Petitioner tells court: AG’s should protect public not corrupt politicians

Gas explosion case before CA:

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Petitioner Attorney-at-Law Nagananda Kodituwakku yesterday (10) told the Court of Appeal that the duty and responsibility of the Attorney General was to defend the people.

Referring to recent Supreme Court stricture of the Attorney General in the ruling in respect of fundamental rights application filed as regards ‘Taking a policy decision in respect of tamed elephants where judicial proceedings and investigations are being conducted and transferring the ownership’, Kodituwakku said that the Attorney General shouldn’t lie.

The Attorney General’s duty was not to protect corrupt politicians, the petitioner said.

The petitioner lawyer said so when the Attorney General told the Court of Appeal that the Department wasn’t aware of the petition filed by him in his capacity as the General Secretary of the Vinivida Foundation seeking a series of immediate measures against those responsible for accidental blasts of domestic LPG gas cylinders.

In addition to issuance of notice to ten respondents, namely Chairman Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) retired Major General Shantha Dissanayake (1 respondent) , Director General, Sri Lanka Standards Dr. Siddika Senarathna (2), former CAA Executive Director Thushan Gunawardena (3), Laughfs Holdings (4), Litro Gas (5), Trade Minister Bandula Gunawardena (6), Consumer Protection State Minister Lasantha Alagiyawanna (7), Government Chief Valuer P.P.D.S. Muthkumarana (8), IGP C.D. Wickremaratne (9), and the Attorney General (10), the petitioner sought immediate halt to distribution of gas cylinders pending a thorough investigation, formulate health and safety standards for LP gas cylinders, compensation to those affected by blasts and directive to the Attorney General to institute legal proceedings against Litro and Laughfs in terms of Section 13 of the Consumer Affairs Act No 09 of 2003 and also under Section 45 of the Sri Lanka Standards Institution Act No 6 of 1984 and Section 298 of the Penal Code or under any other provision of law for the commission of a serious criminal offence that warrants imprisonment and payment of compensation to all victims who had suffered loss of life and property damage.

Lawyer Kodituwakku asked in the open court yesterday how the Attorney General denied knowledge of the case filed by him when the Department was represented in the Court of Appeal on the first day, Wednesday, Dec 08 of the proceedings. Court of Appeal judge Sobitha Rajakaruna recused himself from the case on that day. On the following day, Court of Appeal judges Priyantha Fernando and Sampath Abeykoon, too, excused themselves from the case paving the way for Dr. Ruman Fernando and Sampath Wijerathna to hear the case yesterday.

Following deliberations, the judges declared that the case would be called next Tuesday (14) at 10 am. Attorney-at-law Kodituwakku was directed to deliver the required documents to all the relevant parties as regards the case filed in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution.

The civil society activist told the court that this shouldn’t be delayed as explosions of domestic gas cylinders took place every day and the lives of people were at serious risk. Kodituwakku also denied accusations by the Attorney General that he brought the media to court. Kodituwakku emphasized that he had nothing to do with the presence of the media.

The petitioner prayed that the Court of Appeal exercised its inherent jurisdiction afforded by Article 140 of the Constitution to arrest the serious life and property risk and immeasurable hardship faced by the consumers due to blatant negligence on the part of the 1st, 2nd 6th 7th and 9th Respondents who shall be held accountable for gross failure on their part to enforce the rule of law concerning the health and safety risks faced by millions of consumers.

The Petitioner stated that failure on the part of the 1st, 2nd 6th 7th and 9th respondents amounted to violation of the confidence placed in the office the said respondents hold in trust. The gross negligence on the part of the above mentioned respondents violated the fundamental expectations of the citizens whose executive power is being abused by them.