Pay for former CID officer Mendis still not granted despite Supreme Court order

Despite his service of over 25 years in the Sri Lanka Police Sub-Inspector Sugath Mendis has been languishing helplessly for two years without being able to meet his basic responsibility as a father and as a husband; fulfilling his family’s needs.    

The issue sparked when a witness of a concluded case, pertaining to the abduction and killing of a businessman Mohommed Siyam for which a former Inspector–General of Police Vass Gunewardena was arrested and later convicted, reverted on his statements, and made a fresh statement saying that evidence was fabricated by introducing weapons during the investigation. 

On this basis, in August 2020 Mendis was called to give a statement by the Colombo Crimes Division upon which he was arrested and produced before the Gampaha Magistrate. He was then kept in custody without being granted bail. He was then interdicted from his services. 

Mendis was in a team that did the investigation headed by Shani Abeysekara (retired) who later became the head of CID. Abeysekara and his team were commended for the swift actions which resulted in an airtight conviction. Abeysekara too was subsequently arrested on this premise and faced many legal proceedings hurled at them at every corner. 

Mendis’ bail application to the High Court was also dismissed on preliminary objections taken by the state. It was only at the second attempt before the Court of Appeal that he was granted bail, upon an application made by his wife on his behalf. 

Considering the facts before the Court, Justice Bandula Karunaratne made an order granting bail to Mendis. 

The order also takes cognisance of glaring contradictions which clearly indicates that the later statement given by the witness which resulted in this fresh investigation and court proceedings is a mere “result of falsification and embellishment and a creature of after-thought” 

Justice Karunarathne further elaborates in his lengthy order stating: “On account of the said unusual and extraordinary delay, the complaint has not only lost the benefit of the advantage of spontaneity but also smacks of the introduction of a fabricated, false version and an exaggerated account or concocted story involving a set of collaborators or conspirators, to unduly cause prejudice and harm to the suspect Rannulu Sugath Mendis, for collateral purposes. 

“Not only that the said delay has not been satisfactorily or credibly explained. It is crystal clear that the statements given by the said witnesses in 2020 are contradictory to statements given by them in 2014.”

In the absence of credible evidence to even establish a semblance of a case the Court of Appeal grants bail to SI Mendis in June 2021.  

It is in this background that Mendis seeks the intervention of the Supreme Court for an order to obtain his salary, as he is rightly entitled to until the court cases are concluded. 

After hearing the submissions made by Mendis’ Counsel Viran Corea, the bench comprising of Justices Priyantha Jayawardena (PC), S. Thurairaja (PC) and Mahinda Samayawardhana granted leave and most importantly granted interim relief directing the respondents to pay the Mendis’ salary with effect from the date of this application, namely 23/03/2022. 

Unfortunately, the respondents which include the IGP, Public Service Commission, Ministry of Public Security and the Attorney General failed to heed the words of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka even after the lapse of six months since the order, while Mendis’ family has to depend on extended family and other beneficiaries for their basic needs. 

Senior Counsel Viran Corea submitted to the court when it was taken up on Wednesday (21 September) that this was a very unfortunate situation that any litigant could be at where after obtaining an order in his favour from the apex court of the country, which is yet to be fulfilled. 

The state was strongly advised by Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya to fulfil these obligations after enquiring as to why the interim order was not met with. In the lapse of any substantial reasoning, the court decided to take up the matter again today before its original bench so that relief could be 

granted.