The Supreme Court has ruled that the detention order issued by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in 2020 was unlawful. The court determined that the order, which led to the detention and investigation of a woman in connection with a heroin possession case, was in violation of the law.
In its ruling on Tuesday (March 18), the Supreme Court stated that while compensation cannot be recovered from Gotabaya Rajapaksa personally, as he was not named as a private respondent in the case, the current government must pay the petitioner Rs. 100,000 as compensation for the violation of her fundamental rights.
The judgment was delivered by Justice S. Thurairajah, with Justices Mahinda Samayawardena and A.H.M.D. Nawaz concurring.
The petitioner, Kanchana Priyadarshani Madurapperuma, a resident of Pokunuwita, Henagama, was arrested on January 30, 2020, along with her brother by officers from the Peliyagoda Special Investigation Unit in relation to a heroin possession case.
She was initially detained and questioned for seven days under Section 82(3) of the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act. However, she was later subjected to further detention and interrogation under an order issued by then-President Gotabaya Rajapaksa under the PTA.
In her petition, Madurapperuma argued that the detention order was illegal as the President was not acting as the Minister of Defence at the time, making his directive under the PTA invalid.
Delivering the verdict, Justice Thurairajah emphasized that, under Section 9(1) of the PTA, only the Minister of Defence has the authority to issue detention orders. The judge clarified that while the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, enacted on October 29, 2020, allowed the President to also act as the Minister of Defence, this provision was not present under the 19th Amendment, which was in force when the detention order was issued.
As a result, the court ruled that Gotabaya Rajapaksa had no legal authority to issue a detention order under the PTA at the time, deeming his actions arbitrary and unlawful.
The judgment further stated that the petitioner’s fundamental rights, as outlined in Articles 12(1), 13(1), and 13(2) of the Constitution, had been violated. Consequently, the court ordered the government to compensate her for the injustice she suffered.
This landmark ruling underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions and legal processes in matters of national security and human rights.
