Navin’s reply to tea land deal: None of our business
Even as Geof Aloysius walked free from his remand cell after being released on bail for his alleged role in the bond scam, this Thursday in Parliament, Minister of Plantation rose to answer a question posed to him after last week’s Sunday Punch exposure of the seemingly dubious handover of a 450 acre state owned tea estate to Geoff Aloysius and son Arjun on a thirty-year lease until 2046 for a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000.
This is his reply:
“The issue about the Tea estate given to Aloysius has been raised several times. Geoffrey Aloysius’ father formed the Mathurata Plantation company in 1991. In 2016 the Mahathudugala estate was suffering losses upto Rs 24 million . The Mathurata Plantation company and the Serendib company did a business of carbonic tea. Gefforey George Aloysius at this point had joint as a partner of the Serendib company. The Mahathudugala estate has 252 Ha. Only one of the bungalows of the estate had been leased out for the use of the Manager. The rest of the estate was under the plantation company. The agreement was under the plantation company and the JEDB. All the government dealings were between the JEDB and Mathurata plantations. Therefore, this is a sub-lease. Mathurata has given a sub-lease to Serendib. Therefore the government is not involved. During my period the sub lease system has been scrapped. The Serendib has agreed to pay the lease money to the Mahathudugala estate. Therefore this is a private transaction between two companies and the government is not involved in it.”
However further questions remain to be answered.
First: When did Mathurata Plantations sub lease the estate to Aloysius Serendib company? The date mentioned is September 26th 2015 just three weeks after Navin Dissanayakake was appointed as the Minister.
Second: It is generally a standard clause in lease agreements that the demised premises will not be sub let to anyone without the express written consent of the landlord. If it was a private land owned by the Minister, it is no one’s right or business to question. But in this case, it is state owned land belonging to the people of this country in the custody of the Plantation Ministry. Is the Minister saying that for nearly four years he was unaware that such a valuable 450 acre estate had been sub let to another?
Third: Is the Minister also implying it is not the business of the government to monitor the progress of state owned tea land – tea being a traditional foreign exchange money spinner – and looks askance to whatever dealings the tenant enters into with another party, even in breach of the original lease agreement?
Mr. Dissanayake’s brief answer in Parliament raises more questions. And the owners of the land, namely, the people of Lanka, deserve a better answer than for the minister to merely say “this is a private transaction between two companies and the government is not involved in it.”