Sri Lanka court refuses to stop fugitive police chief's arrest
A Sri Lankan court refused on Monday to quash an arrest warrant for the island nation's fugitive police chief who is wanted over an officer's death in a botched raid.
Inspector-General Deshabandu Tennakoon has been in hiding since the arrest warrant was issued in February and police have made a public appeal to help find him.
He stands accused of authorising an ill-fated drug bust in 2023, allegedly against internal regulations, that sparked a gun battle between competing police units.
Despite Tennakoon being in hiding, he still managed to file a writ urging the arrest warrant be cancelled, which the Court of Appeal refused to grant in Monday's ruling.
Police said Sunday they had deployed six special units to track down Tennakoon but were only able to trace his wife and son, who claimed they were unaware of his whereabouts.
Failure to locate the police chief has "undermined public confidence in the police force", spokesman Buddhika Manatunga told reporters.
A foreign travel ban has been imposed on Tennakoon in case he tries to flee the island.
The state prosecutor told another court hearing last week that evidence had emerged of Tennakoon operating a paramilitary hit squad to carry out illegal activities.
A magistrate ordered Tennakoon's arrest in February following allegations he authorised an illegal raid in the southern coastal resort town of Weligama.
Local police, unaware of the undercover operation, confronted the unit, sparking a gun battle in which one officer was killed and another critically wounded. No drugs were found.
Tennakoon was appointed police chief in November 2023, but the move was challenged in the Supreme Court, which suspended him last July pending the outcome of a separate court case.
The next hearing in that case is due in May.
He was given the top job despite the country's highest court ruling in another case that he had tortured a suspect in custody.
The Supreme Court had ordered Tennakoon to pay half a million rupees ($1,600) to the victim in compensation, but the government at the time ignored judicial orders to take disciplinary action against him.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
30-05-2025
- The National
US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke 'parole' status for migrants
The US Supreme Court on Friday let President Donald Trump 's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the US, bolstering the Republican leader's drive to step up deportations. The court put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration 'parole' granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Mr Trump's predecessor Joe Biden. The move potentially exposes many of them to rapid removal while the case plays out in lower courts. As with many of the court's orders issued in an emergency fashion, the decision was unsigned and gave no reasoning. Two of the court's three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, publicly dissented. The court botched its assessment of whether the administration was entitled to freeze Ms Talwani's decision pending the litigation, Ms Jackson wrote in an accompanying opinion. The outcome, Ms Jackson wrote, 'undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million non-citizens while their legal claims are pending'. Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for 'urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit', allowing recipients to live and work in the US. Mr Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration's approach to deter illegal immigration at the US-Mexican border. Mr Trump called for the end of humanitarian parole programmes in an executive order signed on January 20, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called 'expedited removal'. The case is one of many that Mr Trump's administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation's highest judicial body, seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding his sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants. The Supreme Court on May 19 let the President end a deportation protection called temporary protected status that had been granted under Mr Biden to about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the US, while that legal dispute plays out. In a bid to reduce illegal border crossings, Mr Biden in 2022 allowed Venezuelans who entered the country by air to request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a US financial sponsor. Mr Biden expanded that process to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023 as his administration grappled with high levels of illegal immigration by those nationalities. The plaintiffs, a group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors, sued officials, claiming the administration violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies. Ms Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the programme's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the judge's decision on hold. In its filing, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court that Ms Talwani's order had upended 'critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry', effectively 'undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election' that returned Mr Trump to the presidency. The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court they would face grave harm if their parole is cut short, given that the administration has indefinitely suspended processing their applications for asylum and other immigration relief. They said they would be separated from their families and immediately subject to expedited deportation 'to the same despotic and unstable countries from which they fled, where many will face serious risks of danger, persecution and even death'. Ms Talwani on Wednesday ordered the administration to resume processing applications for work permits or more lasting immigration status from migrants with parole status from Afghanistan, Latin America and Ukraine.
Gulf Today
04-05-2025
- Gulf Today
Harry reveals he would love to reconcile with royal family
Prince Harry has said his father, King Charles, no longer talks to him because of his legal battle over changes to his security arrangements after he quit royal duties. Saying he did not know how long the King had left to live, the Duke of Sussex called on Sir Keir Starmer to step in and review a Court of Appeal ruling that went against him over the levels of security he is entitled to in the UK. 'I would ask the prime minister to step in. I would ask Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, to look at this very, very carefully,' Harry said after losing his challenge. The decision was 'a good old-fashioned stitch-up', the prince claimed, adding that the specialist body that reviewed the security arrangements should be reviewed. The Duke of Sussex said he was devastated about losing his legal challenge against the Home Office and claimed that 'for the time being' it was impossible for him to bring his family to the UK safely. Of his estranged relationship with the monarch, he said: 'He won't speak to me because of this security stuff. 'There have been so many disagreements between myself and some of my family,' he said in an emotional interview with the BBC. He said some members of his family would never forgive him for the book he wrote, Spare, in which he revealed a host of royal secrets. However, the duke said he had now 'forgiven' them. King Charles 'I would love a reconciliation with my family. There's no point in continuing to fight any more,' Harry said. 'I don't know how much longer my father has.' The duke has seen his father, 76, who is being treated for cancer, only once and briefly, since his diagnosis early last year. Better security was key to repairing his relationship with his family, Harry said. The 40-year-old had appealed against the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) in 2020 that he should receive a different degree of protection when in the UK. Last year, the High Court ruled the decision was lawful. But Harry's barristers told a two-day hearing in April that he was singled out for 'inferior treatment' and that Ravec did not follow its own terms of reference when deciding his security. Now the decision has been upheld by three Court of Appeal judges who said that, while the prince understandably felt aggrieved, that did not amount to an error of law. The duke said he was 'pretty gutted' about the appeal court's decision, adding: 'We thought it was going to go our way.' His lawyer, Shaheed Fatima, said Harry's life was stake, citing that Al Qaeda had recently called for him to be killed, and he and his wife Meghan had been involved in a dangerous car chase with paparazzi in New York City in 2023. However, the government's legal team said the bespoke arrangement for the prince had advantages from a security assessment point of view. Harry, along with other senior royals, had received full publicly funded security protection provided by the state before his high-profile exit from official royal life in March 2020. He slated the appeal court's ruling, saying it meant royals could not live outside the control of the royal family. And he said he loved his country and would love to show his young children his homeland, but now he returns only for funerals and court cases. Next week, Harry's legal team will be back at the High Court as part of the lawsuit he has brought with singer Elton John and other against Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail Online, over alleged widespread unlawful activities. A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the government's position in this case.
Gulf News
02-05-2025
- Gulf News
UK court rejects Prince Harry's security appeal
London: Prince Harry on Friday lost his appeal to restore his full UK police protection when visiting Britain - a blow to the estranged royal, who had said that the safety of his family was at risk. King Charles III's youngest son, also known as the Duke of Sussex, has been embroiled in the years-long legal saga since the UK government downgraded his security when he stepped down from royal life and left to live abroad with his wife, Meghan. Harry was not present for the judgement at London's Court of Appeal in which Judge Geoffrey Vos dismissed the appeal, saying the duke's 'sense of grievance' had failed to translate into a legal argument. 'From the Duke of Sussex's point of view, something may indeed have gone wrong, in that an unintended consequence of his decision to step back from royal duties and spend the majority of his time abroad had been that he has been provided with a more bespoke, and generally lesser, level of protection than when he was in the UK,' Vos said. This, however, did not 'of itself give rise to a legal complaint', he added. Since moving to California in 2020, Harry and Meghan have had a second child, Lilibet, a sister to Archie born in 2019, and rarely engage with the British royals. But the prince says security concerns have hampered his ability to visit the UK and bring his family with him. The government committee which handles protection for royals and public figures in 2020 decided he would not receive the 'same degree' as before of publicly funded protection when in Britain. After initially losing a case in the High Court challenging the decision last year, he was allowed to launch an appeal against the interior ministry. His lawyers argued Harry was 'singled out' for 'unjustified and inferior treatment' and that the committee did not fully assess the security threats when downgrading his protection. Harry, whose older brother is heir-to-the-throne Prince William, has long been haunted by the 1997 death of his mother Princess Diana in a high-speed car crash as she tried to escape paparazzi photographers. The prince has blamed the press for the tragedy and cited intense media scrutiny as one of the reasons he and Meghan took a step back five years ago. Fraught ties In the two-day appeal hearing last month, Harry's lawyers said the Sussexes had been threatened by Al Qaida and involved in a 'dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi' in New York City, as an example of the security dangers he faces. 'There is a person sitting behind me whose safety, whose security and whose life is at stake,' the prince's lawyer, Shaheed Fatima, said in her concluding statements. In a 2023 High Court hearing, Harry, a former British army captain who served in Afghanistan, said it was too dangerous to bring his family to the UK without bolstered security. 'The UK is my home,' he said. 'The UK is central to the heritage of my children. That cannot happen if it's not possible to keep them safe.' However, the High Court concluded that the government had acted lawfully in its decision. In the appeal hearing, government lawyers said Harry's security was meant to be 'bespoke' to his 'revised circumstances', adding it was a result of his decision to spend less time in the UK. Harry's fraught ties with his family have worsened after various public allegations that he and Meghan have made against the royals. Harry and William are barely on speaking terms, according to UK media. He has also hardly seen his father, King Charles - who has been receiving treatment for an unspecified type of cancer - for over a year. While Harry has maintained a relatively low-profile since 2020, Meghan has been boosting her online presence this year, having already launched a podcast and Netflix series and making a return to social media.
