The Court of Appeal has dismissed, without taking it up for hearing, a writ petition filed by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa seeking an order to prevent his arrest and detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in connection with the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks probe.
Rajapaksa had petitioned the court for an order restraining the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) from arresting or detaining him during its ongoing investigation into the attacks. The petition cited several high-ranking officials as respondents, including the Inspector General of Police, CID Director Shani Abeysekera, the officer in charge of the CID’s Special Investigations Unit, and the Attorney General.
The Court of Appeal arrived at the decision after previously hearing submissions from counsel representing Rajapaksa and the respondents before reserving its ruling on whether to permit the petition to proceed. Alongside the primary petition, Rajapaksa had sought interim protection from arrest while the case was under consideration. During earlier proceedings, the Attorney General’s Department informed the court that it was unable to grant an undertaking guaranteeing Rajapaksa would not be arrested without first securing instructions from the relevant respondents.
Key Developments
- The Court of Appeal dismissed former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s writ petition without taking it up for hearing.
- The application aimed to prevent the Criminal Investigation Department from arresting or detaining him under the Prevention of Terrorism Act over the April 21, 2019 Easter Sunday attacks.
- The Inspector General of Police, CID Director Shani Abeysekera, the head of the CID’s Special Investigations Unit, and the Attorney General were named as respondents.
- The Attorney General’s Department stated earlier that it could not guarantee an undertaking against his arrest without instructions from respondents.
The legal filing came amid the CID’s active probe into the April 21, 2019 Easter Sunday attacks. Rajapaksa has denied any involvement in the incident and has challenged allegations linking him to it. The petition’s submission and its subsequent dismissal do not by themselves establish criminal liability regarding the investigation.