| News |
||||
|
I won't be silenced
by threats-Kadirgamar On the 24th
instant a Sunday newspaper published an article spread over two
pages under the banner headline, "A question of integrity"
quoting in full a scurrilous letter by a disgruntled lawyer making
wild allegations against me over a routine purchase of a residential
property, coupled with a detailed account of matters relating to
the personal security provided to me by the state, on the direct
instructions of the Prime Minister, unsolicited by me. The combination
of these wholly unrelated matters in one article strongly suggests
an orchestrated effort to prejudice the public mind against me and
thus compel my silence on emerging matters of great national concern
that were aired at the PA press conference on November 15 and in
the press release issued on that occasion. Thus it has
become necessary for me to deal with this newspaper article in some
detail although the matters referred to therein would not normally
fail within the public domain. I would not have burdened the public
with all this reading on a relatively trivial issue if I had not
felt that there is a sinister agenda in the background which should,
in the public interest be confronted directly. In connection
with the proposed purchase of a residential property in Bullers
Lane by my wife, her lawyers, Messrs. F.J. & G. de Saram and
I, were in touch with the seller's lawyer, Mr. Mahinda Ellepola.
The agreed purchase price of Rs. 48,500,000/- was to be financed
by a loan from a lending institution against a mortgage of the property
and the proceeds of sale of my own residential property at Havelock
Road, the only item of immovable property that I owned. My wife
is the sole owner of the new property and is solely responsible
for repaying the loan. This is because
my wife's financial capacity, as a partner in a leading legal firm,
is much greater than mine. After I gave up my large professional
income as a practicing lawyer on being appointed Minister of Foreign
Affairs in August 1994, and had sold at a loss all the shares I
held in 1995 to avoid any possible conflict of interest with my
Ministerial office, except for a few hundred shares in three companies,
one of which has not paid a single dividend since 1983 and whose
shares are unsaleble in the market, my income has been limited to
my United Nations pension and MPs salary supplemented lately by
some ad hoc work as an arbitrator, not as counsel. While waiting
for the necessary funds to become available, from the sale of my
own residential property, for the purchase of the Bullers Lane property,
we sought time to complete the purchase. As requested by Mr. Ellepola
on 7th October I paid a deposit of Rs. 10 million borrowed from
the lending institution. By his letter of 8th October Mr. Ellepola
stated that it would now be in order for me "to move books
and a few items of furniture" to the new promises. Mr. Elleppola's
letter to me of 3rd October had already stated "you must target
to complete the purchase not later than the week commencing 21st
October." There was not a word in that letter about payment
of interest for delayed execution. Accordingly 23rd October was
scheduled for signing the deed. As our funds were still not available
by that date a further date for signing was sought . By his letter
of 22nd October to de Saram's Mr. Ellepola stated "The signing
is now re-fixed for 28t instant" - a delay of five days from
23rd to 28th October. Again there was not a word about payment of
interest for delayed execution. (quote) "With
reference to the final paragraph of your letter dated October 23,
2002 our client's husband, Mr. Lakshman Kadirgamar, has informed
us that when you said that your client was expecting payment of
one month's interest on account of a notional loss of income due
to the postponement of the date of execution of the Deed from 23rd
October 20002 to 28th October, 2002, at the rate of 7.5% per annum
on the outstanding balance of Rs. 38,500,000/- (i.e Rs. 240,625/=
per month) Mr. Kadirgamar had stated that that was a large sum of
money when the notional loss could not be any more than five days
interest, to which your reply was that you did not wish to be involved
in this matter. We do not see on what basis of law or equity the
notional loss, even if payable by Mr. Kadirgamar, which we deny,
can be calculated on the basis of one month's interest.' (unquote) I did offer
to pay five day's interest amounting to some Rs. 46,000/- in memory
of the late Mark Bostock - "a sportsman and a gentleman"
- because the present owners of Aislaby Estates Ltd to whom the
money would go are the kith and kin of Mark Bostock. In my letter
dated 28th October to de Saram's, which the Sunday newspaper has
published in full, Mr. Ellepola says that for me to state that the
payment of Rs. 240,625/- was for a notional loss of income for five
days is 'ludicrous' and 'a ploy for delay and not to pay the deposit".
This statement is plainly nonsensical because the deposit of Rs.
10 million had been paid as far back as 7th October two weeks before
I had asked for a short extension of time to pay the balance. Thus, the request
for extension of time cannot, under any construction, have been
motivated by a desire to evade paying the deposit. The malice of
Mr. Ellepola is clearly evident. On 24th October, at Mr. Bradman Weerakoon's birthday dinner, I mentioned this interest payment to an old friend, a businessman of high repute, who was also a friend of the Bostock family. He was astounded at the interest figure of Rs. 240,000/- and volunteered to speak to one of the Directors of the company that owned the property whom he knew well. He informed me the next morning that the Director owner had told him that he had to intention of taking a cent from me on account of delayed payment. Even the question of the Rs. 40,000/- payment was, therefore, dropped. Consequently, I was not asked by the owners for any payment at all. As Mr. Ellepola
admits, in his published letter of 28th October, his client had
given him instructions about this conversation. This was no doubt
a great blow to Mr. Ellepola whose attempt to extract a large sum
of money from me had failed. his own client had not supported him.
That is why he puts the blame for the collapse of his plan on my
'having sought the intervention of a businessman who figured prominently
in a recent seedy transaction". this is another typical piece
of vilification of an innocent person and further evidence of the
malice of Mr. Ellepola. On the question
of stamp duty I did not at any time request Mr. Ellepola to state
a false value of Rs. 40 million on the deed. What did happen was
that in the course of a conversation I inquired from Mr. Ellepola
what the stamp duty was as I was out of touch with such matters
and on his informing me that it was 4%. I said that was a large
amount about Rs. 2 million, whereupon Mr. Ellepola suggested that
the value stated in the deed could be Rs. 40 million. I did not
agree with this suggestion. I had that amount available being the
proceeds of the recent sale of my private motor vehicle. The plain
fact is that by cheque dated 29th October I paid to de Saram's the
sum of Rs. 1,939,000/- which is 4% of the purchase price minus the
permitted allowance of Rs. 1000/- as stamp duty to be remitted to
the Western Provincial Council. On the question
of security I have to reiterate what I have already said to the
press earlier this year. The Prime Minister informed me on 6th December
last year, entirely on his own initiative, even before he had been
formally appointed to the post, that all my security arrangements
would remain "intact" and that I should remain in the
"fortified" residence. Accordingly the furniture and equipment
and all other items in the residence and the complement of vehicles
used for security purposes remained intact. Instructions were given
accordingly, by the Prime Minister especially to the Ministry of
Defence. My security is professionally managed by a specially trained
Army unit of the highest competence, and day-to-day security arrangements,
including the deployment of vehicles for the purpose of target protection
by contrived deception - (which is standard security practice world
wide) are entirely in their hands, not mine. Mr. Ellepola
pontificates about security without knowing, or pretending not to
know, anything about the subject. One of the basic concepts of security
is that protection is provided not only for the person of the target,
but for any building he frequents, especially his private residence,
which he would predictably visit from time to time, in order to
prevent the introduction of explosive devices into those premises.
Accordingly, over the seven years, I was a Minister a minimal degree
of security was provided by the Ministerial Security Division (MSD)
at my private residence. On the purchase of the new premises, which
became our new private residence, the same degree of minimal security
was transferred to those premises for the purpose mentioned. In
his published letter of 28th October Mr. Ellepola said, with a noticeable
degree of pomposity "On the deposit of Rs. 10 million, he inquired
whether on his books and bookshelves being moved in, I could permit
his security staff to move in. I clearly stated, the State provides
security for his PERSON and not to look after a property he intends
to purchase. I cautioned
him that the misuse of his security staff would constitute an ABUSE
OF POWER but I had no objection to a private security service being
deployed. Both Mr. and Mrs. Kadirgamer have abused the confidence
I reposed in them for apart from the books and bookshelves being
moved in, domestic household furniture has been moved in and the
security staff provided by the State installed therein. The conduct
of a Lady and Gentleman." Mr. Ellepola
has conveniently forgotten, or conveniently suppressed, his letter
to me of 8th October where he said "Now that the deposit is
in place (his client) confirmed last night that it would be in order
to permit you to move your books and a few items of furniture...
"I should mention that the books referred to are a library
of some 6000 volumes. In the same letter .Mr. Ellepola expresses
his concern for the security of the books and furniture and states
that the caretaker cannot be held responsible, that unauthorized
persons will not be allowed to enter the premises, that the packers
and movers should have identity cards etc. He concluded the letter
with another savage swipe at an old friend which reveals the nature
of Mr. Ellepola, his malicious tongue and acid pen. "You mentioned
you were engaging the services of (blank, a well known packer).
Please impress upon him the need to maintain confidentiality of
the highest order. Short men, after liquor, like to talk big."
This 'short' gentleman too,like Mr. Elleopola and I, went to the
same school. He has known him for over fifty years, and that is
the dismissive malicious remark he made about him, another innocent
person. A comment has
been made in that Sunday newspaper about my not replying Mr. Ellepola's
letter of 28th October. A plain reading of that letter, which was
neither addressed, nor even copied to me, reproduced verbatim in
the newspaper, makes evident the fact that although the letter purports
to be a communication from an attorney at law to a firm of attorneys-at-Law
in respect of a transaction where the only question at issue was
the payment of interest for delayed execution of an agreement for
the purchase of property, the letter is replete with venomous personal
attacks on me and my wife couched in the most intemperate and unprofessional
language on matters which have no bearing whatsoever on the matter
in issue. It was manifest therefore, that Mr. Ellepola's letter
was the product of an irrational mind consumed with spite and malice
and hence letter which did not merit a reply. I am making this lengthy
statement to the press only because that letter has already been
published in a newspaper. In conclusion, I wish to assure the public that I will continue to discharge, to the best of my ability, the duty I owe to the people of Sri Lanka to safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State of Sri Lanka. I assure the people that my silence cannot be procured or ensured by the provision or the withdrawal of my personal security, nor by any other type of threat or inducement. That assurance I give you.' |
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
