IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

AFFIDAVIT

In the matter of an Application

under and in terms of Article 126
read with Article 17 of the
Constitution of the Democratic
Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Sellasamy Devapalan,
Registered Attorney-at-Law
No.34/1, Nelson Place,
Colombo 06

On behalf of

Muhammadhu Jazeem
Muhammadhu Ahnaf (Ahnab) alias
Mannaramudhu Ahnaf
No. 57/2, Pandaraveli,
Chilavathurai.

SC (FR) Application No. SC FRA 114/2021 The Detainee,

Currently detained in the custody of

1st
and/or 2nd and/or 3rd Respondents at
Counter Terrorism and Investigation
Division (TID)
New Secretariat Building,
Colombo – 01.

PETITIONER
.. -v–

1. General (Retd) G.D.H. Kamal

Gunaratne,
Secretary
Ministry of Defense,
Colombo.

1
 2. C.D.Wickremaratne,
Inspector General of Police,
Police Head Quarters,
Colombo 01.

3. Prasanna de Alwis,
Director,
Counter Terrorism and Investigation
Division (TID),
New Secretariat Building,
Colombo – 01.

4. K.K.J Anurashantha,
Inspector of Police,
Counter Terrorism and Investigation
Division (TID),
Vavuniya.

5. The Director,
Criminal Investigation Division,
New Secretary Building
Colombo – 01.

6. Hon. Attorney General,

Attorney General’s Department,
Colombo – 12.

RESPONDENT
S

TO: HIS LORDSHIP THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THEIR LORDSHIPS THE OTHER
HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

I Sellasamy Devapalan of No.34/1, Nelson Place, Colombo 06 being a Hindu do

hereby solemnly sincerely, and truly affirm and declare to the contents herein, out of
my own personal knowledge, and from the documents and records available with me,

2
and upon instructions received, as follows.

1. I, the Petitioner of this Application, having carefully perused the Affidavit of the
3rd Respondent dated 22.07.2021 claimed by the 3rd Respondent to be a
“Limited Affidavit", affirm to the matters in this affidavit of mine and tender to
your Lordships' Court as a Limited Counter-Affidavit to the said Limited
Affidavit.

2. (a) When this matter was mentioned on the 04 August 2021 for Support,
Learned President's Counsel for Ahnaf Jazeem brought to the notice of Your
Lordships’ Court of the necessity to have a consultation with Ahnaf Jazeem,
who is currently held in remand custody, and an opportunity be granted for the
Junior Counsel to meet him in Colombo Remand Prison (CRP).

(b) Your Lordships' Court was pleased to order the Commissioner General of
Prisons to facilitate such meeting and ensure that the meeting took place with
due safeguards in the interests of the client-counsel relationship.

(c) Accordingly with the Coordination of the 6th Respondent, such consultation
was arranged and held on 19 August 2021 at the Colombo Remand Prison from
about 1.35 pm to about 04.05pm, for about 2 1/2 hours. Mr. Sanjaya Wilson
Jayasekera and Miss. Swasthika Arulingam, Attorneys-at-Law, the Junior
Counsel in the matter, held the consultation with Ahnaf Jazeem and I have been
instructed accordingly to affirm to the contents of this Counter Affidavit.

(d) At the said consultation Ahnaf Jazeem, in particular, wished to place on

record his gratitude to Your Lordships’ Court for facilitating the aforesaid
consultation.

(e) Though Your Lordships' Court required that the Counter Affidavit be filed
within a week from the said meeting with the detenue, due to the countrywide
lockdown effective from 20 August 2021 to 01 October 2021 and as further time
was required for same especially with regard to the relevant supporting

3
 affidavits annexed hereto, now I respectfully tender this Counter Affidavit and
respectfully move that Your Lordships’ Court be pleased to accept the same.

SHOCKING AND UNCONSCIONABLE TREATMENT DISCLOSED AT THE

CONSULTATION

3. At the consultation with Ahnaf Jazeem held on 19th August, 2021, which was
made possible only due to the direct intervention of Your Lordships' Court,
Ahnaf Jazeem has instructed as hereinafter set out.

PSYCHOLOGICAL / MENTAL TORTURE and PHYSICAL TORTURE

INFLICTED ON AHNAF JAZEEM

4. Ahnaf Jazeem was subjected to severe psychological/mental torture and to

physical torture whilst he was in the custody of the 3rd Respondent.

5. Two Officers of the 3rd Respondent’s department who identified themselves as

‘Madushanka’ and ‘Wigneswaran’ were the chief interrogating officers.
Sometimes another officer who identified himself has ‘Nandarsiri’ was brought
in to verbally abuse and psychologically torture Ahnaf Jazeem.

6. For the first 14 days of Ahnaf Jazeem's detention he was handcuffed and kept in
isolation in one place. Despite him requesting to loosen his handcuff whilst he
slept, his hand was cuffed to a table leg so that he could not move his hand even
whilst he slept. Ahnaf Jazeem suffered intense pain in his arm.

7. (a) Soon after his lawyers' visit, for the first time on 08 March 2021, the same
night poet Ahnaf Jazeem was moved to a room in Chaithya Road, Colombo 01
(as demonstrated by document marked as 3R15) after being kept in hand
cuffed to a chair from around 1.00pm to 8.00 pm without allowing him to make
any move.

(b) In the Detention center in Chaithya Road, the room he was kept in was

4
 occupied by 20 people. It was sweltering hot, and the detainees were always
drenched in sweat. Ahnaf Jazeem experienced severe skin rash and wounds
and lived under severe pain. There was no place to move or sleep in that room
which was packed.

(c) The place was infested with cockroaches, bugs and mice, had only one
badly maintained toilet for 20 inmates. There was no privacy even to use the
bathroom.

(d) Hence Ahnaf Jazeem was subjected to cruel, degrading and humiliating
treatment whilst he was in the custody of the 3rd Respondent.

FORCED TO WITNESS PHYSICAL ASSAULT AND TORTURE OF OTHER

DETAINEES

8. Whilst Ahnaf Jazeem was kept in the custody of the 3rd Respondent Ahnaf
Jazeem was made to witness other detainees being physically assaulted and
tortured.

9. On one occasion, Ahnaf and others kept in TID Office, could hear someone
being physically assaulted and crying in pain. A TID Officer who was standing
near them told them that the same treatment will be meted out to them if they
refused to comply.

10. On another occasion when Ahnaf Jazeem and others who were kept in the sixth
floor were taken down to the second floor to use the toilet (six or more detainees
were together escorted to use the toilets, and no single detainee was allowed to
use the bathroom whenever need arose and had to wait), Ahnaf Jazeem saw
some men lined up and made to stand on their knees and they were all
undressed.

11. When the officers in the Second floor saw that Ahnaf Jazeem and other
prisoners were being brought to the second floor, one officer was angry and had
asked them to be taken away soon.

5
12. Such incidents of seeing other detainees being tortured, and thereafter being
reminded by Madushanka, Wigneswaran or Nandasiri that the same treatment
would be meted out to him occurred at least on 10 occasions. As the torture
incidents happened at closer proximity Ahnaf Jazeem constantly lived with
shivering fear that he too would be subjected to such physical torture.

TORTURED REPEATEDLY WITH A VIEW TO OBTAINING A SELF

INCRIMINATING STATEMENT

13. Whilst being subjected to interrogation Ahnaf Jazeem was made to stand on his
knee for long periods of time if he did not agree to make self-incriminating
statements which the 3rd Respondent and his officers were asking him to admit.

14. On another occasion ‘Madushanka’ had asked him to remove his spectacles
and read something. Ahnaf Jazeem cannot read without his spectacles. As part
of the torture routine, said Madushanka had, in filthy language, verbally abused
Ahnaf Jazeem stating that he is lying and that he can read without his glasses,
and had forced him to read. As a result, Ahnaf Jazeem's eye had started itching
and tearing.

15. The method of recording statements followed by said Madushanka,

Wigneswaran and Nandasiri, all being Officers under the 3rd Respondent, would
be to propose Ahnaf Jazeem an incriminating statement and force him to admit
the same by verbally abusing him, mentally torturing him by threatening to
hang him from the roof and beat him, or threatening to subject him to similar
treatment as the other detainees whom Ahnaf Jazeem was forced to witness
being tortured, or by physically placing him under strain such as make him
stand on his knee unless he gives them an Answer which the officers desired
and would incriminate himself.

16. Whilst he was kept in Chaithya Road centre, TID Officers would visit him and
ask him to let them know when he was ready to give a statement of admission.
Hence it is apparent that the grossly degrading treatment and the inhumane

6
 conditions in which Ahnaf Jazeem was kept under were to subject him to
psychological torture in an effort to compel him to make a confession
incriminating him.

PROMISE OF IMMEDIATE RELEASE IF SELF INCRIMINATING

STATEMENT WAS MADE

17. The Officers of the 3rd Respondent would on other occasions tell Ahnaf Jazeem
that they would release him in two weeks if he agrees to make a statement
incriminating himself.

THREATS OF PROLONGED INCARCERATION AND SOLITARY

CONFINEMENT

18. Further in or around one month in to his arrest, officers identifying themselves
as Officers of the 3rd Respondent’s Department told Ahnaf Jazeem, that if he
does not admit to his guilt, he would not be released soon, and that he will not
be able to return home and get married (Ahnaf Jazeem was engaged to be
married when he was arrested, which the officers knew) and that he would be
sentenced to twenty years in prison with some of those years spent in solitary
confinement.

BASIC NECESSITIES SUCH AS TOILET FACILITIES NOT MADE

AVAILABLE

19. Ahnaf Jazeem and other prisoners were kept under degrading and inhumane
conditions whilst they remained in the custody of the 3rd Respondent.

20. Ahnaf Jazeem was only taken to the toilet if 6 or more other detainees
requested to use the toilet at a time. Thereafter all detainees were handcuffed
and taken to use the bathroom on the 2nd floor of the New Secretariat Building.

7
 RETRIBUTION AND RETALIATION FOR HAVING OBTAINED LEGAL
REPRESENTATION

21. (a) The 3rd Respondent and his officers were annoyed that Ahnaf Jazeem
obtained legal representation.

(b) Hence, on 20th February 2021, when Ahnaf Jazeem’s father was asked to
visit the 3rd Respondent, Ahnaf Jazeem was compelled to sign on a piece of
paper stating that he did not know Sanjaya Wilson Jayasekera,
Attorney-at-Law, if his father was to be given permission to see him.

(c) Therefore, I am instructed to state that the act of the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd
Respondent and his officers to move Ahnaf Jazeem to Chaithya Road Center,
amounts to retribution, a retaliatory action consequent to the lawyers’ visit,
wherein Ahnaf Jazeem got a limited opportunity to communicate to his Counsel,
his side of the story.

DENIED PROPER MEALS

22. After one month in the Chaithya Road center, Ahnaf Jazeem was moved to
Tangalle Detention Center. In Tangalle Center, there was shortage of food
provided and Ahnaf Jazeem even had to miss meals.

CONTINUED RIDICULE AND HARASSMENT

23. I am instructed to state that thereafter on or around 12 June 2021 poet Ahnaf
Jazeem was transferred to the Colombo Remand Prison by order of the
Magistrate Court.

24. I am instructed to state, that since the time of his arrest, both whilst he was kept
in the custody of the 3rd Respondent and whilst he is being kept under the
custody of the Commissioner General of Prisons, Ahnaf Jazeem has been

8
 ridiculed and harassed before everybody by addressing him as ‘Zahran’, ‘IS
Karaya' and in other degrading names in Sinhala.

25. One officer named Madushanka, an officer of the 3rd Respondent, who was
questioning Ahnaf Jazeem had once threatened him saying, " ං ඔ ෙකාම IS

කාරෙයා මරල න ඕන" (an approximate translation would be, "all these IS
buggers should be killed").

26. The Colombo Remand prison cell in which Ahnaf Jazeem is kept is termed as
the ‘ISIS Cell’ where Muslims remanded after the Easter Sunday attacks are
held.

27. I am instructed to state that there are about 50 persons in the said ‘ISIS Cell’.
Remandees who are punished for using cell phones and persons who are
suspicious to have contracted COVID-19 virus are all sent to this cell which is
already overcrowded.

28. I therefore state that the Respondents have acted in wanton disregard of the
Fundamental Rights of Ahnaf Jazeem.

RESPONDING TO THE AVERMENTS IN THE LIMITED AFFIDAVIT OF THE

3RD RESPONDENT

29. According to the instructions received by me, especially consequent to the

aforesaid consultation with Ahnaf Jazeem at the Colombo Remand Prison, I
deny all and singular the several averments contained in the said Limited
Affidavit of the 3rd Respondent that are inconsistent with my (amended) Petition
and (amended) Affidavit and the matters set out herein, save and except what is
expressly admitted hereinafter.

30. In reply to the totality of the said Limited Affidavit of the 3rd Respondent, I
reiterate all and singular the several averments contained in the Amended
Petition and the corresponding Affidavit of mine.

9
31. I vehemently deny the averment in Paragraph 5 of the Limited Affidavit and
state that the Petitioner’s application on behalf of the detainee was filed within
the legally permissible time and is not time-barred.

32. Replying to paragraph 06 of the Limited Affidavit, I state that the several
averments made in the said paragraph contain irrelevant facts and matters of
extraneous consideration which have nothing to do with the detainee,
Mohammadhu Jazeem Mohammadhu Ahnaf (Ahnab), and the same are solely
intended to misleadingly and falsely arouse an implication of a non-existent link
between the Easter Sunday Attacks and the detainee, in the manner most
treacherous and malicious. Further replying, I state as follows and deny all
averments contained in the said Limited Affidavit, including in paragraph 6
thereof, that are inconsistent with the following:
a) The detainee, the teacher and a poet, was employed as a Tamil
Language and Literature teacher at School of Excellence and never
employed with the Muslim Hands.
b) He was so employed as a teacher since 01 July 2019, more than two
months after the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks and, therefore, could not
have had any link to the said terrorist attacks or its organizers and there
was no possibility at all of his propagating (Muslim) extremism, contrary
to the patently false and malicious assertions of the 3rd Respondent
and/or his officers.
c) The detainee teacher had conducted after-school classes, around 3.00
pm to 5.00 pm, as assigned to him by his employer, the management of
the School of Excellence, just as he was employed, in complement to the
academic requirements of the school, and these classes were held only
within the school premises and never in the hostel premises. These
classes were held for the benefit of the students of the School, who were
prospective candidates of GCE O/L examination in December 2019. I
reiterate the averments in paragraph 15 of my Affidavit and the Affidavit
marked as P10 in this regard. The only subject he taught was Tamil
during these after school classes.

10
 d) It was common knowledge among students, parents and all who
associated with the school that the hostel where Ahnaf Jazeem was
permitted to stay by the School of Excellence was housed in a building
owned by the charity organization, Save the Pearls. I am instructed that
the rest of the averments contained in sub paragraph (c) of paragraph 6
of the Limited Affidavit are beyond the knowledge of the detainee and
therefore deny the same.
e) I state that the averments in sub paragraph (d) of paragraph 6 of the
Limited Affidavit are irrelevant facts and extraneous considerations
mentioned solely to misdirect your Lordships’ Court and the public at
large with a view to lending credence to the false allegations of the 3rd
Respondent which falsely and maliciously seek to link Ahnaf Jazeem
with the Easter Sunday attackers, and state that the Al-Zuhriyya Arabic
College or its principal or its students have nothing to do with the School
of Excellence or its teacher Ahnaf Jazeem.
f) Upon instructions, I vehemently deny the allegations made by the 3rd
Respondent in sub paragraph (e) of paragraph 6 of the Limited Affidavit
and state that they are false and falsely made for extraneous, collateral
and political reasons to implicate Ahnaf Jazeem as a way of supporting
the criminal cases against other suspects.
g) I further state that the 3rd Respondent has failed to provide any evidence
to substantiate the allegations made in the said sub-paragraph (e), as in
his Magistrate Court case No. B 44230/08/20 against Ahnaf Jazeem,
and further state that the 3rd Respondent had no prima facie evidence to
substantiate any of these allegations at the time and before the arrest of
Ahnaf Jazeem. I also state that it is already well established before Your
Lordships’ Court that the poetry book Navarasam has nothing
whatsoever in it advocating (Muslim) extremism or violence.

33. I vehemently deny the averments in paragraph 07 of the Limited Affidavit and
state that the 3rd Respondent or his officers had no evidence whatsoever which
could lead to any reasonable suspicion at all against Ahnaf Jazeem to arrest
him and, even as of date, the 3rd Respondent has failed to provide any prima

11
 facie evidence that could have led him or his officers to have had a probable
cause or a reasonable suspicion to arrest Ahnaf Jazeem on 16 May 2020 and
issue 3R1. Therefore, I state that 3rd Respondent had acted illegally and ultra
vires the law in issuing 3R1, thereby infringing the fundamental rights of Ahnaf
Jazeem.

34. While reiterating the aforesaid, in replying to paragraph 08 of the Limited

Affidavit, I state that the arrest of Ahnaf Jazeem was arbitrary, capricious,
unlawful, and that the arrest receipt makes no mention at all as to the legal
provision and/or the law(s) under which and/or for what offences Ahnaf Jazeem
was arrested. I thus state that no ‘reasons’ for his arrest was properly informed
as mandated by law. I only admit the date of arrest as mentioned therein and
deny the rest of the averments. I further state that up to date, the 3rd
Respondent has not shown any evidence before your Lordships’ Court or
before the Magistrate’s Court against Ahnaf Jazeem. Moreover, not even a
summary of evidence against Ahnaf Jazeem has been filed, to substantiate any
reasonable suspicion to arrest and detain Ahnaf Jazeem.

35. While reiterating the aforesaid, I state that the detention under Section 7(1),
referred to in paragraph 09 of the Limited Affidavit, is patently ultra vires,
arbitrary, bad in law and illegal.

36. Replying to averments in paragraph 10 of the Limited Affidavit, I state that that
there was no reason or probable cause to continue the detention of Ahnaf
Jazeem and that the 3rd Respondent or his officers did not have any reasonable
grounds to request for a detention order under Section 9(1) of the Prevention of
Terrorism Act and, therefore, the request marked as 3R3 is wholly ultra vires,
arbitrary, unsubstantiated and unlawful. I am instructed to deny and therefore
deny all and singular the several paragraphs and allegations against Ahnaf
Jazeem made in the said request marked as 3R3 and put the 3rd Respondent to
strict proof of each such allegation contained therein.

37. Replying to paragraph 11 of the Limited Affidavit, I state that there was no

12
 reason and/or evidence whatsoever to suspect that Ahnaf Jazeem was
“connected with or concerned in unlawful activity” as stated by the 3rd
Respondent in his Limited Affidavit and, therefore, without any credible and
sufficient prima facie evidence, no Minister could have issued a Detention Order
under Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In any event, the
purported Detention Order, 3R4, could not have been issued at all and,
therefore, the same is ab initio null and void, as averred by me in my Affidavit,
especially from paragraph 29 to 36 thereof.

38. I admit the averments in paragraph 12 of the Limited Affidavit insofar as they are
not at variance with the amended Petition and the contents hereof. Answering
further I state that I deny all and singular the several allegations made against
Ahnaf Jazeem in the said further Report marked 3R5 dated 17.06.2020. I
further state that the 3rd Respondent willfully neglected to inform the detainee’s
family about this reporting of facts and naming Ahnaf Jazeem as a suspect
thereof by the Criminal Investigations Department (CID), in a surreptitious and
malicious attempt to prevent any legal defense of Ahnaf Jazeem at the Fort
Magistrate’s Court. I also state that the lawyers of Ahnaf Jazeem came to know
about this reporting of facts to Fort Magistrate Court only in early December
2020.

39. (a) I am instructed and state that the detainee’s family or his lawyers were
unaware of any extensions of the said purported detention order, referred to in
paragraph 13 of the Limited Affidavit, and never had received any copies of the
documents marked as 3R6, 3R7, 3R8, 3R9, 3R10, 3R11, 3R12 and 3R13, even
when the same were requested by his lawyers during the visit to the TID office
on the 08 March 2021.

(b) I further state that the 3rd Respondent's requests for the extension of
detention orders contain nothing but wholly unsubstantiated allegations and
vague speculations and imaginations about what the 3rd Respondent imagines
and speculates the detainee to have engaged in and had links with, and are
unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, thus no person duly and properly

13
 addressing his mind to the true facts and circumstances of the matter could
have made a decision to extend the detention of the detainee.

(c) The detainee’s fundamental right to personal liberty has been wantonly
violated.
(d) I therefore reiterate that all the requests for extensions and subsequent
extensions of the detention of Ahnaf Jazeem are all ultra vires, bad in law,
arbitrary and unlawful. Further, I reiterate that all the extensions of the detention
orders are ab initio null and void for several legal grounds mentioned in my
Affidavit.

(e) It is pertinent to note that Ahnaf Jazeem's signature appears in several

purported detention orders marked as 3R4, 3R7, 3R9, 3R11, 3R13, but not in
documents marked as 3R15 and 3R17.

(f) Moreover, the copy of the purported first detention order dated 19 May 2020
marked as P13 does not contain the signature of the detainee Ahnaf Jazeem,
while the purported detention order marked 3R4 contains his signature.

(g) I am instructed that Ahnaf Jazeem was asked to sign all copies of Detention
Orders "at the gate of court" on the 12th of June 2021 by the officers of the 3rd
Respondent, when Ahnaf Jaeem was about to be produced to the Magistrate
Court, and he was never shown nor asked to sign the Detention Orders
whenever such Detention Orders were obtained by the 3rd Respondent. This is
a blatant violation of due process, especially under Section 13 of the Prevention
of Terrorism Act.

40.(a)Replying to paragraphs 14 of the Limited Affidavit, I state that at no stage was

the family or lawyer of the detainee, Ahnaf Jazeem, informed by the 3rd
Respondent of any change of place of detention and, therefore, they have so far
been unaware of the purported documents marked as 3R14, 3R15, 3R16 and
3R17. I am also unaware whether the 3rd Respondent informed each of such
change of places to the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission, as required by

14
 law, which evidence, if such does exist, the 3rd Respondent is yet to produce. I
am instructed to deny and therefore deny all and singular the several
paragraphs and allegations against Ahnaf Jazeem made in the said marked
documents.

(b) I am further instructed to state that Ahnaf Jazeem was transferred to TID
Detention Center at Chaithya Road, Colombo 01, on the 08 March 2021, just
after Ahnaf Jazeem was visited by his lawyers for the first time on the same
date. Such transfer was informed to him only a few minutes before he was
transferred to a TID building in Chaithya Road, and later to the Tangalle
Detention center, and just before he was later transferred to the Colombo
Remand prison.

41. (a) In reply to paragraph 15 of the Limited Affidavit, I state that the 3rd
Respondent has so far failed to produce any evidence against Ahnaf Jazeem,
let alone produce purported statements obtained from Students, to substantiate
his allegations against Ahnaf Jazeem.

(b) The 3rd Respondent also has not tendered a summary of evidence against
Ahnaf Jazeem even in the Colombo Magistrate’s Court as required under
Section 120(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(c) I have already submitted to your Lordship’s Court the translations of the
poems of Navarasam (marked as P3A & P3B) by distinguished experts on
Tamil and English languages and Literature and also a Report (marked P20)
prepared by the same distinguished experts on the meaning of the poems and
containing a commentary on the translation submitted by the Police to the
Psychiatrists, along with a commentary on the said so-called Psychiatrist
Report marked 3R13 (already produced to Court by the Petitioner with P11 at
445-451pp). I have already tendered to your Lordship’s Court an Affidavit
(marked P21) of the Sworn Translator, T. Jayakumar, whose translation of
Navarasam has been sent to the said Psychiatrists to prepare their said report.
True copies of the said documents already tendered to your Lordships’ Court

15
 marked as P20 and P21 by motion dated 29 June 2021 are also annexed hereto
as part and parcel of this Limited Counter-Affidavit.

(d) Further replying, I also state that the said Consultant Psychiatrists giving
such a Report on a literary work is unprecedented in the history of literary world,
and they should not have even attempted to issue a scientific report on a literary
work, which is a contradiction in itself. In any event, the said Consultant
Psychiatrists themselves admit the flaws and incompleteness of the translation
they have based their report on and therefore their said report is fundamentally
flawed. The Consultant Psychiatrists also have failed to conduct any scientific
interview with any of the students or youth who have read the poetry book
Navarasam.

I annex hereto an Affidavit by Professor Shamala Kumar, a Psychologist,

marked as P21(A), in which she has expressed her opinion as an academic
expert on the subject on the said purported Psychiatrist Report marked 3R13;

I annex hereto an Affidavit by Dr. Visakesa Chandrasekaram, acclaimed film

director, Attorney-at-Law and lecturer, marked as P21(B), in which he has
expressed his opinion as an artist on the said purported Psychiatrist Report
marked 3R13;

I annex hereto an Affidavit by Vajra Chandrasekara, literary critic, author and

editor, marked as P21(C), in which he has expressed his opinion as an artist on
the said purported Psychiatrist Report marked 3R13.

42. (a) I am instructed specifically and state that the averment in paragraph 17 of
the Limited Affidavit that the detainee made such a request is utter falsehood
and state that the detainee never made such a request to make any
incriminating admission before the 3rd Respondent or before any judge. The
B-Report marked 3R19 is already tendered to your Lordship’s Court marked as
P12 and, I am instructed to deny and deny all and singular the several
allegations leveled against Ahnaf Jazeem in the said B-report. I am specifically

16
 instructed that Ahnaf Jazeem was forced by the 3rd Respondent and his officers
through continuous and unbearable mental torture and physical torture to make
an incriminating admission before the Magistrate, which Ahnaf Jazeem
vehemently denied.

(b) I am instructed to state that, Ahnaf Jazeem wished to meet and speak to a
Judge (Magistrate) to affirm his innocence and seek immediate redress as he
was being subjected to mental and physical torture by the Officers of the
Department headed by the 3rd Respondent.

43. (a) In reply to the averments in paragraph 18 of the Limited Affidavit, I state that
the claim by the 3rd Respondent that the investigations against the poet and
teacher Ahnaf Jazeem are not yet concluded even after 14 months of his arrest
shows the callous attitude of the Police division which is headed by the 3rd
Respondent in respect of individual liberty and fundamental rights of a citizen,
and plead that your Lordships’ Court respectfully note this attitude as an
indication of the totality of the conduct of the 3rd Respondent in respect of my
client, Ahnaf Jazeem, in order to intimidate and harass him.

(b) I state that on 12 June 2021, the 3rd Respondent had obtained a remand
order stealthily and surreptitiously without informing the family or lawyers of
Ahnaf Jazeem, while the 3rd Respondent had all avenue to inform so, in order to
prevent his lawyers making any submissions or applications in defence of Ahnaf
Jazeem before any remand order was issued by the Magistrate.

(c) Thus, one of the most important applications to refer Ahnaf Jazeem to a
psychologist/psychiatrist to report on the psychological/mental torture he was
subjected to by the 3rd Respondent and his officers could not be made and such
report could not be obtained. These surreptitious and malicious acts were
carried out by the 3rd Respondent, while Ahnaf Jazeem's lawyer had informed
the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission with copy to the 3rd Respondent and
the 2nd Respondent of the continuous ill-treatment of Ahnaf Jazeem at the
hands of the 3rd Respondent and his officers.

17
 True copies of the letters sent by Ahnaf Jazeem's lawyer to the Inspector
General of Police, the 2nd Respondent, copying to Police Commission et al, and
to the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission are annexed hereto marked as
P22(A) and P22(B) and are pleaded as part and parcel hereof. National Police
Commission has, on 05th October 2021, acknowledged receipt of this letter and
has informed that a report has been called from the 3rd Respondent.

(d) I also state that the order for remanding my client Ahnaf Jazeem was
obtained by the 3rd Respondent without producing Ahnaf Jazeem before the
Magistrate face-to-face, which is a breach of the procedure established by law,
and thereby depriving the only opportunity Ahnaf Jazeem had to directly inform
the learned Magistrate of the ill-treatment that was meted out to him by the 3rd
Respondent and his officers while under their police custody. It is significant and
alarming to also note that, during the whole period of detention and remand, so
far over 17 months since the unlawful arrest, no judge has ever seen Ahnaf
Jazeem in person.

(e) I am instructed that Ahnaf Jazeem, despite being present in Court,

before making the remand order by the Magistrate, did not have the
opportunity to get into the dock and inform the Magistrate of the physical
and psychological torture he was made to endure during the 12 months of
Detention in the TID Custody. He was inside the overcrowded cell in the
Court room and the Magistrate could not see or identify Ahnaf Jazeem nor
did the learned Magistrate ask or inquire from him about his condition and
treatment whilst he was in detention.

44. In reply to paragraphs 16 and 19 of the Limited Affidavit, I reiterate the

aforesaid, and state that fourteen months after the unlawful arrest of poet and
teacher Ahnaf Jazeem, the 3rd Respondent is claiming to continue an
unspecified purported investigation without any regard to human liberty and
freedom, maliciously abusing the process of Law and procedure in order to
satisfy extraneous and collateral purposes, including to implicate any person
from the Muslim community. I am also instructed and state that my client Ahnaf

18
 Jazeem has committed none of the offences under the Prevention of Terrorism
Act (PTA) No. 48 of 1979 or under international Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) Act No. 56 of 2007, and the 3rd Respondent has failed to show
any evidence against Ahnaf Jazeem to have committed any offences under
those laws.

45. In reply to paragraph 20 of the Limited Affidavit, I state that the 3rd Respondent
and his officers did not give the parents of Ahnaf Jazeem any access to see
their son for over 09 months since late September 2020, keeping him in
incommunicado detention, for reasons best known to them with a view to
intimidating Ahnaf Jazeem to extract a forced self-incriminating statement
before the Magistrate, which they failed to obtain. As has been admitted by the
3rd Respondent himself, he and his officers of the TID have been ‘”monitoring"
the communications between Ahnaf Jazeem and his family and therefore Ahnaf
Jazeem was continuously intimidated and prevented from speaking to the
family of the real nature of the torture and cruel inhuman and degrading
treatment meted out to him by the TID officers.

46. I am instructed and vehemently deny that the statements recorded from Ahnaf
Jazeem were read out to him before his signature was obtained thereon as
mentioned in paragraph 21 of the Limited Affidavit. Further replying, I state that,
as clearly admitted by the 3rd Respondent himself, the statements recorded
from Ahnaf Jazeem were only read to him and Ahnaf Jazeem was denied the
opportunity to peruse/read and understand the statement by himself. I also
reiterate paragraphs 44 and 45 of my Affidavit in this regard.

47. (a) Replying to paragraph 22 of the Limited Affidavit, I admit only the fact that
Ahnaf Jazeem was provided access to his lawyers once on 08 March 2021, and
vehemently deny the rest of the averments contained therein as utter falsehood.
I also state that access on the said date was also provided to lawyers only after
several requests made to the 3rd Respondent and even to the 2nd Respondent
for a period close to two months.

19
 True copies of three such request letters are annexed hereto marked as
P23(A), P23(B) and P23(C) and are pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

(b) As stated by me in my Affidavit, especially at paragraphs 2 and 46 to 52 of

the same, two police personnel were present during the said consultation,
listening in, and one officer audio-recording the consultation had between Ahnaf
Jazeem and his lawyers. I am specifically instructed that there was never a
security issue at the time when the lawyers met their client Ahnaf Jazeem,
within the completely enclosed premises of the 3rd Respondent's office at the
New Secretariat Building, and even the said police officers or Mr. Gunasekera
(IP) did not inform the lawyers of any such security issue, because there could
not be such issue at all.

(c) There was also no necessity of interpretation by Police personnel, because

lawyers flatly rejected the offer for interpretation/translation by Police officers,
as one of the lawyers was Tamil speaking.

(d) It is for the first time that the 3rd Respondent is claiming Ahnaf Jazeem to be
a “terrorist suspect" and I state that this claim is baseless, unfounded,
scurrilous, wholly without evidence and entirely unsubstantiated, and also
made maliciously without any regard to the principles of presumption of
innocence and fair trial in respect of the poet and teacher, Ahnaf Jazeem.

48. I am instructed and vehemently deny the averments in paragraph 23 of the

Limited Affidavit as false and reiterate the aforesaid and facts in paragraphs 4 to
28 above , and the averments in paragraphs 37 to 43 of my Affidavit. The family
of the detainee Ahnaf Jazeem was continuously and expressly obstructed any
access over months and the lawyers/legal counsel were also denied access to
their client inasmuch as confidentiality was denied.

49. Based on the aforesaid and my Affidavit, I vehemently deny the assertion made
in paragraph 24, and state that the procedure established by Law in respect of
Arrest and detention of my client, Ahnaf Jazeem was never followed by the 3rd

20
 Respondent and his officers.

50. I deny the averments in paragraphs 4, 25 and 26 of the Limited Affidavit.

Specifically, I vehemently deny the averments made in paragraph 26 thereof.

51. I am instructed to state that Ahnaf Jazeem being a poet and an avid reader, was
not given newspapers to read, nor any access to television or radio, nor to a
library. Therefore, his right to be informed was unfairly, maliciously and
arbitrarily denied and his Fundamental Rights wantonly trampled upon. I am
further instructed that the same practice continues under the Custody of the
Colombo Remand Prison.

52. I am also instructed to state and state that Ahnaf Jazeem's family is being
continuously intimidated by Sri Lanka Police headed by the 2nd Respondent and
officers of the 3rd Respondent through frequent visits to the home of Ahnaf
Jazeem, where his two brothers and two sisters along with the ailing mother and
father reside, frequently asking the same questions about Ahnaf Jazeem and
tormenting them psychologically.

53. I am further instructed to state and state that, on behalf of the poet and teacher
Ahnaf Jazeem, his mother has made a written representation to the Advisory
Board established by the President of Sri Lanka under Section 13 of the
Prevention of Terrorism Act, as amended, on or about 22 September 2020,
seeking her son's immediate release.

54. I state that the Petitioner and Ahnaf Jazeem are entitled to the several reliefs
prayed from your Lordships' Court in my Petition and plead that the same be
granted.

21
The foregoing affidavit having been read
over and explained to the affirmant
above named who having understood its
nature, content and context affirmed
hereto and set his usual signature here in
Colombo on this 22 day of October 2021

BEFORE ME

Commissioner for Oaths/Justice of Peace

22