SC directs Bribery Commission to file charge sheet against Namal for alleged contempt

Friday, 16 September 2016 00:01 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Supreme Court yesterday (15) directed the Bribery Commission to file a charge sheet against the Hambantota District Parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa for the alleged offence of contempt of the Bribery Commission on or before 3 October.

The court rejected the preliminary objections raised by Namal Rajapaksa on the maintainability for the commencement of contempt proceedings.

The bench comprising Chief Justice K. Sripavan and Justice Priyantha Jayawardane fixed the matter to be mentioned on 14 October before a bench comprising Chief Justice K. Sripavan, Justices Priyasath Depp and Buwenaka Aluvihara.

The Supreme Court on 3 August directed the Bribery Commission and counsel for the respondent Namal Rajapaksa to submit written submissions on or before 29 August on the maintainability for the commencement of contempt proceedings against Namal Rajapaksa on the alleged offence of contempt of the Bribery Commission.

The Bribery Commission complained to the Supreme Court that Namal Rajapaksa committed an offence of contempt of the Bribery Commission by allegedly disrespecting the authority by failing to appear before the commission on 26 May.

Director General Dilrukshi Dias Wickremasinghe PC sought to initiate the contempt proceedings against parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa that without reasonable cause he failed to appear before the commission and failed to produce an affidavit in connection with the investigations on his assets.

Singed by the Chairman Justice T.B. Weerasuriya, the determination of the commission requested the Supreme Court to initiate proceedings against the parliamentarian under the Article 105(3) of the Constitution.

The commission stated it commenced an investigation on the assets of the parliamentarian which would be an indictable offence under the Bribery Act and that the investigations revealed evidence to substantiate an offence of bribery.

Apart from routine investigations, steps were taken for the purpose of ascertaining the truth regarding matters being investigated, and the parliamentarian was requested, by notice dated 14 December, 2015, to produce an affidavit on 20 January, 2016.

Namal Rajapksa, by his letter dated 19 January, had requested further time to send the affidavit and the commission granted further time until 15 March, it further stated. However, on March 15, he had requested a copy of the complaint from the commission.

The commission wrote to him that it could not provide a copy, as he was not entitled to it and further requested to submit an affidavit before 17 April which had not been complied with. But the contents of the letter were disputed by Jayantha Weerasinghe PC on behalf of Namal Rajapaksa and by a letter dated 25 May he had replied to the summons and objected to its legality.

Gamini Marapana PC with Shavindra Fernando PC and Navin Marapana appeared for Namal Rajapaksa.