FR petition against CBK: AG noticed to appear in court

The Supreme Court asked the Attorney General to be noticed in the Fundamental Rights petition filed by two retired public servants against former President Chandrika Kumaratunga for what they call a corrupt lease of state lands for the construction of a private and exclusive golf club in which exercise a close family friend of her's financially profited during her tenure of office.
When the FR case was taken up on Thursday, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Nimal Dissanayake, Gamini Amaratunga and Andrew Somawansa issued notice on the Attorney General to be represented in Court when the matter is next taken up on November 12.

In the petition, two retired public servants -- Sugathapala Medis and Raja Senanayake have stated that former President Chandrika Kumaratunga herself steered a cabinet paper to grant state land near the Parliament Complex which had been taken over for a 'public purpose' to a private company.

They say that she misled her own cabinet of ministers into believing that a Japanese investor was involved in the exercise, but in fact that such a Japanese investor existed "only on paper". They say that some Sri Lankans thereafter formed a company to build a golf club, but that instead of constructing a golf club they had sold the shares of the company to another businessman. They had profited by merely holding the lease given to them by former President Kumaratunga's action while not investing any money in the project.

It had later transpired that a very close family friend of the former President, viz., Ronnie Peiris, a businessman living in the United Kingdom and with whom the former President stayed during her visits to that country had also profited to the tune of a sum exceeding Rs. 60 Million from this transaction.

Mr. Peiris' name did not exist in any of the cabinet papers presented by the former President, nor was he a shareholder of the golf company, but the fact that he had got a share of the monies the original shareholders received from the sale of their shares came to light only when income tax officials stumbled on the transaction.

During their probe into the non-payment of taxes by the original shareholders, tax officials had found that Mr. Peiris was also one of the beneficiaries from this deal. The petitioners state that the former President's act was "corrupt" and an "abuse of power".

They say that she misled the cabinet over which she herself presided.They say that it was only after they learnt that Mr. Peiris had paid up taxes claimed by the tax officials, and this was published in the local newspapers that they established the nexus between the former President and Mr. Peiris in the deal. They also say that the acquisition of these state lands in and around the Parliament Complex is continuing.