External Affairs Ministry apprises diplomatic
community :
Gunaratnam abduction, a farce
* Reappears and deported
* Object-to target SL in international fora
Frontline Socialist Party leader Premakumar Gunaratnam who is alleged
to have been abducted by the state reappeared yesterday morning and in
fact was deported from Sri Lanka because his stay in the country was in
breach of Sri Lanka’s immigration laws and therefore illegal. Ms Dimuthu
Attygalle who similarly is said to have been abducted had also
reappeared .
Dubious
- Changed his name three
times
- Doubt on reliability,
trustworthiness of version of the events
- Visa had expired five
months ago
- Not lived with his family
since November 7, 2006 |
|
Minister G.
L. Peiris |
Issuing a media release the External Affairs Ministry states that
while the government is responsive to constructive criticism, it is
important that allegations of a volatile nature should be based on facts
properly ascertained and objectively assessed. Whenever a person chooses
to withdraw from the community for personal reasons, or with the
deliberate intention of causing embarrassment to the government,
it is grossly unfair to arrive at the conclusion that there has been
an abduction and to point a finger at the State.
This has happened on many occasions and now seems to reflect a
recurring pattern.
The objective of this is clearly to target Sri Lnaka in international
fora on the flimsiest of evidence.
What is lacking by way of evidence seems to be amply compensated by
emotion, surmise and invective. The government asks nothing more than
that objectivity and basic fairness should be the criteria governing
reactions to these irresponsible and malicious campaigns. The releases
also states; the External Affairs Ministry wishes to inform diplomatic
missions in the country of several matters relating to the sequence of
events involving Premkumar Gunaratnam and Dimuthu Attygalle.
These events have been the subject of extensive media attention
during the last few days. Statements with regard to the matter have
captured headlines in the media and have been the subject of vigorous
comment by leaders of political parties, academics and civil society
activists. All these persons have united in making a variety of grave
allegations, the gist of which is to impute responsibility to the
government for an alleged abduction.
Gunaratnam has now re-appeared and has in fact been deported from Sri
Lanka because his stay in this country was in breach of Sri Lanka’s
Immigration laws and therefore illegal. Attygalle has also re-appeared.
The ministry wishes to emphasize to the diplomatic community the
following aspects of the situation :
(a) It appears that Premkumar Gunaratnam has changed his name three
times. The first name, Wanninayake Mudiyanselage Daskon, appears in his
marriage certificate. A different name, Rathnayake Mudiyanselage
Dayalal, is used in the passport which he obtained from this country.
Yet another name, Noel Mudalige, was used when he obtained the
Australian passport which he produced on his arrival in Sri Lanka on
September 4, 2011.
(b) Other circumstances relating to his previous history, which are
clearly relevant in assessing the credibility of his statements, will be
communicated to the Australian High Commission in Colombo. These are
circumstances which have come to light in the course of detailed
interrogation by the Police, who have questioned Gunaratnam and members
of his family.
(c) There are many features relating to the alleged abduction which
throw considerable doubt on the reliability and trustworthiness of the
version of the events which have been released to the media. For
example, the abduction of Gunaratnam is alleged to have occurred at 4.00
am on April 7, 2012. A complaint to the Police in this regard was made
only at 4.10 pm in the afternoon. There was a lapse of 12 hours.
(d) With regard to Dimuthu Attygalle, the abduction was alleged to
have taken place at 8.00 pm on April 6, 2012. However, the complaint
with regard to this matter was made to the Police only at 3.35 pm on the
following day, April 7, 2012. The interval was therefore almost a full
day. It is quite obvious that a genuine abduction would have been
reported to the Police far more swiftly.
(e) The story of Gunaratnam stands entirely on its own without
corroboration in any manner whatsoever. It suffers from a series of
infirmities which significantly detract from its credibility. For
example, although there is clear evidence that elaborate arrangements
were made by his political group in respect of his security, which had
been entrusted in particular to a definite person, it is claimed that at
the time of the alleged abduction, he was occupying a room in the
upstair portion of a partly constructed house, which had not been
inhabited for a long period.
(f) Gunaratnam’s wife who made several public statements about his
alleged abduction, had stated categorically to the Police that she had
not lived with her husband since November 7, 2006 and had no knowledge
of his whereabouts.
(g) It is quite clear that Gunaratnam was staying in this country
illegally for more than five months. His visa had expired five months
ago.
(h) It is evident even at a glance that there are significant
discrepancies between the versions of Gunaratnam and Attygalle.
The External Affairs Ministry wishes to state that, while the
government is responsive to constructive criticism, it is important that
allegations of a volatile nature should be based on facts properly
ascertained and objectively assessed. Whenever a person chooses to
withdraw from the community for personal reasons, or with the deliberate
intention of causing embarrassment to the government, it is grossly
unfair to arrive at the conclusion that there has been an abduction and
to point a finger at the State.
This has happened on many occasions and now seems to reflect a
recurring pattern. The objective of this is clearly to target Sri Lanka
in international fora on the flimsiest of evidence. What is lacking by
way of evidence seems to be amply compensated by emotion, surmise and
invective. The government asks nothing more than that objectivity and
basic fairness should be the criteria governing reactions to these
irresponsible and malicious campaigns. |