Issues

CMC riddled with corruption and strife

Among the authorised hoardings and advertisements in Bambalapitiya market, some are illegal

Jayantha Liyanage, Prasanna Gunewardena and Azath Sally

By Frederica Jansz 

Dogged by political interference and large-scale corruption, the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) is riddled with serious charges levelled against its Mayor, Prasanna Gunewardena and Commissioner, Dr. Jayantha Liyanage.

Both Gunewardena and Liyanage however refuse to take responsibility or hold themselves accountable for the mess within the council. A mess that is spitting its muck onto Colombo, dogging her streets with illegal hoardings, structures, poor lighting, bad drainage and a stray dog menace that councilors say has resulted in some 2.5 million strays continuing to pound city limits.

Western Province Chief Minister, Reginald Cooray under whose purview lies the CMC agreed that indeed matters are far from smooth within the CMC.

 "My duty is to look into those matters. I know there are a lot of allegations. My Secretary, A. H. Gamage is already conducting an inquiry. Once this is concluded I will decide what action to take," he said.

He refused to say what exactly such action would entail, saying it is too premature yet to comment.

Already the Auditor General's Department has called for an explanation from Dr. Liyanage in relation to 23 financial irregularities that have surfaced in the government audit. One of these charges in relation to misappropriation of over Rs. 1 million seriously implicates Liyanage.

Denial

But Liyanage denied the charges hold him directly responsible. "The charges are against the entire CMC and not just against me personally," he countered.

However, a senior official at the Auditor General's Department confirmed that many out of the 23 audit inquiries hold Liyanage directly accountable. And Liyanage, they say, is yet to attempt a written response or explanation to any one of the financial inquires.

And while Liyanage has ignored a response to the audit query, he also stands accused of authorising illegal structures.

For instance, the Municipal Commissioner has authorised in writing the construction of nine illegal structures for trade purposes within the premises of the Old Town Hall.

The Old Town Hall in Pettah was converted to a museum by the late President R. Premadasa but Liyanage has allowed traders to set up temporary stalls there.

On May 25, this year, he authorised a document which detailed the allocation of a site for an 8-by-10 foot pavement stall at the Old Town Hall to one E.G. Sugath Prasanna. On the same day he permitted other stalls in the same area to more traders including one F. Atha Uvais and K.G. Mahindaratne.

When quizzed on this aspect, Dr. Liyanage defended his action stating he was acting on the orders of the Mayor. "I have merely authorised what the Mayor has recommended," he said.

Dr. Liyanage has been a vociferous critic of his colleague and Deputy Mayor, Azath Sally for his action to demolish unauthorised structures and constructions within city limits.

Liyanage insists that Sally has violated CMC Ordinance 42 (A) and 77, which he claims requires 14 days notice to be given in writing before any action to demolish takes place.

"The Deputy Mayor is absolutely useless, he doesn't know anything," Liyanage charged with disgust.

Sally meanwhile was  equally quick to respond, pointing out Liyanage is distorting stipulations contained in the Municipal Ordinance.

Quoting from the ordinance, Sally says that clause 42A states, "the mayor of a municipal council may cause written notice to be served on the occupier of any unauthorised building."

Sally maintains when it is a building, it may be possible but not when it is a mere structure constructed out of polythene and packing cases.

Sally is also of the view that notice cannot be issued on individuals functioning out of a structure that is illegal.

"To whom do we serve such notice, to what number or address?" Sally asked, discarding as ridiculous the Commissioner's observations on this issue.

But Dr. Liyanage countered that either a written notice must be pasted on the unauthorised structure be it made of polythene, packing cases or brick, or, a verbal warning issued. Neither of which, he said, Sally adhered to when he decided to demolish illegal structures in Pettah recently.

Complaint

An angry Sally has also apparently had enough. Last Monday, September 27, he made a formal complaint against the Municipal Commissioner citing charges of bribery and corruption at the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption.

That Liyanage has been permitting the setting up of unauthorised structures is evident. On September 6, last year, he authorised written approval for the setting up of a temporary structure acceding to a request to do so by former UNF Public Utilities Minister, Mohamed Maharoof.

In a hand written letter to Liyanage, Maharoof last September identified "a very good supporter" of his, naming him as "Nawaz," and saying the latter is putting up a temporary structure at Jampettah Street on the pavement.

In this letter Maharoof informs the Municipal Commissioner that he has already discussed the matter with the Colombo Mayor who "has given his ok."

Maharoof adds, "he wanted me to speak to you, pl. oblige same."

And oblige Dr. Liyanage did, by handwriting approval on the same letter stating, "Temporary structure is permitted until proper allocation is done from newly built market."

Dr. Liyanage maintains that as Municipal Commissioner he holds the power to approve temporary structures until such time a permanent allocation can be made.

Asked if this does not completely negate the whole exercise then of demolishing illegal structures, Dr. Liyanage replied, "No, not at all. As Municipal Commissioner, only I hold the power to allow temporary structures on any pavement and shall continue to do so until a more permanent alternative is on offer."

And while this strange ding-dong method continues over the setting up and demolishment of unauthorised structures, the CMC is wracked with other charges of corruption, disunity and ineffectiveness.

For instance, on August 20, last year, Mayor Prasanna Gunewardena wrote to Liyanage stating it had been brought to his notice that some of the employees of the council who were served with letters of vacation of post for their absence from work-sites during surprise checks carried out by senior officers of the Municipal Engineers Department last July had been reinstated without his knowledge.

Confusion

On that occasion, 480 employees of the CMC were sacked for not reporting to work as required. But insiders confided that Mohamed Maharoof pressured Dr. Liyanage to reinstate 50 who he allegedly claimed were "his supporters."

Having been overseas at the time, the Mayor on his return wrote to Dr. Liyanage stating that if some out of the 480 had been reinstated then to take steps to cancel all letters of vacation of post served on other employees too, and to reinstate them all.

But Dr. Liyanage has a counter-argument to this issue too. According to him, he also had been overseas at the time the letters of vacation of post were handed out but on his return immediately reinstated the entire 400 odd employees as the termination was "illegal."

He maintains that before issuing such letters the CMC should have "first noticed" those playing truant.

"All because someone does not come to work for a day does not mean they have to get the sack," he argued, insisting the action had been completely wrong and unjustifiable.

The end result is that this decision effectively defeated an initiative to ensure more discipline and better productivity. Fifty percent of 10,800 CMC employees we reliably learn do not report to work on a regular basis.

It is also rumoured that the leader of the opposition in the CMC, Milton Liyanage has been granted 50 perches of council land at Borella to operate a privately run cement brick business. The land was allocated in 2001 and is situated near the CMC slaughter house and dog pound.

When we made inquires we found Milton Liyanage does not own the brick trading house. He in fact vehemently denied owning any land, least of all, land belonging to the CMC.

However, the cement brick manufacturing and selling store at this particular site is an unauthorised structure. It continues to stand and has not been issued any demolition notice or warning.

The owner remains a mystery and could not be identified by name by any executive member of the CMC.

Last week, CMC officials were notified that from an area within Colombo city limits starting at the Presidential Secretariat in Fort up to the Wellawatte bridge, street lights were no longer functioning in five places.

An investigation found it to be a cable fault. The cable fault, CMC officers said, is a result of the CMC digging the ground to install flag poles.

There are whispers at the CMC that Mayor Prasanna Gunewardena recently granted approval to Milton Liyanage to put up a 12 foot high steel frame for an advertisement of some kind. The frame is being installed in the centre of the island that runs down the Galle Road. Lights are also to be connected to this board.

Personal gains

But when we spoke with Liyanage, he vehemently denied having made any personal gains out of the CMC. Exclaiming loudly, he said, "I do not have any business. I am a politician. I have never owned land in my life. I don't have any business with any advertising board."

The CMC opposition leader went onto charge that all these lies are being spread by Deputy Mayor Azath Sally.

"Sally has a good body but he has no good brain," Liyanage yelled, adding that Sally "must learn the council rules and regulations."

He remarked that Sally's recent endeavours to demolish illegal structures constructed on pavements was "wrong as he should have first issued notice to these people. That is how my former Minister, Mangala Samaraweera did it and he did it right."

Sally is completely abusing his powers when he is acting mayor," Liyanage charged, claiming "this is a Muslim man trying to harm innocent Buddhist Sinhala people."

Unauthorised

Whatever the denial and counter charges councilors at the CMC throw at each other, the fact remains, unauthorised advertisement boards and uni-poles have indeed sprung up all over the city.

On September 13, this year, the chairman of the advertising committee at the CMC wrote to Municipal Commissioner, Dr. Jayantha Liyanage bringing to his attention that numerous hoardings and uni-poles have sprung up in the city without the approval of the advertising committee.

"Some of the unauthorised hoardings and uni-poles carry a court injunction order, which I understand, has lapsed," he wrote, requesting Dr. Liyanage to remove 93 identified hoardings in a list. However, of the 93 only 18 were removed.

Strife

And while strife reigns with harsh words and even more serious charges being levelled against various individuals from the Mayor down, whispers were rife that the CMC will soon be dissolved.

But Dr. Liyanage flatly denied there was any truth to this claim. "That the council is to be dissolved is Azath Sally's version. I have spoken to the Minister. He told me nothing like that will happen."

And when we spoke with Cooray he said he has no plans for dissolving the council yet. At least, not until his investigation into the numerous issues and allegations is thoroughly complete.

Reining in truant MPs

Although UNP Parliamentarians, Sajith Premadasa, Navin Dissanayake, Laryn Perera and Dilip Vedaarachchi were summoned before the UNP parliamentary affairs committee last week to show cause for their absence from parliament during a crucial vote, only one of them, Laryn Perera showed up. She said she had been called away suddenly during the session on September 22 on account of a family emergency, adding that she had informed Opposition Whip Mahinda Samarasinghe about her departure. Dissanayake sent a letter saying he was abroad. Neither Premadasa nor Vedaarachchi submitted explanations for their absence.

Many senior parliamentarians advised the UNP leadership not to treat the matter lightly and that action should be taken against Premadasa and Dissanayake who had absented themselves from parliamentary sittings continuously. The senior party members said that even though the fathers of both the MPs had been leaders of the UNP at one time, it was not possible to allow their sons to continue to breach party discipline in this manner. They warned that while the UNP was a party with the longest history of political discipline, it seemed as though of late the two MPs were a law unto themselves.

Taking into account these sentiments, the UNP political affairs committee decided to call for a report on what tasks were assigned to Dissanayake and Premadasa on the day of the vote in parliament, through a special Sirikotha committee. It was also decided that another letter would be sent to the two MPs by General Secretary, K. Weragoda informing them of a date to be present before the political affairs committee. If the parliamentarians failed to show up again on the specified date, the UNP working committee would be summoned and a final decision reached.

The day after the meeting, Weragoda dispatched the letters and the Sirikotha committee commenced their inquiry and a report on Premadasa was submitted by last Tuesday. The report found that Premadasa had been distributing machines in Hambantota during the parliamentary session in question. The report also alleged that Vedaarachchi had been absent from sittings on Premadasa's instructions. Realising that the situation was spiralling out of control, Premadasa decided to inform Weragoda that during a tour of Moneragala he had fallen ill and been diagnosed with malaria.

The Premadasa, Dissanayake, Vedaarachchi trio were summoned once again before the political affairs committee on Thursday, September 30, by which time the party had all the material about the conduct of the MPs in its possession. First to be called in to provide an explanation was national list MP, Navin Dissanayake. Dissanayake had earlier sent a letter through his administrative secretary, Geethika Wijethilake on a Gamini Dissanayake Foundation letterhead, explaining his absence. The letter dated September 24, and addressed to UNP Secretary, Weragoda, was also copied to Party Leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe. The letter said Dissanayake wanted the party informed that he had to leave the country early Wednesday morning to the US on a personally important matter and that he would return on September 29. That was to explain his absence from answering the summons by the political affairs committee on Monday, September 27. And on Thursday, when he was summoned and asked reasons for his absence, Dissanayake came clean. He said he never left the country as stated in the letter. He also said that he could not come for the September 22 vote in parliament because he had rung the office of the opposition whip and was informed that no vote would be taken that day. Not satisfied with that explan- ation, UNP Leader Wickrem- esinghe told Dissanayake that a three line whip had been issued for the members' presence and that he had to be present when a three line whip was issued.

Dissa- nayake once again, trying to explain his absence on the statement made by the unidentified person at the opposition whip's office, said he was told there would be no vote. But refusing to accept that explanation, Wickremesinghe said that he should have been there despite such a claim because a three line whip was issued. Dissanayake apologised profusely for his absence and said he would ensure his presence in parliament in future.

Next to be called in was Hambantota District MP, Dilip Vedaarachchi. Weragoda had in his possession the Sirikotha report that said that on September 22, the day of the vote, Vedaarachchi had been at a school opening together with Sajith Premadasa.

Likewise, when summoned before the political affairs committee on September 27, Vedaarachchi said that he had a viral infection but had on the same day according to Weragoda's repost gone for a school opening in Mulkirigala. Vedaarachchi was asked by the UNP Leader whether he was really sick and to come clean about his absence but the MP insisted that he was ill from September 20 and had not left his home. At this point, Weragoda read out a letter sent by the UNP Administrative Secretary, Madagedara, which said that the party had tried to contact both Sajith and Dilip, both of whom had said they were unwell, but that their secretaries had said they were attending functions in their electorate.

Opposition Whip, Mahinda Samarasinghe said it was important to speak the truth in the Party Leader's presence, and not be caught lying. Other members in the committee, Tissa Attanayake, John Amaratunga and Jayawickrema Perera also told the MP to come clean, but Vedaarachchi continued to maintain that he was indisposed and did not attend the function mentioned.

At this point, Weragoda showed the MP a report which appeared in Lankadeepa of September 24, filed by the Hambantota correspondent, quoting a speech made by Sajith Premadasa at a school function on September 22, the day of the vote. The report quoted Premadasa as saying that he would become the prime minister and will not stop at the presidency but go even further. The report also said that Vedaarachchi was also present at the meeting. Vedaarachchi however, still insisted that he was not present and was at home due to illness. At this stage, Premadasa was called in and Vedaarachchi was asked to stay out.

Opposition Leader Wickremesinghe straightaway asked Premadasa where he was on September 22 when the vote was taken in parliament on the tax amnesty amendment bill where a three line whip was issued by the party. Premadasa without batting an eyelid said he was indisposed and at home. Weragoda then confronted Premadasa with the Lankadeepa report and he sheepishly admitted that he did attend the school ceremony. Apologising profusely, Premadasa said he did make a mistake and it will not happen again.

Premadasa said that he went for the ceremony because the PA provincial councilors were trying to open the building he had put up with private sector monies. The UNP Leader told Premadasa sternly that there was a vote in parliament that day with a three line whip issued and more priority should be given to that. Asked the aspiring president, "what is a three-line whip?"

Shot back Wickremesinghe, "have you not read Erskine-May?" Pat came Premadasa's reply, "I have read the whole book." But he still did not know what a three-line whip was and it took Mahinda Samarasinghe to explain it to the MP.

"It means, three-lines drawn under the whip's directive to be present in parliament," Samarasinghe explained and showed the young member a copy.

Premadasa once again expressed his regrets and Samarasinghe inquired whether Vedaarachchi was also present at the function and Premadasa replied in the negative. The members were thereafter informed that the party would conduct an inquiry and decide what action was to be taken about the three MPs.

Anti-JVP waves in Trinco

During the previous UNF regime too a protest was held at the clock tower in Trincomalee, demanding that Sinhalese residents abducted by the Tigers be released. When the government acted in response to the fast unto death campaign and commenced negotiations for the release of the residents, the LTTE demanded that several of their own cadres being held by the government also be released. The exchange took place and the Sinhalese men were released.

Similarly this time around, the LTTE is demanding that 10 of their members, currently in government custody be released in order to secure the freedom of the two home guards. The fast unto death began this time around because the government has dismissed the Tigers' demand and appear to be unconcerned about the fate of the homeguards. Although the protest began against the government, it has now become an anti-JVP protest.

The reason for this is simple. During the UNF regime, it was the JVP that spearheaded such protest campaigns, with Propaganda Secretary Wimal Weerawansa at the fore. For their activism, the JVP was even allowed by residents to set up a party office in the area and the only Sinhala MP to be elected at the April 2 polls, in Trincomalee was also a member of the JVP. But of late, discontent has been growing among the Sinhalese movements in the area that the JVP and Weerawansa are no longer supporting their cause. As a result, the current protest is becoming more of an agitation against the Marxists with each passing day.

The JVP for its part never anticipated such a situation arising in Trincomalee, but as soon as it heard that anti-JVP sentiment was growing, the party sent a message to the Sinhala movements active in the area. The message called for a meeting between Weerawansa, JVP Leader Somawansa Amarasinghe and representatives from the movements. But the JVP did not receive a favourable response to the proposition. Instead, the reply was that if the JVP was to come to Trincomalee, they would be treated with as much scorn as is the LTTE and furthermore, the members would be chased away from the area.

Startled by this message, Weerawansa hurried off to meet with Ports Minister and mover and shaker of the UPFA, Mangala Samaraweera. Weerawansa told Samaraweera that the situation in Trinco was rapidly deteriorating and that since the JVP was not going to be well received, the party could not mediate to resolve the issue either. He added that if the situation was not arrested immediately, the fast unto death campaign would soon become an anti-government wave throughout the country.

"Before the Hela Urumaya or UNP sends a delegation, some government representatives must be sent to Trinco," Weerawansa stressed, adding that Premier Rajapakse was the best option. But Samaraweera immediately vetoed the idea, saying "If he goes there, he will try to steal the vote base in Trinco also and try to prop himself up further." Samaraweera added that he could not respond to the JVP MP's concerns until he speaks with President Kumaratunga.

Calling Kumaratunga who was in New York to address the UN General Assembly, Samaraweera briefed her about the incidents in Trincomalee. "Ah, but the JVP is behind it no," replied the President. Samaraweera denied this was true saying that even the JVP could not mediate to sort the matter out. "Wimal is also here to see me about this matter. Ratnasiri made a statement in parliament saying that the LTTE's demand for the release of 10 of their people cannot be considered. The JVP is saying we should send Premier Rajapakse to Trincomalee to sort the issue out," he said. Not receiving a proper answer from Kumaratunga, Samaraweera asked if he should go instead, to which the President replied that if so he should take Ministers Maithripala Sirisena and Ratnasiri Wickremanayake as well.

Since he was to take wing to USA the following day, as soon as the parliament sessions were over that day, Samaraweera left for Trincomalee on a Sri Lanka Airforce helicopter along with the IGP. They picked Sirisena up at Hingurakgoda as well and proceeded to the governor's house in Trincomalee. But the talks held there with representatives from the Sinhala movements were far from fruitful. The representatives lodged their protests about the JVP vociferously, saying "tell them not to come anywhere near this place!"

Soon after this meeting, Samaraweera and co. went to the site of the protest, near the clock tower. But here too they were greeted with a degree of hostility. Samaraweera tried to explain that the matter of the home guards was being looked into, adding that a presidential committee was also going to be set up for this purpose. Said the angry protestors: "don't you dare come back here if you're telling lies!" Since the Trincomalee mission proved a miserable failure, Samaraweera got off at Katunayake on the way back and boarded a flight via London to the USA.

A disappointment and an unexpected guest

The SLFP's London branch had organised a ceremony to mark the 45th death anniversary of its Founder, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike last week. Both President Kumaratunga and Deputy Minister Arjuna Ranatunga who were in London at the time were invited to attend the ceremony. The SLFPers in London believed that since Kumaratunga was stopping over in London for a few days on her return to Sri Lanka following her visit to New York, she would most certainly attend the ceremony. But neither the President nor Ranatunga showed up.

A most curious and unexpected guest did however. Having seen the ceremony taking place at the temple grounds, this visitor had decided to participate. He was none other than Speaker of Parliament, W.J.M. Lokubandara, who was also in London at the time.  

The Sunday Leader contempt cases

SC rules charge sheets defective

The Supreme Court on Thursday, September 30 ruled that the charge sheets issued against the Editor of The Sunday Leader, Lasantha Wickrematunga and journalist Frederica Jansz in relation to contempt of court charges were defective and contained factual inaccuracies. The three member Supreme Court bench comprised Justices C.V. Wigneswaran, T. Weerasuriya and Shiranee Tilakawardene. The Editor and journalist were summoned before the Supreme Court on September 30 "in the matter of a Rule in terms of Article 105 (3) of the Constitution read with Section 20 (1), 20(2), and  (4) of the Constitution (sic) to investigate allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act No. 19 of 1994.

Lawyers representing The Sunday Leader (L-R) Palitha Kumarasinghe, G.G. Arulpragasam, Sugath Caldera and Romesh de Silva P.C.

The court held that there is no complainant mentioned and also that the rule refers to a decision taken by the Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court which was also not factually correct since it had not been circularised among judges in terms of charge sheet tendered to court.

The rule issued to the respondents stated - "And whereas His Lordship the Chief Justice and their Lordships the other judges of the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka are of the view that the above articles attributed to you, amount to contempt of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, warrant proceedings to be brought against you in terms of Article 105(3) of the constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 20(1), 20 (2) and 20 (4) of the commission to investigate allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act No. 10 of 1994."

The court also said though the charge sheet tendered to court states that certificates setting out the determination was transmitted to the Hon. Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court, the court was unaware of any such determination sent to them.

"The charge sheet does not reflect the factual state of affairs," the three member Supreme Court bench noted.

The court also said it was not reading out the charge sheet because of the defects  in the case.

The court directed the state to look into the matters adverted to and take corrective action.

We reproduce below in full a certified copy of the order made by the Supreme Court.

In the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

S.C. Rule : No.1/2002: (A) (C) In the matter of a Rule in terms of Article 105(3) of the Constitution read with Section 20)1)., 20)(2) and 20 (4) of the Constitution to investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act No. 19 of 1994.

1. Lasantha Wickrmatunga,

The Editor,

The Sunday Leader,

410/27, Bauddhaloka Mawatha,

Colombo 7.

2. Fredrica Janz,

Journalist,

The Sunday Leader,

410/27,. Bauddhaloka Mawatha,

Colombo 7.

Respondents. 

30.9.2004 

Before: Wigneswaran, J

Weerasuriya, J

Shiranee Tilakawardane,J

Respondents are present

Romesh de Silva PC with Palitha Kumarasinghe and Sugath Caldera instructed by G. G. Arulpragasam for respondents.

S. Jajaratnam, SSC, for Attorney-General.

The members of this panel were only handed over a single document contained in the charges against the respondents. Court finds that exfacie there is no complainant mentioned and also it refers to a decision taken by H/L the Chief Justice and other Hon. Judges of the Supreme Court. This is not factually correct, because this has not been circularised among judges in terms of charge sheet tendered to court and also in paragraph 2, it states that certificates setting out the determination was transmitted to the Hon. Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court. This court is not aware of any such determination being sent to them The charge sheet does not reflect the factual state of affairs. Therefore this court calls upon the state to consider amending the charge sheet in terms of the law. This also happens to be a case which is called as Rule Nisi case but really arises out of the provisions of Commission to Investigate Allegations of Corruption and Bribery under Act No. 19 of 1994 - Section 20 (1) (C) and Part 4 of Section 20 which deals with contempt in respect of commission and not as a contempt of this court.

Court calls upon Senior State Counsel, Mr Rajaratnam to look into this matter and have the charge sheet accordingly amended.

Mr Romesh de Silva PC on behalf of the respondent states that the newspapers mentioned in the charge sheet are dated in October and November 2001 and almost after three years and he also submits that the determination is dated 4th December 2002 whereas the charge sheet is dated 21st August 2004. He further states that on the face of it, the charges cannot be sustained and moves that the respondents be discharged.

Court is not inclined to grant the application of Mr De Silva and court brings it to the notice of Senior State Counsel and to look into all these matters and have any amendment or correction made in this regard.

Court is not reading out the charge sheet because of these defects in this case. Mr Rajaratnam, SSC, states that this charge sheet was only prepared on the directions of this court and that he is only appearing before this court on the notice sent by the Registrar of this Court but he states that he will take connaissance of the court's directions and look into this matter,.

Mention on 18.11.2004.
Sgd/.

I do hereby certify this the foregoing is a true copy of the order dated 30.9.2004 in S.C. Rule No. 1/2002 A ( C ) filed of record in the Supreme Court.