Friday Nov 15, 2024
Friday Nov 15, 2024
Wednesday, 25 May 2016 00:11 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By Himal Kotelawala
Civil society activists have called into question the appointment of former Director General of the Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (TRC) Anusha Palpita as an Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs under UNF Minister Vajira Abeywardane on Monday, on the grounds that it is a violation of the Establishment Code. Executive Director of Transparency International Sri Lanka Asoka Obeyesekere speaking to Daily FT yesterday said that, given that Palpita has a pending high court case involving him and former Secretary to the President Lalith Weeratunge, he should not have been appointed to such a position.
The case in question revolves around an alleged criminal misappropriation of Rs. 600 million worth of TRC funds during the presidential election last year, referred to in the media as the ‘Sil Redi’ case. It was fixed for trial on 25 May (today) by the Colombo High Court.
A provision of Chapter 48 - 27 (10) of the Establishment Code reads:’Where legal proceedings are taken against a public officer for a criminal offence of bribery or corruption the relevant officer should be forthwith interdicted by the appropriate authority.’
The appropriate authority, in this case, being the Public Services Commission, Obeyesekere pointed out.
“He should’ve been interdicted by the Public Services Commission. Therefore, he shouldn’t be in a position to take up this new appointment,” he said.
The appointment seems to be an infringement of the Establishment Code, Obeyesekere went on to say, adding that it is unclear whether or not Palpita was, in fact, interdicted as a result of the pending court case.
“Has he been interdicted or not? If yes, how has he got this new appointment? If no, why hasn’t he been interdicted?” he asked.
Obeyesekere was also critical of the Ministry in question.”The Ministry of Home Affairs has appointed someone who has a pending corruption case against him. How is he in a position to be even appointed?” he said.
When asked if Palpita’s appointment can be challenged on the grounds that it is a violation of the Establishment Code, Obeyesekera said that that needs to be looked into.
“I have to check what the recourse is. The fact that someone who has a pending case which is so high profile – one of the largest public sector corruption cases... How could someone who is presently on trial – how can he be appointed as an additional secretary?’’ he asked.
Meanwhile, the Campaign for a Free and Fair Election (CaFFE) issuing a statement on its website criticising the appointment said that it reveals the Ministry’s apparent lack of shame and its dedication to protecting wrongdoers disregarding administrative and financial regulations.
When contacted by Daily FT, responding to the allegations, Palpita said he was merely accepting an appointment made by the Home Affairs Secretary.
“I’m a public servant. I was appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. I was given a transfer by the Government and I’m simply accepting the position I was given,” he said, suggesting that there was nothing irregular about it.
