Confusion worse confounded
Editorial-November 12, 2015, 7:43 pm
The floating armoury issue has taken a dramatic turn. President Maithripala Sirisena has yielded to pressure from some of his trusted lieutenants who are all out to bring criminal charges against the Avant Garde high-ups and their political associates including the Rajapaksas. There is an air of prosecutorial zeal and judicial abandon about the present dispensation whereas its predecessor was notorious for letting even criminals off the hook.
It was only the other day that the then Minister of Law and Order and Prisons Reforms Tilak Marapana, PC and Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, PC told Parliament that Avant Garde operations had been legal. They even claimed the Attorney General (AG) had declared that there were no grounds for legal action to be taken against that company. Minister Rajapakshe even had a slanging match with his erstwhile friend, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, in a bid to prove his point.
Minister Rajapakshe told Parliament that he had convinced both President Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe that there had been nothing illegal about the Avant Garde operations. He had also defeated efforts in some quarters to have former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa et alarrested, he said. But, a few days on, President Maithripala Sirisena has ordered that all Avant Garde operations be discontinued immediately and its floating armoury handed over to the Navy. He is also reported to have ordered that the suspects concerned be prosecuted. One is intrigued. Does the AG subscribe to the legal position Marapana and Rajapakshe took on Avant Garde in Parliament? Did he hold that there were no grounds for legal action to be instituted against that company? If so, how can he prosecute it now?
Minister Marapana resigned from the Cabinet under duress over his defence of Avant Garde in Parliament, but he insists that he has told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Minister Rajapakshe tells us that some of his ministerial colleagues are out for his scalp because he, too, has told the truth. The critics of Avant Garde including Minister Rajitha Senaratne insist that they are also telling the truth. There can be only one truth. The question is who is lying?
What are the legal implications of the takeover by the Navy of the Avant Garde floating armoury? Is it that the anti-piracy operations have been wound up? If so, what will be the reaction of the countries which benefited from the floating armoury? If not, does the law permit the Navy to carry out the same operations as a private company? Opinion is divided on this score.
If Avant Garde, or any other company for that matter, has been on the wrong side of the law, it has to be severely dealt with according to the law, but whether to prosecute it or not is best left to the Attorney General. The state prosecutor should be free from political pressure to act independently. Most of all, neither the defenders of Avant Garde nor its critics calling for action against it should seek to advance their hidden agendas. Those who have spoken in favour of the floating armoury have been accused of benefiting from Avant Garde largesse; they claim their critics either want the Rajapaksas and former navy chiefs thrown behind bars or are working for some businesses eyeing the lucrative anti-piracy operations. Sadly, the truth has become a casualty of their political war.
Sri Lanka’s contribution to the anti-piracy operations has stood the vessels threatened by Somali pirates in good stead. The floating armoury has also helped generate employment opportunities for ex-service personnel and bring in a considerable amount of foreign exchange. It is hoped that the government will sort out the Avant Garde issue fast without letting vested interests play politics with it.
