IN

 THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  REPUBLIC  OF  SRI  LANKA  

     
              In  the  matter  of  a  Rule  in  terms  of    
                   Section  42(2)  of  the  Judicature  Act              
                   No  2  of  1978,  against  Nagananda                
                   Kodituwakku,  Attorney-­‐at-­‐Law  
 
            Justice  Wijith  Malalgoda  
            Hon’  Judge  in  the  Supreme  Court  
      SC/Rule/1/2016      
                                     Complainant  
                     Nagananda  Kodituwakku  
                     Attorney-­‐at-­‐Law  
                   99,  Subadrarama  Road  
                   Nugegoda  
                                     Respondent  
 
 
To:              THE  HON’  CHIEF  JUSTICE  AND  THE  OTHER  HON’  JUDGES  OF  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  
THE  DEMOCRATIC  SOCIALIST  REPUBLIC  OF  SRI  LANKA  
 
I,  NAGANANDA   KODITUWAKKU,  of  99,  Subadrarama  Road,  Nugegoda,  being  a  Buddhist  
do  hereby  solemnly  and  truly  declare  and  affirm  as  follows:-­‐    
 
I   am   the   affirmant   above-­‐named   and   I   affirm   to   the   facts   herein   contained   from   my  
personal   knowledge   and   by   reference   to   the   records   available   to   me   and   I   do   so   on   behalf  
of  myself.  
 
Parties  to  the  Application    
 
1. I   state   that   I   am   the   Respondent   in   the   above   matter   and   a   Public   Interest   Litigation  
Activist,  a  lawyer  by  profession  in  Sri  Lanka  and  in  the  UK  and  the  Complainant  is  a  Judge  
in  the  Supreme  Court  and  formally  the  President  of  the  Court  of  Appeal.  
 
 
 2. I   state   that   I   made   this   sworn   statement   in   reply   to   the   Show   Cause   Notice  
(SC/Rule/1/2016)   dated   11th   Aug   2017   served   on   me   on   the   premise   of   a   complaint  
made  by  the  Complainant  above  named.  
 
3.  I   state   that   this   charge   sheet   apparently   has   the   objective   of   imposing   sanctions   on   the  
only   lawyer   who   has   done   his   utmost   best   to   protect   the   independence   of   the   judiciary  
and   to   stop   intimidation   of   judges   by   the   Executive   and   the   Legislature   that   keep   strict  
control  over  the  appointments  to  the  Superior  Court  System.    
 
4. I  state  that  this   case  refers  to  an  incident  occurred  more  than  2  ½  years  ago  which  had  
already  been  dealt  with  by  the  former  Chief  Justice  K  Sripavan  in  2015.        
 
5. I   state   that   the   crux   of   the   matter   in   this   case   is   a   submission   made   by   me   before   a   Bench  
presided  over  by  the  Complainant,  on  21st  of  May  2015  requesting  to  appoint  a  different  
Bench,   which   would   not   comprise   the   Complainant   to   hear   the   Writ   Application   No  
83/2014.      
 
6. I   state   that   before   the   said   oral   submission   was   made   in   the   open   Court   there   was   a  
Motion   filed   in   Court   by   me   on   20th   May   2015,   requesting   the   Court   to   refer   the   matter  
(CA/Writs/83/2014)   before   a   different   Bench,   and   it   was   intentionally   made   to   avoid   the  
relevant  submission  being  mentioned  in  the  open  Court.          
 
(True  copy  of  the  said  seeking  the  appointment  of  a  different  bench  is  attached  hereto  
marked  X1)      
 
7. I   state   that   I   was   compelled   to   make   the   said   request   since   I   had   lost   the   trust   and  
confidence  in  the  Complainant  after  the  bitter  experience  I  had  with  him  concerning  the  
Writ  Application  No.  434/2014.  
 
8. I   state   that   the   Complainant   declined   the   said   request   (referred   to   in   the   paragraph   6  
above)   and   called   the   matter   before   him   and   informed   me   that   as   the   President   of   the  
Court   of   Appeal   he   would   hear   the   matter   by   himself.   At   that   stage   I   was   compelled   to  
inform   that   I   had   lost   trust   and   confidence   in   him   and   therefore   to   appoint   a   different  
bench   to   hear   the   case.   Then,   the   Complainant   informed   me   that   he   would   report   the  
matter  to  the  then  Chief  Justice  K  Sripavan  with  the  following  remark  made  on  the  case  
 record.    
 
“…  Matter  be  referred  to  the  Chief  Justice  for  making  a  serious  allegation  of  contempt.  
Registrar  is  directed  to  send  the  record  before  the  Hon’  Chief  Justice…  ”  
 
9. I   state   that   it   is   pertinent   to   mention   that   it   was   not   the   first   time   a   similar   application  
was   made   to   the   Complainant.   On   09th   Feb   2015   a   motion   was   submitted   to   him,  
concerning   the   case   CA/Writs/65/2015,   with   a   similar   request   made   to   appoint   a  
different  bench  to  hear  the  case,  which  was  allowed  by  the  Complainant.    
 
10. I  state  that  the  said  Motion  dated  09th  Feb  2015  was  supported  with  the  copies  of  letters  
dispatched   to   the   Bar   Association   on   22nd   Oct   2014,   Commonwealth   Secretariat   on   31st  
Oct   2014   and   a   copy   of   a   press   release   by   the   Bar   Association   dated   14th   Sep   2014,  
criticizing  the  improper  appointment  of  the  Complainant,  then  a  Addl  Solicitor  General  as  
the  President  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  by  the  then  President  Mahinda  Rajapakse.    
 
(True  copy  of  the  said  Motion  dated  09th  Feb  2015,  letters  addressed  to  the  Bar  Association  
(22nd   Oct   2014),   the   Commonwealth   Secretariat   (31st   Oct   2014)   and   the   reply   received   from  
Commonwealth  Secretariat  (23rd  Feb  2015)  and  the  press  release  by  the  President  of  the  Bar  
Association  published  in  the  Sunday  Times  of  14th  Sep  2014  marked  X2,  X3,  X4,   X5   and  X6  
are  attached  hereto)    
 
Writ  Application  challenging  the  nomination  of  the  former  President  Rajapakse      
 
11. I   state   that   at   the   time   of   the   initiation   of   the   case   CA/Writs/434/2014,   referred   to   in  
paragraph   7,   the   Complainant   was   the   President   of   the   Court   of   Appeal.   This   Writ  
Application  challenging  the  nomination  of  the  former  President  Mahinda  Rajapakse  who  
was  a  candidate  for  Presidential  Election  –  2015.  It  was  initiated  with  a  request  made  to  
the  Court  to  support  the  matter  before  the  commencement  of  the  Court  vacation  (which  
was   due   on   20th   of   Dec   2014)   considering   the   urgency   of   the   matter.     However,   it   went  
missing  immediately  after  it  was  duly  filed  at  the  Registry  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  on  15th  
Dec  2014.  
 
 
12. I   state   that   when   President   Rajapakse   was   facing   a   formidable   challenge   from   the  
 opposition   Presidential   Candidate   Maithreepala   Sirisena   the   case   record,   which  
disappeared  after  filing,  was  suddenly  listed  for  support  on  2nd  Jan  2015  during  the  Court  
Vacation.  Strangely  Attorney  General  hand-­‐delivered  a  letter  to  my  residential  address  on  
01st   Jan   2015,   notifying   the   matter,   a   practice   never   adopted   by   the   Attorney   General  
under  normal  circumstances.  I  state  that  by  that  time  there  were  numerous  requests  from  
many   concerned   citizens   to   withdraw   the   case   claiming   that   the   Presidential   Election  
would   be   postponed   with   the   granting   of   the   interim   relief   prayed   for   throwing   a   life-­‐line  
to   Mahinda   Rajapakse   to   remain   in   power.   Therefore,   respecting   the   popular   demand   a  
motion  dated  02nd  Jan  2015   was  filed  in  Court  withdrawing  the  Petition  with  the  reasons  
fully  explained.      
 
(A  true  copy  of  the  Motion  dated  02nd  Jan  2015  marked  X7  is  attached  hereto)      
 
Complaint  to  Corruption  Commission  against  the  Complainant      
 
13. Thereafter  on  15th  Feb  2016,  a  formal  complaint  on  Judicial  Corruption  was  made  to  the  
Commission   to   Investigate   Allegations   of   bribery   or   Corruption   (hereinafter   referred   o   as  
CIABOC)  against  the  Complainant  for  abuse  of  the  judicial  office  to  confer  a  favor  to  the  
former  President  Rajapakse.    
 
(The   affidavit   dated   15th   Feb   2016   furnished   to   the   CIABOC   and   the   covering   letter  
accompanied  it  marked  X8  and  X9  are  attached  hereto)  
 
14.  Thereafter   to   protect   my   interests   against   the   unfounded   allegations   made   by   the  
Complainant,  I  kept  the  Chief  Justice  informed  of  the  abuse  of  office  by  the  Complainant      
with   a   request   accompanied   by   an   affidavit   dated   25th   May   2015   to   transfer   the   matter  
(CA/Writ/83/2014)  to  be  heard  before  a  different  bench.    
 
(A  true  copy  of  the  communication  delivered  to  the  then  Chief  Justice,  K  Sripavan  dated  
25th   May   2015   together   with   an   affidavit   dated   25th   May   2015   explaining   the  
circumstances   fully   that   compelled   me   to   request   for   an   appointment   of   a   different  
bench  marked  X10  and  X11  is  attached  hereto)    
 
 
15. I   state   that   further   to   my   submission   dated   25th   May   2015   and   the   reference   made   by   the  
 Complainant  to  the  Chief  Justice,  an  action  was  taken  by  the  then  Chief  Justice  to  refer  the  
matter   (CA/Writs/83/2014)   to   a   different   Bench.   Accordingly,   the   Registrar   of   the  
Supreme   Court   returned   the   case   record   to   the   Court   of   Appeal   Registry   on   28th   June  
2016  with  the  following  minute  made  by  the  Registrar  of  the  Supreme  Court  addressed  to  
the  Registrar  of  the  Court  of  Appeal.  
 
“…  I  have  been  directed  by  the  His  Lordship,  the  Hon’  Chief  Justice  to  return  the  above  
case  record  (CA/83/2014).  Please  acknowledge  the  same…”  
 
Right  violation  Case  made  against  the  Complainant    
 
16. I   state   further   that   on   03rd   Aug   2015   I   initiated   a   fundamental   right   Petition  
(SC/FR/319/2015)   against   the   Complainant   for   deliberately   delaying   the   justice   for   the  
Petitioner   in   the   CA/Writs/83/2014   without   fixing   a   date   for   argument   since   21st   May  
2015,  (a  period  of  well  over  a  year),  with  no  order  whatsoever  made  on  the  matter,  which  
amounted  to  clear  obstruction  of  justice.      
 
17. I   state   that   on   15th   Feb   2016   the   then   Chief   Justice   ruled   that   the   delay   caused   by   the  
Complainant  was  a  judicial  act  which  did  not  amount  to  Administrative  or  Executive  Act  
with   a   Cost   Order   of   Fifty   Thousand   Rupees   (Rs   50,000.00)   imposed   on   me   against   the  
Attorney  General  for  no  reason  at  all.        
 
(A  true  copy  of  the  proof  of  payment  of  Rs  50,000.00  made  to  the  Attorney  General  on  29th  
Feb  2016  by  a  Cheque  no  088980  dated  29th  Feb  2016  marked  X12  and  X13  are  attached  
hereto)    
 
18. I  state  that  therefore  on  23rd  of  Feb  2016,  I  made  an  application  for  a  revision  of  the  order  
made   on   15th   Feb   2016   and   it   was   never   listed   for   support.   And   I   state   even   a   further  
request  dated  08th  March  2016  to  list  the  matter  for  support  was  also  completely  ignored    
 
(A  true  copy  of  the  Motion  filed  in  Court  dated  08th  March  2016  requesting  the  Court  to  list  
the  said  revision  application  marked  X14  is  attached  hereto)      
   
 
 
 Issuance  of  the  Charge  Sheet  
 
19. I  state  that  after  the  appointment  of  the  Complainant  as  a  Judge  in  the  Supreme  Court  and  
after   a   lapse   of   more   than   a   year   from   the   date   of   the   incident   reported   by   the  
Complainant   (referred   to   in   paragraph         above)   and   I   have   now   been   served   with   this  
Charge  Sheet  dated  11th  Aug  2017  on  the  same  matter.      
 
Charge  Sheet  violates  the  Principles  of  Natural  Justice      
 
20. I   state   with   due   respect   that   the   process   adopted   to   issue   a   charge   sheet   on   a   matter  
already   dealt   with   (refer   to   paragraph   15   above)   violates   the   fundamental   norms   of  
Administrative   Law   and   the   Rule   of   Law.   These   are   governed   by   entrenched   principles   of  
administrative   law,   which   prohibits,   inter   alia,   decisions   that   violate   the   principles   of  
Wednesbury   Reasonableness   Doctrine,   fairness,   proportionality,   due   process,   the  
legitimate   expectations,   and   right   to   freedom   from   arbitrary   and   capricious   decision  
making.  
 
21. I   state   that   the   process   adopted   in   framing   the   charge   sheet   sans   any   form   of  
investigation/inquiry  whatsoever  without  adhering  to  the  due  process  established  by  law  
is   ultra   vires   and   an   illegality,   as   there   has   been   an   excess   of   jurisdiction   which   also  
amounts  to  violation  of  the  multiple  principles  of  the  Administrative  Law.  
 
Charge   sheet   violates   UN   and   Commonwealth   Basic   Principles   on   the   Role   of  
Lawyers  
 
22. Drawing   Your   Lordship’s   attention   with   due   respect   to   the   Commonwealth   Latimer  
House   Principles   which   have   been   ratified   by   the   Government   of   Sri   Lanka   which   is   a  
member   in   the   Commonwealth,   I   state   further   that   the   unfounded   allegations   and  
initiation  of  contemptuous  proceedings  for  legitimate  criticism  of  the  performance  of  the  
judicial  function  is  not  permitted  and  such  proceedings  shall  not  be  used  under  the  Clause  
B  of  paragraph  VII  of  the  Commonwealth  Latimer  House  Principles.  
 
(True  copy  of  the  Commonwealth  Latimer  House  Principles,  November  –  2003  marked  
X15  is  attached  hereto)