The matter regarding the foot notes appended by certain COPE committee members when finalizing its report on the Central Bank Treasury Bond issue, resurfaced yesterday when JVP MP Sunil Handunnetti was testifying before the Presidential Commission.
MP Handunnetti, the Chairman of the second COPE sub-committee that looked into the Treasury Bond issue, was questioned by the Commission as to who included the foot notes to the said report and what caused those members to take such an action.
MP Handunnetti said there was a disagreement between the COPE members on a certain explanation included in the report. “These members did not agree with the explanation that a loss is incurred when a Treasury Bond issuance is done with a discount. The disagreement was only based on this explanation. Other than this matter, all the COPE members agreed with all the conclusions and recommendations given in the report,” he explained.
MP Handunnetti also said he considered the possibility of issuing a dissenting report due to this disagreement. “A dissenting report could only be prepared only if there is a clear opposing group making objections to the findings and recommendations in a report. Since the members agreed with all of them and only had a minor disagreement with a technical explanation, we did not go for a dissenting report,” he said.
Asked as to who he recommends to be summoned to the Commission to explain the rationale behind the foot notes, MP Handunnetti said he cannot pinpoint a single person out of the nine members who agreed with them. However, Handunnetti said Dr. Harsha de Silva, who was appointed to document the foot notes in the report, will be able to give an explanation as his educational qualifications also complements to the understanding of the matter.
An objection was made by legal Counsel Chanaka de Silva when Handunnetti was referring to a letter sent by the Central Bank regarding the foot notes while answering a question posed by President’s Counsel Nihal Fernando.
De Silva said, the Central Bank’s clarification letter on the foot notes was at a later stage was withdrawn by its sender.
Fernando PC asked if the COPE committee report is solely based on the Auditor General’s report on the same matter, and Handunnetti said it was one main document on which the COPE relied on.
Fernando PC asked, whether the COPE committee considered the loss calculation done by the Auditor General when forming the COPE report, and Handunnetti said of several calculation results provided in the report, they accepted the one that calculates an immediate loss of Rs. 688.536 million.
Handunnetti requested the Presidential Commission inquiring into the treasury bond issue to take COPE report’s recommendations into consideration when preparing its report.
Meanwhile, speaking to media after testifying before the Commission, MP Handunnetti said he hopes the Commission would give the necessary legal empowerment to the recommendations mentioned in the COPE report via its report.