Bond Commission to request PM to testify

By Himal Kotelawala

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry on the controversial bond issuance yesterday said it will request Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to appear before the Commission on an as yet unspecified date.

Reconvening for a special hearing, the Commission revealed that it had received an affidavit from the Prime Minister concerning the questions put forward to him by the Commission prior to the conclusion of its hearings on 17 October.

Commission Chairman Justice K. T. Chitrasiri said: “The Commissioners have carefully perused this affidavit and we would like to obtain a few clarifications and any other evidence which may be necessary.”

The date on which the Premier will appear before the Commission has yet to be determined, said Justice Chitrasiri, taking into account a surgery that Commissioner Justice Prasanna Jayawardena is recovering from in the wake of an accident he met with early last month. The Prime Minister’s availability will also be ascertained in consultation with his office when fixing the date for the hearing.

“We are working very hard to prepare and finalise our report before our mandate ends on 8 December 2017. As mentioned earlier, this complex task requires us to consider the evidence of over 70 witnesses, many of whom have given very lengthy testimonies, and to analyse over 450 documents, many of which consist of a large number of pages. All this material has to be carefully read, understood and evaluated in order to make the findings and recommendations which are set out in the mandate issued to us. We hardly need to emphasise that this is a very time consuming exercise. Therefore, during the period up to 8 December 2017, we will be devoting our time to the preparation and finalising of our report and no more hearings will be held other than the hearing referred to earlier,” he said.

However, it was noted at the end of yesterday’s proceedings that an additional hearing will be held on 16 November to record evidence from one other witness, concluding a series of new testimonies that were recorded yesterday, primarily from Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officers attached to the Commission.

Counsels representing Perpetual Treasuries Ltd. (PTL) and its former Director objected to statements made to police officers by some witnesses being considered in the findings.

“These are mere statements made to police officers and therefore should not be considered at all,” said President’s Counsel Anuja Premaratne.

President’s Counsel Kalinga Indatissa questioned the mechanism of leading evidence, considering the alleged circumstances in which some witnesses had made their statements.

“We have waited and waited for rules of natural justice. Statements have been made about PTL being a criminal organisation. You don’t make statements like that. This is a forum,” he said.

Senior Additional Solicitor General Dappula de Livera, however, argued that the Commission is mandated to examine material evidence collected and to then conduct an inquiry observing the rules of natural justice.

Issuing an order citing Section 23 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act which states that a commission is empowered to examine the material collected in the course of such matter or incident observing the rules of natural justice, Justice Chitrasiri said some of the witnesses who had made statements had already given evidence. At that point of time, he said, those statements were not shown to those particular witnesses.

“We are of the view it is against the rules of natural justice to admit these statements of the witnesses given to the police,” he said, adding that marking those statements as evidence was not allowed. However, he went on to say, the rest of the evidence is to be considered by the Commission.

ASG de Livera questioned this order, leading to a heated exchange. He said the Commission had effectively prevented itself from looking at investigative material with the order, adding that one part of the mandate has been rendered redundant as a result.

Justice Jayawardena noted that a prohibition has been placed on the Commission preventing it from arriving at a conclusion unless it has examined material collected observing the rules of natural justice.

“At this stage, we do not want to compromise the integrity of our final report,” he said, reminding de Livera that the order had already been made.

“We do not want to have spent eight months of our lives on this and at the end of it have the whole thing squashed, like it was squashed in some other cases,” he added, calling de Livera’s submission “ridiculous.”

The submission, said Justice Jayawardena, had no merit, adding that the investigations proceed the inquiry and evidence has been listened to and subsequently cross examined. What was recorded in the statements, he said, was not said on oath, but rather made before a police officer and therefore could not be considered.

The ASG reiterated that the Commission has prevented itself from looking at the investigative material, which he said it was mandated by law to do, “thereby making a mockery of the proceedings.”

Justice Jayawardena fired back that de Livera’s words will surely be picked up by the newspapers to the satisfaction of at least one person, adding that the Commission was only interested in doing its job and not what the newspapers had to report.

Indatissa PC at this point offered that despite several orders going against them, his team had never “spoken for hours saying the order was wrong.”

“It’s deplorable,” said Justice Jawayardena, telling de Livera to take up the matter elsewhere if he didn’t like the order.

De Livera, however, insisted the order was “per incarium”, to which Justice Jayawardena said the former’s objection was duly noted, as was his own comment that de Livera’s behaviour was “not befitting a senior counsel.”

“I’m only making this submission in the interest of justice. That’s all,” said de Livera. Proceedings will recommence on 16 November.