Former PERC chairman
supports Vasu
in SLIC case
A former chairman of the Public Enterprises Reform Commission (PERC) is backing CMC opposition leader Vasudeva Nanayakkara’s call – through the courts – for a full probe into the Sri Lanka Insurance Corp (SLIC) privatisation deal.
Mr. Nanayakkara has filed a fundamental rights petition in the Supreme Court, now being heard, asking the court to probe the SLIC privatisation transaction and to consider annulling the same, due to several irregularities in the process and for causing massive losses to the Government, which are losses to the public.
![](../images/Vasudewa-Nanayakkara-.jpg) |
Vasudeva Nanayakkara |
Mr. Nanayakkara has also sought a direction from court for the CID and the Bribery Commission to take action under laws which come within their purview and operation.
On Friday, former PERC Chairman Nihal Sri Ameresekere, who had been persuading through legal means (during Mr. Ameresekere’s tenure in office) for the deal-makers in the SLIC transaction to pay off a due amount to the Government, filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court supporting Mr. Nanayakkara’s fundamental rights application.
In that Mr. Ameresekere says he ‘concurs and agrees with the contentions of Nanayakkara’ and for the grant of relief asked from the Supreme Court.
Mr. Ameresekere also said he gave evidence before the Investigation Panel of the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka (ICASL) into the professional misconduct of Ernst & Young and PricewaterhouseCoopers, and has adduced evidence that documents had been tampered with at the ICASL.
Mr. Ameresekere further stated that the specially prepared accounts of SLIC though said by both Ernst & Young and PricewaterhouseCoopers to be in accordance with International Accounting Standards, was not confirmed accordingly by the International Accounting Standard Board.
When he was examined by COPE, Mr. Ameresekere said that on the matter of conflict of interest, Justice Ministry Secretary Suhadha Gamalath citing authorities had made a clear presentation to COPE, of the definition of conflict of interest.
Leave to proceed was granted by the Supreme Court and hearing into this matter fixed for September 3. |