Defending Human Rights: Trends & Challenges
Aingkaran Kugathasan
December 6, 2016
Oppressive governments over time, have employed diverse means towards silencing dissent. For instance governments usually employ a three-fold strategy to impose restrictions on civil society organizations, namely through, legislative; judicial; and extra-legal means. Aside from this a fourth strategy is employed especially in post conflict societies to ‘control’ civil society and Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) by including them in State led processes (albeit in a tokenistic way) in an apparent non-hostile environment.
Oppressive methods to silent dissent adopted by the previous regime between the periods of 2005 and 2014, left a majority of the NGO sector (in terms of their protection) with no choice but to align themselves with the main Opposition party and the international community which unhappy with the regime. This form of governing forced a majority of the CSOs to join forces to work together in exposing the government that was ruling with an iron fist. Further, the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) has involved several prominent civil society leaders in various State lead processes including the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation. However, the change of the government in January 2015 which eased the political environment for CSOs nonetheless placed a majority of CSOs in the current joint government’s debt which resulted in subduing previously vocal CSOs to go easy on this government.
Despite the current government’s (jointly headed by President Sirisena and Premier Wickremesinghe) strategy of playing friend with the civil society which played a crucial role in throwing Mahinda out, by involving the prominent civil society leaders in the governance process, the armed forces and the Police continue to employ conventional methods of suppressing dissenting voices.
A circular, (Circular No MOD/NGO/mon/4), issued by the then government in 2014 through the NGO Secretariat that prevents NGOs from conducting press conferences, workshops, training programme for journalists and dissemination of press releases, contravenes constitutional freedoms as well as several international human rights obligations, specifically the right to freedom of opinion and expression including the right to impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers is although not operative is still in force.
The Sirisena-led government, to appease the international community and towards fulfilling its commitment towards the UN Human Rights Council’s Resolution, is in the process of introducing new national security legislation to replace the current draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), which is still being used to suppress dissenting voices. The ‘leaked’ draft of government’s counter terrorism policy has been criticised by various parties, including prominent human rights lawyers for its vague provision, the introduction of multiple new offences to the new policy framework and that it fails to address the fundamental concerns surrounding the PTA. The culture of using the PTA as a tool to intimidate human rights defenders, social activists and any dissenting voices hasn’t changed and by attempting to introduce worse legislation it is obvious that this government is not committed to changing this culture any time soon. It is undeniable that since January 2015 the civic space has improved to a certain extent. Unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily mean the ‘change’ is felt by every level of the society.
In October, Ruki Fernando, a prominent activist was held and questioned by the authorities at the Katunayaka Airport while he was preparing to go overseas. Despite the directives given by the President and the National Human Rights Commission on the arrest and detention of persons under the PTA which specifically stipulates that the arrested or detained person be allowed to communicate with a family member, relative or friend to inform of his/her whereabouts when arrested not even Mr. Fernando’s lawyer who was travelling with him was allowed to be present while he was interrogated.
