PCoI to make orders on legal issues raised by lawyers

-PCoI previous two fold order prevented Aloysius or his agents tampering data in apple account.

-PCoI not given order preventing access to the apple account by Aloysius

By Shehan Chamika Silva

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry considered in giving certain appropriate orders pursuant to a few legal issues put forward by the lawyers in due course, who are appearing on behalf of former Governor Arjun Mahendran, Arjun Aloysius (PTL owner) and Kasun Palisena (CEO of PTL).

President’s Counsel Kalinga Indatissa who appeared for Kasun Palisena, brought the attention of the Commission over the legal powers vested in the Commission to call materials belonging to the individuals for the investigation. Questioning on such provisions in the relevant Acts, he said the Commission has no power to do so.

He also questioned the legality of the engagement of the officials at Attorney General’s Department in the bond issuance inquiry, since it was not a normal court of law.

There was another legal issue forwarded by Counsel Chanaka de Silva who appeared for former Governor Arjun Mahendran that whether a representative should be allowed when the experts extract information from the devices handed over to the Commission.

However, there was an issue of what was the best practice in such instance in the Criminal Justice process. ASG Yasantha Kodagoda submitting some international said there was no practice of allowing outsiders when experts extract information from case productions. 

The Commission also allowed Mahendran counsel to submit his stance over the matter and reserved to deliver an order subsequently.  

Meanwhile, President’s Counsel Anuja Premaratne who appeared on behalf of Arjun Aloysius requested the commission to furnish a copy of the all extraction made on his client’s phone. 

ASG Yasantha Kodagoda drew the Commission’s attention to the fact that the extraction of the all data was not done yet since they were confronting the difficulty of not having Apple password of the Phone.

The Commission consequently said that the copies would be available at the time when the extraction is over. ASG Dappula de Livera also said that they were still at the initial stage of the investigation over the extraction.

Raising an objection on the extracted details presented on August 2, related to Aloysius’ mobile phone, Mr de Silva also had earlier contended the manner in which such details were presented before the Commission when Minister Ravi Karunanayake was testifying.

However, the Commission was of the view that the details relating to the Aloysius’ phone are subject to be proven and if parties related in those details are to deny them then the Attorney General’s Department has to prove its credibility.

Additional Solicitor General Dappula de Livera said the authenticity of the details has to be proven and that is why the messages extracted from Aloysius which were related to “RK and Ravi K” were presented for the Minster the other day.

The ASG said if the Minister had accepted them then the authenticity of the extraction would have been proven. Thereby he said they will prove the credibility of the details in due course.

“The Commission yesterday also ascertained that it had given a two fold order earlier over Aloysius’ apple account.

The order says, that the Commission is not satisfied that the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act no.17 1948 provides to issue an order prohibiting Mr. Aloysius from “accessing” his apple ID or apple account, since they are personal property of the individual and therefore the Commission should give due regard to the right of a person to access his property.

However, the order says the position is different with regard to the second request made by ASG Yasantha Kodagoda, which is to prohibit Mr. Aloysius from tampering with or altering the data in the apple account. 

The Commission was of the view that the mobile phone belonging to Mr. Aloysius was duly produced to the Commission and now it is in its custody. On that circumstance the commission has the power to ensure an item in the custody of the Commission is not tampered with or altered because the data in the apple account is integral to the mobile. 

Thereby the order issued on August 3 was delivered only prohibiting Mr. Aloysius from tampering with or altering in any manner, the data in that apple account, and prohibiting his agents or others acting on his behalf from doing so.

Referring the provisions of sections 201 of chapter XI of the Penal Code read with section 9 of the Commission Act, the Commission had mentioned that any act which could make causing destruction or rendering illegible such data before the Commission would be an offence punishable with a term of imprisonment.  

Thereby, the commission had warned Mr. Aloysius over any act on his part which attempts to or commits may result in the commission of an offence and consequently, it may result of taking appropriate criminal proceedings against him”