Foreign missions briefed .
Daily Mirror Tuesday, 10 April 2012 17:56
The External Affairs Ministry informed all the diplomatic missions based in Colombo today thatKumar Gunaratnam was deported from Sri Lanka because his stay in the country was in breach of
immigration laws.
Issuing statement, the Ministry said Mr. Gunaratnam had now re-appeared and had 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.
Following is the letter sent to the diplomatic missions in Sri Lanka:
The Ministry wishes to emphasize to the diplomatic community the following aspects of the
situation:
It appears that Mr. 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 4th September 2011.
(a) 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 Mr. Gunaratnam and members of his
family.
(b) 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 Mr. Gunaratnam is alleged to have occurred at 4.00 a.m. on
7th April 2012. A complaint to the Police in this regard was made only at 4.10 p.m. in the
afternoon. There was a lapse of 12 hours.
(c) With regard to Ms. Dimuthu Attygalle, the abduction was alleged to have taken place at 8.00
p.m. on 6th April 2012. However, the complaint with regard to this matter was made to the
Police only at 3.35 p.m. on the following day, 7th April 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.
(d) The story of Mr. 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.
(e) Mr. 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 7th November
2006 and had no knowledge of his whereabouts.
(f) It is quite clear that Mr. Gunaratnam was staying in this country illegally for more than 5
months. His visa had expired 5 months ago.
(g) It is evident even at a glance that there are significant discrepancies between the versions
of Mr. Gunaratnam and Ms. Attygalle.
The Ministry of External Affairs 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.
