PM asked to clarify his stance on Arjuna Mahendran

PM asked to clarify his stance on Arjuna Mahendran

Written by Staff Writer

14 Mar, 2019 | 10:22 pm

COLOMBO (News 1st): Today (March 14) was the second day of the 2019 Budget Committee Stage Debate. During the debate on the expenditure heads of the ministries that come under the Prime Minister, MP Vasudewa Nanayakkara asked 22 explosive questions from the Prime Minister.

The questions are as follows:

Did you not assure this house and the bond commission inquiry regarding the trustworthiness and credentials of Arjuna Mahendran?

Do you still maintain your position or not?

Are you aware that the bond commission observed that you should not have placed trust in Arjuna Mahendran?

Did you not insist on Arjuna Mahendrans appointment as the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka disregarding President Maithripala Sirisena’s strong objections?

Did you want the President to re-appoint Arjuna Mahendran even after the bond scam for a second term?

Does this not explain why you deliberately brought the Central Bank under your purview?

By your assurance given to the Cabinet and to the President, did you not take personal responsibility for the honesty and trustworthiness of Arjuna Mahendran?

Did you assure this house that you will have Arjuna Mahendran brought back here at any necessary given time? Can you account for this statement now?

Did Arjuna Mahendran play a role from his safe haven even in the recent days to find foreign fund resources for the Central Bank at 8% interest?

In view of the foregoing facts, do you not admit that Arjuna Mahendran had been found by the Supreme court to be a fraudulent manipulator which is an important and relevant fact that you have knowingly suppressed from this house and before the bond commission which amounts to giving false evidence?

Then why did you place trustworthiness?

Why did you place such credibility on the man’s conduct when you were seeking his appointment as the Governor of the Central Bank?

How can you account for your knowledge of the man, reconcile it with your request to have him appointed as the Governor of the Central Bank when you knew about the man’s conduct or his misconduct according to the Supreme Court findings?

Do you admit that the fourth respondent in my case was former President Chandrika Kumaratunga?

Do you admit that she (CBK) had signed an illegal transfer of 8 and a half acres of the Sri Lanka Ports authority land for Rs. 1,199.4 million, but of which the money has not been received yet by the treasury, although she had confirmed under her signature that this money had been paid?

The forensic audit has not even commenced. We like to know why?

Will the speaker report the prime minister to the privileges committee for lying to this house deliberately and being dishonest?

MP Vasudeva Nanayakkara then sought to table the report, made by former CBSL Governor Ajith Nivard Cabral – which is “excellently explained in the cascading loss the government has had to suffer”.

“I ask the chairman to kindly allow me to have this included in the Hansard if possible,” he added.

At this point, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe stood up and objected, prompting MP Nanayakkara to question why. The exchange is as follows.

RW (in the background) – I object to that.

VN – Why?

RW – Including in the Hansard….Mr.Nivard Cabraal is under investigation and the forensic audit … That does not matter, you can table it, I have no problem to it being tabled.

VN – No I want this included in the Hansard.

RW – I don’t think without us verifying it, you cant include a document in the Hansard without the authority of this house. We have not given authority. If he wants to table it and keep it in the library certainly do so. But Nivard Cabral is in the forensic audit. I’m only telling you, one of the forensic audits are being done, so this is not a matter to be included in the Hansard. Others are cases, what is the name of that case? Which you mentioned. Against whom did you file?

VN – That was the only case in which you were a respondent and I was the petitioner.

RW – No. I want to refer to the case, what is the name of the case?

VN – You want the parties to the case? Parties to the case, Vasudeva Nanayakkara vs Ranil Wickremesinghe, third respondent.

RW – First respondent.

VN – First respondent is Choxy

RW – Second respondent.

VN – The Second respondent is Karu Jayasuriya. I’m producing these, they are documents of the supreme court.

RW – Okay. That’s all right.

MP Nanayakkara then questioned why the Prime Minister is “afraid” of Ajith Nivard Cabral’s report?

“None of us were informed that there was an investigation against Ajith Nivard Cabral. On the other hand, this was the report that was presented to the bond commission inquiry. If the bond commission accepted it, how can you say the document cannot be included in the Hansard? Therefore, I request the prime minister’s objection to be rejected.” said MP Vasudeva Nanayakkara

Latest News

Are you interested in advertising on our website or video channel
Please contact us at [email protected]