Newspapers reported that the President had stated at the government party meeting on the 4th that she was planning to attend Parliament for the purpose of replying to accusations made by the Opposition against her and the government in general in connection with questions like Katunayake Expressway, allocation of land for Diyawanna golf links and the question of Thilan Wijesinghe’s bribery case, because her ministers were not making sound replies.
These questions are in fact discussed not only in Parliament but also outside, among the people and in the business society. In an old feudal monarchy, the question whether the king was corrupt did not arise because the king was considered to be the owner of the land and all its resources.
However, in a democracy the ruler is only the temporary trustee and manager of public resources. Therefore, the suspicion might arise in the minds of people as to whether the trustee elected by them is misusing those public resources.
Every head of State may have a selected group of friends who are closely associated. Those friends have the possibility of making huge amounts of wealth by publicising their closeness to the head of State. In the case of projects which require state approval, the investor usually approaches these close friends of the head of State. The idea is to get government approval for the expected project by making a payment to friends of the head of State.
When heads of State allow friends to sell their friendship, it can lead to serious consequences, and the results of helping friends for such purposes can be still worse.
The main issues raised by the Channel Nine scandal which has submerged now, as well as the bribery case against Mr. Wijesinghe, are related to this theme.
Mr. Wijesinghe belonged to the group closest to the President. The President gave her testimonial to the effect that Mr. Wijesinghe is an extremely honest and efficient person. However, now an extremely serious accusation has been levelled against him, and the Bribery and Corruption Commission does not seem to have any doubt about his bribery involvement.
What Mr. Wijesinghe says about the complainant is queer. According to Mr. Wijesinghe, Ranjith Athukorala is a rogue of the highest order. Strangely, he had been introduced to Mr. Wijesinghe by Minister Mangala Samaraweera. If this allegation is true, his revelations about the investors, too, have to be accepted. The full amount of the bribe is allegedly five million US Dollars. Part of it was supposed to be for Mr. Wijesinghe and Minister Samaraweera. A sum of US Dollars two million was supposed to be for the President. The balance was reported to be for Mr. Athukorala and Nimal Perera. It is not clear why, in this incident, the Bribery and Corruption Commission has paid attention to Mr. Wijesinghe only. Its attention should be paid to matters divulged in connection with these two persons too.
The manner in which the transaction relating to the Diyawanna Oya Project had taken place too, creates serious suspicions in the minds of any one. The person alleged to be the individual behind that transaction is Ronnie Peiris. Mr. Peiris is supposed to be the person who gave shelter to the President when she had gone to England during the period of terror before her election.
If the government wanted to find a suitable investor to develop the land around Parliament, what the government should have done was to call for tenders. However, the question is how that process had not taken place, and approval was given to a project with Mr. Peiris in the background.
The President as the Minister for Finance and Planning had made available 136 acres for this project in the first instance through a Cabinet paper submitted on February 8th, 1998. However, according to a condition contained in that Cabinet paper, if the investor failed to start work on the project within six months, he loses his rights, and all the land made available should go to the Urban Development Authority. However, surprisingly, no work on the project had started even after three years had passed, and the new Minister of Urban Development has allocated 84 more acres free of charge through another Cabinet paper submitted on January 31, 2001.
How the value and the price of the land has been fixed, too, is strange. The value of 136 acres has been assessed at Rs. 300 million. The investor had stated that he had to spend Rs. 100 million for control of floods. Therefore he is left with Rupees 200 million. Thus the price of a perch of land is Rs. 919. That price too need not be paid by the investor immediately. What has to be paid is only 02% per year, of the total value.
However, the investor has the right to block and sell this land for various purposes which he gets for a negligible price along with the 84 acres which he gets totally free. How can one say that such a transaction in advantageous to the country?