Monk challenges COPE report on CB bond scam; SC re-fixes to support on 8 Sept.

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Supreme Court yesterday (18) re-fixed for support on 8 September for granting leave to proceed with the Fundamental Rights petition filed by a Buddhist monk challenging the report of the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE).

The Bench comprised Justices B.P. Aluvihara, Sisira J. De Abrew and Anil Gooneratne.

When the matter was taken up, Court observed that the Respondents were not represented and not present and the Court’s record indicates that the Respondents have not received the notices.

Counsel S.A. Parathalingam appearing for the Petitioner Ven. Thiniyawala Palitha Thera informed Court that the matter was earlier fixed for support on 20 February, the notices were dispatched to the Respondents with documents. He pleaded the Courts to fix the matter for support on 8 September.

The Court directed to reissue the notices on the Respondents who had not received them and re-fixed the matter for support on 8 September.

The Petitioner cited COPE Chairman Sunil Handunnetti, members of COPE, Monetary Board of the Central Bank, Central Bank Governor Dr. Indrajit Coomaraswamy, Chairman of the Treasury Bond Tender Committee of the Central Bank P. Samarasiri, Superintendent and Registrar of the Public Debt Department of the Central Bank, the Auditor General and the Attorney General as Respondents.

The Petitioner claims that the COPE report has been submitted to Parliament is littered with contradictions and/or misrepresentations and is not based on a proper and/or truthful premise.

He states that prior to the year 1997, there were two main methods by which the Central Bank raised funds for the Government. Those were by issuing instruments called Treasury bills and by issuing instruments called rupee loans.

In 1997, the Central Bank and/or Monetary Board introduced a long-term debt instrument called the Treasury bond which had a market-determined yield. It was decided that the Treasury bond be issued on auction basis through primary dealers and are transferable by endorsement and delivery. These instruments will be issued in addition to the presently available Treasury bills and rupee loans, he states.

It was also inter alia decided that the Superintendent of the EPF be also permitted to bid and in the year 2008 the Monetary Board approved direct placements of Treasury bonds and rupee loans in respect of captive investors such as EPF, NSB and ETF during January-April 2008, he states.

In the event that the issue of Treasury bonds from January 2009 to captive and/or non-captive sources has not been properly and/or officially and/or lawfully authorised and/or sanctioned by the Monetary Board, any sale of Treasury bonds by way of direct/private placement is wrongful and/or unauthorised and/or unlawful and/or contrary to proper procedures of the Central Bank, he elucidates.

He pleads that the COPE report ought not to be permitted in any manner whatsoever to expressly and/or implied base its findings and/or make statements and/or rely on and/or refer to and/or to draw analogies with and/or to use as a premise or yardstick such wrongful and/or unlawful and/or unauthorised and/or irregular actions of the Central Bank.

He points out that in the event that the Central Bank was not properly and/or officially and/or lawfully issuing Treasury bonds, the proper procedure that ought to have been followed was the Central Bank Treasury bond auction process.

The Petitioner contends that instead of reporting the above to Parliament and the general public, the COPE report is littered with inconsistencies, contradictions and misrepresentations which he pleads makes certain findings and/or statements of the COPE report unsafe, and/or prejudiced and/or biased and in violation of his fundamental right to equality.

He maintains that the report does not indicate with any acceptable degree of certainty whether the Central Bank or the Monetary Board has acted properly and/or lawfully and/or in terms of Central Bank procedure.

He is seeking a declaration from the Court that any express and/or implied finding, statement or suggestion in the COPE report is wrongful.

S.A. Parathalingam PC with Nishkan Parathalingam instructed by Paul Ratnayake Associates appeared for the Petitioner. Deputy Solicitor General Minlinda Gunatilake with State Counsel Suren Gnanaraj appeared for the Attorney General.