The following conversation shows how the day prior to the verdict handed on 8 September 2016, Director Shani Abeysekara outlined the decision to Ranjan Ramanayake
Ranjan – Will we get good news or bad news tomorrow?
Shani – Certainly there will be good news. Aren’t you coming to Courts?
Ranjan – Try not to dash our hopes.
Shani – No there won’t be any change. It should be written to release the middle person.
Ranjan- Who is the middle person?
Shani – Chairman. But that is no issue we have two.
Ranjan – Padmini is ok, right? Will they go to the SC?
Shani – In any case it will go to the SC and aren’t you coming to the Court.
Ranjan – Would it be alright for me to come? Will it indicate that we had been behind it?
Shani – If you are going to all corrupt cases what’s wrong with going to this one.
Ranjan – Will it be known that I had given a call?
Shani – That will not be the case. You try to come.
Ranjan – Are you sure?
Shani – Yes I am sure. We will see after it is over.
Ranjan – Will it be impossible to get the middle one to our camp?
Shani – No need there are two and that is the majority.
Ranjan – Tomorrow morning you will not disappoint us.
Shani – The disappointment has disappeared.
If these conversations had come to light during the course of the trial then these details would have been enough to halt it. Then the Bharatha Lakshman case would have been a mistrial. Unfortunately, this conspiracy only came to light once the trial ended. The trial and verdict that imposed the death penalty on Duminda Silva was a plot hatched by the CID, the Judiciary and a State Minister. As a result, a situation has been created where the incumbent President can now set the record straight by offering a Presidential pardon to Duminda Silva.
Conversation between Ranjan, Padmini and former President Maithripala Sirisena on 12 September 2017, Time 2:56 p.m:
Ranjan – Madam.
Padmini – Yes.
Ranjan – The H. E. is here. Try to speak to him and explain your situation. This is Padmini M. Ranawaka.
President Sirisena – Hello.
Padmini – Excellency, pardon me for having to speak to you.
President Sirisena – No issue, go ahead.
Padmini – Can you get me a position in the Court of Appeal? I have given scores of judgments. Also, I had worked honestly for this country. I urge you to consider my request. I also have the capacity to work for a long time more.
President Sirisena – Ok.
Padmini – I have never exerted pressure on anyone before. I always strive to do the right thing. Throughout these 27 years, I had done my work in such a manner. I also gave the verdict on the Duminda case. In the Town Hall bomb case involving Madam Chandrika, the other Judges were afraid to hear it. I agreed to hear it. I had meted out justice. I have not influenced. This is only a request. If you can, try to consider it. I wish you godspeed. Thanks.
President Sirisena– Ok, thanks.
Ranjan – Madam, I will call you back.
Padmini – Ok, ok
This clearly shows that following a plot hatched by several parties, a fraudulent verdict had been reached in this case. In this case the accused has not received any of the protection guaranteed to him in the Constitution. The right for the defendant to seek a fair trial had been denied.
Ranjan – Will we get good news or bad news tomorrow?
Shani – Certainly there will be good news. Aren’t you coming to Courts?
Ranjan – Try not to dash our hopes.
Shani – No there won’t be any change. It should be written to release the middle person.
Ranjan- Who is the middle person?
Shani – Chairman. But that is no issue we have two.
Ranjan – Padmini is ok, right? Will they go to the SC?
Shani – In any case it will go to the SC and aren’t you coming to the Court.
Ranjan – Would it be alright for me to come? Will it indicate that we had been behind it?
Shani – If you are going to all corrupt cases what’s wrong with going to this one.
Ranjan – Will it be known that I had given a call?
Shani – That will not be the case. You try to come.
Ranjan – Are you sure?
Shani – Yes I am sure. We will see after it is over.
Ranjan – Will it be impossible to get the middle one to our camp?
Shani – No need there are two and that is the majority.
Ranjan – Tomorrow morning you will not disappoint us.
Shani – The disappointment has disappeared.
If these conversations had come to light during the course of the trial then these details would have been enough to halt it. Then the Bharatha Lakshman case would have been a mistrial. Unfortunately, this conspiracy only came to light once the trial ended. The trial and verdict that imposed the death penalty on Duminda Silva was a plot hatched by the CID, the Judiciary and a State Minister. As a result, a situation has been created where the incumbent President can now set the record straight by offering a Presidential pardon to Duminda Silva.
Conversation between Ranjan, Padmini and former President Maithripala Sirisena on 12 September 2017, Time 2:56 p.m:
Ranjan – Madam.
Padmini – Yes.
Ranjan – The H. E. is here. Try to speak to him and explain your situation. This is Padmini M. Ranawaka.
President Sirisena – Hello.
Padmini – Excellency, pardon me for having to speak to you.
President Sirisena – No issue, go ahead.
Padmini – Can you get me a position in the Court of Appeal? I have given scores of judgments. Also, I had worked honestly for this country. I urge you to consider my request. I also have the capacity to work for a long time more.
President Sirisena – Ok.
Padmini – I have never exerted pressure on anyone before. I always strive to do the right thing. Throughout these 27 years, I had done my work in such a manner. I also gave the verdict on the Duminda case. In the Town Hall bomb case involving Madam Chandrika, the other Judges were afraid to hear it. I agreed to hear it. I had meted out justice. I have not influenced. This is only a request. If you can, try to consider it. I wish you godspeed. Thanks.
President Sirisena– Ok, thanks.
Ranjan – Madam, I will call you back.
Padmini – Ok, ok
This clearly shows that following a plot hatched by several parties, a fraudulent verdict had been reached in this case. In this case the accused has not received any of the protection guaranteed to him in the Constitution. The right for the defendant to seek a fair trial had been denied.
