Attorney-at-law Dinesh Vidanapathirana has requested Central Bank Governor Dr. Indrajith Coomaraswamy to withdraw the termination of services order issued in respect of S. Pathumanapan following the release of report on the Communication Information Analysis pertaining to the Treasury bond investigations.
The following is the text of the letter: I write with reference to my client above named on instructions.
My client was served a letter containing an order of interdiction issued on your direction on 17th November 2017.
Given the timing of the order and the circumstances surrounding it, it is abundantly clear that you interdicted my client on the basis of prejudicial information purportedly led against my client at the Bond Commission on the previous day, 16th November 2017.
It is of regret that my client was interdicted despite my having written to you on 16th November 2017 itself requesting you to desist from taking any action against my client, until “my client has been provided an opportunity to question the inter alia false and illegally led evidence, led against him surreptitiously in his absence, question the manner in which it was led, present his case to the commission and obtain a final decision with respect to the same from the Commission”
Moreover it is of further regret that you interdicted my client while SC/FR/ 382/2017 filed by my client was pending before the Supreme Court and listed for Support on 21st November 2017—on account of the unavailability of a bench who could hear the case on the previous two occasions on which it was listed for support—in which my client has sought inter alia Interim Orders preventing you from interdicting him.
Pursuant to my letter dated 16th November 2017 to the Commission to which you were copied, the Commission informed me that I could make an application to the Commission today 20th November 2017.
When Mr. M. A. Sumanthiran P.C. appearing for my client raised the matter at the Commission today,20th November 2017,protesting inter alia the leading of evidence against my client by persons not entitled to lead evidence and such evidence being led in violation of the principles of natural justice, the Commission clearly stated that in view of the fact that, my client was not afforded natural justice in respect of the evidence led on the 16th of November, the COMMISSION WOULD NOT MAKE ANY FINDINGS AGAINST MY CLIENT IN ITS REPORT.
Further the Commissioners clearly stated that the Commission HAD NOT issued any direction to interdict my client. Given this unequivocal denial by the Commission, it is of concern as to what material and whose direction you have placed reliance to interdict my client.
Moreover, in respect of the objection that the Officers Assisting the Commission from the Attorney General’s Department were not entitled to lead evidence before the Commission, the Commission invited written submissions from Counsel representing my client.
In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that my client has been interdicted on the basis of material purportedly led in breach of natural justice, and for this reason alone was unlawfully led. Further, my client has alleged that the purported evidence is false and was unlawfully obtained and led by those with no authority to do so. These matters are now before the Commission.
Accordingly, I hereby request you to forthwith withdraw the order of interdiction issued against my client dated 17th November 2017.
1 trust the events that have transpired at the Commission will convince you to act according to law.”