Case Against Mohan Pieris: A Tragic Day For Justice
Those who attended Court No 403 on 1st February 2013 and witnessed the Counsel for the Petitioner single-handedly fighting the case (FR/536/2010), filed against Mohan Peiris, would agree that the Counsel was under tremendous pressure by the obviously biased Judges and the AG’s Department, the integrity of which is at stake. It was obvious that there was a concerted effort to stop the case from proceeding any further, challenging the dishonesty and gross misconduct of Mohan Peiris as well as exposing the lawlessness prevails at the AG’s Department. The Counsel for the Petitioner was forced to attend the Court under threats to his life, that according to media, he had reported to the Police.
By Mudliyar -
Those who attended Court No 403 on 1st February 2013 and witnessed the Counsel for the Petitioner single-handedly fighting the case (FR/536/2010), filed against Mohan Peiris, would agree that the Counsel was under tremendous pressure by the obviously biased Judges and the AG’s Department, the integrity of which is at stake. It was obvious that there was a concerted effort to stop the case from proceeding any further, challenging the dishonesty and gross misconduct of Mohan Peiris as well as exposing the lawlessness prevails at the AG’s Department. The Counsel for the Petitioner was forced to attend the Court under threats to his life, that according to media, he had reported to the Police.
Mohan Pieris
It was indeed depressing to witness the Rule of Law rapidly eroding under the new head of the Judiciary, Mohan Peiris, the de facto CJ, and the accuse in the case, where the remaining Judges have meekly surrendered their moral integrity. From the very beginning, the Petitioner was completely denied a fair hearing, whilst serious allegations were being leveled against the Petitioner that he was abusing the legal process to tarnish the image of Mohan Peiris. The Counsel was strictly warned not to refer to Mohan Peiris by name, despite him being charged in his personal capacity in the case. It was obvious to all those present at the court house that the Petitioner was not only denied his right to a fair trial but a stern message was sent out to all citizens who challenges their right violations to expect deterrent punishments with order granted in favor of Respondents, as in this case, when powerful allies of the government are the accused. Probably, this may be the first time in a fundamental rights case where the Petitioner was made to pay cost for the Respondents. Read More
