http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/04/11/news01.asp


External Affairs Ministry apprises diplomatic community :
Gunaratnam abduction, a farce
* Reappears and deported
* Object-to target SL in international fora
Frontline Socialist Party leader Premakumar Gunaratnam who is alleged to have
been abducted by the state reappeared yesterday morning and in fact was deported
from Sri Lanka because his stay in the country was in breach of Sri Lanka’s
immigration laws and therefore illegal. Ms Dimuthu Attygalle who similarly is
said to have been abducted had also reappeared .
Dubious
- Changed his name three times
- Doubt on reliability, trustworthiness of
version of the events
- Visa had expired five months ago
- Not lived with his family since November 7,
2006
Minister G. L.
Peiris
Issuing a media release the External Affairs Ministry states that while the
government is responsive to constructive criticism, it is important that
allegations of a volatile nature should be based on facts properly ascertained
and objectively assessed. Whenever a person chooses to withdraw from the
community for personal reasons, or with the deliberate intention of causing
embarrassment to the government,
it is grossly unfair to arrive at the conclusion that there has been an
abduction and to point a finger at the State.
This has happened on many occasions and now seems to reflect a recurring
pattern.
The objective of this is clearly to target Sri Lnaka in international fora on
the flimsiest of evidence.
What is lacking by way of evidence seems to be amply compensated by emotion,
surmise and invective. The government asks nothing more than that objectivity
and basic fairness should be the criteria governing reactions to these
irresponsible and malicious campaigns. The releases also states; the External
Affairs Ministry wishes to inform diplomatic missions in the country of several
matters relating to the sequence of events involving Premkumar Gunaratnam and
Dimuthu Attygalle.
These events have been the subject of extensive media attention during the
last few days. Statements with regard to the matter have captured headlines in
the media and have been the subject of vigorous comment by leaders of political
parties, academics and civil society activists. All these persons have united in
making a variety of grave allegations, the gist of which is to impute
responsibility to the government for an alleged abduction.
Gunaratnam has now re-appeared and has in fact been deported from Sri Lanka
because his stay in this country was in breach of Sri Lanka’s Immigration laws
and therefore illegal. Attygalle has also re-appeared.
The ministry wishes to emphasize to the diplomatic community the following
aspects of the situation :
(a) It appears that Premkumar Gunaratnam has changed his name three times.
The first name, Wanninayake Mudiyanselage Daskon, appears in his marriage
certificate. A different name, Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Dayalal, is used in the
passport which he obtained from this country. Yet another name, Noel Mudalige,
was used when he obtained the Australian passport which he produced on his
arrival in Sri Lanka on September 4, 2011.
(b) Other circumstances relating to his previous history, which are clearly
relevant in assessing the credibility of his statements, will be communicated to
the Australian High Commission in Colombo. These are circumstances which have
come to light in the course of detailed interrogation by the Police, who have
questioned Gunaratnam and members of his family.
(c) There are many features relating to the alleged abduction which throw
considerable doubt on the reliability and trustworthiness of the version of the
events which have been released to the media. For example, the abduction of
Gunaratnam is alleged to have occurred at 4.00 am on April 7, 2012. A complaint
to the Police in this regard was made only at 4.10 pm in the afternoon. There
was a lapse of 12 hours.
(d) With regard to Dimuthu Attygalle, the abduction was alleged to have taken
place at 8.00 pm on April 6, 2012. However, the complaint with regard to this
matter was made to the Police only at 3.35 pm on the following day, April 7,
2012. The interval was therefore almost a full day. It is quite obvious that a
genuine abduction would have been reported to the Police far more swiftly.
(e) The story of Gunaratnam stands entirely on its own without corroboration
in any manner whatsoever. It suffers from a series of infirmities which
significantly detract from its credibility. For example, although there is clear
evidence that elaborate arrangements were made by his political group in respect
of his security, which had been entrusted in particular to a definite person, it
is claimed that at the time of the alleged abduction, he was occupying a room in
the upstair portion of a partly constructed house, which had not been inhabited
for a long period.
(f) Gunaratnam’s wife who made several public statements about his alleged
abduction, had stated categorically to the Police that she had not lived with
her husband since November 7, 2006 and had no knowledge of his whereabouts.
(g) It is quite clear that Gunaratnam was staying in this country illegally
for more than five months. His visa had expired five months ago.
(h) It is evident even at a glance that there are significant discrepancies
between the versions of Gunaratnam and Attygalle.
The External Affairs Ministry wishes to state that, while the government is
responsive to constructive criticism, it is important that allegations of a
volatile nature should be based on facts properly ascertained and objectively
assessed. Whenever a person chooses to withdraw from the community for personal
reasons, or with the deliberate intention of causing embarrassment to the
government, it is grossly unfair to arrive at the conclusion that there has been
an abduction and to point a finger at the State.
This has happened on many occasions and now seems to reflect a recurring
pattern. The objective of this is clearly to target Sri Lanka in international
fora on the flimsiest of evidence. What is lacking by way of evidence seems to
be amply compensated by emotion, surmise and invective. The government asks
nothing more than that objectivity and basic fairness should be the criteria
governing reactions to these irresponsible and malicious campaigns.