Dodamgoda is commenting on a report filed by Sri Lanka Mirror, which said the Thera’s lawyers, Dodamgoda and Kanchana Ratwatte, were involved in a political conspiracy, in which they had not applied for bail for him.
A weekend newspaper too, reported what they had wanted was to keep Uduwe Thera imprisoned and create a public outcry against the government in order to successfully hold a joint opposition rally on March 17.
Applied for bail
Dodamgoda, who, along with Ratwatte, are president’s counsel Kalinga Indatissa’s juniors, told SLM that they had applied for bail when the Thera was produced before courts on March 09 on a charge of keeping an unlicensed baby elephant.
As per clause 21 (3)2 of the flora and fauna ordinance no. 11 of 2009, the bail act no. 30 of 1997 is considered when giving bail to a suspect in an offence relating to elephants.
This clause was cited when seeking bail for the Thera, but the CID and the attorney general were of the view that it should be considered under the public property act, said the lawyer.
Clause 23 (12) of the ordinance assumes an unlicensed elephant as a public property, they noted.
Notwithstanding that particular clause, Dodamgoda said that clause 21 (3) 2 makes it clear the bail act was applicable when considering this case.
However, the magistrate maintained the public property act was the decider, and since no ‘exceptional reasons’ were cited, remanded the Thera.
‘Invisible hand’
Dissatisfied by the ruling, the Thera was going to file a revised petition to the high court, when an ‘invisible’ hand became involved and got bail for him, said Dodamgoda.
That was done without the knowledge of the Uduwe Thera, or his lawyers, he stressed, adding that presidential adviser Asath Salley explained that to him at the court premises itself, he said.
Therefore, the independence of the CID and the AG and what they submit to courts are highly questionable and it is a dangerous situation of concern, he added.
Related articles:
