Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, February 26, 2018

Russian millions laundered via UK firms, leaked report says

Denmark’s biggest bank believes cash was funnelled through British companies by people linked to Vladimir Putin’s family and the FSB spy agency

The Estonian branch of Denmark's Danske Bank. Photograph: Andras Kralla / Äripäev

Luke Harding Mon 26 Feb 2018 18.00 GMT


A Danish bank accused of money laundering shut down Russian accounts after concluding that they were being used to funnel cash through British companies by members of Vladimir Putin’s family and the FSB spy agency, according to leaked reports.

Danske, Denmark’s biggest bank, closed 20 Russian customer accounts in 2013 following a whistleblower report alleging that its Estonian branch was involved in suspicious and possibly illegal activity.

Last September it emerged that the same branch was at the centre of a secret lobbying operation in which some $2.9bn (£2.2bn) of mostly Azerbaijani money was channelled through opaque British companies.

The latest revelations concern a different group of firms, most registered in London. In summer 2013 Danske bank employees discovered that one of these UK entities, Lantana Trade LLP, had filed “false accounts” to Companies House.

According to the whistleblower report, Lantana told Companies House that it was “dormant”, with only a very limited financial turnover. In fact, Lantana held large deposits and made daily transactions of millions of euros. Lantana’s Danske account – opened in late 2012 – functioned for 11 months.

The ultimate owners of Lantana, and related limited partnerships, were Russians. But their identities were hidden behind a series of offshore management firms based in the Marshall Islands and the Seychelles. 

The whistleblower report was obtained by the Danish newspaper Berlingske, and shared with the Guardian and the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCRRP). It said the bank had failed to establish who was behind Lantana, adding that “apparently it was discovered that they included the Putin family and the FSB”.

Details were sent to Estonia’s financial intelligence unit and passed to Danske’s top management. Danske only began a full inquiry in 2017. It did not inform either the UK or Companies House.
Danske said on Monday: “We have launched a thorough investigation to get to the bottom of the events at that time in our Estonian branch.” It refused to comment on “specific customers” but said it had “closed down” the “entire portfolio in question” featuring “non-resident” Russians.

The revelations again highlight the use of the lightly regulated British corporate landscape to move large sums of money around, beyond the purview of regulators and tax authorities. In this case the beneficiaries appear to have been figures with Kremlin connections.

Baltic countries are a major entry point into the western financial system for Russian cash. Last week the US Treasury accused Latvia’s third biggest bank of “institutionalised money laundering”. Days later the country’s central bank chief, Ilmārs Rimšēvičs , was arrested following allegations he took a €100,000-plus bribe (paywall).

Rimšēvičs has denied all allegations and has denounced them as a smear campaign.

Danske’s Estonian managers grew concerned following a tip-off from inside Russia. They found that Lantana was closely linked to Promsberbank, a little-known bank in Podolsk, outside Moscow.

Promsberbank’s senior managers represented Lantana.

One member of Promsberbank’s board was Igor Putin, the cousin of Russia’s president. A major shareholder was Alexander Grigoriev, a banker who, according to the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), has FSB ties. Another was Alexei Kulikov, who was arrested in 2016 and charged with “large-scale fraud”. Promsberbank collapsed in 2016 when it emerged that 3bn roubles (about £38m) had disappeared.


Alexei Kulikov was arrested in 2016 and charged with ‘large-scale fraud’. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images

One former Danske employee said the bank’s internal investigation revealed “high-ranking employees” from Promsberbank were behind Lantana. The employee told Berlingske newspaper:

“The company and cash flows were controlled by the bank. It wasn’t just rumours. This is valid information.”

The trio were closely connected with another scandal featuring Germany’s Deutsche Bank. Deutsche has admitted that between 2011 and 2015 its Moscow division ran a $10bn (£7bn) “mirror trades” scheme. The scheme allowed VIP Russian clients to transform roubles into dollars, via related corporate entities that “bought” and “sold” identical volumes of stock.

Kulikov had a Danske account. Several of the entities closed down by Danske in 2013 were involved in Deutsche Bank mirror trading, including Chadborg Trade LLP, based in Potters Bar in Hertfordshire, Cherryfield Management and Financial Bridge. Deutsche Bank – the main lender to Donald Trump – paid $630m in US-UK fines for laundering Russian cash.

Danske’s decision to investigative went down badly in Moscow, where Lantana had a city centre office. A Danske account manager flew to the Russian capital to obtain documents revealing Lantana’s real owners. He left a meeting shaken, reporting that his Russian clients were “furious”, bank sources say.

A few weeks later a meeting was held at Danske’s office in the Estonian capital, Tallinn. Two Russians refused to identify themselves and allegedly told bank staff: “Do you really feel you can walk home safely at night?” They added: “The bank will sink after this.” These threats were reported internally.

L Burke Files, an international financial investigator, said the fact that the same entities were used in different schemes “does not surprise me one bit”. Professional criminals “design or craft” a package to get round compliance checks and then “use it at every bank”, he said.

He described the Lantana case as “very serious”, adding: “The activity in the account was in every way indicative of money laundering. There were many large transactions and all of them done in one or two days. The money didn’t linger. Here is a small branch of a very big bank that has an account moving tens of millions every day.”

The scale of the fraud is unknown. According to Files it could have been between $2.2bn and $3.3bn in total, based on a pattern of $10m-plus being laundered every day.

He added: “This is such an excellent way to move large sums of money that I am sure is still occurring. It is a very difficult trail to follow.”

Grigoriev allegedly masterminded another big league money-laundering scheme dubbed the Global Laundromat. Between 2010 and 2015 at least $20bn was moved out of Moscow into western banks. The money went via Moldova and Latvia. Igor Putin sat on the board of a bank involved in the fraud, the Russian Land Bank or RZB.

Putin declined to comment. In a letter written in 2014, he said: “My personal experience, gained in recent years, proves the truth of the thesis that the Russian banking system should be radically rehabilitated and cleaned of troubled banks headed by people with doubtful reputations.”

Grigoriev and Kulikov are currently in jail. Grigoriev was arrested in 2015, a year after RZB was shut for money-laundering offences. Kulikov was imprisoned in a different matter. In April 2015 Russia’s central bank revoked Promsberbank’s licence. So far Kulikov has not replied to a letter sent to him in prison inviting comment.

The British companies involved in the scam were wound up. Lantana was dissolved in December 2015.

The damning whistleblower report said that Danske had suffered a “near total process failure”. It did not identify Lantana’s true owners or take action over “suspicious payments made just under compliance control limits”. The bank “breached numerous regulatory requirements”, “behaved unethically” and “may have committed a criminal offence”, it said.

Robert Endersby, Danske’s British chief risk officer at the time, who saw the report, declined to comment. Danske said it now had a “very different and stronger control set up in Estonia”. It admitted it should have acted “faster”.

Madis Reimand, the head of Estonia’s financial intelligence unit, would not comment directly on the Lantana group of companies.

He said: “Generally speaking the purpose of such money-laundering schemes is to move funds out of Russia, to get the money into the western financial system, and to do it in a non-transparent and secretive manner.”

3 Trump properties posted 144 openings for seasonal jobs. Only one went to a US worker.

“America First” doesn’t seem to apply to the president’s own businesses.

By 
President Donald Trump's businesses don’t seem too concerned about “America First."
A Vox analysis of hiring records for seasonal workers at three Trump properties in New York and Florida revealed that only one out of 144 jobs went to a US worker from 2016 to the end of 2017. Foreign guest workers with H-2B visas got the rest.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump over 'Dreamers' immigrants

Lawrence HurleyAndrew Chung-FEBRUARY 26, 2018


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt a setback to President Donald Trump, requiring his administration to maintain protections he has sought to end for hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought illegally into the United States as children.

The justices refused to hear the administration’s appeal of a federal judge’s Jan. 9 nationwide injunction that halted Trump’s move to rescind a program that benefits immigrants known as “Dreamers” implemented in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama.

The protections were due to start phasing out in March under the Republican president’s action, announced in September.

Under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, roughly 700,000 young adult, mostly Hispanics, are protected from deportation and given work permits for two-year periods, after which they must re-apply. Congress so far has failed to pass legislation to address the fate of the “Dreamers,” including a potential path to citizenship.

San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled last month that the government must continue to process renewals of existing DACA applications while litigation over the legality of Trump’s action is resolved, prompting the administration’s unusual move to bypass a federal appeals court and take the matter directly to the Supreme Court.

“The DACA program -- which provides work permits and myriad government benefits to illegal immigrants en masse -- is clearly unlawful. The district judge’s decision to unilaterally re-impose a program that Congress had explicitly and repeatedly rejected is a usurpation of legislative authority,” White House spokesman Raj Shah said.

“We look forward to having this case expeditiously heard by the appeals court and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, where we fully expect to prevail,” Shah added.\

The administration argued Obama exceeded his powers under the Constitution when he bypassed Congress and created DACA.

Alsup ruled that the challengers, including the states of California, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota and Obama’s former homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano, were likely to succeed in arguing that the administration’s decision to end DACA was arbitrary.

In a brief order, the Supreme Court justices said the appeal was “denied without prejudice,” indicating they will maintain an open mind on the underlying legal issue still being considered by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The justices also said they expect the lower court to “proceed expeditiously to decide this case.”

Trump, meeting with governors at the White House, took a swipe at the appeals court, which has ruled against him in other key cases, as well as the broader American judiciary.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on immigration reform in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., August 2, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on immigration reform in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., August 2, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo

“Nothing’s as bad as the 9th Circuit,” Trump said.

“It’s really sad when every single case filed against us is in the 9th Circuit. We lose, we lose, we lose and then we do fine in the Supreme Court,” Trump added. “But what does that tell you about our court system? It’s a very, very sad thing.”

‘FULLY LEGAL’

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, called the administration’s bid to bypass the 9th Circuit ”unusual and unnecessary“ and said the DACA program is ”fully legal. “For the sake of the Dreamers who help make our economy and our state strong, the rescission of DACA should not be allowed to stand,” Becerra said.


Immigration activists said they were grateful the Supreme Court gave current DACA recipients more time, but said many young immigrants are still left unprotected.

“We need a permanent solution now,” said Greisa Martinez, a DACA recipient who works in Washington with the immigrants’ rights group United We Dream. “This back and forth on DACA and the legislative process has created a crisis in our community.”

The DACA dispute is the latest major case brought to the Supreme Court for its consideration arising from Trump’s immigration policies. The justices are due to hear arguments in April on the legality of his latest travel ban order barring entry to people from several Muslim-majority nations.

Trump’s move to rescind DACA prompted legal challenges by Democratic state attorneys general and various organizations and individuals in multiple federal courts.

On Feb. 13, a second U.S. judge issued a similar injunction ordering the administration to keep DACA in place. U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn acted in a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs including a group of states led by New York.

Judges Alsup and Garaufis did not say that the administration could not at some point end the program, only that there was evidence it did not follow the correct procedures in doing so.

The rulings allow those who had previously applied for protections and whose two-year status was soon to expire to apply beyond the deadline set by the administration in September. The original plan put on hold by the court rulings said that only those who re-applied by October and whose status was due to expire by March 5 could re-apply.

The administration is not processing new applications.
Childhood interrupted: Rohingya children live in fear of kidnap, rape, wild animals






By  |  | @EmmaRichards85

“NO ONE likes going to the woods,” says one Rohingya child living in the refugee camps in Bangladesh. Children talk of violent “forest men”, wild animals, kidnappings, and rape – but they have no choice, their family needs firewood. Without it, their mother can’t cook dinner and their family will go hungry.

Wearable tech aids stroke patients




Scientists in the US are developing wearable sensors to speed up the recovery of stroke patients.
The sensors are able to send information to doctors continuously.
The team developing the system says it could allow therapists to more closely monitor the effectiveness of their care.
Details of the study were released at the recent annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Texas.
Lizzy McAninch had a stroke two years ago. She could not move or speak or swallow for several weeks.
Lizzy is testing out wearable sensors that might speed her recovery.
They look like small white sticking plasters, but they send information wirelessly to her medical team.
She is a doctor herself and can see how they could help her.
SensorThey look like small sticking plasters
"This technology to put sensors on the body to assess which muscle groups work or not can really pinpoint the areas affected by the stroke and can target therapies to specifically improve those issues," she told BBC News.
The sensors continue to send back readings even after she has finished her exercises. This means that her therapist Kristen Hohl, from the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago, can monitor her progress at home.
"As a therapist, I think about what my patients are doing at home. Are they able to carry through the recommendations I'm giving them as a therapist to do more? Do we see that they are walking more or do we see them engaging in conversations?
"Those are the types of things that I can get feedback from the sensors where currently I have to rely on what they tell me they have done."
TabletThe team is gathering large amounts of data
The challenge for the scientists was to pack a lot of electronics on to a small flexible material and still make it comfortable for the patient to wear for a long time.
"It is almost mechanically imperceptible to the patient who is wearing the device," according to John Rogers, of Northwestern University in Chicago, who developed the sensors.
"And you can embed all sorts of advanced sensor functionality, microprocessor computing capability, power supplies and WiFi into this very unusual platform, and that is the uniqueness of what we do."
By the end of this year, the research team will have more information than ever before on stroke recovery. The scientists believe that their study could transform the way patients are treated in the future.
Lizzy and scientist

Sunday, February 25, 2018

Sri Lanka: Mass graves everywhere, but where are the killers?— Part 04

Since 1948, successive regimes have continued to condone and practice torture and killings as a systemic weapon. Despite being party to international conventions against torture, these regimes have been condoning, using and/or tolerating the use of torture, ill-treatment and killing of individuals to this day


Read Previous parts of this series: Part One,  Part TwoPart Three  


Lionel Bopage

Colonialism in Sri Lanka

( February 26, 2018, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) During the period 1505-1948, the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British colonized in varying degrees the land the native people inhabited. The objective of the Crown, the State and the Church was to establish their socio-economic and political power over the natives and to transfer their allegiance from a local to a foreign sovereign. To achieve this, the natives had to be alienated from their traditions and mores including culture, identity, language and beliefs. In this process, colonial rulers and their elite used diverse manipulative strategies and tactics, of persuasion, inducement, persecution, discrimination, and destruction. They carried out their acts by enacting oppressive proclamations, decrees and laws both overt and covert, such as the use of force, repression, fraud, allurement, deportations and killings.

Unconstitutionality of the ‘unity’ government 


article_image

By Neville Ladduwahetty-February 25, 2018, 9:48 pm

The fallout from the local government elections has led to many questions that need to be addressed by the nation and Parliament. They relate to the fate of the so-called "unity government", a phrase that was coined to best describe the questionable formation of the present government. This has given rise to headlines in the print media, such as "Unity Government to Forge Ahead", "Unity Government Cannot Continue" – Non-renewal of MOU", and yet another that states "Speaker to Rule on National Government". However, although both terms, national government and unity government are often used interchangeably to describe the formation of the current government, only the term "national government" has constitutional legitimacy.

The term national government is used in Articles 46 (4) and 46 (5) of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. The underlying advantage of using the provisions in both Articles was because of the outcome of the August 2015 election, wherein no political party secured an outright majority to form a government. Consequently, there was a compelling reason for one or more political parties to come to an understanding and form a government.

The obvious choice was to secure the support of the SLFP or the UPFA since both were headed by President Sirisena. The fact that it was only the UPFA that contested the election and the SLFP was only a constituent of the UPFA, did not appear to matter. Notwithstanding these impediments, the need to reward those of the SLFP who were prepared to support a UNP-led government was achieved by means of the provisions of Articles 46 (4) and 46 (5) whereby the number of Cabinet Ministers, non-Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers could be determined by Parliament without being constrained by the limits set by Article 46 (1) (a) and (b)..

Article 46 (4) states:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (1) of this Article, where the recognized political party or the independent group which obtains the highest number of seats in Parliament forms a National Government, the number of Ministers in the Cabinet of Ministers, the number Ministers who are not Cabinet Ministers and the number of Deputy Ministers shall be determined by Parliament".

And Article 46 (5) states:

"For the purpose of paragraph (4), National Government means, a Government formed by the recognized political party or the independent group which obtains the highest number of seats in Parliament together with the other recognized political parties or the independent groups".

This was the background for the Resolution presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister on September 3, 2015. The Resolution stated:

"Whereas the United National Party which obtained the highest number of seats in parliament has formed a National Government, Parliament determines in terms of Article 46 (4) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka that the number of Ministers in the Cabinet of Ministers shall not exceed 48 and the number of Ministers who are not Cabinet Ministers and the number of Deputy Ministers shall not exceed 45".

Two factors arise as a consequence of provisions in Articles 46 (4) and 46 (5) when taken together with the Resolution presented in Parliament.

1. The claim made in the Resolution that the United National Party "has formed a National Government" has to be established beyond doubt in terms of the constitution.

2. Whether the formation of the current government satisfies the provision in Article 46 (5), which is that a National Government is formed when the political party with the highest number of seats in Parliament "together with other recognized political parties" commits to form a government. This must mean that such a formation should be with the entirety of any recognized political party and not with a faction of it.

Factor One: It is evident from the ongoing debates in Parliament that no credible evidence has been tabled to establish the claim that a national government has been formed by the UNP which obtained the highest number of seats in Parliament. Instead, what are being presented at this point in time are only verbal assurances that written agreements between the parties concerned exist.

Whether these agreements are between the UNP and the SLFP, or between the UNP and the UPFA or both, is not known since no official documents have thus far been presented. Furthermore, in the absence of such credible evidence no one is aware of the period over which such agreements are valid. This lack of transparency reflects the degree of contempt the government has for its obligations to Parliament and to the people they were elected to represent.

Even if such agreements are tabled in Parliament there is no assurance that they would convince an objective observer that a national government is in conformity of the provisions of Article 46 (5). Therefore, it is imperative that these agreements be tabled in Parliament. Furthermore, if these agreements are to operate within a specified timeframe, it is critical that Parliament is made aware of such time constraints. Therefore, for these several reasons there is a compelling obligation for the government to table the agreements in Parliament in order to ascertain whether it has fulfilled its constitutional obligations.

Factor Two: According to Article 46 (5), a national government is formed only when the political party which obtains the highest number of seats, forms a government "together with other recognized political parties". Regardless of whether this is to be interpreted as involving ALL the other recognized political parties or not, it is very clear that it does not mean forming a government with only a faction of a "recognized political party" which in this instance it clearly is; i.e., only a minority faction of the SLFP/UPFA is with the government. To categorize the current arrangement as a National Government is to violate the Constitution as well as the franchise of the people. The current arrangement therefore should be treated as nothing but a private pact signed for no reason other than to form a government outside the sphere of the constitution.

When exercising his franchise, a voter first selects the political party of his choice. This reflects the pride of place given to a status of a political party. If, after an election a faction of the political party he/she voted for decides to go one way with the remainder going another, the sanctity of the voter’s franchise and the immutable principle of representative government is violated, because the voter is at a loss to know which faction would be responsible for fulfilling the mandate given to the party by the voters. More importantly, since franchise is an integral part of the sovereignty of the people as per Article 3 of the Constitution, the present government made up of the UNP and only a faction of the SLFP/UPFA is an assault on the sovereignty of the people.

Furthermore, the acceptance of this arrangement would set in place a precedent wherein it would be possible for any political party with the highest number of seats in Parliament to come to an "understanding", written or verbal, with a faction of a constituent party (in this case, the SLFP) of a recognized political party (the UPFA), and declare that it has formed a national government and thereby increase the number of Ministers in the Cabinet and non-Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers without restraint.

This constitutionally illegal arrangement has existed for nearly three years, and what is being planned is to continue with the current arrangement with a redistribution of Cabinet portfolios in the absence of any attempts to challenge the status quo within Parliament or in the Courts of Law.

Most of the debate following the tabling of the Resolution focused on interpreting what was meant by "together with other recognized political parties". Did it mean ALL the other political parties represented in Parliament or could it have meant mean only those political parties that were inclined to be associated with a UNP-led government, with others deciding to stay out? It is this division that is the moot point in the legitimacy of the claim that the current government, qualifies to be recognised as a national government as intended by the framers of the 19th Amendment, thus enabling the collective number of Cabinet Ministers, non-Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers to be increased beyond the limit of 70 set for a government, which does not meet the threshold of a National Government.

Notwithstanding this lapse, civil society did file a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the legitimacy of the basis for the claim that the UNP as the party with the largest number of seats in Parliament "has formed a National Government". The Court sadly denied the right to proceed on the grounds that the matter had been debated in Parliament and, therefore, was outside the jurisdiction of the Court, based on an outdated opinion in Erskine May relating to Parliamentary Privilege. It is now reported that the Speaker has consulted legal opinion and has declared that the current formation is, in fact, a national government.

It is apparent from these developments that the matter of interpreting the Constitution has been usurped by the Parliament and the Speaker. Article 125 of the Constitution states, "The Supreme Court shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to the interpretation of the Constitution…." The Supreme Court cannot abdicate its responsibility to interpret the Constitution when a petition was filed. The report that the Speaker’s ruling is what would prevail despite the fact that he is not constitutionally empowered, amounts to disturning. Collectively, this represents a total failure of the concept of separation of powers. Under the circumstances, Parliament should reject any attempt by the Speaker to rule on the constitutionality or otherwise of the current formation of the government, and demand that the matter be referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation as required by the constitution.

The claim that the current administration is a national government has gone unchallenged since September 2015. Allowing the claim to continue would be to set in place a precedent that is unconstitutional. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Parliament or some committed members of civil society to challenge its legitimacy.

Hushing Up Jaffna University Tree Theft – Regime Vs. Quality

University of Jaffna | Photo via Facebook University of Jaffna

(Compiled by Dr. Rajan Hoole)
logoTagore gave an apt aphorism for an ideal university: “Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high. Where knowledge is free…Where words come out from the depth of truth.” It demands expeditious action against unfairness and malpractice. In contrast, our university system permits sycophants to take control and confine power to protégés.
Jaffna University should have spearheaded the renewal of the North, opened its doors wide to fresh talent and advanced a bold reappraisal of the past. It demanded an objective history of the militant era, as in other societies that have found their way out of a hideous patch. Our scholars and intelligentsia have failed at home or have lost themselves overseas. By default ultranationalist ideology holds sway, to which dons and even vice chancellors pay lip service, as on Thileepan and Maveerar-Days. Academics pretend not to know the deceit and cynicism behind the heroic legends, nor do they care about the myriads of children and conscripts deceived into giving life and limb for the leaders’ treachery at Mullivaikkal.
While LTTE ideology gives the university a brittle nationalistic facade, university management follows the EPDP’s legacy. LTTE control was ambient; the EPDP relied on executive power delegated by the President to control appointments and elections. It was evident in the way the 2014 VC election was scripted and how the executive apparatus was used by the incumbent powers to block a promising overseas VC candidate in 2017. (Click here and here) It left in place a mafia of deans and top administrators, who shield one another’s abuses, particularly in keeping out quality recruits. The fault-lines of the system become palpable in the forest-cutting fiasco which misguided two angry deans, favourites of the former VC, to harass a minor employee Janatheepan, Supervisor-Maintenance.
The Council, administration and academics having rubber-stamped EPDP appointments, intensified corruption with registrars, academics and even the Vice Chancellor going to the EPDP office for instructions. EPDP’s favourites saw no limits to their authority.
We illustrate the cosy relationship between the EPDP and university administrators toeing its line: Tharmaseelan testified that on 30-7-2014 he was introduced to EPDP Secretary-Killinochchi by N. Sutharshan, Supervisor-Civil, Killinochchi Campus. The EPDP asked him to report the following day. He met the Deputy Registrar and Dean Engineering. They posted him to the Guest House at Paravipanjan and followed him there (Committee of Inquiry, 21-10-2017). 
The Engineering Dean’s falling out with Janatheepan, the latter said, had to do with the Dean’s authoritarian bearing. The Dean for example ordered Janatheepan bypassing the Works Engineer: In late 2014, when he was sick, the Dean ordered him to go into the rain and deal with rising water in a ditch he opined would flood the administration. Janatheepan who disagreed, refused. On a later occasion the Dean ordered him to enter a trench under the Mechanical Lab where a cable was to be laid and look for snakes. These were problems for the Works Engineer to consult his team on a remedy. Continually harassed, Janatheepan took to excessive drink.
A memo was on 16/07/2016 surreptitiously introduced by the Registrar during the council meeting, alleging Janatheepan reported for ‘duty under the influence of liquor.’ In sacking him the Council acted on prejudice continually drummed in by the Deans of Engineering and Agriculture. That is how universities get away with gross injustice.
Prof. Tharmaratnam, an exceptionally meticulous councillor, spotted the minute and objected at the next meeting that the employee is owed a right of defence, got him reinstated and then interdicted subject to inquiry.
He agreed to Dr. Poongothai Selvarajan, Senior Lecturer, Management, Vavuniya Campus, as the inquirer. Poongothai’s report faults Dean/Engineering for exceeding his authority in harassing Janatheepan and a cooked-up written complaint to the VC  bypassing the Registrar of Janatheepan’s absence, when in fact he was present. 

Read More