Hejaaz Hizbullah Sri Lanka 2020 prevention Hejaaz Hizbullah Sri Lanka

Hejaaz Hizbullah finally goes home after nearly two years in detention

Reading now: 730
www.newsfirst.lk

COLOMBO (News 1st); Attorney-at-Law Hejaaz Hizbullah on Wednesday (9) walked out of the Puttlam High Court without handcuffs after he was held for nearly two years in detention.Hejaaz Hizbullah was released on a cash bail of Rs.

100,000/- and two surety bails of Rs. 500,000/- each.He was also ordered to appear at the Puttlam SSP’s Office on the 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month.Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal on Monday (7) ordered to grant bail to Attorney-at-Law Hejaaz Hizbullah who was arrested and remanded under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).In addition, the bail order was directed to the High Court as well.Attorney-at-Law Hejaaz Hizbullah was arrested on the 14th of April 2020 with regard to a sermon that was delivered for students at a Madrasa School in Puttlam.After 18 months in detention, Attorney-at-Law Hejaaz Hizbullah was prosecuted under the PTA by the Attorney General at the Puttlam High Court.However, two requests for bail from the High Court were rejected previously.Thereafter, an application for bail was filed with the Court of Appeal. .

Read more on newsfirst.lk
The website covid-19.rehab is an aggregator of news from open sources. The source is indicated at the beginning and at the end of the announcement. You can send a complaint on the news if you find it unreliable.

Related News

Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena - Supreme Court delivers PTA Bill determination to Parliament - newsfirst.lk - Sri Lanka
newsfirst.lk
82%
783
Supreme Court delivers PTA Bill determination to Parliament
COLOMBO (News 1st); Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court has delivered its determination to the Parliament on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill.The determination read out by Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena is as follows:Clause 2 of the Bill is NOT inconsistent with any provision of the constitution.Clause 3 of the Bill cannot be enacted into law unless the number of votes cast in favor amounts not less than 2/3 of the whole number of members, including those not present, as per the constitution.The Supreme Court is however of the view that if the provisions of Clause 3 of the bill are amended as set out in the determination of the Supreme Court, it would ease to be inconsistent with any provision of the constitution.Clause 4 of the Bill, the Supreme Court states that be that as it may, the learned Additional Solicitor General had informed the court that the Attorney General would be advising the Minister to insert article 141 into the body of the proposed section 10 in Clause 4 of the Bill and the Minister would move that amendment at the Parliament Committee stage to address the concerns of the petitioners.Clause 5 of the Bill, for the reason mentioned in the determination of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court holds that Clause 5 is NOT inconsistent with any provision of the constitution.Clause 6 of the Bill, the Supreme Court holds that it cannot inquire into pronounce upon or in any manner called into question, the validity of section 11 of the PTA on any grounds whatsoever, in terms of article 83 of the constitution.Clause 10 of the Bill, the Supreme Court holds that if amended as set out in the determination of the Supreme Court would cease to be inconsistent with any provision of the
DMCA