By Rathindra Kuruwita Courtesy Ceylon Today

As the United National Party (UNP) members of the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) refused to recognize the Chairman’s Report on the controversial Treasury Bond issue, COPE member Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) MP Nalinda Jayatissa, spoke to Ceylon Today of the COPE splitting on party lines, and of betrayal of public expectations by the two main parties.
Excerpts of the interview:

?: Right now the biggest investigation handled by the COPE is the one on the two controversial Treasury Bond auctions in 2015 and 2016; this investigation has also led to a split in the COPE with one group wanting to stick with the Chairman Sunil Handunnetti‘s Report, while the United national Party (UNP) members of COPE wanting to present a separate report. As a member of COPE, tell me about the investigative process that was followed?

A: We were entrusted with investigating allegations of irregularities by the Central Bank in the issuing of Treasury Bonds from February 2015 to May 2016. We used testimonies given before the previous members of COPE, which also investigated the issue, the Report of the Auditor General and the statements given by the former Central Bank Governor and others, before us in our investigation. Last Thursday, Chairman of COPE MP Sunil Handunnetti presented a report at the COPE, based on the above mentioned evidence. It was a 45 page document. We discussed the report, page by page, from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Thursday and we started the discussion again at 9.30 a.m. on Friday. Most of the COPE members agreed with the contents of the report and they wanted to present this report to Parliament on 25 or 26 of October. So, I have to reiterate that the majority of COPE members agreed with the Chairman’s report. At this point the UNP members said that they will not accept this report. So they set upon preparing their own separate report and their report will also be presented to Parliament. Thus the Chairman’s Report, accepted by most COPE members and the report of the UNP members will both be submitted to Parliament, hopefully within this week.

?: So the COPE is to present two separate reports on the same issue. Has this happened before?

A: A lot of people think this is something new, but there have been previous occasions where various Parliament Committees have submitted more than one report on the same issue, with contrasting conclusions. COPE members can also present more than one report based on their individual observations. It is up to Parliament to decide which report that they accept.

?: From what you told me I get the impression that the UNP members of the COPE went along with the view of the majority until last week, or at least their dissent was not militant. But from the news reports that we get today (24), not only did the UNP members object to a few recommendations of the report, but also the entire process. What triggered this?

A: The UNP members of COPE acted in a particular way from day one. I think the public was not aware of this fault line. On 7 July, MP M. Velu Kumar stepped down from COPE and State Minister Sujeewa Senasinghe was appointed in his place. He was specifically chosen because of his actions on the Treasury Bond controversy. Last year Senasinghe filed a case against DEW Gunasekera, chairman of COPE at that time, for releasing an interim report on the Treasury Bond investigation, and he also wrote a booklet defending the former Central Bank Governor, Arjuna Mahendran. The UNP from the beginning wanted to clear Mahendran and to show that there were no irregularities in the Treasury Bond auction. The UNP attempted to manipulate the investigation to suit their agenda till the last moment and when they realized that they couldn’t influence the Chairman’s Report, they set out to produce a separate report.

Not only that, the UNP members threatened the Auditor General around 5.30 p.m. on Monday (24). During the previous sessions they insulted the Auditor General and on Monday they insisted that we revoke the recommendations of the Auditor General stating that he has a political bias. At that point COPE chairman Sunil Handunetti left the discussion in disgust. But I must reiterate that the UNP had from the beginning wanted to disrupt and manipulate the process. They wanted the COPE to clear Mahendran, say that there were no irregularities and they wanted us only to probe Perpetual Treasuries Limited, to determine whether they made an undue gain. They did and are doing all they can do to achieve these goals.

?: There were reports throughout last week that UNP members of the COPE shouted at the Auditor General in filth during the sessions. Given what happened on Monday many believe that these reports must also be true. As a member of COPE, did you witness the UNP members of the COPE shouting at the Auditor General in filth?

A: There were definitely insults and threats. Maybe what you described happened after 2.30 p.m. on Friday when we left the proceedings. So, I can’t confirm whether UNP members of the COPE shouted at the Auditor General in filth on that day, but given the behaviour of the UNP MPs, it is extremely possible.

?: UNP acted as if outraged by President Maithripala Sirisena‘s speech, last week, criticizing the independent commissions. But now it‘s known that UNP members of the COPE insulted and threatened the Auditor General because they didn‘t like what he was saying about the Treasury Bond issue. If they actually care about independent commissions and depoliticizing the State sector, would they have acted in this manner regarding the Auditor General?

A: Indeed, the speech given by President Maithripala Sirisena criticizing the independent commissions and the behaviour of the UNPers at COPE regarding the Auditor General, are identical. In his speech, the President attempted to protect SLFP MPs, facing corruption allegations, have now joined the UNFGG Government. He wanted to protect people like Dilan Perera, Priyankara Jayaratne, A.H.M. Fowzie, Anura Priyadharshana Yapa and Susil Premajayantha. When cases against these MPs were being investigated, the President attempted to put an end to the investigations by threatening the independent commissions. As a result the Director General of the Bribery Commission, Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe had to go home. That’s how the President guarded the crooks in his camp.

The Prime Minister on the other hand attempts to protect the crooks in his camp by using the UNP MPs to threaten the Auditor General, tarnish the image of COPE and by manipulating the COPE to clear Arjuna Mahendran. So, both sides are using various ploys to protect unsavoury characters in their respective camps. Both these groups have forgotten the promises given to the people during the Presidential election.

?. Due to accusations, of the Rajapaksa Government misdemeanours, it was decided that independent commissions must be appointed. Despite appointing independent commissions there are concerns that it can also be interfered with. What can be done about this?

A. The problem is not the independent commissions. The problem is that these independent commissions are not allowed to function independently by the powers that be. In fact, we prefer if Dilrukshi Wickramasinghe did not resign from her post. If she felt threatened by the President’s remarks she should have brought the criminals who are part of the current government to book. According to the mandate given by the people to this government, they are supposed to punish the miscreants; not protect them. If the highest of the political power is protecting these wrongdoers, these independent commissions should expose it. We request the members of the commissions to work according to the responsibilities bestowed upon them, and if they do so, the people of this country will protect them.

?. What are the other aspects of concern which the COPE is looking into?

A. From January to July this year, we have submitted 19 reports on the State institutions which we looked into. Yesterday, we debated in Parliament about these institutions. We hope to have the issue of the Treasure Bonds before the budget comes up. In the meantime we are investigating into other State institutions as well. The main motive and interest displayed by the UNP when the COPE was appointed, has not gone up in flames. Earlier when Rajapaksa’s miscreants were brought to book, they were very happy. But, now when we do our investigations pertaining to State institutions the miscreants are the UNP ministers. Therefore they are trying to sabotage the work done by COPE. We should be alert as to how the mandate given to this government is taking shape; it is up to the people to take part in preventing this.

?. Next year, the Local Government elections will be held. What kind of preparation has your party done?

A. We are doing our day to day political work. However, the matter of the methodology in which this election would be held is a common problem for all parties. Although a new electoral system has been passed in Parliament, there are still shortcomings in it as acknowledged by the Elections Commissioner. The public and the candidates do not have any idea about this new system.

With regard to Constitutional Reform there are also discussions with regard to amending parliamentary elections and Provincial Council elections. So, when introducing an electoral system there cannot be a different one for Provincial Council, Local Government and Parliamentary elections. They should all agree to one system. It is wrong for the government to postpone elections when they feel that their power is threatened. It is also wrong to put forth an electoral system which neither the candidate nor the public understands. The government must definitely hold elections. We request that elections should be held in the old system till a new system is introduced and the candidate and the public are made aware of it. They can make this the last election to be held in the old system.