Discrepancies In Proceedings: The Harsha Abhayawardena Case
By Rajan Hoole -August 30, 2014
Rajan Hoole
Political Murders, the Commissions and the Unfinished Task – 12
During the weeks following the assassination of VK, 5 suspects were arrested by the CDB in the Kirullapone area, who confessed to one or both of aiding and abetting the crime. Shortly after Premadasa was nominated the UNP presidential candidate A.S. Seneviratne, DIG (Metropolitan), asked I.T. Canagaretnam, SSP, CDB, for lists of suspects held by them. A list of 24 persons was sent with details of offences. For the 5 involved in the VK case, Canagaretnam recommended that 3 should be held and indicted for murder after inquiries are complete and the other 2 could be released on bail. An order then came signed by the IGP, Ernest Perera, on 4th Oct.1988, to release several detainees including the three in the VK case for whom detention was recommended. When Canagaretnam checked back, Seneviratne ordered them re-arrested. By then, most of them had been released. Consequently, only 2 were in custody (the others could not be found). However, they too were released along with about 1800 suspects on 14th Jan.89 when Premadasa lifted the emergency.
When the Commission questioned Ernest Perera about the release order, he said that it was a typing error! The Commission did not accept this, and questioned the seriousness of the Police in investigating VK’s murder. There are other reasons why we cannot accept the complacent answer that in those days killing JVP suspects was normal. By late August 1988 the Police believed that the same weapon was used by different groups to kill VK, Harsha Abhayawardene (HA) and Terrence Perera. The three were being investigated parallely with the CID and CDB in regular contact. Arrests in any one case were bound to provide leads to the others.
For example Asoka and Jayantha who passed on to Lionel and Tarzan the orders to kill VK, may have known individuals connected with the other cases as well. Thus identifying individuals who fell into the police net and establishing cross-connections should have been in the minds of investigators, as a means to building up a strong case. Thus whatever the relative importance of the victims themselves, investigations and arrests in all three cases should have been treated as complementary. This appears to have been the case until late September 1988.
