Nihal Amarasekere’s lawyers say allegations against him are baseless and false
Friday, 25 January 2013
Accountant Nihal Sri Amarasekere’s lawyers have sent an e-mail response to us on behalf of their client on the story published in our website under the title, “Nihal’s son gets a “royal wedding” thanks to the impeachment.”
We publish the response sent by the lawyers since any person mentioned in our website could seek a clarification or a right of reply in the event they wish to explain their facts.
24th January 2013
Editor
Lanka News Web
Hosted from UK
We write as instructed on behalf of our Client, Mr. Nihal Sri Ameresekere, F.C.A., F.C.M.A., C.M.A., C.G.M.A. C.F.E., Associate Member, American Bar Association and Member, International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities, of 167/4, Vipulasena Mawatha, Colombo 10, Sri Lanka.
Our Client’s attention has been drawn to an Article hosted by you on Tuesday, 22nd January 2013 on your website ‘Lanka News Web’ under the Caption – “Nihal’s son gets a ‘royal wedding’ thanks to the impeachment”, with a photograph of our Client. The said Article as at this morning has had 1062 hits.
Though your website is forbidden in Sri Lanka, our Client’s overseas contacts had brought the aforesaid Article to his attention. Since you are not resident in Sri Lanka, our Client has to presume, that the said Article had been forwarded to you from Sri Lanka, by some party affected by our Client’s litigations.
The aforesaid Article, without the name of an author thereof, is replete with baseless and malicious statements, made with mala-fide intent and ulterior motives, for extraneous purposes, by a party affected by a pending litigation of our Client on the Special Determination vis-a-vis the ‘Expropriation Bill’.
Significantly, at the very commencement by our Client litigating on the ‘Expropriation Bill’, which also took over the Hilton Hotel in November 2011, a cowardly anonymous Letter against our Client had been circulated by an affected party.
It is in the forgoing litigation, that our Client, as far back as 9th February 2012, tendered a Written Submission on perceived judicial bias and disqualification on the part of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, which said matter was suppressed by the Supreme Court.
Thereafter on 9th October 2012, Speaker of Parliament having issued a Rule that a Special Determination could be reviewed and bona-fides errors rectified, our Client filed a further Application on 18th October 2012 to have the aforesaid Special Determination reviewed and annulled, as mandated by the Constitution, further reiterating the grounds of perceived judicial bias and disqualification on the part of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, as well as certain other Judges. The said Application was questionably scuttled in the Chambers of the Judges, without a public hearing.
The foregoing assertions of our Client of perceived judicial bias and disqualification on the part of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake had been put in issue before the Supreme Court by our Client, long before the impeachment motion, which had been subsequently moved on 1st November 2012, including on grounds, which had been already asserted by our Client, as aforesaid.
In the given circumstances, our Client knowing the facts, supported the impeachment motion. This gives the lie that our Client was motivated by other parties to support the impeachment motion, as had been perversely asserted in the said Article. Our Client had declined to accept public office even though invited as far back as June 2006, and thus statements made in such regard are baseless and malicious.
The total expenses of our Client’s son’s Wedding had been borne by our Client’s family and the Bride’s family. Allegations made by a ghost cowardly writer of the aforesaid Article is therefore baseless and malicious, and had been deliberately made to intentionally cause injury to our Client and to damage his name, standing and reputation and bring him to odium in the public domain.
Our Client’s son also has been spitefully insulted with baseless and false allegations, whereas he is rendering professional services and is not a Director of the Companies referred to, as has been baselessly and maliciously alleged.
Our Client’s Office had rendered litigations support services to Mr. Thilanga Sumathipala, as one of many Clients, of our Client’s professional practice, and such services had terminated, as far back as August 2008. It is indeed intriguing, as to why a name of one old Client had to be included in the said Article, whilst coincidently at the same time two other Articles regarding the said Mr. Thilanga Sumathipala are also hosted on your website.
Our Client has succeeded in his public interest litigations on their own merits, which are well documented with evidence, in a series of Books published in the global market, and facts contained therein stand undisputed. There is no pending Book as alleged in the said Article concerning the Leader of the Opposition. Very significantly, a certain identified party in June 2012, had made similar allegations to cause injury to our Client, which the law enforcement authorities are well and truly aware of.
Inasmuch as you had prominently hosted the aforesaid Article in terms of your published editorial policy that - “Lanka News Web gives fair & reasonable opportunity to reply to individuals or organizations in respect of factually incorrect statements publishing in Lanka News Web endangering their reputation, dignity, honour, feeling, privacy and office.”, we trust that you would promptly host this reply in its entirety in view of our Client’s international name, standing and reputation.
Yours faithfully,
Sgd. V.W.Kularatne Associates
Editor’s note:
Although a lengthy response has been sent regarding the story published in our website, only two paragraphs of the letter actually deals with the story published by us. The rest of the details in the letter explain the reasons for his decision to support the impeachment motion that was presented against Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake.
It is Amarasekere’s democratic right to either support or oppose the former Chief Justice. But what we highlighted in the story is quite different. Amarasekere in his response has accepted the link between his son Sarvajana Amarasekere and one of the key racketeers in the Colombo Stock market, Dilith Jayaweera.
Receipts of payments made by Jayaweera’s company and his friends would confirm his contribution towards the wedding. The current government and the likes of Dilith Jayaweera merely want to make puppets out of Nihal Sri Amarasekeere and his son. To thereby stop the voice raised by Nihal Sri Amaraseekere against fraud and corruption.
We will never deny the great service extended by Nihal Sri Amarasekere in exposing various corrupt and fraudulent issues that have taken place in the country. Our only desire is to stop such people from being “bought over” by corrupt elements like Dilith Jayaweera.
