BATTLE ON!

By  The Nation-Sunday, 08 June 2014

Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu | Uvindu Kurukulasuriya | Sanjana Hattotuwa

Accountability vs Pilfering

The Center for Policy Alternatives (CPA), a prominent civil society organization spearheading calls for transparency and justice is embroiled in controversy following allegations of financial misconduct and verbal abuse by one of its Directors SanjanaHattotuwa who is also the Editor of the website Groundviews.

It all began when Colombo Telegraph (CT) published a story alleging that Sanjana Hattotuwa, of Groundviews, a website funded by the CPA, had ‘asked the coordinator of CPA’s Media Unit to put down expenses incurred at Galery Café as “travel expenses”.’  CT charged that Hattotuwa had requested a cash payment on this occasion.  The total cost of the meal, CT claims, stood at Rs 20,865.  

In the same post, CT referred to another incident involving Hattotuwa where he is accused of verbally abusing a female co-worker. In that instance, CPA’s Board of Directors, CT claims, wanted Hattotuwa sacked but that CPA’s Executive Director, Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu had interceded to obtain a lesser punishment, that of removing Hattotuwa from the ‘Senior Management’.

Hattotuwa had responded to questions put to him by CT prior to this story being posted by saying ‘I have no idea what you are referring to. Suggest you directly contact and question CPA’s Executive Director in this regard, CC’d to this email.’  Saranavamauttu responded with a ‘no’ to the question as to whether he was aware of any such transgression.  

After CT published the story on the website, Hattotuwa wrote a response in Groundviews, insinuating that CT’s Uvindu Kurukulasuriya had a long-standing grudge against him (Hattotuwa).  CT, in responding to Hattotuwa, stated that Hattotuwa had not responded to the questions put to him and instead talked about other matters.  CT repeated its questions to Hattotuwa.  

Interestingly, in Hattotuwa’s piece in Groundviews he claims that Kurukulasuriya had brought up the issue of financial misconduct many years ago in an email exchange that Kurukulasuriya had with a unit coordinator and the Executive Director.  Kurukulasuriya claims that Hattotuwa was part of that exchange.  What is pertinent is that Hattotuwa’s claim clearly contradicts Saravanamuttu, who feigned ignorance about any such matter.  In other words, he was aware of what CT was talking about, which of course does not necessarily mean he was guilty of such transgression.

The Nation questioned Hattotuwa and Executive Director of CPA, Dr. PakiasothySaravanamuttu on the issue. Both however were cautious in their responses. In his response to The Nation, Hattotuwa vehemently denied he was guilty of any financial misconduct.

Saravanamuttu, for his part stated that the CPA would probe into the issue of alleged financial misconduct by Hattotuwa if there was hard evidence. He stated that the proof published on Colombo Telegraph was not strong enough as it did not give a date and also sis not indicate that the bills were that of Hattotuwa.  

What is interesting is that the CPA, on an earlier occasion, decided to inquire into allegations of fraud involving another Director, Sunanda Deshapriya with action being taken only when the ‘hard evidence’ was obtained subsequent to questioning several employees including Manjula Wediwardena, Athula Withanage and Chanaka Krishantha.  As of now the CPA does not seem inclined to sanction a similar inquiry against Hattotuwa.  Several members of the Board when questioned by The Nation flatly refused to comment, stating that such questions should be asked from Saravanamuttu.  In Deshapriya’s case, the CPA explained in a media release that he was removed due to ‘lack of clarity in financial transactions’ when in fact there was nothing vague, unclear or oblique in what Deshapriya did – he robbed money and when found out was forced to leave after pocketing out the relevant amount.

“If there is hard evidence, we would not hesitate to probe into the issue and take necessary actions regarding the issue,” he said.  The Nation hopes that the CPA Board of Directors will issue a directive to dig up all the relevant documents, questions all relevant individuals and see if there’s any ‘hard evidence’.  The Nation is confident that Hattotuwa, given his emphatic claim of innocence will demand that such an investigation be conducted.

Saravanamuttu adds that the said allegation was based on an incident that had reportedly occurred several years ago. When questioned whether the CPA would solicit evidence from officials who handle accounts, he stated that they would have to locate the said bills in order to look into the matter.  Fair enough.  The Nation is hopeful that Saravanamuttu will leave no stone unturned to clear Hattotuwa’s name.  

As of now, though, we can’t help wondering whether Saravanamuttu is playing favorites here. Is the CPA’s Board of Directors comfortable about the violation of the principle of equality?  Is the Board of Directors not perturbed by the seriousness of these allegations especially given the fact that CPA, Saravanamuttu and Hattotuwa are wont to lecture everyone on accountability, transparency and if necessary on sexism and sexual harassment in the work place?  If their operative principle with respect to all things, ‘ask Saravanamuttu’?  Are they beholden to the Executive Director in some way? Are they puppets whose strings are at Saravanamuttu’s disposal to pull or relax?

Hattotuwa was earlier embroiled in allegations that he had abused a female colleague in foul language.  Hattotuwa, when questioned about this, states ‘A response reg. this incident has already been given by Dr. Saravanamuttu to the media. I have nothing further to add’ (see Box for his response to relevant questions).  Surely, Hattotuwa knows whether or not he used foul language on a female co-worker?  Has he appointed his own Executive Director as his official spokesperson?  Has Saravanamuttu resolved to protect Hattotuwa at all costs in a way that he did not protect Deshapriya?  We don’t know.

Saravanamuttu’s response is predictable: ‘it is an internal matter and therefore was dealt internally’.  He does not say ‘No, Hattotuwa didn’t abuse the lady’.  He does not say ‘Hattotuwa did abuse the lady but we settled it amicably’.  The cagey nature of his response is telling though!