|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Monday, 29 March 2004 |
 |
|
 |
News | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
"I refer to the news item under the caption - "Choksy writes ..." on page 1 and continued on page 18 of the Daily News of yesterday, wherein you have quoted Finance Minister K. N. Choksy's writing in reference to the Daily News front page lead story on March 24, 2004 headlined - "IGP Orders - CID probe into alleged fraud, and cover up by Choksy, Paskaralingam", which news report had no reference to me. Nevertheless, the writing by Choksy has essentially dealt with me. It is curious as to why Choksy wrote to you on a news item pertaining to a CID probe on the orders of the IGP, instead of making a statement to the CID? Is it not to bring to bear undue influences and pressures on law enforcement authorities? Surely, all are equal before the law. In the given circumstances, it is pertinens to cite the Special Presidential Commission's finding on Choksy's Written Submission, which finding stands undisputed - "We are of the unanimous view that in this respect he (Choksy) has stated untrue, erroneous and false facts, which necessarily has the tendency to mislead and deceive the public in general and the members of the Commission." Consequently, Choksy absconded from the Commission. Giving false information, I am advised, is an offence punishable under the Penal Code. In the context of misimpression caused by Choksy's writing to mislead, I draw attention to the following: 1. Choksy states that he was elected a Director on December 19, 1986, and the construction of the building was completed by then. The construction of the building was practically completed on April 30, 1987. The Architects' Completion Certificate was issued on April 30, 1987 and Final Certificate on August 25, 1988. 2. The Hotel opened for operations on July 1, 1987 and queries on discrepancies were raised by me in November 1987, whilst Choksy was a Director. He did nothing. 3. In view of such discrepancies, in May 1988, Ernst & Young precedent partner and then Government Director, Chartered Accountant, M. T. L. Fernando required that an independent engineering examination be carried out. This being referred to Director Choksy, he by his belated letter of August 8, 1988 prevented the Board from causing such independent examination to be carried out, stating that it was not justified. 4. At the time retention monies were to be released, I on December 13, 1989, in view of the inadequacy of the above Architects' Certificates, called for specified Bills of Quantities and Final Measurements, citing discrepancies. Shockingly, Choksy by his letter of February 28, 1990 stated - "The two Certificates are adequate coverage that the Hotel construction work is in conformity with all stipulations of the Contract, and the owner will be justified in making the balance payment to the contractor in pursuance of these Certificates." Choksy reiterated that he had already intimated that an independent engineering examination was not necessary. Even an Architect or Engineer could not have so certified in the absence of the documents I had called for. 5. Thereafter in March 1990, upon my probing, when it was discovered that the plans had been surreptitiously substituted at the UDA, without the knowledge of the Board and the government, who had given government guarantees, and without the owning Company's signature thereon, Choksy as a Director did nothing, even in the face of written representations made by me. 6. Consequently, when I instituted on September 13, 1990 a derivative action in law by a Plaint settled by late P. Navaratnarajah, QC and K. Kanag-Isvaran, PC, disclosing Choksy as a wrong-doer, he being a Defendant, failed to file objections or answer, notwithstanding my exhortation to him to do so. Then Attorney General Sunil Silva, PC did not oppose my action. 7. Even after enjoining orders were issued in September 1990 in my above Case, Choksy in November 1990 endeavoured to have the accounts of the Company adopted to cover-up, compelling me to file a further derivative action in law, whereby the accounts were enjoined, and later the High Court decreed that the Auditors be removed. 8. Having not filed objections in the District Court, Choksy wrongfully intervened, 'after the District Judge had held that persons who had gained influence in society had intervened to prevent correct examination and had endeavoured to make payments, which was an attempt to deviously siphon out a large scale of foreign exchange from the country.' Choksy's futile attempt to have such dicta expunged by the Court of Appeal failed. 9. Choksy as a Defendant, having not participated in the District Court, wrongfully intervened in the Court of Appeal and took up the position that I had no right to bring such derivative action in law in Sri Lanka, as a minority shareholder. Choksy notwithstanding being an MP acted contrary to national and public interest. The Supreme Court subsequently refused to hear Choksy as a Defendant. 10. R. Paskaralingam's Minute made on November 23, 2001 in the Finance Ministry File prior to the Court of Appeal hearing read thus - "Please discuss with Mr. Choksy and map out our strategy." 11. Subsequently, when the Supreme Court on December 2, 1992 upheld a strong prima-facie case, stating that I had a real prospect of success even in the light of the defence, Choksy notwithstanding his duty to Court as an Attorney did nothing. I verily believe, that on the contrary, misusing and abusing his political position, he interceded to prevented law enforcement authorities from taking warranted action. The Supreme Court also held that in the given circumstances the government could not be indifferent. 12. If Choksy, as stated by him, became a Director after the construction was completed, then the cogent question arises, as to why he obstructed my conduct and action, which resulted in saving the country US$ 207 million and prevented the precipitation of an international cross-default in 1990, President J. R. Jayawardene having left with negative foreign reserves in 1989. Choksy feigned the same stance on June 17, 1994 before President Wijetunga, in the presence of Minister Tilak Marapana then Attorney General and then Additional Solicitor General Srinath Perera P.C. (present UNF contestant) and late Gamini Wijesekere, then General Secretary UNP, and the 'hollowness' of his such stance was exposed before them. 13. On February 8, 1993 Choksy misusing and abusing his political position had submitted a Note to President Premadasa, whom he was defending in the Presidential Election Petition Case. Choksy's Note though titled - "Hilton Hotel", the first 3 items of the 7 items therein, were as follows: "(1) A local Committee was set-up to advise the Government on BOT concept. It included, inter-alia, Secretary, Posts and Telecommunications and public officials and private sector representatives. USAID has taken over as advisers on BOT. They have set-up an office in Horton Place. Nihal Ameresekere is virtually the Chief-Executive in this set-up. The local Committee is by and large defunct. (2) Ministry of Transport in conjunction with Finance Ministry and Policy Planning Ministry are said to have given Ameresekere a two year contract at very high remuneration (in conjunction with the World Bank/IMF) to advise on the last lap of the peoplisation of the Transport Board. (3) The above two have been done recently. They may be verified please." The Attorney General would confirm that I have been making relentless representations. Is it the reality, that the CID is directed to investigate comparatively insignificant matters. Whereas this matter was grave and serious, and of national economic significance. Examples could be cited. By letters dated September 6, 1999 the then Deputy Secretary to Treasury, D. Y. Liyanage as Chairman of the Company, caused the company lawyers to make complaint to the DIG-CID. Is the rule of law enforced only against the some, and not against the socio-politically influential, or those shielded by political office? Choksy is aware that I have repeatedly exhorted him to specifically deny or refute the relevant facts. He failed to do so. By his letter dated August 2, 2002 he refused to face an inquiry or resign from public office, as he ought have. It is indeed intriguing that a Prime Minister, who professes to be a "Mr. Clean" knowingly caused the appointment of Choksy as Finance Minister of this country. Did it not result in a schemingly and craftily perpetrated plunder of colossal sums of monies of national economic proportions of the country and the people, and at the same time flagrantly 'kicking' the 'rule of law', through an unconstitutional and perverse "Tax Amnesty"? Misusing and abusing his political office, having prevented the law enforcement authorities from taking warranted action, Choksy now has the gumption to ask, as to why the IGP is conducting investigations into his conduct and actions. Was Choksy's writing to stymie such investigation? Is Choksy running scared to face an investigation? Ought not Choksy resign from public office to enable law enforcement authorities to perform their duties, without any intimidation or inhibition? Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake called for the forthwith resignation of Telecommunications Minister Nalliah for a far less serious allegation. Choksy's statement that "the present exercise is entirely politically motivated on the eve of the general elections, is a futile attempt to discredit the United National Front and myself as a Minister", holds no water, inasmuch as, it is he, himself, who has already brought upon such discredit. He claims that Tax Amnesty brought in 'undisclosed income' with 51,000 new files, whilst in the same breath, stating that the amounts in the books of the Revenue Authorities were being written-off.How 'undisclosed income' has been reflected in the books of accounts of the State, is in itself, beyond comprehension!" Yours faithfully, Nihal Sri Ameresekere |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
