– Former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva has described the six-year prison sentence imposed on Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera as unlawful, alleging that the case involved a conspiracy and questioning the legal process through which the sentence was imposed.

Addressing a Buddhist event, Silva said, the sentence imposed by former Court of Appeal President Justice Preethi Padman Surasena was illegal, arguing that it exceeded the maximum sentence he believed was permitted under the applicable law.“The sentence imposed on Ven. Gnanasara Thera is completely illegal. I have studied this matter closely, and there is a significant conspiracy involved here,” Silva said.He questioned the circumstances under which the matter was referred to the Court of Appeal, claiming that a Magistrate had written to the President of the Court of Appeal seeking a harsher sentence because the Magistrate’s sentencing powers were limited.“Since when does a Magistrate write to the President of the Court of Appeal? Can a Magistrate really write to the President of the Court of Appeal asking him to exercise his judicial authority to impose a harsher sentence because the punishment within his own jurisdiction is insufficient?” he asked.

Silva also disputed the interpretation of remarks made by Gnanasara Thera at the Homagama Magistrate’s Court, claiming that the monk had expressed concern over the continued detention of Army officers rather than personally attacking the Magistrate.According to Silva, Gnanasara Thera had visited the court out of concern for the officers and had appealed for their release.

He said the monk’s remarks about war heroes being imprisoned while members of the LTTE were being released had been made during an emotional exchange at court.Silva further claimed that Gnanasara Thera had referred to officials of a “spineless government” rather than describing a particular judicial officer as spineless. He also questioned the timing of the court record concerning the incident, claiming that the Magistrate had not made a contemporaneous record but had entered a written note about a month later.

“Normally, if an act of contempt occurs, a record is made immediately,” Silva said, describing the subsequent referral to the Court of Appeal as a key issue requiring scrutiny. He argued that the legal procedure followed in the case raised questions about the exercise of judicial authority and the imposition of punishment for contempt of court.

Silva’s statements represent his legal interpretation of the case. His claims concerning the legality of the sentence, the court proceedings and an alleged conspiracy have not been independently established in the material provided.