In terms of Article 126 any application on the infringement of FR should be made within one month of the violation-in this case before May 11, 2003, as the now annulled transaction had been finalised on April 11, 2003.

Justice Nimal Gamini Amarathunga who wrote the over 60 page judgment with Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva and Justice K. Sivaparan agreeing said that petitioners, Vavudeva Nanayakkara and two ex-SLIC employees, couldn’t have known the transaction before the COPE revelation four years later.

The Supreme Court asserted that a FR application could be filed regardless of Article 126 after a violation had come to the public domain.

The then COPE chairman Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe tabled his report which dealt with 24 public enterprises, including SLIC, in Parliament on January 12, 2007. The petitioners based their FR application on COPE findings.

Rajapakshe told The Sunday Island that SC judgments on SLIC and Lanka Marine Services Limited (LMSL) transactions, also finalised during the then UNF administration, were evidence of accurate investigations undertaken by COPE. The 31-member parliamentary watchdog committee comprised members of all parties represented in Parliament.

The National List MP said that the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption should now go after the persons involved in transactions annulled by the Supreme Court.

According to COPE, a steering committee to handle the sale of 90 per cent of shares of the SLIC had been appointed by the then UNF Minister Milinda Moragoda on January 21, 2002 without Cabinet approval. Moragoda switched his allegiance to President Mahinda Rajapaksa shortly after the last presidential election in November 2005.

The steering committee had appointed Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC), Indonesia in collaboration with PWC, Sri Lanka, as a consultant to the Sri Lankan government for a fee of USD 1.6 million without obtaining Cabinet approval, COPE said. The appointment had been made on April 10, 2002.

By the time Cabinet granted approval on April 18 to set up a Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC), PWC had been picked.

Although Cabinet had approved the appointment of a TEC by the then Treasury chief Charitha Ratwatte, it had rejected Ratwatte’s request to allow him to appoint a Tender Board. COPE said that Cabinet wanted to appoint a Tender Board.

Ignoring Cabinet directive, the Treasury chief had caused the then Deputy Secretary to the Treasury to appointed a CATB (Cabinet Appointed Tender Board) with him as its head.

The TEC had recommended the sale of 90 per cent of shares to a consortium comprising Distilleries Company Limited, Aitken Spence Insurance (Pvt) Limited together with Technical Parties, ING Institutional and Government Advisory Service BV (Holland) on March 25, 2003. The CATB, too, endorsed TEC recommendations on the same day.

After receiving Cabinet approval two days later, the ‘shares sale and purchase agreement’ had been signed on April 11, 2003, with two offshore companies which hadn’t been even bidders. The agreement with Milford Holdings (Pvt) Limited and Greenfield Pacific EM Holdings (Pvt) Limited had been finalised on un-audited accounts.

Alleging that accounts had been adjusted, COPE blamed Ernst and Young auditors and PWC for what it called fraudulent conduct.

According to the COPE report obtained by The Sunday Island, Deva Rodrigo, senior partner of PWC had been a member of Moragoda’s steering committee that selected PWC as consultants to the Sri Lankan government. Aneela de Soysa, director PERC and member of the steering committee had joined the PWC in March 2003 as a partner.

The Ethics Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, after preliminary inquiries recommended the appointment of a disciplinary committee to probe what COPE called professional misconduct by PWC and Ernest and Young.