Alleged irregularities in procuring CTB spare-parts

• SC fixes to mention on 11 August ex-Minister Welgama’s petition

By S.S.Selvanayagam

The Supreme Court yesterday (9) fixed to be mentioned on 11 August the fundamental rights petitions filed by former Transport Minister Kumara Welgama and former SLTB Chairman his nephew Shashi Welgama.

When the matter came up before the Bench comprising Chief Justice K.Sripavan and Justices B.P.Aluvihara and Sisira J.De Abrew, the Counsel for the Petitioners presented to Court that he had held discussions with the Attorney General Department and perused some documents and had to peruse further documents to ascertain whether any criminality or incriminating evidences was present against the petitioners.

He also submitted that the purported spare-parts had been procured with the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers and wanted to find and file these documents.

In the circumstances, the matter was listed to be mentioned.

The petitioners complained against the Finance Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) inquiry into the alleged irregularities pertaining on the procurement and supply of tax-exempted motor spare-parts to SLTB.

Counsel Gamini Marapana appeared for the Petitioners on 16 March and submitted that there is no credibility of evidencein the B Report by the FCID filed in the Magistrate’s Court and sought the Attorney General’s advice on whether there is any criminality or incriminating evidence against the Petitioners.

He had contended that the B Report is a preemptive step by the FCID on the baseless purported pretensions that the tax-exempted motor parts were siphoned to Maligawatte in order to arrest the petitioners and deny them bail.

Petitioners are seeking an order from the Court that the collective and collusive acts of the Respondents causes an imminent infringement of the Petitioners’ fundamental rights to equality and equal protection of the law, and their right that no citizen shall be discriminated against of their political opinion, right to freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention.

They are asking the Court to issue Interim Order preventing their arrest and remand by the Respondents in connection with the MC Colombo Case No. B 3481/3/15 until the final determination of their petitions.

They cited OIC of the FCID Chief Inspector Ranasinghe, ASP P.K.Serasinghe, DIG Ravi Waidyalankara, the IGP and the Attorney General as Respondents.

Gamini Marapana PC with Kalinga Indratissa PC, Buddhika Jayasinghe, Navin Marapana and Uchitha Wickramasinghe instructed by Tharanatha Paliyaguruge appeared for the Petitioners. Deputy Solicitor General Yohan Abeywickrama and Senior State Counsel Madhava Tennekoon appeared for the Attorney General. Petitioner Kumara Welgama in his petition complains that after the presidential elections of 2015, there was a massive campaign to harm the political activists and supporters of the UPFA. He claims that the FCID was established for specific purpose and that investigation has been commenced by the FCID regarding the alleged irregularities said to have occurred between the periods of 2011-2015 at the SLTB on the complaint made by J.S.A.Wickramasinghe.

He states the complaint has been made on the following allegations: that in March 2011, a committee had been established to purchase motor parts for the SLTB; that the said committee called for expressions of interest and details from qualified suppliers; that consequent to the expression of interest, the supply of spare-parts for the SLTB was awarded to ‘Steel Impex Industries’; that the Treasury through the Secretary of the Treasury issued a letter granting permission for the said company to import motor spare-parts on a duty free basis: that another company ‘Nimbus Automotive’ was requested subsequently out of tender to supply motor spare-parts after having been given a similar duty free concession; that both companies were provided withwarehousing facilities for the storage of motor spare-parts without levying or charging any rent for such premises.

Petitioners deny any commitment of the offences referred to in the B Report and maintainthe contents therein refer to bare assumptions and false, hypothetical material and complain that the respondents are conspiring and/or conniving to arrest them with a view to having them remanded without bail.