|
 |
|
| For defamation over Sirasa TV: Karannagoda claims Rs 500 m from Fonseka |
Dec 30, 2009
Source: DN |
Former Navy Commander and presently National Security Advisor and Highways and Road Development Ministry Secretary Wasantha Karannagoda has sent a letter of demand to presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka claiming Rs 500 million as damages for defamation in an interview given by the latter to Sirasa TV wherein he had made false statements against him (Karannagoda) to bring him into ridicule, disrepute and contempt in the eyes of the public.
The letter of demand sent through Attorney-at-Law Athula De Silva demands that the said sum be paid within 14 days failing which legal action would be instituted to recover the said Rs 500 million.
The Attorney-at-Law has on the instructions of the former Navy Commander has highlighted those utterances made in the interview as being intentional and malicious which has tarnished the good name, reputation and public image of his client causing him irreparable loss and damage .
They are:
a. when my client was asked to leave the uniform in 48 hours, he cried, truly, like a small child;
b. when my client was asked to leave in 48 hours he cried;
c. when my client was given a bogus letter purportedly appointing him as National Security Advisor (NSA) or something similar by the President, he took it with one hand, without even extending both hands;
d. The President got angry and shouted and scolded my client (when he said that the President has done him an injustice) and when my client was crying, the Secretary Defence took him to a room in the President’s house and scolded him saying that he has stayed enough and that he (thamuse) should leave now.
e. In contrast, you did not cry when you were asked to hand over the Army and had you been subjected to such indignities you would not have remained in public service.
The lawyers said he was instructed by his client to state “that the aforesaid statement made by you is per se defamatory of him and: It is false and false to your knowledge;
“It also is intended to bring my client to hatred, ridicule, disrepute and contempt in the eyes of the public.
It is a false, contrived and jealous attempt to embellish your rapidly fading public image vis-a-vis my client by a false comparison of yourself with my client in a bid to give vent to your personal venom against my client;
The remarks were also a vicious, diabolical, and a vengeful attempt to tarnish the public image of his client and to portray him as a weakling prone to emotion, cringing and grovelling before authority quite unbecoming of the Head of the Navy (as he then was);
e) is intended to portray to the authorities and to the public of this country that his client is a shameless person without any self respect, and unfit to hold a position of high responsibility in public life; and
f) the utterances was also intended to damage the high standing, regard, and respect my client commands in the country and also with His Excellency the President, the Defence Secretary, the Service Chiefs, the defence establishment and the public service.
Source of the article
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
