The President’s counsel stated that it is revealed in the relevant letter that Reverend Athuraliye Ratana, Baddegama Samitha, Balangoda Buddhaghosa, Korapewala Pugnarathana had met the then President Maithripala Sirisena and presented their facts verbally and in writing requesting that the accused be pardoned and released.
Also the mother of the accused S. J. M. Jayamaha, the Bishop of Southern Provincial Catholic Diocese His Excellency Bishop Ramon Wickramasinghe, Sarath Kongahage, Mahesh Madawala and Nalini Manatunga have made similar requests, the President’s counsel pointed out.
The President’s counsel questioned the legal authority they have to make such a request and further said that during the granting of the presidential pardon, a report was not obtained from the Attorney General’s Department through the Ministry of Justice and reports were not even called for from the judges who gave the sentence.
Mr. Yasanta Kodagoda, a member of the three-judge panel, also said that it appears from the examination of the relevant legal documents that the judges of the Colombo High Court and the Court of Appeal, who sentenced the accused, had not been called for reports before granting amnesty.
Therefore, this is an unbelievable process, the judge said.
Here, Mr. Kodagoda again questioned whether the President had been misled in the process of granting amnesty to the accused.
The President’s lawyer Mr. Sanjeewa Jayawardene who replied said that it appears that the officials have misled the President to some extent.
Also, President’s Counsel Mr. Jayawardena pointed out before the court that the presidential pardon was granted through the recommendations of a committee appointed by the then cabinet.
The President’s Counsel further stated that the said committee is not a committee established in accordance with accepted legal provisions and it has no authority to issue such recommendations.
Also, the President’s Counsel pointed out in the open court that the committee had misinterpreted the decision of the Court of Appeal which gave the death penalty to this accused in issuing its recommendations and it was a completely wrong action.
There, the chairman of the bench, Mr. Justice S. Thureiraja, pointed out in the open court that the letters and facts in the files related to the amnesty process are contradictory to each other.
Judge Thureiraja said in the open court that it is problematic whether the basic steps to be followed in the process of granting amnesty to a convict have been followed.
Then President’s Counsel Mr. Romesh De Silva started presenting the facts on behalf of the aggrieved party and the further hearing was adjourned until the 20th of this month.
