Defence Challenges Evidence in Ekneligoda Case as Anuradhapura Court Orders Probe Into Special Treatment for Monk
The defence has appealed to the Supreme Court in an attempt to prevent a key prosecution witness from giving evidence again in the case concerning the disappearance of journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda.
The case is being heard before a Permanent Trial-at-Bar comprising three High Court judges. The fourth prosecution witness is Sumathipala Suresh, also known as Murali, whose proposed testimony has faced strong objections from defence lawyers.
Following submissions by the Attorney General’s Department, the Trial-at-Bar permitted the witness to give evidence. Defence lawyers had previously indicated that they would challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.
The defence has now filed an appeal petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the decision concerning the witness. Copies of the petition have also been submitted to the Permanent Trial-at-Bar.
The move adds another legal dimension to a case that has remained politically and publicly significant for years, with the disappearance of Ekneligoda continuing to draw attention to questions surrounding accountability and the rule of law.
Court Orders Investigation Into Alleged Special Treatment
Meanwhile, questions have emerged over the treatment afforded to former Anuradhapura Atamasthana Chief Incumbent Ven. Pallegama Hemarathana Thera, who is facing allegations of sexually abusing a minor girl.
The Anuradhapura Chief Magistrate’s Court has ordered an investigation into how the accused monk entered the court premises through an entrance designated for judges.
Anuradhapura Chief Magistrate Siyapath Sasindu Wickramaratne directed Chief Inspector G. Dharmasiri, Officer-in-Charge of the Police Security Unit at the Anuradhapura High Court Complex, to investigate the circumstances surrounding the monk’s entry and submit a report to the court.
The order was issued after lawyer Chanaka Abeywickrama made a special submission to the court when the case was taken up again on the 21st.
The investigation raises an important question about whether rules governing access to court premises were applied equally to the accused. The use of a judges’ entrance by a person facing criminal allegations has prompted the court to seek an official explanation of how the incident occurred and who authorised or facilitated it.
The case before the Anuradhapura Chief Magistrate’s Court concerns allegations that the former Atamasthana Chief Incumbent sexually abused a minor girl. The allegations remain matters for determination through the judicial process.
Taken together, the two developments highlight a broader issue at the heart of public confidence in Sri Lanka’s justice system: whether legal procedures are applied consistently, transparently and without favour to any individual, regardless of status or influence.
