Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
10COLOMBO132
2010-02-24 01:54:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Colombo
Cable title:
FONSEKA CATCH-22: SUPREME COURT RULES NO RELEASE
how-toVZCZCXRO1439 OO RUEHAG RUEHROV RUEHSL RUEHSR DE RUEHLM #0132/01 0550154 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 240154Z FEB 10 FM AMEMBASSY COLOMBO TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1354 INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA PRIORITY 2443 RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 9460 RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU PRIORITY 7715 RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 5453 RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 3882 RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO PRIORITY 0039 RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 0239 RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM PRIORITY 0855 RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 4502 RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI PRIORITY 0021 RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI PRIORITY 7255 RUEHON/AMCONSUL TORONTO PRIORITY 0234 RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 0146 RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000132
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INSB
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/23/2019
TAGS: PGOV PREL PREF PHUM PTER EAID MOPS CE
SUBJECT: FONSEKA CATCH-22: SUPREME COURT RULES NO RELEASE
WITHOUT CHARGES
COLOMBO 00000132 001.2 OF 002
Classified By: DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION VALERIE C. FOWLER. REASONS: 1.4
(B, D)
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000132
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INSB
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/23/2019
TAGS: PGOV PREL PREF PHUM PTER EAID MOPS CE
SUBJECT: FONSEKA CATCH-22: SUPREME COURT RULES NO RELEASE
WITHOUT CHARGES
COLOMBO 00000132 001.2 OF 002
Classified By: DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION VALERIE C. FOWLER. REASONS: 1.4
(B, D)
1. (C) SUMMARY: At a Fundamental Rights hearing on February
23, the Supreme Court denied General Fonseka release as
interim relief because his claim that there was no reason to
detain him could not be verified until the investigation was
completed and, presumably, charges were filed. At the same
time, however, the court authorized protection of Fonseka's
security, greater access by his family, access by his
attorneys, and possibly access by his physicians. The next
hearing was scheduled for April 26, 2010. Embassy PolOff
attended the hearing. END SUMMARY.
RELIEF DENIED
--------------
2. (SBU) On February 23, the Sri Lankan Supreme Court denied
former presidential candidate General Fonseka's petition for
release as interim relief in his fundamental rights case
challenging the legality of his detention. The court ruled
that because the basis of the submission for interim relief
was "linked" to the final relief requested, the court was
"not in a position" to grant the interim relief. (NOTE: The
court was presided over by Acting Chief Justice Shirani
Bandaranyake, considered a Rajapaksa loyalist. Several days
ago, the president made a show of appointing her in place of
Chief Justice Asoka de Silva, who was thought to be more
sympathetic to the case but is traveling abroad. END NOTE.)
Fonseka was not present at the hearing and his attorney had
not had access to him. The next hearing was set for April
26, 2010, after the parliamentary elections.
3. (SBU) The court adopted the Attorney General's argument
that Fonseka's claim that there was no reason to detain him
could not be verified until the investigation had been
completed. While no charges have been filed against Fonseka,
areas of investigation mentioned by the Attorney General
included the alleged 400 army "deserters" at the hotel with
Fonseka during election day, Fonseka's statement that he
would release "top secret" information on the final stages of
the war, and the Hi-Corp military procurement corruption case
involving his son-in-law.
...BUT ACCESS FOR FAMILY, LAWYERS EXPANDED
--------------
4. (SBU) As recorded by the court, the parties agreed that
upon request by Fonseka's counsel, the Attorney General would
"give appropriate direction to the authorities" on 1)
protection of Fonseka's "well-being, safety, and security"
(NOTE: The Attorney General declined to include the word
"life," preferring "well-being" as "no one can predict
tomorrow." END NOTE.); 2) reasonable access to Fonseka by
his immediate family, to include children, grandchildren, and
in-laws (in addition to his wife, who already has access);
and 3) access to Fonseka by "identified lawyers." Fonseka's
counsel also requested reasonable unimpeded access to Fonseka
by medical personnel. The Attorney General agreed to medical
access during argument, but it was unclear whether this point
was entered into the court's final record.
COMMENT
--------------
5. (C) Fonseka's case drew great attention. The courtroom
was packed, and his wife was met by swarms of media upon her
exit from the courthouse. The denial of relief was not
surprising, but the improvements in access to Fonseka, if
actually granted, are important steps. The court's reasoning
COLOMBO 00000132 002.2 OF 002
put Fonseka in a Catch-22: without formal charges against
him, he cannot claim that there is no reason to detain him.
BUTENIS
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INSB
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/23/2019
TAGS: PGOV PREL PREF PHUM PTER EAID MOPS CE
SUBJECT: FONSEKA CATCH-22: SUPREME COURT RULES NO RELEASE
WITHOUT CHARGES
COLOMBO 00000132 001.2 OF 002
Classified By: DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION VALERIE C. FOWLER. REASONS: 1.4
(B, D)
1. (C) SUMMARY: At a Fundamental Rights hearing on February
23, the Supreme Court denied General Fonseka release as
interim relief because his claim that there was no reason to
detain him could not be verified until the investigation was
completed and, presumably, charges were filed. At the same
time, however, the court authorized protection of Fonseka's
security, greater access by his family, access by his
attorneys, and possibly access by his physicians. The next
hearing was scheduled for April 26, 2010. Embassy PolOff
attended the hearing. END SUMMARY.
RELIEF DENIED
--------------
2. (SBU) On February 23, the Sri Lankan Supreme Court denied
former presidential candidate General Fonseka's petition for
release as interim relief in his fundamental rights case
challenging the legality of his detention. The court ruled
that because the basis of the submission for interim relief
was "linked" to the final relief requested, the court was
"not in a position" to grant the interim relief. (NOTE: The
court was presided over by Acting Chief Justice Shirani
Bandaranyake, considered a Rajapaksa loyalist. Several days
ago, the president made a show of appointing her in place of
Chief Justice Asoka de Silva, who was thought to be more
sympathetic to the case but is traveling abroad. END NOTE.)
Fonseka was not present at the hearing and his attorney had
not had access to him. The next hearing was set for April
26, 2010, after the parliamentary elections.
3. (SBU) The court adopted the Attorney General's argument
that Fonseka's claim that there was no reason to detain him
could not be verified until the investigation had been
completed. While no charges have been filed against Fonseka,
areas of investigation mentioned by the Attorney General
included the alleged 400 army "deserters" at the hotel with
Fonseka during election day, Fonseka's statement that he
would release "top secret" information on the final stages of
the war, and the Hi-Corp military procurement corruption case
involving his son-in-law.
...BUT ACCESS FOR FAMILY, LAWYERS EXPANDED
--------------
4. (SBU) As recorded by the court, the parties agreed that
upon request by Fonseka's counsel, the Attorney General would
"give appropriate direction to the authorities" on 1)
protection of Fonseka's "well-being, safety, and security"
(NOTE: The Attorney General declined to include the word
"life," preferring "well-being" as "no one can predict
tomorrow." END NOTE.); 2) reasonable access to Fonseka by
his immediate family, to include children, grandchildren, and
in-laws (in addition to his wife, who already has access);
and 3) access to Fonseka by "identified lawyers." Fonseka's
counsel also requested reasonable unimpeded access to Fonseka
by medical personnel. The Attorney General agreed to medical
access during argument, but it was unclear whether this point
was entered into the court's final record.
COMMENT
--------------
5. (C) Fonseka's case drew great attention. The courtroom
was packed, and his wife was met by swarms of media upon her
exit from the courthouse. The denial of relief was not
surprising, but the improvements in access to Fonseka, if
actually granted, are important steps. The court's reasoning
COLOMBO 00000132 002.2 OF 002
put Fonseka in a Catch-22: without formal charges against
him, he cannot claim that there is no reason to detain him.
BUTENIS