IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of a Rule in terms of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 02 of 1978 against Mr. Nizam Mohammed Shameem, Attorney-at-Law.

H.M.B.P. Herath, SC Rule No. 6/2021 Secretary, Presidential Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into and Report or take Necessary Action on the Bomb Attacks on 21^st April 2019, 1^st Floor, Block No. 05, Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07.

COMPLAINANT Vs.

Nizam Mohammad Shameem, Attorneys-at-Law, 104 C, Godawaththa Road, Godapitiya, Akuressa.

RESPONDENT Before: Buwaneka Aluwihare PC, J.

Thurairaja PC, J.

Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.

Counsel: Faiz Musthapha PC with N.M. Shaheid PC and M.A. Zaid for the Respondent Attorney-at-Law.

Rohan Sahabandu PC with Chathurika Elvitigala for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.

Ganaga Wakishta Arachchi DSG for the Attorney General.

Inquiry on: 21.06.2023. Decided on: 24.10.2023.

Aluwihare PC J.

The respondent, who is an Attorney-at-law, has been called upon to show cause as to why he should not be suspended or removed from office on the ground of conduct that would be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by an Attorney-at-law.

When this matter was taken up for inquiry on 21.06.2023, the Respondent Attorney-at- law sought permission of the court to withdraw his earlier plea of, ‘not guilty’ and he intimated that he wishes to plead guilty to the Rule. Accordingly, the application was allowed and the Rule being read for the second time, the Respondent Attorney pleaded guilty to the Rule.

The Respondent Attorney-at-Law [hereinafter referred to as the Respondent] engaged himself to represent the All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulama (hereinafter the ‘ACJU’) in the proceedings conducted on 9^th September 2020 before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into and Report or take Necessary Action on the Bomb Attacks on 21^st April 2019 (hereinafter the ‘PCoI’). Moulavi Murshid Marsa Mullaffar was attending the proceedings of the PCol on 9^th September 2020 representing the ACJU in his capacity as the acting Secretary. The Respondent is accused of conveying the mobile telephone of Moulavi Mullaffar, the said representative of the ACJU, bearing Subscriber Identification Number [SIM] 0777 988 395 into the venue of the proceedings and aiding Moulavi Mullaffar to record a part of the proceedings of PCoI on the said date, contrary to the rules of the procedure of the PCoI.

By the aforesaid conduct the Respondent was alleged to have been in breach of Rules 60 and 61 of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorney-at-Law) Rules 1988, made in terms of Article 136 of the Constitution of the Republic of Sri Lanka.

The Respondent Attorney-at-Law has stated his case by affidavit dated 25^th November 2020. The Respondent has admitted that he carried the mobile telephone of his client, the said Moulavi Mullaffar into the venue of the proceedings. It is averred that Moulavi Mullaffar had requested the Respondent to keep his mobile phone as he was not permitted to take it into the premises. Only Attorneys-at-Law were allowed to take their mobile telephones into the premises where the hearing of the Commission was taking place.

The Respondent has stated that out of respect for the Moulavi as a member of the clergy of the Respondent’s faith and trusting his word, he agreed to keep the mobile phone in his custody. The Moulavi had indicated to him that the mobile phone was on ‘flight mode’.

The Respondent in his affidavit has maintained that while the proceedings were ongoing a mild sound had emanated from the mobile phone and it had started vibrating. Failing to switch it off by pressing the power button, the Respondent has stated that he passed the phone to the Moulavi who was seated two rows behind him, so that the Moulavi could switch if off. As the proceedings were ongoing and the Respondent was assisting his Senior Mr. Javed Yousuf to cros