no legal provisions to ban website propagating extremist views 
• AG’s took two years to respond to TID request for instructions about Zaharan 
• AG’s Dept. says Police failed to alert them about 2017 Kattankudy violence 

Senior Deputy Solicitor General Sumathi Dharmawardena and Senior State Counsel Abdul Malik Aziz, who were present before the Select Committee yesterday, held that the delay caused was due to the request received to ban the websites and Facebook profiles of the criminal mastermind, and such action cannot be instigated due to lack of legal provisions in the country. 

During the cross-examination, it was also revealed that the Attorney General’s Department took two years since 2017 to prepare a report requested by TID. The particular report was completed after the Easter Sunday attacks and was given to the TID on 21 May. 

“A letter from TID, which was received in 2017, sought the banning of a website maintained by the National Thawheed Jamath. Another letter was received in 2018,” said Dharmawardena, who held that the TID’s letter contained 63 pages, including printouts of the particular website. 

“Having studied the printouts received from the TID, Senior State Counsel Malik Azis invited them for a meeting at the Department on 12 March. After a lengthy consultation, it was found that there was no evidence to act against the website. We have minutes to prove that,” he held, finding fault with the Police for failing to send the reports filed at the Magistrates Court about the violence in Kattankudy.

Responding to cross-examinations, Dharmawardena held that Police reports were incomplete even though it contained the CDs of Zahran’s preaching, which were passed to a junior to watch according to the timelines. 

(AH)