By Our Defence Correspondent
Startling allegations were made in the Court of Appeal this week against Navy Commander Vice Admiral Daya Sandagiri, by four Rear Admirals and Commodores who have filed a case against him, including the Chief of Staff Rear Admiral Mohan Wijewickrema.

The officers have charged in written submissions to the court, that Sandagiri cancelled a US dollars 19.776 million (approximately 1.9 billion rupees) deal for two Fast Gunboats from China within eight days of becoming the Navy Commander, only to one week later recommend the purchase of three warships worth US $ 69.97 million (approximately seven billion rupees) from Colombo Dockyard and from India!

"The recommendation made by 1st Respondent (Sandagiri) to purchase vessels worth US $ 69.97 million is highly questionable and suspicious," the Rear Admirals have said.

The four Rear Admirals have pointed out that Sandagiri in his letter cancelling the Chinese order on January 8, 2001, he had said that he was doing so due to "severe financial constraints in the navy," but that seven days later, on January 15, 2001, he had recommended in writing that warships worth US $ 69.97 million be purchased. They included two warships (Offshore Patrol Vessels) from Colombo Dockyard at US $ 13.35 million each, and a large warship (Advanced Offshore Patrol Vessel) from India at US $ 43.49 million.

"The price of an Offshore Patrol Vessel was US $ 3.44 million more than the price of a Fast Gunboat, although the specifications and capabilities of both vessels are similar," the officers said.

The entire legal battle began when Sandagiri made allegations of improprieties against the four officers, who were on a committee that evaluated the Chinese offer during the tenure of the last Navy Commander, Vice Admiral Cecil Tissera, who recommended that they be purchased. The allegations that the officers recommended a purchase price that Sandagiri said was too high were inquired into by a high-powered Defence Ministry committee, which found no wrongdoing. However, Sandagiri persisted in asking the Ministry to take disciplinary action against the officers, and his letter was published in a newspaper within weeks of his impending retirement last August.

"Despite the long negotiations, the petitioner (Wijewickrema) has failed and/or neglected to negotiate and obtain the best possible pricing in the interest of the Sri Lanka Navy of which he is a flag rank officer... the petitioner has not offered any satisfactory explanation for such a monumental increase in cost...the petitioner has been negligent in accepting the reasons given for escalation of prices... negligence by such senior officers affects discipline and morale in the navy and it is for this reason that I have recommended appropriate action to be taken," Sandagiri’s objections state.

Sandagiri was given an unprecedented 3-year extension of service, which has caused much dismay among other senior officers who would now have to retire prematurely. There is suspicion in the navy and among the other armed forces that someone with a vested interest in the navy commander stakes, leaked the letter to the newspaper.

However, the four Rear Admirals’ case against Sandagiri is not regarding his extension, but against the letter that he wrote, which they say damaged their reputations.

Defence Minister Tilak Marapana’s hopes that the vicious battle in the navy could be resolved, disappeared over the last few weeks with Sandagiri refusing to back down and making counter charges against his Rear Admirals in his written objections. The officers then filed counter-objections which included details of the US $ 69.97 million Colombo Dockyard deal.

Sandagiri has asserted that his letter to the Ministry requesting disciplinary action against the four officers was not improper. The four officers say it was.

The claims and counter-claims between the two sides show vast differences of opinion on the prices and qualities of warships, which is baffling, considering that all of them are very senior officers who should know all about such matters.

A crucial aspect of the drama is Sandagiri’s assertion that a modern gunfire control system for the Chinese warships would cost less than one million dollars, and therefore the price of the gunboats was too high, and the Rear Admirals’ assertion that it would cost about three million dollars and that the cost is therefore realistic. They state that the price of a similar fire control system in the Offshore Patrol Vessels from Colombo Dockyard, recommended by Sandagiri, was US $ 4 million. Another fire control system recommended by Sandagiri for another warship, SLNS Sayura, is US $ 3 million, they state. They also charge that when Wijewickrema wrote to Sandagiri asking for documents regarding the Sayura’s system, he refused to make them available.

Sandagiri, in his objections, has stated that warships almost identical to the Chinese ones were purchased in 1994 for only one third the price, and that improvements to the design and capabilities of the ships did not justify the increase in price. The four Rear Admirals say that the 1994 ships are Fast Patrol Boats and are nothing like the ones that were to be purchased which are Fast Gunboats, and have accused Sandagiri of misleading the court.

The price of another small warship (Landing Ship Tank) which was also offered by the Chinese company at US $ 4.4 million, has also come under focus, with Sandagiri saying it should have cost a maximum of US $ 3.4 million, and the Rear Admirals accusing him of misleading the court by concealing the fact that there had been an offer higher to that by another Chinese company.

Even the nature and ownership of the Chinese company, China Xinshidai Corporation, is being disputed, with the four Rear Admirals saying that it is part of the People’s Liberation Army of China and therefore owned by the government of the People’s Republic of China; and Sandagiri calling it "a trading company."

The bitterness of the battle is shown by the fact that it is even disputed as to who was in charge of the navy at different times. An issue under dispute is whether Wijewickrema ever served in the capacity of "Acting Commander of the Navy" when Sandagiri was abroad. Sandagiri says he has not. The four Rear Admirals say Sandagiri is misleading the court and has given a document to show that Wijewickrema was given the acting appointment by the president.

Even President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s name has been dragged into this case. Sandagiri has described some parts of Wijewickrema’s writ application to be "grossly irresponsible" and "in contempt not only of the Commander of the Navy but in contempt of the decision by the Commander-in- Chief, the President of the Republic who as Head of State has appointed the Commander of the Navy. This statement is also irresponsible as it has potential to affect the morale of the navy at a critical time for the nation." Wijewickrema and the three other officers have denied this in their counter-objections.

Who authorized the purchase is yet another item under dispute. Sandagiri says the procedure was improper because there was no Technical Evaluation Committee and that it was the four officers who had a major hand in this purchase. The four officers have forwarded documents to say that the purchase was fully approved by the Ministry of Defence on the recommendation of then commander Vice Admiral Tissera.

The four officers have counter-charged that there was no Technical Evaluation Committee or tender in the recommendation to purchase the three warships from India and Colombo Dockyard for US 69 million.

The case has been fixed for argument in mid January, following the court vacation.