-Says CBSL officer Pathmanapan was not given a chance to be heard
-Pathmanapan spoke to Aloysius over 750 times while at the PDD
By Shehan Chamika Silva and Hafeel Farisz
At the commencement of yesterdays proceedings MP M.A Sumanthiran PC raising an objection on behalf of his client an official of the Public Debt Department of the Central Bank Sangaparapillai Pathmanapan said that no official of the Attorney Generals department coming under S.23 of the Commission of Inquiries Act, could lead evidence.
Sangaparapillai Pathmanapan is said to have been in contact with over 750 calls exchanged between him and Arjun Aloysius and a plethora of other calls between him and other Directors of Perpetual Treasuries Limited. This is while he was employed at the Central Banks Public Debt Department.
Raising the objection prior Prime Minister Wickremesinghe taking the stand, Sumanthiran said that the Attorney Generals actd as investigating officers and therefore could not lead evidence.
Immediately thereon, Senior Additional Solicitor General Dappula de Livera said that he objected to Sumanthirans appearance due to Sumanthirans "conflict of interest"
De Livera said that Sumanthiran had been a member of the 8th COPE committee and his client had been a witness at the 7th COPE proceedings which were both taken in as evidence and as such, there was a conflict of interest. The objections were recorded and the Prime Minister was called to testify.
Following the conclusion of the Prime Ministers evidence Sumanthiran expanding on his initial objection made submissions with regard to the admissibility of the evidence regarding the phone conversations which were presented at the Commission last week and that of the leading of evidence by the Attorney General.
Drawing distinction between Section 23 and Section 26 of the Act, Sumanthiran said that the Attorney Generals team acted as investigating officers and thus could not lead evidence. He said that he was present at the proceedings after being informed by the Commission to be present today.
The Commissioners continued to explain that he was summoned to yesterdays proceedings to explain to Sumanthirans client that none of the evidence against Pathmanapan would be used as he was not given a chance to be heard before the Commission.
They however, said that the same would not apply to other witnesses against whom the evidence led on phone calls were incriminating, and were heard in testimony.
Sumanthiran thereafter said that Pathmanapan was interdicted on Friday following a directive from the Commission, to which Justice Jayawardena said " we are not running the Human Resource department of the Central Bank".
The Commissioners said that there was no directive to interdict Pathmanapan since they have not come to any findings yet. When Sumanthiran PC kept insisting that the intrediction had occured after the evidence regarding the phone calls, Justice Jayawardena said " That is none of our business. You take it up with them there is nothing we can do about it.
Justice Jayawardena went on to say that the interdiction has occurred independent of the Commissions proceedings.
Pathmanapan earlier filed a Fundamental Rights application citing the Attorney Generals team as Respondents, alleging inhuman and degrading treatment by the investigating officers.
The evidence adduced thus far was lead to show that Pathmanapan may have been the nexus through which information from the Public Debt Department was leaked to Perpetual Treasuries.
The calls to and from Pathmanapan include 19 calls exchange between him and Mahendran in addition to the calls to Aloysius and other Directors of Perpetual Treasuries. The calls include 30 calls between Pathmanapan and Anjeli Mahnedran, the wife of Aloysius.
They include 9 calls between Anjeli and Pathmanapan between 8.PM to 8AM and 202 viber calls between Arjun Aloysius and Pathmanapan between 8PM o 8AM.
Sumanthiran PC was thereafter ordered to tender written submissions regarding the objections within a week from yesterday.
No comments:
Post a Comment