Summary Response from the Council of Reference (“CoR”) to a report (“Report”) written by Pastors David Cooke and Mark Mullins into allegations against Pastor Jeyakanth (“PJK”)

From the outset it was deemed by the investigators to be necessary to conduct an independent “thorough investigation” into various allegations which have been made against PJK. The CoR has reviewed the Report of Pastors Cooke and Mullins and responded in writing in considerable detail. In the process we have assembled c.60 documents as evidence. We then met with the authors of the Report on 22nd May 2024 in a 6-hour meeting. We listened to what was disclosed of the evidence, the witnesses and the approach of the investigators.

We reject the Report’s findings as being unsubstantiated. Our rejection is based partly upon the methodology adopted in the investigation, which we assess to be totally and fatally flawed. In our opinion the investigation has not been independent or balanced in the type and source of the evidence collected. In addition, the authors of the Report drew firm conclusions too early in the investigation. They were then either unwilling nor unable to pursue evidence unsupportive of the “guilty verdict” they had already announced. Having found PJK guilty they proceeded to collect further evidence to support their prosecution verdict. Additional headline reasons for rejecting the Report and its findings are:

1. Failure to establish consensus and cooperation prior to commencing investigation

If the investigation was going to succeed, forming a consensus among those who had knowledge and experience of the matters was vital. Valid concerns over the independence and impartiality were raised by PJK when he was first approached. These were never addressed, leading to a lack of confidence in the investigation. As a result the Report became merely a prosecution based on one-sided and often unsubstantiated evidence, given mostly by men with a vendetta against PJK or former workers with a grievance against LEFC.

2. Conflict of interest with a major witness

The prime-mover in encouraging this Report was Dr Muraleetharan Kanagalingam (“Muralee”). He has had a long-running bitter feud with PJK. The investigators have both provided hospitality to Muralee. In the weekend ahead of our meeting with the authors of the Report, he was given assistance by one of the investigators to write his written evidence. In other words, the chief witness was aided and abetted in providing evidence about the person that the investigators were investigating. This is a conflict of interest and a failure to maintain impartiality.

3. Failure to speak to many key witnesses

Before drawing firm conclusions, the investigators did not speak to several groups who continue to be supportive of LEFC and PJK. They would have given a very different perspective on the witnesses and many of the allegations cited. For example the investigators:

i. did not speak to Church Officers at PJK’s home church (the Biblical imperative)

ii. did not speak to the senior church leaders who form the steering committee of LEFC

iii. did not speak to LEFC office staff with first-hand involvement in some of the matters

iv. did not speak to any of the women accused of having an affair with PJK

v. declined to speak to CoR before threatening to publish the Report, even though the CoR had already made extensive enquiries into many matters raised against PJK

4. Premature and rash conclusions

Despite having only spoken to PJK’s detractors (e.g. disaffected former workers) the investigators demanded PJK give an immediate undertaking to return from Sri Lanka to face their charges against him. They informed him ‘the game was up’ and told the CoR he was clearly guilty of serious sin and therefore unfit to be in the Christian Ministry. To condemn someone as guilty prior to interviewing any of the considerable list of potential defence witnesses leads us to a conclusion the investigation has been biased from its very inception.

5. Failure to verify witness integrity

According to 1 Timothy 5:19, those desiring to make serious accusations of sin against a minister should not receive any report unless it comes from two or three witnesses. Such witnesses must also surely be “credible and reliable”. The two UK based investigators were not in a strong position to establish whether the Sri Lankan witnesses they interviewed were credible and reliable, not knowing these individuals nor their track records. This is pertinent as many Pastors who have previously investigated the allegations have concluded otherwise. In addition, the biblical mandate is for local church matters to be dealt with by local church leaders, that means in Sri Lanka not the UK.

6. Lack of consistency and impartiality in reviewing evidence

There is clear evidence that the investigators admitted tenuous and uncorroborated evidence from those making allegations but have been unwilling to admit evidence which challenges these allegations without far more rigorous scrutiny.

We cite just one example: the investigators stated intention was to investigate allegations made in a ‘letter of complaint’ signed by several disaffected former LEFC workers. This letter makes several allegations against PJK including that ‘not one vehicle is registered in the name of LEFC’. We provided on PJK’s behalf copies of 4 vehicle registration documents all of which noted LEFC as the registered keeper. We further provided a statement from a Sri Lankan solicitor confirming that the registration and ownership status of all LEFC vehicles was appropriate. The investigators dismissed this documentary evidence as insufficient to refute the allegation made in the letter and said that they regarded the documents as ‘probably fraudulent’. In giving greater weight to the complaint of disaffected workers than to clear documentary evidence they revealed that their approach was not impartial or objective.

Potential Way Forward

The major witness in this investigation is Muralee, who is a Sri Lankan Church leader. He has continued to accuse PJK over many years. In 2021 he was asked by the Sri Lankan police to provide evidence for his allegations against PJK. Being unable to do so he gave a written undertaking to the police that he would desist from making these accusations. Despite giving this undertaking, he invited and encouraged the authors of the Report to undertake their investigation, furnishing them with a list of witnesses. The CoR believe that Biblically any such serious allegations should primarily be addressed among their respective churches in Sri Lanka, not in the UK. We know that previous attempts at reconciliation between PJK and Muralee have been made. However, Muralee refused to cooperate in a Christian spirit. It has subsequently come to light that, despite his claims to the contrary, noted in the report’s appendices, Muralee has issued court proceedings against at least two other parties in Sri Lanka: one a Pastor in good standing with his church and the other a Christian college board. The authors of the report appear blind to the reputation of this trouble maker who has recently been arrested and bailed in Sri Lanka in connection with one of the cases above.

Reconciliation with APC

In April 2021 PJK’s ‘associate membership’ with APC was suspended. His actual membership continues to be with the Thampalagamam Church. He was, according to the latest report, suspended on account of alleged dishonesty and a failure to listen to the APC elders who accused him of ‘bearing a false report’ concerning a fellow worker in his home church.

Upon his return to Sri Lanka after the pandemic restrictions, in July 2021, the Pastor of APC called him and asked him if he had done as instructed, namely, to apologise to this fellow worker for bearing a false report about him and to ask for his forgiveness. It was made clear that if he failed to do this he would be ‘excommunicated’ by APC. PJK explained that since his return, his home church officers and others had confirmed that the report was not a false report but was indeed an accurate report and therefore he could not make the required apology.

We acknowledge that reconciliation between PJK and APC is a desirable outcome, but we believe this is wholly untenable, unless APC are willing to change their own position. For PJK to apologise for the report he shared with APC in 2020, he would have to go against the advice of his own church officers in Sri Lanka which in the circumstances is a wholly unreasonable expectation. The CoR believe it is a Biblical imperative that PJK’s home church elders' views should guide any attempt at reconciliation.

The CoR are reluctant to engage in the public domain regarding this very serious matter, however they are willing to share privately their detailed rebuttal of the Report with those who have a sincere concern to know why they dismiss this investigation as deeply flawed. Readers may contact any of the members of the CoR.

The Council of Reference

Pastor David Kay (Chairman)

Pastor Jonathan Northern, Pastor Chris Buss, Pastor Oliver Wyncoll, Mr Gary Donaldson

October 2024