Gota Speaks Out: My Niece Says, ‘See Maami Because Of Your Matters, I Am Dragged Unnecessarily Into This!’
By Rajpal Abeynayake -
GOTA DENIES ALLEGED JOURNO-THREAT: “Who are these people who destroyed the country, to ask to remove me?”
A Sunday newspaper last week alleged that the said newspaper’s female editor had called the defence secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa to clarify a story about a matter allegedly involving him — and that the defence secretary had abused her in unparliamentarily language, and also threatened her.Certain media rights groups have meanwhile taken up the matter, and some others including opposition politicians have called for the resignation of the defence secretary on the issue.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa
In brief, the run-up to this issue is that the editor of the said Sunday newspaper had called the defence secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa the week before, andasked him whether he had asked a certain pilot to bring down a pet dog for his wife, from Zurich.
The defence secretary has replied in the affirmative, and said that there was nothing wrong with that, and that he had paid for the cargo. However, the lady then asked the defence secretary why a pilot who had could not fly an A340 aircraft, but could only fly an A330, was assigned for the (intended) flight. She also apparently informed Mr. Rajapaksa that this pilot, who was also the boyfriend of the president’s (and the defence secretary’s) niece who also worked for SriLankan Airlines, had been stopped from flying this aircraft. She said this was because the Pilots’ Guild had protested such a change in operations (i.e.: changing of aircraft) which will cause some 56 passengers to be offloaded, resulting in a loss of revenue for SriLankan Airlines.
She maintains that the defence secretary turned abusive at this juncture and threatened her.
The newspaper reported that the lady editor also called the defence secretary Rajapaksa a second time and informed him of the fact that she will not be carrying the article on the incident in her newspaper due to the fact that she had been assured by certain parties — inter alia — that there will be no commercial loss to the airline. The report went on to say that the defence secretary further abused the editor on this occasion.
Speaking to this columnist on the issue and its ramifications, the defence secretary said the following in an interview:
What is in short your version of the incident that had been reported in a Sunday newspaper, regarding your wish to bring down a dog from Zurich, and your asking a SriLankan Airlines pilot to do so?
When she (the editor) called, she knew that what she was asking about (…the alleged replacement of a commercial flight) was not happening. It had not happened, and it was not going to happen. The Pilots’ Guild according to her had already protested, and therefore as she said, this entire thing was not going to happen. The Pilots’ Guild did not protest in fact.
But anyhow if as she says they protested and it was not going to happen (what she was asking me about…) then I do not see any reason for her to call me. Yet she called me. This is harassment. The main thing is that what she was asking me about did not happen and was not going to happen, and she knew that when she called me.
Furthermore there is an order by a court that her newspaper should not harass me; that order was given in a previous case. The court said they should not contact me.
So this is in contempt of court. I will take this matter up in court.
She contends that she was doing her job as a journalist by asking questions regarding a story she wanted to run as a matter of public interest?
No, this is what I am saying. She knew exactly what had happened, and she said the Pilots’ Guild had protested and this was not going to happen (the altered flight). So then what? What is the need to ask me? This was just to harass me — and is this journalism? How unfair is this?
The defence secretary has replied in the affirmative, and said that there was nothing wrong with that, and that he had paid for the cargo. However, the lady then asked the defence secretary why a pilot who had could not fly an A340 aircraft, but could only fly an A330, was assigned for the (intended) flight. She also apparently informed Mr. Rajapaksa that this pilot, who was also the boyfriend of the president’s (and the defence secretary’s) niece who also worked for SriLankan Airlines, had been stopped from flying this aircraft. She said this was because the Pilots’ Guild had protested such a change in operations (i.e.: changing of aircraft) which will cause some 56 passengers to be offloaded, resulting in a loss of revenue for SriLankan Airlines.
She maintains that the defence secretary turned abusive at this juncture and threatened her.
The newspaper reported that the lady editor also called the defence secretary Rajapaksa a second time and informed him of the fact that she will not be carrying the article on the incident in her newspaper due to the fact that she had been assured by certain parties — inter alia — that there will be no commercial loss to the airline. The report went on to say that the defence secretary further abused the editor on this occasion.
Speaking to this columnist on the issue and its ramifications, the defence secretary said the following in an interview:
What is in short your version of the incident that had been reported in a Sunday newspaper, regarding your wish to bring down a dog from Zurich, and your asking a SriLankan Airlines pilot to do so?
When she (the editor) called, she knew that what she was asking about (…the alleged replacement of a commercial flight) was not happening. It had not happened, and it was not going to happen. The Pilots’ Guild according to her had already protested, and therefore as she said, this entire thing was not going to happen. The Pilots’ Guild did not protest in fact.
But anyhow if as she says they protested and it was not going to happen (what she was asking me about…) then I do not see any reason for her to call me. Yet she called me. This is harassment. The main thing is that what she was asking me about did not happen and was not going to happen, and she knew that when she called me.
Furthermore there is an order by a court that her newspaper should not harass me; that order was given in a previous case. The court said they should not contact me.
So this is in contempt of court. I will take this matter up in court.
She contends that she was doing her job as a journalist by asking questions regarding a story she wanted to run as a matter of public interest?
No, this is what I am saying. She knew exactly what had happened, and she said the Pilots’ Guild had protested and this was not going to happen (the altered flight). So then what? What is the need to ask me? This was just to harass me — and is this journalism? How unfair is this?
Sunday Leader cartoon
Did you know that when you contacted a known party to fly the plane, that an alternate aircraft would have to be commissioned as that person was not competent to fly the regular plane?
First and foremost, there is nothing wrong in asking a person I know to fly the aircraft. I can ask that such a thing be done, if it does not hamper any operations.
So that is out of the way. Of course I did not know whether this is an A320 or 330 or340 whatever it is, and he cannot fly it? How do I know these things?
Am I supposed to know these things? I only asked something that was not wrong, but then, if there was some reason that person could not do what I asked for, and if a plane had to be changed, that’s something I did not know. The important thing is that such a thing did not happen. So we will say the Pilots’ Guild protested (though I know they did not) and the flight was not changed. Then that is the end of the matter. Neither me nor anybody had done any wrong and nothing untoward happened. Yet she knows all this and still calls me.
But she says you threatened her? Read More
First and foremost, there is nothing wrong in asking a person I know to fly the aircraft. I can ask that such a thing be done, if it does not hamper any operations.
So that is out of the way. Of course I did not know whether this is an A320 or 330 or340 whatever it is, and he cannot fly it? How do I know these things?
Am I supposed to know these things? I only asked something that was not wrong, but then, if there was some reason that person could not do what I asked for, and if a plane had to be changed, that’s something I did not know. The important thing is that such a thing did not happen. So we will say the Pilots’ Guild protested (though I know they did not) and the flight was not changed. Then that is the end of the matter. Neither me nor anybody had done any wrong and nothing untoward happened. Yet she knows all this and still calls me.
But she says you threatened her? Read More
