Colombo (LNW): The Court of Appeal was informed by the Attorney General yesterday (18) that the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had acted irregularly in its investigation of money laundering allegations against Pastor Jerome Fernando, who is accused of defaming Buddhism and other religions.
The revelation came during the hearing of a Writ application filed by Pastor Fernando challenging the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Order for his remand pending investigations into charges of violating the conditions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act.
The Court of Appeal reserved its order for December 20 on the Writ application. During the hearing before Justice D. N. Samarakoon, Senior State Counsel Shaminda Wickrema, representing the Attorney General, argued that the application should be dismissed without delving into its merits.
He raised several Preliminary Objections, including the filing of the writ petition on December 14 for a hearing on December 18, without allowing the mandatory time of at least three working days for the Respondents to prepare.
Wickrema also alleged that necessary parties, especially the Intervenient Petitioners, were not named in the Petition.
Emphasising that the petitioner is not a privileged suitor and urging the court not to allow Jerome Fernando to desecrate the “Temple of Justice,” Senior State Counsel Wickrema urged the dismissal of the application.
Counsel Lakmini Warusawithana, representing the Intervenient Petitioners, supported the Preliminary Objections and stated that they were not made parties and had not received notice until the morning of the hearing.
She reiterated that the petitioner engaged in forum shopping and expressed the intention to file objections if the court proceeded with the case.
Warusawithana emphasised that the petitioner had suppressed material facts, particularly regarding other cases filed by him, which are pertinent to the present application.
Responding to the objections, President’s Counsel Ronald Perera, representing the petitioner, argued that there was no forum shopping, the petitioner’s statement did not violate the ICCPR, he did not abscond, and the petitioner was not charged with money laundering.
