The Supreme Court today held that the Attorney General’s extensive statutory powers in relation to criminal investigations and prosecutions are held in public trust. The Court further observed that any compromise of the independence of the Attorney-General will have a negative impact on the rule of law.

The Supreme Court made these observations while delivering its order regarding the preliminary objections raised by the Attorney General in respect of a Fundamental Rights petition filed challenging the cabinet decision to hand over tamed animals to their present owners and to withdraw these cases in which legal action is being taken.

“The Attorney-General is vested with extensive statutory powers in relation to criminal investigations and prosecutions. Such powers are held in public trust. They must be exercised for the due administration of justice according to the rule of law which is the basis of our Constitution. Any type of dictation from whatever quarter will compromise the independence of the Attorney-General unless such dictation is permitted by law”, Justice Janak De Silva observed.

Five petitioners including the Centre for Environmental Justice had filed a Fundamental Rights petition challenging the Cabinet Memorandum dated 12th March 2021 submitted by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and Minister of Wildlife C.B. Ratnayake titled “Taking a policy decision in respect of tamed elephants where judicial proceedings and investigations are being conducted and transferring the ownership”.

 

The first objection of the Attorney General was that the original petition should be dismissed for non-joinder of parties.  The second objection was regarding the decision of petitioners’ to file an amended petition. The third objection is that the amended petition has been filed to cure the defects in the original petition. The Supreme Court three-judge-bench comprising Justice Gamini Amarasekera, Justice Janak De Silva, and Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe concluded that the amended petition is not time-barred. The Supreme Court further held that it is the bounden duty of the Court to secure and advance the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court decided to overrule the preliminary objections citing that these are proceedings brought on behalf of the public at large. (Lakmal Sooriyagoda)