IA
would legitimise separate state: Kadir
Special
Presidential Adviser on Foreign Affairs Lakshman Kadirgamar warned
on Friday that the country's security was being seriously jeopardized
under the ongoing ceasefire agreement and that the time has come
for every citizen to take a stand on where they stood on the issue.
"This
is a very serious moment, a defining moment. The security situation
is getting graver and graver. We cannot go on like this, "
Mr.Kadirgarmar told a gathering of lawyers at the Presidential Secretariat
on Friday.
He said that
if an agreement were signed granting an interim administration to
the LTTE, in which it would have been guaranteed a majority membership,
it would go ninety per cent towards legitimising a separate state.
"I would
say it will be the beginning of the end," he said. Mr. Kadirgamar
said once an interim administration was established on the ground,
it would lead to a de facto state and whether a final settlement
was reached or not, it would be irreversible.
He said an interim
measure could only be a step before a final solution but in this
case it seems that both parties had no interest in a finality.
" How
can you have an interim administration without a commitment towards
a final solution," he queried.
He said a separate
state was now staring us in the face.
" What
do the people want to do now? We don't want war. We don't want to
see dead bodies of young men and women. But does that mean we are
willing to go as far as saying that we want peace at any cost,"
he asked.
He said the
non-elected interim administration proposals the government had
submitted to the LTTE guarantees an in-built majority to the group
and although it states that it would be for a limited period, such
a period is not specified.
He said the
proposed 2000 Constitution framed by the PA had contained an interim
administration proposal but there was no in-built majority for any
party guaranteed in it and its representation was to be based on
the ethnic composition in the north and east. He said the time frame
for such a set up had also been specified.
Corea-Kotelawala
case drags on
By
Laila Nasry
In the ongoing legal battle over the management of the
wealth of Dr. Gamani Corea, Court granted further time to counsel
for Lalith Kotelawala and Dr. Corea to study the petitions filed
by six petitioners seeking permission to participate in the lawsuit.
Additional
District Court Judge Lalith Jayasuriya fixed the matter for inquiry
on September 16 and ordered that until court decides on the matter
of intervention Dr.Corea, need not be present in court.
Dr. Corea was
present in court. This was subsequent to a previous order of court,
which directed Dr. Corea be present in order to hold an inquiry
for the purpose of ascertaining whether he was incapable of managing
his own affairs.
When the case
came up last Monday the judge observed that there has been no substantial
relief asked for by the six petitioners and that the question before
court to be decided is whether the petitioners who merely want to
be part of the lawsuit can intervene in the first place.
The petitioners,
Sri Sangabo Corea, and Dr. Harsha Aturupane, Lilani Corea Dharmaratne,
Dr. Eugene Corea and Don Devadunne Richard Corea, four cousins of
Dr. Corea and Mr. Godfrey Gunatilleke of the Gamani Corea Foundation
petitioned court, consequent to action filed by another cousin of
Dr. Corea, Lalith Kotelawala who sought guardianship and management
of the estate.
They allege
Mr. Kotelawala is disentitled to relief sought from court as he
is an heir at law of Dr. Corea and has been instrumental in suppressing
material facts and has acted arbitrarily and unlawfully in taking
several decisions detrimental to the interests of Dr. Corea including
the coercion exercised over Dr. Corea to execute a general power
of attorney in his favour and generally acting in a manner constituting
a patent conflict of interest.
Further Mr.
Gunatilleke in his application states that Mr. Kotelawala had made
serious and false allegations against him without making him a party
to the application and states he is a party whose presence before
court is necessary and therefore pleads he be entitled to be heard.
When the case
came up in court both counsel for Mr. Kotelawala, Kuvera de Soysa
and Counsel for Dr. Corea, Wijedasa Rajapakse PC took notice of
the applications and a further set of papers was also handed to
court by counsel for the six petitioners. Mr. Rajapakse stated,
"this matter is not public interest litigation nor a matter
for the gallery. It involves my client and his property. This case
has already caused much embarrassment and pain of mind to my client
who has brought honour to the country."
He further
stated that he is present as an officer of court to assist the judge
with the true facts of the matter and thus cannot do so unless and
until he had an opportunity of fully studying the papers filed by
the six petitioners. He added "if there is any mismanagement
of my property I will complain to your Honour's court."
Mr. Kuvera
de Soysa told court that his client is before court for transparency
in the matter and that whatever transpires should be between him
and Dr. Corea. He said the six petitioners are outsiders who need
not get involved in this case, adding that Dr. Corea would not have
been aware of having such a number of relatives.
Counsel for
five of the petitioners, Mr. J.E.P. Deraniyagala made submissions
to court at which point both Mr. de Soysa and Mr. Rajapakse objected
stating counsel is going into the merits of the matter and cannot
do so until they have had the opportunity of studying the application.
Opposition
cries over how Bill was passed
By
Chandani Kirinde
Opposition political parties have expressed their dissatisfaction
to Speaker Joseph Michael Perera about the manner in which the committee
stage of the Intellectual Property Bill was passed in Parliament.
The matter
was discussed during the party leaders meeting held last Monday.
Several major amendments to the Bill were made during the committee
stage of the Bill in Parliament on July 25 amidst protests from
the Opposition that more time was needed to study them.
Several Opposition
MPs also called for the Bill to be re-gazetted as there were major
amendments made to the original Bill. They also said they were not
satisfied whether the amendments suggested to certain clauses of
the Bill which it determined were unconstitutional had been adequately
amended in keeping with the court ruling.
Colombo district
PA MP Dinesh Gunawardena told The Sunday Times that the way in which
important legislation was passed was unsatisfactory.
He said the
Opposition had wanted to register its protest by having a vote on
certain clauses in the Bill but several attempts to do this had
failed because of the confusion amidst which the Bill was passed.
|