The sacking of DG, UDA -“Minister Prasanna Ranatunga is doing politics in the backdrop of a Presidential Election” – Prasad Ranaweera Ex UDA DG

---

 

---

• They appointed me and sacked me in a wrongful manner
•  According to the Urban Development Act, the Minister doesn’t have powers to sack me

 

By Prageeth Sampath Karunathilaka

 

The following is an interview conducted with the Urban Development Authority (UDA) Director General Prasad Ranaweera, who was recently sacked by the Minister of Urban Development and Housing Prasanna Ranatunga. Excerpts:

 

Q: The Secretary of the Ministry of Urban Development and Lands issued a notice which states that you were sacked from your position due to alleged misconduct. What is the reason behind this decision? 

This is my fifth year of service as UDA Director General. But according to the Act the Director General can serve in his position only for three years. This appointment is made by the subject minister. But just because a Director General is being appointed, the minister doesn’t have the authority to sack or remove an individual from this position. 

 

Q: But according to the Secretary, this removal was done by the Minister as per the powers vested upon him in Section (13)1 of the Act?

There are powers vested upon the Minister when appointing a Director General, but the Act doesn’t mention any powers vested upon the Minister to remove or sack a Director General. If the Director General is removed they have to issue a charge sheet proving serious charges against the individual. Thereafter an inquiry has to be conducted. If the individual proves guilty during this inquiry the Director General can be removed. 

 

Q: Then why were you sacked? 

This sacking is illegal. 

 

Q:  Were you against the provision of houses?

Not at all. These houses were given under the 2023 budget proposal. Here the UDA provided housing facilities and deeds for 14,542 urban slum dwellers. This had been happening since November 2023. The necessary plans were made and we had already submitted the deeds to be registered at the Land Registration Office. I worked closely with relevant ministries and departments during the issuance of these deeds. We planned to issue around 8000 deeds this year and in its first phase we planned to issue 500 deeds. 

 

Q:  If plans were in place what was the issue with the Minister?

There was no issue or fight with the Minister. The Minister had requested for some money from the UDA, but I gave my reasons as to why we cannot release the money. When I denied his request he scolded me in a very bad manner. 

 

Q: Why is the Minister requesting money from the UDA?

There was a question as to who would release money for stamp fees and other charges when issuing deeds released for urban slum dwellers. A cost of Rs. 1.6 billion is being charged as stamp fees to issue deeds for 7600 houses in the first phase. Notary charges would be around Rs. 125 million. Initially it was said that this money would be released by the Treasury. Cabinet approval was issued around a year ago. But the Treasury hasn’t released this money yet. It is currently at the procurement stage. During a meeting held with the Finance Ministry Secretary on June 5, he requested to release these expenses to the Department of Provincial Revenue. But they haven’t received the money yet. 

 

Q: So why is the Minister scolding you for not releasing the money?

This is how it happened. Last week there was a meeting regarding this matter presided by Minister Prasanna Ranatunga. Officials from the Housing Development Authority, UDA, Urban Housing Authority and other related departments participated in it. During this meeting the Minister inquired into the progress on issuing deeds. Then I informed him that even though everything is in place to issue 500 deeds in stages the Department of Provincial Revenue had not yet received the expenses to be paid for stamp fees and other charges when issuing deeds. Thereafter the Minister requested me to release the total amount of money from the UDA account and to obtain this amount from the Treasury later on. 

 

Q: Can expenses be paid in this manner at the request of a Minister?

It cannot be done like that. During this meeting I explained how the UDA could bear these expenses. In this case the Treasury should send a letter to the Urban Development and Housing Ministry via the Finance Ministry Secretary stating that the Treasury would release the money once the UDA pays for these expenses. This is how at least a partial payment would be done. 

 

Q: Can a state department release its money for external use with a letter issued by the Finance Ministry Secretary?

The letter issued by the Finance Ministry should be submitted to the Board of Directors. But even through the Director Board, the accounts section cannot release this money. This is because we have already finalised accounts for 2024. These expenses don’t come under the purview of the UDA budget. Therefore this request has to be submitted to the Director Board. Therefore I informed the Minister to follow this procedure. 

 

Q: Did the Minister accept your explanation?

No. The Minister asked me to make this payment under the approval of the Board of Directors. But I turned down this request. I explained that if the Treasury doesn’t issue a letter and if the Director Board doesn’t sign their approval, everybody from the person who issued the voucher to the Finance Director, relevant officials and the Director General will be held responsible. The Chairman or Minister will not be caught in the process. I told him that we will have to take the responsibility for making this payment. Thereafter the Minister scolded me in filth and requested me to step down from the position. He scolded me in front of all other officials at the meeting. In this case the Minister is pressuring us to make a payment that doesn’t come under the purview of the Authority. He is adding such pressure to engage in his politics at a time when dates are yet to be fixed for the upcoming presidential elections. 

 

Q: Did the Minister make such a request without knowing the Finance Act and Establishments Code?

Yes. The Minister hasn’t read the Finance Act and Establishments Code. Or he is already aware of provisions in these statutes and is trying to fool us. When he asked me to step down I said that I will not step down and I challenged him to do so (terminate my services).  

 

Q:  You initially said that the Minister doesn’t have powers to sack you. But he has already done that.

That’s why I said that this removal is illegal. Because in 2019 I was appointed as the Director General for a period of three years. That was until 2022. Thereafter the Minister has powers to either re-appoint me or appoint someone else. They re-appointed me for one year in 2023 and then from 2023-2025. However the procedure to elect a Director General was completely violated when they appointed me. 

 

Q: So you have accepted a position knowing that it was done following a violation of procedures?

No, I haven’t done anything wrong. They should have appointed me as per the provisions of the Act. 

 

Q: Then why was the appointment done from time to time?

The Minister is unaware of the legal basis of the UDA Act. He made appointments in this manner with the hope that we would do anything that he asks us to do. But we were against this attitude. The Act doesn’t mention of any powers vested on him to remove me as and when he wishes. According to the Act I should either resign, or become disabled if I am to be removed from my position. If not they should remove me after having an inquiry on charges that have been filed against me.

 

Q: The Secretary has said that an inquiry will be conducted against you. The Director Board is also of the view that you should be removed? 

On what basis are they going to conduct an inquiry against me? I haven’t violated any rules for not releasing money from the UDA account, so that the Minister could engage in his politics. The Director Board comprises four individuals appointed by the Minister himself. They may have issued their consent to the Minister regarding my removal. 

 

Q:  If the UDA is a profit-making entity, this amount could have been released, isn’t it?

Last year we handed over a sum of Rs. 1.5 billion to the Treasury. This was part of the profits that we made. The UDA plans its yearly expenses based on interests of fixed deposits. If we release money at the request of the Minister we will run out of money for our expenses. In that case who would pay salaries for 1600 employees? Who will take their responsibility? Who will provide them with year-end bonuses? Who will provide them with 25% allowance issued from dividends every months? Are you asking me to release money from UDA account in order to allow the Minister to engage in his politics and send my staff home? I can’t do that. There’s a year and a few months left in my tenure. I rejected the request to release this money after thinking about the plight of the 1600 employees. The Minister is using the UDA for his politics. He is exerting pressure on us. That is the truth. 

 

Q:  But this is not the first time there was political influence by the Minister. Am I right? 

There had been no influence when requesting for money. 

 

Q: This means that there were influences for other purposes?

Let’s not talk about these matters at this point. There will be a time to talk about these matters. Let’s only focus on what has happened this time.

 

Q: Have they already appointed a new Director General?

Yes. They have appointed a qualified individual to this post. But he still hasn’t resumed duties. Once he resumes duties I will submit all documents and other materials that were in my possession as the Director General and leave. 

 

Q: Where will you go next?

They still haven’t given me a new appointment. According to the previous Director’s position they have to give me another place to work at. Until that is done I will stay here. Just because they removed me they can’t deduct my salary because I’m an executive grade employee. 

 

Q: Several deeds were issued on July 10. Did the UDA pay for the issuance of these deeds? In that case they have violated all rules and regulations that you stood by isn’t it?

I’m not sure how they paid for the deeds. If a payment has been done in this manner then they have violated provisions of the Finance Act and the Establishments Code. But I don’t know whether these expenses have been paid for or not. But these deeds need to be issued before the date for the Presidential Elections is fixed. That’s why everything is being done in a hurry 

 

 

 

“We spent and issued deeds andthe Treasury gave the money back"

---

– Sathyananda, Ministry Secretary –

 

 

Responding to the sacking of Urban Development Authority’s (UDA) Director General Prasad Ranaweera, Ministry of Urban Development and Housing Secretary W. A Sathyananda had this to say to a series of qestions we posed.

Excerpts:

---

Q: During an interview done with this newspaper, UDA Director General Prasad Ranaweera claimed that his removal is illegal and that the Minister doesn’t have powers to sack him in this manner. Does this mean that the DG was sacked violating provisions of the Act? 

There’s nothing like that. The UDA Act clearly states that the Minister has the authority to appoint a Director General. In that case the authority that appoints the DG has powers to remove or sack him. The powers vested upon the Minister to appoint a Director General are included in Section (13)1 of the Act. Hence, as per the provisions of this clause, the Director General appointed by another person was removed. 

 

Q: Does this mean that as per the provisions of the Act, the position of the former Director General is replaced by the newly appointed DG? Was it on that basis that the former DG was removed?

We removed the former DG and elected a new person. Hence this removal and appointment both were done legally. 

 

Q: Prior to the removal of the DG a charge sheet has to be submitted and an inquiry has to be conducted against these charges. But it seems that none of these procedures were followed? 

We conducted an inquiry against the former DG. There has been a breach of discipline during an earlier instance as well. We investigated on this incident as well. 

 

Q: Is that why he was appointed for one year and later extended his tenure for two years? 

No. An inquiry regarding this breach of discipline was conducted during the first year in which he was appointed, prior to the two-year extension. 

 

Q: Did he lose his position because he voiced against misusing state money for political agendas? 

The request for payments was not made for a purpose of misusing state money. Cabinet approval was sought to bear the legal charges and stamp fees at the time of issuing deeds for low income urban dwellers. Hence we made a request to settle this payment from the UDA account until the Treasury released the necessary allocations. 

 

Q: Is the Minister exerting pressure on officials when requesting for money?

There has been no pressure exerted on anyone. The necessary finances were requested from the Treasury as per the cabinet approval. It is alright to use money from the UDA account as it takes time to draft the remaining amount of deeds. I informed the UDA that they could settle the payment once the Treasury releases the finances. I affirmed that I would get the necessary expenses borne by the UDA as the Ministry Secretary. However we have already received this money from the Treasury. 

 

Q: Can state money be used in this manner? Isn’t there a violation of the Finance Act or the Establishments Code when money is being used for such transactions?

We settled these expenses, paid legal charges for deeds and issued these deeds to beneficiaries a few days ago. We received a sum of Rs. 58 million to cover these expenses. When I affirmed that I would settle this payment, the Director General created an unnecessary issue. 

 

Q: The Director General claimed that by releasing money in this nature, it would endanger the job security of around 1600 employees. He says that this is why he was against releasing the requested amount? 

There is no way in which the job security of 1600 employees working at the UDA would be endangered just because this money is released. We supported a government project. The Treasury released all expenses borne by the UDA. That is all that happened. On the other hand the UDA is not a bankrupt entity. 

 

Q: The former DG claims that his appointment and removal had been done in a wrongful manner.

He was appointed in a legal manner and he was removed in a legal manner as well. If there are issues with both the appointment and the removal he can seek legal action. There is no issue about that.