FR Filed Over Cyclone Ditwah Disaster Response

COLOMBO (News 1st); A fundamental rights petition filed by a lawyer in Kandy, seeking a ruling that the failure to take necessary steps to minimise the disaster caused by Cyclone Ditwah resulted in a violation of basic human rights, has been fixed for July 15 by the Supreme Court.

The petition — filed by Attorney-at-Law Keerthi Bandara Kiridena — is scheduled to be heard before a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Justice Achala Wengappuli.

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, President’s Counsel Upul Jayasuriya informed the court that the Department of Meteorology had issued forecasts from 12 November onwards, indicating that rainfall conditions could intensify during the relevant period.

He stated that by the morning of 27 November, the increase in rainfall was clearly evident. 

However, without due consideration of this situation, the sudden opening of the spill gates of the Kotmale Reservoir at around 11.10 p.m. that night released a massive surge of water. As a result, by around 3.00 a.m. the following day, the Gampola area had been completely submerged.

He further noted that after Gampola, the areas of Geli Oya, Peradeniya, and Kandy were also progressively inundated.

The President’s Counsel alleged that although the Meteorological Department had already issued forecasts, the authorities acted negligently. He argued that this clearly demonstrated their failure to take timely action.

Respondents named in the petition include the Attorney General on behalf of the President,Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya, members of the Cabinet, and members of the National Disaster Management Committee, among others.

The petitioner’s counsel stated that his law office, located near the Kandy Court Complex, was completely destroyed due to the recent storms and flooding. 

As a result, a significant amount of important data stored within the office’s computer system had been lost, causing substantial damage to his professional work.

The petition further claims that the destructive situation arose due to the negligence or dereliction of duty by the respondents, who failed to take the necessary measures before the disaster occurred. It also states that if they had prepared and acted in advance, much of the damage could have been prevented.