Eknaligoda Disappearance: Court to Rule on Witness

COLOMBO (News 1st); The Colombo Permanent Trial-at-Bar today ordered that further hearing of the case filed by the Attorney General against nine Army intelligence officers, including former Girithale Army Camp Commanding Officer Shammi Kumararatne, over the abduction and disappearance of journalist Prageeth Eknaligoda and several related charges, be taken up again on June 26.

The case was taken up before the Permanent Trial-at-Bar bench comprising Presiding Judge Nayana Senavirathne, along with Judges Nalin Hewawasam and Lakmali Hewawasam.

When the case was called today, evidence was recorded from two prosecution witnesses under the direction of Deputy Solicitor General Wasantha Perera. 

The witnesses included Upali Priyantha, a former Army officer who had served at the Girithale Army Camp, and Sumana Thilaka, a retired police constable.

Subsequently, Deputy Solicitor General Wasantha Perera requested court approval to recall another witness, Suresh Kumar, whose testimony had been recorded prior to the commencement of the trial.

The Deputy Solicitor General informed the court that the relevant witness had provided a confidential statement before the Homagama Magistrate’s Court in 2015 regarding the incident, and later gave a contradictory statement before the Criminal Investigation Department in 2023.

He further stated that the witness had made conflicting statements due to alleged threats and pressure exerted by the first accused in the case, former Girithale Army Camp Commanding Officer Shammi Kumararatne. 

On this basis, the prosecution requested that the witness be recalled to provide further evidence.

Counsel for the defence objected to this request, arguing that the said witness was a biased witness. 

They also informed the court that a separate case related to the alleged intimidation of the witness by Shammi Kumararatne is currently being heard before the Trincomalee Magistrate’s Court, and that no final determination has yet been made in that case.

In light of this background, defence lawyers opposed recalling the witness in the present proceedings.

After considering the submissions made by both parties, the trial-at-bar bench informed that an order on the request would be delivered on a future date, and fixed June 26 for the continuation of the trial.