News

 

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.


Back to Top  Back to News  

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contact us: | Editorial | | Webmaster|