I'm innocent, won't quit-Mendis
On the eve of a potentially explosive debate or perhaps non-debate
in parliament, former Minister Wijeyapala Mendis the man at the centre
of the controversy is insisting he is innocent and won't quit while being
confident his party will stand by him fully. Mr. Mendis told The Sunday
Times in an interview that the charges against him were nonsense and if
the commission felt the transaction was dubious it should have made charges
against the then minister E.L. Senanayake and S. Thondaman. Excerpts from
the interview:
By Roshan Peiris
Mendis: "I would like to take her to courts for this"
Q: Many UNPers say your presence is causing much embarrassment to
the party and that in the greater interest of the party, you should step
down. You can if you have the support of your electorate regain your seat
as an MP later.
A: I do not accept the Commission's report. Nor does my party.
The Report was published just before the local council elections. It is
signed by only two of the three commissioners. Why? If powers had been
abused by me, why has one of the commissioner not signed the report? If
the commission wanted to charge anybody it should have charged Ministers
E.L. Senanayake and S. Thondaman. Why should I step down? If I do so it
could be seen as an admission of guilt. Others both in the Government and
the Opposition also were involved in land deals and so why have I been
singled out? It is because a person who was earlier a Deputy Minister and
now a Minister, is gunning for me. But I won't mention names.
Q: Are you saying you are not guilty of depriving the state of millions
by using influence to exchange a paddy and shrub land for a prime coconut
land?
A: I paid the difference in value as estimated by the then Chief
Government Valuer.
Q: But the Commission says that you had paid less than a lakh when
the value was more than 26 lakhs.
A: Nonsense. A new valuer comes to the Commission and gives those
figures which I do not accept. I feel he was prejudiced.
Q: Why?
A: Perhaps he was about to retire and was expecting an extension.
Q: If you had such good reasons as you say why didn't you testify
before the commission?
A: There was no reason for me to testify when the Commission
half way through the proceedings said we could get back to the previous
status quo that is re-exchange the land and that the matter would end.
That was its suggestion. If I was guilty of the abuse of power why did
the commission suggest this? I decided from the very inception that the
Commission to try me was not right.
The transaction took place ten years ago and the chief valuer who gave
the assessment at that time did not give evidence before the commission.
Q: But the Commission says your land at Anuradha–pura had no irrigation
facilities and cultivation was totally dependent on rain water. Also at
the time you exchanged it, only ten acres of that land were under cultivation.
And there was no seed paddy project.
A: My land was good paddy land and I did sell seed paddy. Those
who bought my paddy will testify. What's wrong with productive paddy land.
I also challenge the claim that the land at Dankotuwa was prime coconut
land. How can it be so when the coconut land was some sixty seven years
old except for eight acres which were forty to forty five years old? My
paddy land was more valuable.
Q: But the Dankotuwa land had belonged to a sterling Company incorporated
in London and was vested in the LRC from October 1975. So don't you think
the land had much value as stated by the commission?
A: The land was more than sixty years old and the adjoining land
of fifteen acres was also sold to a Mr. Wickrematunga.
Q: Is it correct that you wanted to sell 15 acres of jungle land
at rupees five thousand per acre and 11 acres of shrub land at Rs. 3, 500
per acre and fifty acres of paddy land, at 17, 500 per acre?
A: Why should I not sell? If it was wrong, as I said before,
then the then Minister of Agriculture and lands and the Minister of Livestock
Development should be charged and asked to explain.
Q: Does your party fully support you?
A: Yes, The party as a matter of principle policy cannot accept
these commission reports because we feel they are means of mud slinging.
It is a politically motivated tactic. After all the UN government did it
to Mrs. Bandaranaike.
Q: So do you think that was wrong?
A: Possibly wrong, This government sought to nullify that and
now it is trying the same tactics to deprive me of my civic rights.
Q: So what is your counteraction? Are you going to courts.
A: No, I won't go to courts but let the government get the two
thirds majority to deprive me of my seat in Parliament and Civic Rights.
It is a joke, the government will never get a two thirds majority. This
action is being taken against me because the UNP is going all out against
corruption in the PA government. I am not thirsty for land.
I own thousand acres of ancestral land in Madampe, Chilaw. My father
was a bus magnate and my father-in-law is also one, the famous Ebert Silva.
I too own two bus companies, Vijaya bus Company and the Kelani Valley Motor
Transit. That is how I made my money not by corrupt means. My party will
soon make a decision as to how we will work out our stand in Parliament.
Recently in Kandy the President has alleged that I together with D.B.
Wijetunga paid Rs. 2.5 million for a bus when the cost was really one million.
I was supposed to have done this when I was Transport Minister.
I would like to take her to courts for this but, she is protected by
Presidential immunity. But I must say she is slinging mud and making false
allegations.
|
