Nihal fires posers to Nivard, Keheliya over Expropriation Bill

Public interest activist Nihal Sri Ameresekere last week fired separate letters to Central Bank Governor Nivard Cabraal and Information Minister and Cabinet Spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella, raising questions over their individual remarks on the contentious Expropriation Bill.

The letter to Cabraal was on the Central Bank’s statement on the bill, also known as the Revival Bill. Here are excerpts from Nihal’s letter to the Central Bank Governor:

I refer to the press release dated 17 November 2011 by the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, under the caption ‘Revival of Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilised Assets Act’; particularly to the final paragraph therein, which, inter-alia, states: “In addition, it should be noted that the process as set out in the new law, would not deprive the existing operator or company from reaching an understanding or agreement with the Competent Authority to operate the asset or enterprise in keeping with the original purpose…,” thereby endeavouring to allay fears and apprehensions of those affected, giving them hope, and pronouncing to the public, through the media, such to be the legal position.

In fact, based on your press release, the Daily Financial Times of today on Page 1 has a ‘FT Key Take’ under the heading ‘Existing owners can have hope?’

I exhort you to promptly make known the specific provision/s in the aforesaid bill, which provide/s for and/or enables the foregoing, based upon which you made such public pronouncement. Having perused the bill, I could not find any such provision/s affording such right to the present owners.

        This being the case, your aforesaid pronouncement, is indeed misleading the public.

Importantly, it was well and truly known, as had been extensively reported in the media, that I had filed a Fundamental Rights Application in the Supreme Court. I have also made an Application seeking a review and re-examination of the Supreme Court Determination delivered by a 3 Judge Bench, solely on the basis of representations made by the Attorney General, sans any representations by the public, by an ingenious manoeuvre. Copies of my two Applications are annexed.

You are hereby put on notice, that should your aforesaid official pronouncement, be not provided for by any provision/s of the aforesaid bill, then substantial prejudice would be caused to my aforesaid Applications before the Supreme Court, which I am advised tantamounts to the Contempt of the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, I attach copy of my Application made on 8 November 2011 under the provisions of the Companies Act No. 7 of 2007 for the re-arrangement and re-structuring of Hotel Developers (Lanka) PLC, the only purported ‘Underperforming Enterprise,’ given under Schedule 1 to the aforesaid bill. If what you have pronounced is a truism, then would it not be the case that I could lawfully so proceed exercising such regular and ordinary law of the land, to have the matters resolved, as you have so endorsed?

Excerpts from the letter to Minister Rambukwella:

I was indeed appalled, to have heard you, as the Cabinet Spokesman, addressing the formal press conference, pronounce in the news telecasts last night, that the existing owners of ‘Underperforming Enterprises’ et al, could give proposals for the revival and/or restructuring of such enterprises, to be expropriated under the provisions of the aforesaid bill; and thereby endeavouring to allay fears and apprehensions of those affected, giving them hope, and pronouncing to the public, through the media, such to be the legal position.

I exhort you to promptly make known the specific provision/s in the aforesaid bill, which provide/s for and/or enables the foregoing, based upon which you made such public pronouncement. Having perused the bill, I could not find any such provision/s affording such right to the present owners. This being the case, your aforesaid pronouncement, as Cabinet Spokesman, is indeed misleading the public.

Importantly, it was well and truly known, as had been extensively reported in the media, that I had filed a Fundamental Rights Application in the Supreme Court. I have also made an Application seeking a review and re-examination of the Supreme Court Determination delivered by a 3 Judge Bench, solely on the basis of representations made by the Attorney General, sans any representations by the public, by an ingenious manoeuvre. Copies of my two Applications are annexed.

You are hereby put on notice, that should your aforesaid official pronouncement, as Cabinet Spokesman, be not provided for by any provision/s of the aforesaid bill, then substantial prejudice would be caused to my aforesaid Applications before the Supreme Court, which I am advised tantamounts to the Contempt of the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, I attach copy of my Application made on 8 November 2011 under the provisions of the Companies Act No. 7 of 2007 for the re-arrangement and re-structuring of Hotel Developers (Lanka) PLC, the only purported ‘Underperforming Enterprise,’ given under Schedule 1 to the aforesaid bill. If what you have pronounced is a truism, then would it not be the case that I could lawfully so proceed exercising such regular and ordinary law of the land, to have the matters resolved, as you have so endorsed?