Maho Magistrate Anuradha Seneviratne on 28 October rejected a request to release the two suspects remanded over the shooting of the tusker known as Kawanthissa, despite extensive submissions by their lawyers seeking bail under any conditions.
The Magistrate ordered that the suspects, a skills development officer and another man, be further remanded until 11 November.
The order was issued when the case was taken up again at the Maho Magistrate’s Court.
The Magistrate directed officers of the Galgamuwa Wildlife Office to submit the Government Analyst’s report on the two firearms and ammunition seized when the suspects were arrested, without fail, at the next hearing. She also ordered that the tusker’s post-mortem examination report be submitted on that date.
Wildlife officers were further instructed to obtain a scientific report from the relevant experts establishing whether Kawanthissa’s death had resulted from the shooting or the administration of excessive antibiotics.
The Magistrate also ordered officers to submit a report supported by evidence explaining whether, and how, the two suspects had been involved in the alleged crime.
She warned that if wildlife officers failed to present evidence acceptable to the court linking the suspects to the shooting at the next hearing, and the court found that investigations were progressing slowly, it would have to consider those circumstances in the suspects’ favour.
The Magistrate firmly emphasised to all parties that material circulating in the media and on social media had no bearing on the case.
She also directed the Officer-in-Charge of Ambanpola Police to investigate and report on allegations made by lawyer Buddhika Lekamge, representing villagers, that wildlife officers had threatened residents of Hulugallewa in Ambanpola and forcibly collected evidence.
Presenting their investigation findings, Galgamuwa Wildlife Office officials told the court that they had posed as a television drama production crew to obtain initial information from a tea shop owner.
They said subsequent inquiries had led to the arrest of the two suspects and the seizure of two firearms. Officers also said searches of houses considered suspicious in Hulugallewa, where the suspects lived, had uncovered illegal firearms and wild animal meat.
The officers sought the suspects’ continued remand, submitting that extensive investigations were still underway.
Appearing for the suspects, lawyer Udaya Rajapaksha argued that the wildlife officers appeared to have “acted out a television drama”.
He questioned how an unsubstantiated statement by a person at a tea shop could constitute evidence and asked that officers disclose the progress made during the eight days his clients had spent in custody.
The lawyer challenged officers to present even the slightest evidence that his clients had shot Kawanthissa. He alleged that the arrests were an unsuccessful attempt by wildlife officers to claim credit for apprehending those responsible.
He further argued that, although an elephant had been described as public property, this had not been established in law.
Rajapaksha said social media portrayals of his clients as the perpetrators, without evidence, had caused serious harm to their families and employment. He requested their release under any bail conditions.
Making submissions on behalf of the Sri Lankan branch of an organisation for the protection of elephants worldwide, lawyers Vijitha Wickramanayake and Sandagiri Bandara argued that the shooting was not an isolated incident.
They alleged that the death had resulted from negligence and inefficiency involving several parties and said they had received information suggesting that excessive medication had caused Kawanthissa’s death.
Representing the Surakimu Ali Athun organisation, lawyer Ravindra Irugalbandara said the tusker’s death had generated considerable concern both locally and internationally.
He told the court that Kawanthissa had sustained gunshot injuries to a leg and the abdomen. If an eyewitness to the shooting existed, as wildlife officers had stated, he requested that the witness be given adequate protection and that a statement be recorded.
He also argued that releasing the suspects on bail posed a clear risk of interference with witnesses and asked the court to issue an appropriate order.
The two suspects further remanded were R.M. Shantha Dharmasiri Ratnayake, a skills development officer attached to the Ehetuwewa Divisional Secretariat, and R.M. Lakmal Padmakumara Samarakoon, both residents of Hulugallewa, Ambanpola.
