The Supreme Court on 22 July issued an interim order suspending the implementation of a previous Court of Appeal ruling that invalidated a letter sent by the AG naming Deshabandu Tennakoon as a suspect in connection with the 9 May 2022 attack on the “GotaGoGama” protest site at Galle Face.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Janak de Silva, Sobhitha Rajakaruna, and Sampath Abeykoon granted leave to proceed with the Attorney General’s appeal, and concurrently issued an interim order preventing the Court of Appeal’s decision from taking effect until the conclusion of the Supreme Court hearing.

The Attorney General had earlier sent a letter dated 19 April 2023 to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), naming DeshabanduTennakoon—who was the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in charge of the Western Province at the time—as a suspect in the incident. The Court of Appeal later invalidated that letter following a writ petition filed by Tennakoon.

During the hearing, President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva, appearing for Deshabandu Tennakoon, raised preliminary objections, arguing that the respondent list in the case had not been amended. These objections were overruled by the court.

De Silva further argued that the Attorney General has no authority to issue directives to the police regarding who should be named as a suspect, stating that such determinations must be made by law enforcement authorities based on investigative findings. He claimed the Attorney General’s letter naming Deshabandu Tennakoon was legally flawed and beyond the AG’s remit.

On behalf of the Attorney General, Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath contended that the AG is empowered to provide legal guidance when requested by the police during an investigation. She also pointed out that the AG’s letter was issued in line with an earlier order from the Colombo Magistrate’s Court, and that naming Tennakoon as a suspect was not arbitrary.

Herath alleged that in its ruling, the Court of Appeal had failed to consider a set of crucial documents submitted confidentially by the Attorney General prior to the judgment. She argued that the Court had also granted relief that had not been requested by the petitioner and that the judgment was entirely contrary to legal principles.

The Supreme Court, after considering submissions from both sides, granted leave to proceed with the appeal and issued an interim order suspending the Court of Appeal’s decision until a final judgment is delivered in the case.