AG faults Gota | Page 3 | Daily News

AG faults Gota

Attorney General OBJECTS TO Ex-Parte INTERIM ORDER
COURT extends Interim Order TILL December 15

The Attorney General yesterday alleged that former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has obtained an Interim Order by suppressing and misrepresenting material facts of the incident.

Deputy Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne appearing on behalf of the Attorney General raised objections for delivering an ex-parte order regarding the writ petition filed by former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.

“I have filed limited objections against this order. I can demonstrate on the pleadings filed by the petitioner that there was suppression and misrepresentation of material facts when the application was supported and an Interim Order was obtained ex-parte. I can make my submissions today before this order is extended. I am objecting to the extension of the Interim Order,” Dayaratne said.

President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva appearing for Gotabhaya Rajapaksa requested to fix the matter for inquiry since they want to look into the material facts presented by the Attorney General. Court fixed the petition for inquiry on December 15.

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal (CA) yesterday further extended until December 15 its interim order preventing police from acting against former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa under the Public Property Act regarding a Magistrate’s Court inquiry.

The CA extended this Interim Order preventing police from acting under the Public Property Act against Rajapaksa, on the Galle Magistrate’s Court inquiry over a complaint that the D.A. Rajapaksa Museum and Memorial in Medamulana was built using public funds amounting to Rs.90 million.

On November 29, the Interim Order was issued on the basis of an ex parte proceeding by a two-judge-bench comprising Court of Appeal (President) Justice L.T.B. Dehideniya and Justice Shiran Gunaratne. This is pursuant to a writ petition filed by Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.

Deputy Solicitor Genera Viraj Dayaratne appearing for the Attorney General yesterday filed limited objections against the Interim Order and raised objections for the extension of this order.

However, President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva appearing for the petitioner sought a further date for the inquiry into the matter citing that he was yet to peruse the objections raised by respondents.

The Court upheld Rajapaksa’s version that the certificate issued under section 8(1) of the offences against the Public Property Act is ultra vires or violative of his legitimate expectations.

Rajapaksa cited IGP Pujith Jayasundara, CID Director Shani Abeysekara, FCID Director Ravi Waidyalankara and the Attorney General as respondents.

Rajapaksa also seeks an order in the nature of a writ of prohibition preventing the respondents from proceeding or relying upon the certificate filed under and in terms of section 8(1) of the offences against the Public Property Act against him.

Rajapaksa maintained that the offences against the Public Property Act contains a provision in section 8(1) as amended where, upon the certification by a Police Officer that the value of the matter exceeds Rs. 25,000, it will not be competent for the magistrate’s court unless in exceptional circumstances to release such a person on bail after recording reasons.

Rajapaksa stated that one such method was to say that there was a criminal offence committed by Rajapaksa regarding monies belonging to the Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Board (SLLRDC).

Rajapaksa stated that recently he was informed that he is to be arrested. He further said that originally the proceedings reflect a possible charge of money laundering. He stated that there is no offence whatever in respect of the said matter.

He states that the D.A Rajapaksa Foundation, a statutory body, entered into a contract with the Sri Lanka Land Reclamation Department for the construction of a monument at Madamulana in Weerakatiya. Rajapaksa states that there was no written contract.

He stated that, at all times the petitioner, the Foundation and SLLRDC acted on the basis that there was a contract between the SLLRDC and the foundation and that the foundation would pay to the SLLRDC lawfully due for the construction of the monument.

He states that the monument was unveiled on or about November 6, 2014 though not complete, because that was the death anniversary of the late D.A. Rajapakse.

The petitioner states that the government changed in January 2015 and the Sri Lanka Land Reclamation Board came under the Megalopolis Ministry, under Minister Patali Champaka Ranawaka.

In August of 2015, the Foundation received a request for a part payment which the Foundation paid. The petitioner pleads that thereafter he received a letter of demand. The petitioner states that the said Attorney, who sent the letter has on several occasions acted for and on behalf of the Minister Patali Champaka Ranawaka.

The petitioner states that at no time has the Foundation denied the liability to pay the money but has only queried the quantum. When the Petitioner’s statement was recorded by the FCID Petitioner requested for a government valuation to be obtained.

The Petitioner said the Government Valuer has in fact valued the construction at Rs. 33 million but the Foundation has not been provided a copy of the Government valuation. The Petitioner pleads that at all times, the SLLRDC accepted the said monies as payments made in terms of the contract between the foundation and SLLRDC.

The Petitioner said he was informed upon the government valuation had been made known to the foundation; the foundation had on or about July 13, 2017 paid the balance sum of Rs. 33 million and thus paid SLLRDC the entire sum of government valuation.

Rajapaksa states that the foundation will be agreeable to have an arbitration to cause a fresh valuation of the construction if the SLLRDC is not agreeable to act upon the government valuation already obtained. The petitioner states he is aware that the Foundation would contest the action contemplated in the said letter of demand only to the extent of determining the actual value due.

Rajapaksa states that a court of competent jurisdiction will inquire into the said matter and will determine the cost of construction and the balance payment due which the Foundation will have to pay. The petitioner states that, in terms of the papers filed in the magistrate court, ex-facie there is no offence disclosed under and in terms of the imperative provisions of Offences Against Public Property Act.

President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva with Ali Sabry PC, counsel Sugath Caldera and Ruwantha Cooray under the instruction of counsel Sanath Wijewardane appeared for Rajapaksa. Deputy Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne appeared for the Attorney General.


There are 2 Comments

As kown .VAT refunds in most countries are made at port of exit. The purchases must be physically declared in order to obtain the refund. The customs stamped copyof the declaration musr be dropped in the special box at port of exit prior to embarkation. The claiment will receive his money by cheque in his own country in the currency declared.

No transparency. This is a Sri Lanka.


Add new comment