Former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga has stated that she was unaware of the ‘ostensible purpose’ for which the land now occupied by the Waters Edge Golf Club at Battaramulla was taken as it was done in 1988, and “long prior to her being elected as President” in 1994.
In her written submissions to the Supreme Court in a Fundamental Rights application filed by two retired public servants saying that she had misled her own Cabinet and acted illegally in spearheading a move to give these State lands to a private party by which action a personal friend of hers benefited financially, Ms. Kumaratunga says the golf course project had the backing of the Urban Development Authority (UDA), the Board of Investment and the Tourist Board.
 |
| The controversial Waters Edge Golf Course |
She says the project was not an “unsolicited” award, as made out by the petitioners, but that in case of BoI projects it is the investor that makes proposals, not the Government.
She says it was the BoI and the Finance Ministry that had advised her, in her capacity as Minister of Finance on the feasibility of the project (to start a golf club on State lands near the Parliament complex), and that the BoI and the UDA which are free from the control of the former President now have not stated otherwise.
Answering allegations that the State lands were vested for a ‘public purpose’, and that the starting of a private golf club in those properties was not a ‘public purpose’, Ms. Kumaratunga states that policy issues of public purpose cannot be defined solely on the basis asserted by the two petitioners. It is, and has always been a changing and varying consideration after taking into account the overall economic benefits that accrue to the country including the generation of employment mainly to the people of the area, Ms. Kumaratunga says.
She adds that the project falls squarely within the ‘development activities of the UDA’ stated in the certificate of vesting of the properties, and that at the time the project was approved by the various institutions of Government, a major goal of the Economic Development Plan initiated by her was to attract private sector investments into the country, to bring capital investment together with its attendant benefits for the national economy, including employment creation. Hence, it was submitted by her that any project of this nature that benefits the economy will clearly fall within the scope of ‘public purposes’.
Ms. Kumaratunga states she adhered to guidelines she put in place to prevent the allocation of State lands on an ad hoc and irregular manner as was practised by previous Governments, and that it is clear from documentation tendered by the BoI that no preferential treatment was meted out to any company in connection with the project.
She says it is necessary to note that after the BoI granted interim approval for the project in April 1997, the project was being considered by the UDA as a sub-project of the Diyawanna Uyana Project at Battaramulla, and the two developers of the project being the UDA and Asia Pacific Golf Courses (Pvt.) Ltd.,
She says she was interested in the Environmental Impact Assessments in respect of all projects at the time, and received a report from the UDA saying that UDA and the private company were the two developers of the property and there was a delay in the imlementation of the project because of the lack of agreement between the two of them with respect to the land areas to be included in the lease agreement. That was in November 1999, she says.
She then refers to the project being taken over by the UNP Government that came into office after December 2001, and refers to then Minister Ravi Karunanayake seeking by way of a Cabinet memorandum, the appointment of a committee to inquire into the irregularities in the allocation of the State properties, and then how the Cabinet memorandum was thereafter withdrawn without adducing any reasons.
 |
| Former President Chandrika Kumaratunga. |
Consequently, Ms. Kumaratunga says she herself had asked the same cabinet for a Committee of Inquiry, and then proceeded to advise the cabinet to terminate the project as it was acting in contravention of the of the original recommendations of the Central Environmental Authority.
She says the Cabinet had authorised the termination of the project, but that the UDA had obtained an opinion from then Attorney General who had said that, under the circumstances existing at the time, it could not be done.
Ms. Kumaratunga says the decision to grant approval for the setting up of a golf project on these State lands was a collective decision of the Cabinet, and that every member of the then cabinet is responsible for the decision.
The former President says there was no undue interest taken by her in this particular project other than that as Minister of Finance in the performance of her duties, and that she took the interest of the country, and fulfilled her duties with unquestionable honesty and integrity.
Ms. Kumaratunga says she is not relying on Presidential Immunity in this case, and asks why the petitioners continue to assert that she is not entitled to such immunity.
The petitioners’ version
The two petitioners, Sugathapala Medis and Raja Senanayake, former public servants, have gone before the Supreme Court saying that the entire transaction dealing with the transfer of State lands for the building of a golf club called Waters Edge has the hand of former President Kumaratunga present throughout the deal, and that she is guilty of abuse of power and should be punished according to the Constitution she was expected to protect as President.
They claim that former President Kumaratunga introduced a Cabinet Paper in her capacity as Minister of Finance for a group of persons to construct a golf course in a large extent of State land near the Parliament complex evicting people who were residing there, and then misled her own Cabinet to believing that foreign funds were being invested in the project through the BoI.
It later transpired, that once the Cabinet approved this project, the persons to whom the permit to build the golf course merely sold their shares to another group for a sum of over Rs. 150 Million and that one of former President Kumaratunga's friends, viz., Mr. Ronnie Peiris, with whom she regularly stays during her visits to the UK, profited to the tune of Rs. 60 Million or more from this transaction.
They say that Mr. Peiris had admitted that he made this money from this very transaction when he was questioned by the Sri Lanka Income Tax Department.
The petitioners had earlier produced documentation to show the nexus between Mr. Peiris and Ms. Kumaratunga, including documentation where he received special facilities from the state owned Bank of Ceylon (London branch) also at the time she was Minister of Finance.
There were no tangible assets in this company (Asia Pacific Golf Courses) at the time it originally received this lease on Ms. Kumaratunga's Cabinet proposal, the petitioners say.
They ask if Ms. Kumaratunga was guided by any expertise or experience on the part of the Asia Pacific Golf Course company to undertake this project at hand and whether their financial credentials by way of their financial profile or assets were ever taken into consideration. It is in this background that the petitioners say that Ms. Kumaratunga's personal friendship with the 5th Respondent, Mr. Peiris, becomes important.
Mr. Peiris, who chose not to answer allegations made against him in this case, had in fact admitted the acceptance of Rs. 60 Million for the transaction between the original shareholders of Asia Pacific and the current owners, the petitioners state.
The petitioners submit that Mr. Peiris being a close associate of Ms. Kumaratunga should be subject to close scrutiny under the domestic legal framework. Referring to the promoters, 'back-door investors' and Mr. Peiris, the petitioners say that 'strangers' cannot benefit from public contracts merely by influencing the people in power. They say that all these persons received 'kickbacks' from a public contract.
These 'promoters' viz., Mr. and Mrs. Selvaratnam and Mr. Peiris have "done nothing" with regard to this purported project, and had not even bothered to file objections in this case.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva and Justice Shirani Thillakwardene and P.A. Ratnayake has reserved judgment in this case.
Mr. K. Kanag-Ishvaran PC and Mr. Nigel Bartholomeusz instructed by Paul Ratnayake Associates appear for Ms. Chandrika Kumaratunga.
Mr. J.C. Weliamuna and Ms. Maduranga Rathnayake instructed by Samararatna Associates appear for the two petitioners. | 
E-mail