Businessman Ravi Wethasinghe had deposited some Sterling Pounds 50,000 (Rs 6 million) in the Bank of Ceylon account of Lakshman Hulugalle for distribution among top-rungers in the SLFP , ostensibly for the provincial council elections. By some happy coincidence, the money was being handed out at about the same time Wethasinghe was promoting another bus project in Sri Lanka through the British company Duple Metsec for which he was using the good offices of Lakshman Hulugalle and through him Gunetilleke to get access to both the transport and the finance ministry. When this was highlighted by The Sunday Leader, Wethasinghe mantained the monies were given for election work to the SLFP but Hulugalle claimed it was given to promote this new bus project and Rs. 3.5 million of the cash was in fact handed to Gunetilleke. Sanath Gunetilleke and Lakshman Hulugalle were of course amba yaluwo up until the Ravi Wethasinghe scandal emerged.

Why Wethasinghe should, through a third party, send money for the SLFP fund to Hulugalle's account without sending it directly to the SLFP itself raises questions in the backdrop of serious allegations made on the Latec bus deal by President Kumaratunga and other leading PA types both before and after the 1994 general election.

Wethasinghe may be an innocent victim caught in the middle of a politicking PA group in 1994, but for the PA to at this stage forget their past revulsion for the businesman and embrace him with loving arms calls into question their credibility.

Hulugalle had also told the CID, he sent relevant papers on the bus project to the president through her Media Advisor Sanath Gunatileke.

It was the Wethasinghe issue gaining momentum after The Sunday Leader expose that Wethasinghe was pressurised into lodging a complaint against Hulugalle for cheating. The anticipated result was to ease the pressure and take attention away from Sanath Gunetilleke. It did neither. Hulugalle in his statement to the CID reiterated he paid Rs 3.5 million of the monies sent by Wethasinghe to Gunetilleke. He cites a witness, one Jayatissa Tennakoon.

"If Sanath says he was not involved, he is lying "

Q: Sanath Gunatileke has denied any involvement in the Channel 9 deal? Is that position correct?

A: From the early days of this television project, Sanath Gunatileke was involved in it as a sleeping partner. If he says he was not involved, he is lying and I can prove it.

Q: Can you explain how this television project started?

A: I knew Siva Guruparan through Vyramuttu Sivadasan over a long period of time. In 1995 October Siva, Guru and myself met in India to discuss the future of an advertising company of Guru's named Dot and Line. He wanted me to become a director of that company which I did. I then proposed to Siva and Guru that we should do a television project in Sri Lanka. They agreed. I told them, I can obtain the assistance of Sanath Gunatileke amongst others to get the necessary approvals. Guru said if the approvals can be got he would pay Australian dollars 1 million.

On my return, I started working on this project. Initially, I spoke to Kanchana Ratwatte, the private secretary of Minister G.L. Peiris. Later I discussed it with Sanath and told him if the approvals can be got, he will also receive a payment. Then on November 19, 1995 Guru sent two people, namely Ian Wright and Richard Sun, to do a survey and start the feasibility. I arranged a meeting for them with Kanchana Ratwatte. I also arranged a meeting for them at my residence with Sanath. After that Sanath arranged two meetings for them to meet with Minister of Posts and Telecommunications Mangala Samaraweera and then Secretary Media, Edmond Jayasinghe. I too participated at these meetings. In 1996, January 25, Ian Wright returned to Sri Lanka with Glen Whitford to discuss the project proposal with the relevant authorities. On that occasion, Sanath arranged a meeting for them with Trade Minister Kingsley Wickremeratne. I asked him why we had to meet Mr. Wickremeratne when Dharmasiri Senanayake was the media minister. Sanath explained that the president did not trust Dharmasiri Senanayake and wanted us to work with Kingsley.

Q: Did you meet with Minister Wickremeratne?

A: Yes, together with the two Australians, Siva and Sanath.

Q: What happened at this meeting?

A: At this meeting, we discussed the project and Ian Wright asked whether this company can have the licence for cable TV. They felt, with five local stations already on air, another local station may not be feasible on its own. Therefore, they wanted to operate a cable network as well to supplement the free station. It was agreed to.

Q: What happened thereafter?

A: Then Guru came to Sri Lanka on March 13, 1996 at the invitation of Sanath to meet the president. Before this meeting with the president, we met Kingsley Wickremeratne to finalise the entire proposal. Only at that meeting, Gamini Rajanayake and another person named Jayantha Jayatileke were introduced by Sanath as president's nominees for this project. During that visit Guru once again told me, once the licence is given, he would pay Australian $1 million for me to share with Sanath as the promotional fee. He also said 5 per cent of the shares each would be given to Sanath and me. I informed Sanath of the financial arrangement and he agreed. Then on March 19 Guru met the president with Sanath and Siva.

Q: Why didn't you go for that meeting?

A: The explanation Sanath gave was that after I left the Ministry of Youth Affairs, Minister S.B. Dissanayake was not in good terms with me and on that particular day, he said S.B. was meeting the president before Guruparan's meeting, and that if he sees me with Guru, he will try to block the project. That is the day I felt, Sanath had a plan of his own behind my back. I felt Sanath was becoming greedy and wanted the whole share for himself. But in order to see the project through, I agreed not to attend that meeting. Minister Kingsley Wickremeratne was also present at this meeting with the president.

Q: What happened after the meeting with the president?

A: Guru told me the meeting was very successful and that the president would give her fullest support for our project.

Q: Is it for this meeting Guru took a gift for the president and if so what was it?

A: Yes, it is for this meeting, a gift was taken. It was a very valuable gift.

Q: What happened thereafter?

A: In April, another meeting took place with Kingsley Wickremeratne. At that meeting, Sanath, Siva, Gamini Rajanayake, Jayantha Jayatileke and myself were present. At this meeting Sanath informed the minister, the licence would be given to one of the president's nominees and that person would be Gamini Rajanayake. I was taken by surprise. Sanath also said Jayantha Jayatileke will not be involved in the project. Sanath also said he and myself will be sleeping directors but will enjoy the same rights as the formal directors.

Q: Are you saying, Minister Wickremeratne was negotiating the project from the government side?

A: Yes, as I told you earlier, the president asked us to deal with him,

Q: Did you agree to Rajanayake being issued the licence?

A: I had no other option but to agree because it was an order from the president as Sanath said. And when I asked why I can't be in the main board formally, Minister Wickremeratne and Sanath together said that the president told them, since Sanath and I were on the stage campaigning for her and because of that, for some time, she does not want both of us to be on the board. They said we could be on the main board at a later stage. In fact, Minister Wickremeratne suggested, if necessary a MOU can be signed with Guru for this purpose. I declined to do so because Guru was my friend and I trusted him. He is the person I introduced. So why should I sign a separate agreement with him?

Q: So you are saying, you were promised a directorship together with Sanath, at a future date?

A: Yes.

Q: Then how did Summit Media come to be?

A: After this meeting and in keeping with the directions issued by the president through Minister Wickremeratne and Sanath, it was decided, Gamini Rajanayake should form a company on his own to obtain the licence, and Guru to form another company in Australia as the investor and together for the two companies to form a joint venture called Channel 9 to do the television project.

Q: These two companies came to be at about the same time?

A: Yes, with the details finalised in April 1996, the companies were formed in May and the necessary approvals obtained.

Q: Then an MOU was signed between Rajanayake and Guruparan on how the project was to be operated.

A: Yes, you had published that last week. Rajanayake, who was the front man appointed by Sanath and the President was to get 15 per cent of Channel 9 including all its profits. They did not have to spend one cent. They were getting a 15 per cent cut by virtue of the licence. And TRN was to have two directors. One slot was for Rajanayake. The other was to be for Sanath at a future date. But on a temporary basis, they appointed another until such time in the future Sanath could get on the board. I was to come on the board of Channel 9 through Summit Media also at a future date. That was the arrangement.

Q: So did the project get started?

A: No, the investors came twice but it did not materialise.

Q: Who are these investors you speak of? Was it not Summit Media and Guruparan who were supposed to bring in the investment?

A: Guru was to sell part of his shares to an investor and bring them here. Among the few people who came in July 1996 were Nick Whitlam who is a merchant banker in Australia and Mr. Saman of Sweden, the vice president of Milicom. Both these investors did not invest because they were not happy with the share they were promised for their investment.

Q: Did they meet the president or any senior official?

A: Yes, they met the president, Minister Wickremeratne along with Sanath Gunatileke. I also arranged a meeting with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Lakshman Kiriella. I too went for that meeting.

Q: Just to go back here for a moment, Rajanayake had submitted a proposal holding out state of the art technology to do this project, which Minister Samaraweera says was the reason why the licence was issued to him. If so, why did he in terms of the MOU, transfer all the rights of the licence to Channel 9 for 20 years?

A: That was the deal. The technical proposal in fact was made by Ian Wright, who has a wide knowledge of television. He was brought by Guru. But because the president and Sanath wanted one of their people to hold the licence, Wright's technical report was handed over in the name of Rajanayake. Rajanayake had nothing to do with it. The information required to finalise the report was given by me.

Q: Are you saying that for merely lending his name on behalf of the president and Sanath, a 15 per cent stake of the company was promised?

A: Yes, that was the deal. And I think it was a good deal for them if the investment came in because by simply using the state machinery and issuing a licence, they were to get a 15 per cent stake in the company.

Q: What was the proposed investment through Guruparan in Channel 9 in terms of the BOI approval received?

A: It was to be, I think, a 500 million rupee investment.

Q: What facilities did you get after setting up Channel 9?

A: We were given a 10 year tax holiday. We also had provision to get 10 duty free vehicles and to bring in all equipment duty free among other facilities.

Q: Minister Samaraweera has said, you and Rajanayake both applied for a licence but that Rajanayake was given it because he was more eligible. Is that correct?

A: I never applied for a licence. It is another daydream of Mangala Samaraweera's. On the Channel 9 issue they have been lying to the public. This is another of those lies. I challenge him to produce my application if there is such an application.

Q: Now, there is a tape recording of a discussion involving you, Sanath, Guruparan, Rajanayake and Sivadasan. When did this discussion take place?

A: In September 1997 on a Sunday, I think, the 28th at Gamini Rajanayake's house at about 10.00 a.m. This is after The Sunday Leader published a detailed article about Channel 9 dealings. After this article appeared on September 21, where Sanath's involvement was also mentioned, everyone panicked. Guruparan came to Sri Lanka to sort out the problem because it was felt, these details had come out due to developing friction among the partners.

Q: What was this friction?

A: Though it was promised in April 1996 I would be appointed to the board at a future date, it was not happening. By this time I was insisting I be put on the board because nearly 18 months had lapsed since the issuance of the licence. But Sanath kept saying the president did not want me on the board at all by this time.

Q: Is it you who taped this discussion?

A: Yes.

Q: Why?

A: As I told you earlier, I felt Sanath was hijacking the entire project from me. He wanted to have a stake not only through TRN but also through Summit Media. Therefore, I wanted to tape the discussion so that I could some day claim my due and also play it to the president and ask her whether what Sanath attributes to her was correct.

Q: How genuine is this tape?

A: It is absolutely genuine. It runs for one hour. There are experts today who can test the genuineness of a tape. And once that is done, Sanath will stand fully exposed. I am prepared to give a copy of this tape if the president and Sanath can agree with my lawyers to have the entire tape played on Rupavahini and ITN without any editing. If the tape is a fake, I will go to jail. If the tape is genuine, the president should send Sanath to jail. And if what Sanath says on tape is the truth, others he implicates can also be dealt with in terms of the corruption laws.

Q: Where is this tape now?

A: It is not with me any more.

Q: Has the CID questioned you on anything relating to Channel 9, on a complaint made by Sanath?

A: No, I don't think he has made any complaint about Channel 9. But the CID should investigate his role in Channel 9.

Q: In this tape, Sanath is stating, the president wanted the licence held in the name of Rajanayake and also that she wanted you to keep your mouth shut on the promise you will be looked after. Is that correct?

A: Yes. In fact, on the licence issue, the words used by the president according to Sanath is that the licence should be held by `Ape ekkenek.'

Q: Did Sanath say at that meeting as reflected in the tape that the president asked him what he was getting out of the project and that he said he was promised a fee.

A: Yes, he said on one occasion, I promised to pay him a sum. And in another place, he says, when the president asked him also, he said he was promised a fee.

Q: Sanath and Mangala Samaraweera both say such a meeting could not have taken place since the question of making payments in 1997 September could not have been discussed when the licence was issued in 1996.

A: The meeting did not take place to discuss payments but the issues arising from Sanath's insistence that the president wanted me out of the board. Because by this time, their 15 per cent stake had already been agreed to through the MOU.

It is while discussing these issues that both Sanath and I presented our sides of the story on how the project was done. It is in that context, Sanath speaks of the money offered to him and of the discussions with the president. By this time, as I said earlier, the deal was done with them getting 15 per cent of the stake. What was happening at this stage was Sanath trying to keep me out altogether and stake a bigger claim. And Sivadasan has already confirmed to your newspaper, the meeting did take place. And if you listen to the full tape, you will hear the voices of Guru, Siva and Rajanayake as well in addition to the cross-talk and the angry exchange of words between us.

Q: But later you continued to be friends with Sanath even doing business together. How did this take place?

A: After we ironed out our problems at this meeting, they all agreed to keep me as a director though I did not sign the form 48. In fact I did press conferences with Guru and Rajanayake as Director (Marketing) in 1998 and represented the company to Star TV (India) for negotiations for programmes in December 1998 with R. Basu, the CEO of Star TV. He will confirm that if you or the CID were to ask him. In 1998 during the SAARC Summit, Channel 9 did a special telecast with Star TV for 3 days over Star plus on SAARC. I handled this programme and it was telecast over 53 countries. As the coordinators it is on video, the names of Rajanayake and myself. The president gave a special interview (the only interview) for Channel 9 to telecast over Star TV hours after she became chairman of SAARC. This was done at Temple Trees and I was there. What more can I say?

Q: So you became friends with Sanath again after you were given a directorship?

A: Yes, after the September 1997 meeting, when it was agreed for me to carry on with Channel 9, I had no problem. That was my due as the promoter.

Q: Do you think they agreed to this because they feared you might otherwise go public with the details?

A: Maybe, that I don't know.

Q: Then why did you fall out with Sanath again in April 1999?

A: On April 25, Attorney Sunil Panduwawela and Gamini Rajanayake came to my residence and requested a letter from me saying that I have not given money to Sanath Gunatileke from the money Ravi Wethasinghe sent me for the bus project. The two of them informed me that the president wanted this letter. I refused to give such a letter and also refused to give any details. I told them, if necessary, the president can contact me direct and that I would give the details to her directly.

Q: But Sanath in his statement says, he asked you on April 28 whether you had mentioned him as being given part of the Wethasinghe money and you had denied saying so.

A: That is another lie. He knew about the Latec project all along. He carried letters to the president and brought back messages on what needed to be done on the project. How can he deny now? On April 29, he asked me for a letter saying that I had not given him money on this deal to him. Why should anyone ask a letter from me if he had not taken money? Because by this time, nothing had appeared in the newspapers either. He only wanted the letter to show the president because others had heard about it. He took money from me saying that he was going to spend it for the expenses of the President's media unit. I don't know what happened to that money after that.

Q: Is that the Rs. 3.5 million we have heard about?

A: Yes.

Q: Sanath says this story is concocted and those who know your past will know you can come up not only with a audio cassette, but worse things?

A: I have already said, the tape can be tested and proved to be genuine and I am prepared to give it to the president if an assurance is given, it will be played on national television. As for my so-called past, this is mere mud slinging to detract from his wrongdoing, again misusing his powers as the President's media advisor.

If he says I am a man capable of such things, why did he keep my company all these days, even joining me to do business projects. I am only a businessman unlike Sanath who is holding public office.

Sanath is an opportunist. You know what he told Thilanga Sumithapala about Upali Dharmadasa when he wanted to silence the Lakbima. All his associates know how he treated Ananda Basnayake, the man in whose house he lived free of charge when he first came to Colombo. He will sacrifice anyone to save his neck. Is he saying that he kept company all these years with a bad person and used such a person to even transport vegetables to Temple Trees on his behalf. If that is the case, why did he also carry a gift from me for the president? Why is it also that he took me to Temple Trees on a regular basis and even travelled in my car on several occasions to Temple Trees? My vehicle number will be registered at Temple Trees. Why did he also then ask me for dollars which my cousin purchased for him from the open market when he travelled abroad? Why did he take a washing machine from me? Why did the president personally hand over my SLFP membership in 1994 at Rosmead Place before all the party stalwarts who are in cabinet today? I can go on and on. Just imagine what my plight would have been if I did not have this tape. Now, they are caught. Otherwise by now I would have been in deep trouble. I was once made a fall guy. Never again.

Q: Sanath went on national television on Tuesday and said the September 1997 discussion you referred to never took place and that the tape is a fake. What have you to say?

A: As I said earlier, the genuineness of the tape can be proved and I am prepared to give it to the president and Sanath, if an agreement can be reached with my lawyers to play it on national television unedited. What can he do but deny it? But now he has, through the Rupavahini, lied to the whole nation. If you saw his face on television, you would have seen he is a man tormented. Because he knew he was lying.

After all why was Gamini Rajanayake, who is even today doing the rounds with Sanath given a licence without any credentials? Just ask yourself that question. Why was he given 15 per cent of a company without bringing in one cent to the project? His contribution was the licence. And he was holding it according to Sanath on behalf of himself and the president. He was the `Ape Ekkenek' the president wanted according to Sanath.

Sanath who is now trying to project me in a bad light to save his neck must remember one particular incident that happened during the latter part of 1983. At that time, he was living with a famous actress and he was thrown out of her house. Then he called me and wanted me to pick him from Bambalapitiya drive. I brought him to Woodlands where I was staying and kept him for more than a week. Rukman Senanayake can vouch for that. That is the friendship we had.

Now, a Channel 9 cover-up

by

Sonali Samarasinghe

The policeman's lot is not always a happy one. Like a bullied child in pre-school it misguidedly feels it needs to do the bidding of the government in power. Take last week. The police department reverberated with shock after the supreme court found the CID to be gourmet cooks. The court found that those in the CID and its director and DIG no less, were quite capable of cooking up notes as much as any top class chef at the Oberoi was capable of effortlessly whipping up a souffle.

Now hot on the heels of this stunning judgment and indictment on the integrity of the police force comes the CID's involvement in the Ravi Wethasinghe affair. Their role in this whole sorry mess is at best dubious, but more of that later; to more pressing matters now.

The Sunday Leader received a press release by fax on 27.07.99 (Tuesday) from the Government Information Department purporting to be a press release by police headquarters. The heading said `Release by Police Headquartersš.'(PHQ).

It stated that on May 21,1999 Media Advisor to the President Sanath Gunetilleke wrote a letter to the PHQ stating that his name had been improperly used by certain newspapers with regard to a transaction which is alleged to have occurred between Ravi Wethasinghe and Lakshman Hulugalle. Gunetilleke had requested that a full investigation be conducted in order to ascertain the truth. Gunetilleke claims according to the release that he was criminally defamed by Leader Publications.

Subsequent to Mr. Gunetilleke's complaint to PHQ, the CID commenced investigations and questioned Ravi Wethasinghe. Wethasinghe made a complaint of cheating against Lakshman Hulugalle and claimed Hulugalle had defrauded him of sterling pounds 50,000 while assuring him it would be given to the SLFP fund.

The statement further states that in the course of the CID investigation, Hulugalle alleged that the money he took from Wethasinghe was handed over to Gunetilleke. It states the police has investigated this allegation fully but find on the evidence recorded that in fact a fraud to the tune of Rs. 50 million has been perpetrated by Hulugalle. The press release states categorically `There is no evidence whatsoever of any involvement of Mr. Sanath Gunetilleke."

It further states that the CID in the course of its investigation had reason to arrest Hulugalle and produce him before the Magistrate of Colombo where he was subsequently released on bail. (Please see box on page 13 for for full text of Police Hq press release).

The said press release has been sent on 27. 7. 99 (Tuesday) by the Government Information Department (GID) at 19.15 hrs. This fact is easily ascertainable by the strapline appearing on top of each fax sheet received.

So what is wrong with this picture painted by the government? Plenty we can tell you. And we will do so in point form.

(1) The Sunday Leader is in possession of a fax sent by the Press Secretary to President Kumaratunga from the presidential secretariat on 23. 7. 99 at 00:30 hrs. This is the Sinhala version of the very same press release which the national newspapers officially received from the GID on Tuesday 27. Even though the fax was sent on June 23, at the bottom of this fax the date is 27.7.99.

The implications are obvious. Here is a press release concocted, manufactured and engineered by the press department of the presidential secretariat. Even though the press release, purportedly by the police headquarters, has been sent on July 23, the date 27. 7. 99 in the Sinhala version seems to indicate that a press release of the same tenor and content and also translated into English was planned to be released on the date specified, to the newspapers.

Why will the police headquarters send press releases of its investigations from the presidential secretariat? They must have a fax machine of their own? Furthermore, it is a serious case of conflict of interest if such statements are made from the presidential secretariat when the alleged complainant is the media advisor to the president himself and when Hulugalle implicates Gunetilleke in his police statement by stating he was given 3.5 million rupees from Wethasinghe's monies deposited in Hulugalle's account.

(2) Neither of these press releases bear signatures of any kind. They both bear the date 27. 07. 99 and the English version also has the legend `Release No. 489' at the bottom.

(3) Take a good dekko at the very first paragraph of the press release. Purporting to be from PHQ it states that Gunetilleke wrote a letter on May 21, stating his name was improperly used by certain newspapers and that he was criminally defamed by Leader Publications which had published falsehoods about him in order to bring his name into disrepute.

Therefore the chief complaint in Gunetilleke's letter, going by the press release, seems to be against certain newspapers and more particularly against The Sunday Leader. Yet upto date The Sunday Leader has not been questioned in this regard. Nonetheless the CID darts over to Lakshman Hulugalle and elicits a statement from him.

(4) Remember that the Wethasinghe money of over rupees six million was deposited into Hulugalle's account not by Wethasinghe but by a third party - his fiancee. (Even if she did so on his instructions). Therefore it is this party that should have been questioned. Yet again it was Ravi Wethasinghe who was questioned and then in turn made a complaint of cheating against Hulugalle according to the press release. The role of the CID comes into question. Why did they choose to arrest Hulugalle on Wethasinghe's complaint for cheating when Wethasinghe was not the person who deposited money in Hulugalle's account?

Therefore Hulugalle could not have cheated Wethasinghe on the law. The complainant should have been the person who deposited the monies. The CID due to obvious external pressures has acted with indecent haste to arrest Hulugalle in an attempt to paint the media advisor lily white. And the figure the figure of Rs. 50 million is also a concoction having calculated 50,000 sterling pounds at the reate of Rs. 1000 rather than Rs. 100/pound.

(5) Very important to note is that this is a matter before court. It amounts to contempt by the CID if on 27. 7. 99 it releases a press statement clearing one party - Sanath Gunatilleke - from all blame. How can the CID find that there is no evidence against Sanath Gunetilleke when this very matter is before court? That is a matter for courts to decide especially as Hulugalle has implicated Gunetilleke in a damning manner in the whole scandal.

But the funny thing is this. Director CID C. K.Gajanayake totally denies any knowledge of such a press release and thereby denies having sent it. (See box). In fact when The Sunday Leader contacted the AG's department, a senior official also denied knowing anything about any such statement made by the police headquarters after consultation.

It would seem then that those cornered by the facts revealed in the media have, in order to draw a red herring across the whole sordid truth and confuse matters, made use of state machinery and in an allegedly fraudulent manner sent out press releases purportedly to be from police headquarters. However the director CID - and after all it is the CID that is investigating the Wethasinghe scandal - remains totally unaware of such a press release. Remember the statement isn't signed by anyone either.

Why is it that despite the conduct of her media advisor who has directly involved her in the Channel Nine deal in a manner that tantamounts to corruption, President Kumaratunga still chooses to turn a blind eye and refuses to take action against Gunetilleke even though called upon by her own ministers to do so?

The president revealed, as reported by this newspaper in one heated discussion two weeks ago with her ministers, that it was she who had wanted Sanath Gunetilleka to make a statement to the CID on the Ravi Wethasinghe issue.

"They (The Sunday Leader) have confused that issue with Channel Nine," the president said.

In reality we confused nothing. We were as clear as crystal on both matters. Even though state machinery is now being used to blow smoke screens and indeed to confuse the Wethasinghe and Channel Nine affair by Minister Samaraweera and Media Advisor Gunetilleke, the principle for them obviously being that all colours agree in the dark, we have long ago seen the light.

Wethasinghe sent money into Hulugalle's account according to Wethasinghe to be given for the SLFP campaign but according to Hulugalle to promote another bus deal. Hulugalle claims to have given Rs 3.5 million of this money to Gunetilleke to promote the deal. Gunetilleke denies getting any of it. That is the Wethasinghe scandal.

In 1996 Hulugalle brings a large television project to Sri Lanka with an Australian outfit Summit Media and seeks the help of Gunetilleke to obtain necessary approvals. Hulugalle promises him a part of the AUS$ one million promotional fee he would receive. In the damning tape now in our possession, Sanath implicates the president in the whole deal and talks of commissions and favours. That is the Channel Nine scandal.

"Statement constitutes contempt of court"

When The Sunday Leader contacted President's Counsel Daya Perera, lawyer for Lakshman Hulugalle, he had this to say on the purported PHQ press release.

" I am shocked that the police could have issued a statement like this at this stage, on the facts.

This matter is before court and it is highly improper and an abuse of power to issue a statement of this nature which is an interference with the independence of the judiciary. In my view it is a contempt of court. It is for the judge to decide on the facts of a case and not police headquarters. It smacks of a cover-up."

The Police Hq., press release

"On May 21, 1999, Mr. Sanath Gunetilleke , Media Advisor to Her Excellency the President wrote a letter to this office stating that his name has been improperly used by certain newspapers with regard to a transaction which is alleged to have occurred between Mr. Ravi Wethasinghe and Mr. Lakshman Hulugalle. Mr. Gunetilleke requested that a full investigation be conducted in order to ascertain the truth of this matter. Mr. Gunetilleke claims that he was criminally defamed by the Leader Publications which had published falsehoods about him in order to bring his name into disrepute.

Subsequent to Mr. Gunetilleke's complaint to police headquarters, the criminal investigations department commenced investigations. The following facts have been elucidated by the investigation.

On June 10, 1999. Mr. Ravi Wethasinghe, when questioned made a complaint of cheating against Mr. Lakshman Hulugalle. Mr. Wethasinghe claimed that Mr. Hulugalle had defrauded him of sterling pounds 50,000 claiming that it would be given to the Sri Lanka Freedom Party Fund.

This complaint was investigated by the CID. It has been established that Mr. Wethasinghe had transferred sums of money amounting to pounds 50,000 from a bank account in London to the personal account of Mr. Lakshman Hulugalle at the Bank of Ceylon, Colombo, in December 1998 and January 1999

It was further found that Mr. Hulugalle has employed a variety of dubious methods to elicit this money from Mr. Wethasinghe. For example, Mr. Hulugalle introduced two persons to Mr. Wethasinghe who Mr. Hulugalle claimed were a peon working in the president's office and a police officer attached to the presidential security division at Temple Trees. It has since been established that these individuals were impostors neither individual ever having been employed in the capacities that Mr. Hulugalle had claimed for them. Both were simply individuals known personally to Mr. Hulugalle; one from Kurunegala, is a relative of Mr. Hulugalle.

In the course of the investigation, Mr. Hulugalle alleged that the money he took from Mr. Wethasinghe was handed over to Mr. Sanath Gunetilleke. It has also been noted that some MPs of the United National Party have raised this matter in parliament. Police also investigated this allegation fully. The evidence recorded has revealed that a fraud to the tune of Rs. 50 million has been perpetrated by Mr. Hulugalle. There is no evidence whatsoever of any involvement of Mr. Sanath Gunetilleke.

The CID in the course of its investigation therefore had reason to arrest Mr. Hulugalle and produce him before the magistrate of Colombo. He was subsequently released on bail. The police is taking action to initiate legal procedure."

The Sunday Leader