Senior Additional Solicitor General Dappula de Livera PC the chief counsel of the Attorney General’s Department before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry probing the treasury bond scam yesterday said that he could not agree with the Commission’s decision not to compel the owner of Perpetual Treasuries Ltd Arjuna Aloysius to give evidence before the commission.
“We do not agree with the Commission’s decision not to compel Aloysius to give evidence. I have explained the necessity of obtaining a statement from Arjun Aloysius. This decision overlooking the matters presented before the Commission is an arbitrary one,” Livera PC said.
Livera PC said that he was stating the opinion of the Attorney General on the issue.
The Senior Additional Solicitor General said that he would not make any further statements on the issue and the future course of action with regard to the matter would be decided after a discussion with the Attorney General and that would be conveyed to the Commission.
The Senior Additional Solicitor General said so following a statement made before the Commission by Gamini Marapana appearing for Arjun Aloysius.
When the Commission resumed sittings yesterday, the Chairman of the Commission Supreme Court Judge KT Chitrasiri queried from Marapana whether the latter’s client would give evidence before the Commission or not and what was his standpoint over the matter.
Marapana: There is no change in the decision we had made in this regard. Arjuna Aloysius would not give evidence before the Commission. He does not want to give evidence before the Commission.
The Commission had summoned Aloysius to give him an opportunity to state his version with regard to some issues that transpired at the sessions, Marapana said adding that his client however changed his mind and decided not to give evidence after considering the advise given by him.
Marapana PC said that he appreciated the latest decision by the Commission not to compel Aloysius to appear before the Commission. Marapana said that the Commission’s ruling was exemplary and the landmark ruling would be very useful for lawyers and judges in the future.