No person with self-respect will agree to be appointed new Chief Justice: S.L.

By Hafeel Farisz-TUESDAY, 01 JANUARY 2013 
Q:Why exactly do you oppose the current impeachment motion?
It’s not a question of opposing a motion as such, but it’s a question of opposing a move to impeach the Chief Justice from becoming a political circus and the procedures that are used in this circus. There must be fair play and to my mind there is no fair play at all in this entire process.
Whether she is guilty or innocent of these charges I don’t know, but that is to be proved by those bringing these allegations at a fair trial or inquiry after giving her an opportunity   to cross examine witnesses, leading such evidence as she requires, and of opposing the case against her.
Indeed from various statements that were made before the impeachment motion was brought I have little doubt and from the information I received from those I term “impeccable sources”, the impeachment motion was signed blank and the charges came in later. So the idea of impeaching her did not stem from the charges, the charges came after the decision to impeach her was taken. They decided to impeach her and throw her. After this they went about finding charges which I think is completely wrong. The whole idea of an impeachment is that the motion must stem from the charges.

Then again there is another matter. That is no government likes an independent judiciary. Every party in opposition extols the need for an independent judiciary but once in power they want to destroy it. Look at the UNP, they sacked 8 Supreme Court judges and supplanted them with those they believed were politically partial towards them. Earlier the SLFP appointed Jaya Pathirana an ex MP as a Supreme Court judge, then the UNP again appointed Neville Samarakone for wrong reasons. I think he was an excellent appointment but the reasons for appointing him were wrong. The reason was that J.R Jayewardene with all his brilliance thought that Neville Samarakone having been JR’s lawyer would be partial to him.
Anyone who thought that Samarakone would be partial must get his head examined. I mean J.R was totally mad in having had that view. When they found that Neville Samarakone was a straight man who wouldn’t bow to pressure they suddenly wanted to fire him. There are many examples like this but basically this need to control the judiciary is common with all parties that come into power. This craze when all parties come into power is difficult to imagine but exists and this in itself has been the bane of our country.
Q:But one thing that those who brought the motion and who have been a part of the process adopted thereafter, claim and continue to extol is the fact that the entire process is constitutional. That they are acting within the framework provided for in the constitution. Do you not agree with this view?
The constitution does not say that anybody must be unfair towards another. Indeed article 107 (3) which provides for the impeachment of a judge very specifically states the burden of proof is firmly on those making the allegations. Whereas the standing order 78(A) says that evidence must be led in disproof. But disproof necessarily implies proof. So if there is prima facie evidence one can pardon the use of the word disproof, but then evidence must be read, she should have been given the opportunity of defending herself , she must have had the opportunity to cross examine witnesses that were brought against her, she must be given the opportunity of studying the document against her. Instead  all of a sudden she has been given over a thousand pages of documents according to the reports that I hear, and told to come the next day with a defence. This is humanly impossible and I can say this as a lawyer with close to 45 years standing.
Q:Are you saying this is unconstitutional or are you against the procedure adopted?
Shall I put it this way; it is constitutional for parliament to impeach a Chief Justice for “proved” misbehavior, misconduct or incapacity. But the burden of proof is on those alleging. There is a well-known maxim of law “he who affirms must prove”. Even the constitution states that every person is presumed until proven guilty.

 The constitution does not speak of an “ accused” but rather every “ person”. So what applies to an ordinary citizen must apply to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice can’t be treated in this shoddy manner. Also does the constitution have any provision saying that the members of the PSC could insult the Chief Justice? They have all ganged up together and hurled insults at her and treated her in an utterly obnoxious fashion. I don’t think any person with any kind of breeding could descend to that level. So this shows the type of persons they had selected to judge the highest in the Judiciary of our country. Let’s not forget that standing order 78(A) states the Select Committee should come to some “findings”. If they come to findings of guilt then you can publish it, but not otherwise. So coming to “findings” are extra judicial powers. I mean I don’t come to “findings”, I form opinions. But “findings” are definitely a judicial act. So here there has been judicial power conferred on parliamentarians.

And as you said yes this is constitutional, it has consistently said that the means of impeaching a judge of the superior court is by means of resolutions passed by the Parliament.  But let us not forget this. When these provisions were initially enacted parliament comprised those whom the people wanted. But now it’s not the case. Those in parliament are those the party leader wants. So those in parliament owe their allegiance to the party leader and not to the people. The preferences of the people are marked to those selected by the party leader. If the leader says jump these MP’s of ours don’t ask “why sir?” they ask “how high?”.

This is the problem in our country. We have a system of total sycophancy. Sycophancy rules in this country. Look at this select committee, who appoints people like that to a select committee to look into the conduct of a Chief Justice?. They are afraid even to debate the manner in which this inquiry was conducted. If this inquiry was properly conducted why do they fear a debate about those matters? Fairness and courtesy are two essential things and both have been lacking in this.
Q:Well Mr. Gunasekara, this procedure was in place since the time of President J.R. Jayewardene and subsequently there were attempts to use this procedure. Why didn’t you, and many who are now opposed to this procedure raise a voice at that time? Why has this all erupted only during this present process?
Well speaking for myself I’m no jurist. Actually the law bores me stiff. I study the law when there is a case before me. I study the law involved in-depth at times when a case comes up. That is what I did here. Indeed the first time I saw standing order 78(A) after being an MP for 5 years was when this case was brought up. This may be wrong but it’s a fact. No lawyer knows all the law in the country. You study the law when a case comes up. So I looked at article 78(A) and saw what a horrible thing it was.
You said it was not raised, but I later learnt that Mr. Nadesan QC appearing for Justice Samarakone had raised this very question before the PSC. And that select committee unlike the present one had those who Premadasa termed ‘Ugath Modayo” people such as Lalith Athulathmudali. And even they didn’t think much of these standing orders. So this was not something that was not raised. Nadesan QC one of the greatest lawyers I have come across in my life raised it.
Q:One thing that you campaigned for is the fact that you wanted the lawyers of the country to form a collective of some sort against this process. What role do you actually think the lawyers could play?
Well, my suggestion to the Bar Association was, the BASL should call on all members not to accept the appointment of a Chief Justice. This is because of the utterly shabby and shoddy way the current Chief Justice was treated.

I can’t visualize any person with a trace of self-respect accepting that appointment and I don’t think we should have as Chief Justice any person who doesn’t have a trace of self-respect.

It is my firm conviction that if there is anyone who accepts appointment of a Chief Justice after seeing the manner in which they are trying to bungle out the current Chief Justice is a person who has not heard of self-respect, a person who doesn’t know the meaning of the word self-respect, and a person who doesn’t have an ounce of self-respect anywhere in his being. Only such a person can accept this appointment. I don’t think anyone should accept as Chief Justice of this country someone who doesn’t have the very basic tenets of integrity and self-respect.
Q:Isn’t this call you are making a very idealistic or rather utopian one? after all lawyers subsist from the judiciary and a call for them to defy the appointment of a Chief Justice, is a little too much to ask for, don’t you think? Especially with regard to the Sri Lankan lawyers in this present context do you honestly think that they would take such a drastic step that would affect their livelihood?
Well, some will and some won’t. I won’t say yes or no to your assessment of our lawyers and for what they depend on for their livelihood. There are honest lawyers. I do not agree that anybody should be subservient to anybody else. Even with the judiciary, it should command respect and people must give respect where it is commanded. But most certainly I don’t agree that the lawyers must be subservient to the judiciary. No lawyer, no human being worthy of the name must be subservient to anybody else.

And my proposal was not only to call on the members to defy that appointment but I believe it should extend to the Bar Association calling upon its members not to appear before the new Chief Justice.

The fact that they will fire the current Chief Justice is a foregone conclusion, now the question is whether there will be someone willing to take up this position, and I suppose somebody will.

You always get the climber right? The one who is looking for so called prestige, power, privilege and that sort of thing. So somebody will accept it. But to my mind anyone who accepts that post after this will be an utterly contemptible skunk.
Q:Will we not see S.L. Gunasekara appear before the Supreme Court in the event a new CJ is appointed?
I will make it clear to my clients that I will not appear before the new Chief Justice. Because you see unlike in the Court of Appeal where cases are listed before a bench and that bench continues to hear the case, at the Supreme Court you know the bench only the day before. So I will tell my clients that if the case is listed before the Chief Justice I will not appear. I have no objection to appearing before any other judge of the Supreme Court but I have a problem appearing before a person without any trace of self-respect.
Q:There have been many instances of political appointments in the judiciary that you pointed out.  Therefore isn’t what you and many others have enumerated -that the judiciary is where the powerless have to go in order to seek justice- in actual fact a fallacy of some sort? The fact that there is a chance of the judiciary being biased or politically motivated in some sort negates the fact that this is where we should seek justice from?
No no -where else can the people go to? If I’m oppressed by the government authority where can I go except the courts? If there is a person who is rich who oppresses me where can I go to except the courts? The judiciary should be like Caeser’s wife. Unfortunately it isn’t. But the thing is it has to rectify these faults within the institution itself. And it can be done.
Q:Getting back to the focal point Mr. Gunasekara, according to what you are saying, do you not think that the Chief Justice is in fact above the law? If the Chief Justice has committed an offence what should have been done?
If she has committed wrong, give her a fair inquiry. The burden of proof should be on those alleging. Give her the opportunity to lead evidence and cross examine witnesses and follow a process that is fair. Here she was told there would be no oral evidence and when she walks out they conduct oral evidence. How were these witnesses summoned? Were they summoned earlier? If so was the select committee lying in stating that no oral evidence would be called or did they suddenly decide that ‘now since she’s gone let’s call them’. And who is the person who will come before a PSC and give evidence against an incumbent Chief Justice on telephone call, what kind of person is that?
Q:On a political angle Mr. Gunaskera, you were a nationalist politician
I still am a nationalist.
Q:Yes and you represented the Sihala Urumaya,  therefore if you look at this process in the eyes of a politician and not in a lawyer’s garb what would you think?
 This is a question of fairplay, and I don’t see why a politician can’t be fair.

Then again there is another matter. That is no government likes an independent judiciary. Every party in opposition extols the need for an independent judiciary but once in power they want to destroy it. Look at the UNP, they sacked 8 Supreme Court judges and supplanted them with those they believed were politically partial towards them. Earlier the SLFP appointed Jaya Pathirana an ex MP as a Supreme Court judge, then the UNP again appointed Neville Samarakone for wrong reasons. I think he was an excellent appointment but the reasons for appointing him were wrong. The reason was that J.R Jayewardene with all his brilliance thought that Neville Samarakone having been JR’s lawyer would be partial to him.
Anyone who thought that Samarakone would be partial must get his head examined. I mean J.R was totally mad in having had that view. When they found that Neville Samarakone was a straight man who wouldn’t bow to pressure they suddenly wanted to fire him. There are many examples like this but basically this need to control the judiciary is common with all parties that come into power. This craze when all parties come into power is difficult to imagine but exists and this in itself has been the bane of our country.
Q:But one thing that those who brought the motion and who have been a part of the process adopted thereafter, claim and continue to extol is the fact that the entire process is constitutional. That they are acting within the framework provided for in the constitution. Do you not agree with this view?
The constitution does not say that anybody must be unfair towards another. Indeed article 107 (3) which provides for the impeachment of a judge very specifically states the burden of proof is firmly on those making the allegations. Whereas the standing order 78(A) says that evidence must be led in disproof. But disproof necessarily implies proof. So if there is prima facie evidence one can pardon the use of the word disproof, but then evidence must be read, she should have been given the opportunity of defending herself , she must have had the opportunity to cross examine witnesses that were brought against her, she must be given the opportunity of studying the document against her. Instead  all of a sudden she has been given over a thousand pages of documents according to the reports that I hear, and told to come the next day with a defence. This is humanly impossible and I can say this as a lawyer with close to 45 years standing.
Q:Are you saying this is unconstitutional or are you against the procedure adopted?
Shall I put it this way; it is constitutional for parliament to impeach a Chief Justice for “proved” misbehavior, misconduct or incapacity. But the burden of proof is on those alleging. There is a well-known maxim of law “he who affirms must prove”. Even the constitution states that every person is presumed until proven guilty.

 The constitution does not speak of an “ accused” but rather every “ person”. So what applies to an ordinary citizen must apply to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice can’t be treated in this shoddy manner. Also does the constitution have any provision saying that the members of the PSC could insult the Chief Justice? They have all ganged up together and hurled insults at her and treated her in an utterly obnoxious fashion. I don’t think any person with any kind of breeding could descend to that level. So this shows the type of persons they had selected to judge the highest in the Judiciary of our country. Let’s not forget that standing order 78(A) states the Select Committee should come to some “findings”. If they come to findings of guilt then you can publish it, but not otherwise. So coming to “findings” are extra judicial powers. I mean I don’t come to “findings”, I form opinions. But “findings” are definitely a judicial act. So here there has been judicial power conferred on parliamentarians.

And as you said yes this is constitutional, it has consistently said that the means of impeaching a judge of the superior court is by means of resolutions passed by the Parliament.  But let us not forget this. When these provisions were initially enacted parliament comprised those whom the people wanted. But now it’s not the case. Those in parliament are those the party leader wants. So those in parliament owe their allegiance to the party leader and not to the people. The preferences of the people are marked to those selected by the party leader. If the leader says jump these MP’s of ours don’t ask “why sir?” they ask “how high?”.

This is the problem in our country. We have a system of total sycophancy. Sycophancy rules in this country. Look at this select committee, who appoints people like that to a select committee to look into the conduct of a Chief Justice?. They are afraid even to debate the manner in which this inquiry was conducted. If this inquiry was properly conducted why do they fear a debate about those matters? Fairness and courtesy are two essential things and both have been lacking in this.
Q:Well Mr. Gunasekara, this procedure was in place since the time of President J.R. Jayewardene and subsequently there were attempts to use this procedure. Why didn’t you, and many who are now opposed to this procedure raise a voice at that time? Why has this all erupted only during this present process?
Well speaking for myself I’m no jurist. Actually the law bores me stiff. I study the law when there is a case before me. I study the law involved in-depth at times when a case comes up. That is what I did here. Indeed the first time I saw standing order 78(A) after being an MP for 5 years was when this case was brought up. This may be wrong but it’s a fact. No lawyer knows all the law in the country. You study the law when a case comes up. So I looked at article 78(A) and saw what a horrible thing it was.

You said it was not raised, but I later learnt that Mr. Nadesan QC appearing for Justice Samarakone had raised this very question before the PSC. And that select committee unlike the present one had those who Premadasa termed ‘Ugath Modayo” people such as Lalith Athulathmudali. And even they didn’t think much of these standing orders. So this was not something that was not raised. Nadesan QC one of the greatest lawyers I have come across in my life raised it.
Q:One thing that you campaigned for is the fact that you wanted the lawyers of the country to form a collective of some sort against this process. What role do you actually think the lawyers could play?
Well, my suggestion to the Bar Association was, the BASL should call on all members not to accept the appointment of a Chief Justice. This is because of the utterly shabby and shoddy way the current Chief Justice was treated.

I can’t visualize any person with a trace of self-respect accepting that appointment and I don’t think we should have as Chief Justice any person who doesn’t have a trace of self-respect.

It is my firm conviction that if there is anyone who accepts appointment of a Chief Justice after seeing the manner in which they are trying to bungle out the current Chief Justice is a person who has not heard of self-respect, a person who doesn’t know the meaning of the word self-respect, and a person who doesn’t have an ounce of self-respect anywhere in his being. Only such a person can accept this appointment. I don’t think anyone should accept as Chief Justice of this country someone who doesn’t have the very basic tenets of integrity and self-respect.
Q:Isn’t this call you are making a very idealistic or rather utopian one? after all lawyers subsist from the judiciary and a call for them to defy the appointment of a Chief Justice, is a little too much to ask for, don’t you think? Especially with regard to the Sri Lankan lawyers in this present context do you honestly think that they would take such a drastic step that would affect their livelihood?
Well, some will and some won’t. I won’t say yes or no to your assessment of our lawyers and for what they depend on for their livelihood. There are honest lawyers. I do not agree that anybody should be subservient to anybody else. Even with the judiciary, it should command respect and people must give respect where it is commanded. But most certainly I don’t agree that the lawyers must be subservient to the judiciary. No lawyer, no human being worthy of the name must be subservient to anybody else.
And my proposal was not only to call on the members to defy that appointment but I believe it should extend to the Bar Association calling upon its members not to appear before the new Chief Justice.

The fact that they will fire the current Chief Justice is a foregone conclusion, now the question is whether there will be someone willing to take up this position, and I suppose somebody will.

You always get the climber right? The one who is looking for so called prestige, power, privilege and that sort of thing. So somebody will accept it. But to my mind anyone who accepts that post after this will be an utterly contemptible skunk.
Q:Will we not see S.L. Gunasekara appear before the Supreme Court in the event a new CJ is appointed?
I will make it clear to my clients that I will not appear before the new Chief Justice. Because you see unlike in the Court of Appeal where cases are listed before a bench and that bench continues to hear the case, at the Supreme Court you know the bench only the day before. So I will tell my clients that if the case is listed before the Chief Justice I will not appear. I have no objection to appearing before any other judge of the Supreme Court but I have a problem appearing before a person without any trace of self-respect.
Q:There have been many instances of political appointments in the judiciary that you pointed out.  Therefore isn’t what you and many others have enumerated -that the judiciary is where the powerless have to go in order to seek justice- in actual fact a fallacy of some sort? The fact that there is a chance of the judiciary being biased or politically motivated in some sort negates the fact that this is where we should seek justice from?
No no -where else can the people go to? If I’m oppressed by the government authority where can I go except the courts? If there is a person who is rich who oppresses me where can I go to except the courts? The judiciary should be like Caeser’s wife. Unfortunately it isn’t. But the thing is it has to rectify these faults within the institution itself. And it can be done.
Q:Getting back to the focal point Mr. Gunasekara, according to what you are saying, do you not think that the Chief Justice is in fact above the law? If the Chief Justice has committed an offence what should have been done?
If she has committed wrong, give her a fair inquiry. The burden of proof should be on those alleging. Give her the opportunity to lead evidence and cross examine witnesses and follow a process that is fair. Here she was told there would be no oral evidence and when she walks out they conduct oral evidence. How were these witnesses summoned? Were they summoned earlier? If so was the select committee lying in stating that no oral evidence would be called or did they suddenly decide that ‘now since she’s gone let’s call them’. And who is the person who will come before a PSC and give evidence against an incumbent Chief Justice on telephone call, what kind of person is that?
Q:On a political angle Mr. Gunaskera, you were a nationalist politician
I still am a nationalist.
Q:Yes and you represented the Sihala Urumaya,  therefore if you look at this process in the eyes of a politician and not in a lawyer’s garb what would you think?
 This is a question of fairplay, and I don’t see why a politician can’t be fair.

Q:You were a supporter of this government and the war against the LTTE. But apart from ending the war what other positives do you see in this government?
Well, I supported the government because of the policy with regard to the LTTE. In 2005 before the elections I said publicly that both Mahinda Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremasinghe are utterly unsuitable to the post of president. But I said if Ranil wins “we will lose the country” and if Mahinda wins “we may lose the country”. So we had no choice and I campaigned for Mahinda Rajapaksa. And he exceeded all expectations by actually defeating the LTTE, restoring peace in our country and telling those external busy bodies who wanted to interfere in our country where to get off.

But of course since then there has been a downward slide. I think Mahinda didn’t seize the moment. He had an opportunity that no leader before him had. He had the whole country behind him the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims were all behind him. He had the opportunity of being a statesman at the time but he made the mistake of continuing to be a politician.
Q: Why did you never apply for appointment as a President’s Counsel?
Well there are several reasons; one thing is I’m not a collector of trinkets and goblets. Also in my view an honour is something that you can’t apply for and applying for an honour is rubbish. Thirdly an honour can only be given by the honourable and therefore I have never applied for it.

Nigeria: Chinua Achebe’s country, Biafra

Nigeria: Chinua Achebe’s country, Biafra

by Osita Ebiem-

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

( January 01, 2013, New York City, Sri Lanka Guardian) For forty something years Chinua Achebe’s 2012 book, There Was a Country: A Personal History of Biafra, remained in the works. It took him this long to write because the story is too personal and too painful to write. Biafra Genocide took place from 1966 against the Igbo and other Southeasterners (Biafrans); while the war started in 1967 and ended in 1970. Achebe finished writing about it in 2012, forty two years after the war ended or forty six years since the 1966 genocide.

Achebe’s Biafra did not need five hundred years to succeed as many Nigerianists have always argued that what is needed for Nigeria to work is time. One year was enough for Achebe and the rest of his people to make Biafra work. There was no need and luxury of time for them to wait.

The story is compacted into 334 pages. And through the author’s mastery the story is easy and gripping to read. It’s easy to read because the writer’s style is lucid and without any hint of guiles. But difficult because of the pain and missed opportunities the author and his loved ones had to and still go through. Since it is a personal narrative the writer would not bog the reader down with too many details. That, in itself, is one source of the pain of the writer.

What would he include and what would be excluded and still satisfy his conscience? So many incidents and details which are equally important crowd the author’s memory. To keep the sage from being overwhelmed, he must suspend the writing for another day.... This is how the writing got delayed for more than forty years. But finally the story is written and the world is richer as a result. And a grateful world salutes Achebe’s courage.

Biafra story is one of the most painful of all stories in history and to write from the inside is even more excruciating. Children, women and men were deliberately starved to death by the deliberate, vicious actions of federal government of Nigeria under the direction of Yakubu Gowon and Obafemi Awolowo.

Television had just become popular among households around the world and Biafra became the first TV war and what the people saw was too heartbreaking and frightening and gave the world a rude prediction of what is to come if it would do nothing to change it. Skeleton-like children and others with distended stomachs and with questioning eyes held the gaze, discomfortingly, of a spectating world in the comfort of their living quarters. The children and their parents were dying in Biafra from Harold Wilson’s Disease or kwashiorkor.

Achebe’s There was a Country is one of those very necessary stories ever written. Achebe and the rest of his gallant fellow compatriots worked tirelessly to establish his Biafran country. He played a pivotal part in that country and those of us who benefit directly from those sacrifices are forever grateful. Because of great minds, men and women of sterling character whose sinews seemed to be made of steel, Achebe’s country of Biafra worked in the face of daunting challenges and pain. But then a temporary wedge was put on the path of Achebe’s country’s march to true greatness by the combined forces of Nigeria, Great Britain, Russia (former USSR), Egypt and the Arab League. The wedge serves to delay and prolong the wistfulness of Citizen Achebe but eventually his country that was, and will still be.

Partly, Achebe waited so long to write his memoir because he was waiting for Nigeria. After the defeat of Biafra Achebe wanted Nigeria to succeed and so he waited and waited. Forty two years after he would not wait no more. Nigeria is hopeless. As soon as Achebe wrote the last word of his memoir, the last death nail was driven into the heart of Nigerian country. On that day Achebe finally carried out the last wishes of his friend and fellow citizen of Biafra, Christopher Ifekandu Okigbo. Okigbo had specifically requested in one of his poems that Achebe and others should wake him up near the sacrificial altar when the various fragments and aspects of unjust wounds inflicted on him and his fellow Biafran compatriots by Nigeria’s hatred and intolerance are counted and stitched together so that collectively the beautiful and unassailable Biafra poem would be finished. With the public showing of Achebe’s personal narrative of the Biafran story, the stars have aligned and the last rituals for Okigbo’s and the other heroes of Biafra’s final passage to glory begin.

On few occasions Achebe stated that the trouble with Nigeria is mostly bad leadership. Achebe is one of the brightest minds and greatest thinkers of the 20th and 21st centuries. Achebe lived through Nigeria, Biafra and then Nigeria and knows the truth. Achebe is bold and tough as nail but on those occasions Achebe the infallible god inadvertently massaged the ego of the Nigerian country by trying to be politically correct as mere mortals do. But Achebe has transcended the elemental foibles of mere mortals. Achebe since had ascended that realm in his native Igbo culture, where after someone has washed his tongue, he cannot lie. So in his usually clear and mesmerizing language as he told his personal story in his book, There Was a Country he redeemed himself. Achebe knows the truth which is that the real trouble with Nigeria is because it is a badly structured country. The trouble with Nigeria is the terrible incongruent cultural mixture of peoples without common interests and aspiration. Achebe knows that his Biafran country succeeded not because of the type of leadership for Nigeria that he spoke about on those occasions. Achebe’s Biafra succeeded because of the structural make up of that country which in turn produced the excellent leadership that Achebe and his fellow Biafrans witnessed and participated in.

When we talk about how to build a successful country we are thankfully not subjected to the difficult dilemma of trying to prove if the egg came before the chicken or the chicken before the egg. In a succeeding country, a good structure most of the time gives birth to good leadership. A bad structure or system has always produced bad leadership. This is the trouble with Nigeria.

Achebe’s Biafra did not need five hundred years to succeed as many Nigerianists have always argued that what is needed for Nigeria to work is time. One year was enough for Achebe and the rest of his people to make Biafra work. There was no need and luxury of time for them to wait. Achebe’s Biafra either worked or did not work in a space of one year. In Achebe’s Biafra they had a common aspiration and dreamed together. But in Nigeria there are too many dreams and everyone is dreaming to the exclusion of their neighbor. So, Achebe’s Biafra remains the only alternative that will still be.

Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe in his blog, www.rethinkingafrica.com calls Obafemi Awolowo’s edifices “a fast crumbling edifice” in his answer to the irrational Awoist critics of Achebe’s recent memoir. Obafemi Awolowo left behind an enormous and tremendous edifice. Awolowo was a great Nigerian who gave the country the best he got. Because of Awolowo’s gallant efforts and those of others like Yakubu Gowon Nigeria survived the first threat by Biafra to divide it. Partly thanks to Awolowo, Nigeria still stands today as a united country. On the whole Awolowo built up huge personal and national edifices but Ekwe-Ekwe describes those intimidating edifices as fast crumbling in the space of very little time, why? Many critical analysts of Awolowo and Nigeria have concluded that this is so because Awolowo’s and Nigeria’s edifices were built on falsehood and genocides and they cannot stand, as a result. Nigeria is already a collapsed house of cards and the debris will need to be cleaned out to enable the new Achebe’s country to be.

Biafra was a republic; a democratic country. Decisions were taken collectively. Even the decision to declare the country as free and independent from Nigeria was taken after so many consultations and the unanimous agreement by all the provinces that were in the old Eastern Region. This is why Emeka Ojukwu the then head of state of Biafra is never synonymous with Biafra. Biafra was the entire people of Eastern Region and Ojukwu was just an individual who played creditably his own part. The people that ran Biafra were the best minds and Achebe is preeminent among them. In the midst of fire and great tribulations they created Biafra and made it work. This is why Nigeria’s failure pains Achebe especially. In Achebe’s heart of hearts he knows that Nigeria would have worked if. . .

Yes, there was a country and will still be the Biafran country. As always Achebe wrote honestly and sincerely and wrote only facts and truth. But would there be no detractors just because Achebe belongs in the category of great men and women of character and integrity of all time? That will be unrealistic to contemplate. Detractors who envy and with passion attack Achebe viciously for his audacity to choose freedom and independence over slavery, human indignity and crime against humanity as visited on him and his people, abound. They are many that attack without countering the facts of Achebe’s testaments on Obafemi Awolowo’s, Anthony Enahoro’s, Yakubu Gowon’s and Britain’s Harold Wilson’s genocidal devastations of Biafra. Like court jesters the attackers risk self-ridicule in the face of incontestable facts. But what difference does that make, anyway? Achebe was in the Biafra of the 1960s and sacrificially dodged bullets and endured the hunger for a better tomorrow for the next generation of his people. Achebe in horror witnessed and endured the pain of losing two Achebes, friends like Okigbo and a host of others to Nigeria’s extreme hatred, intolerance and genocide.

Though very painful but Achebe and others never regretted those sacrifices; they gave their lives for the generation of Achebe’s children and those after them. For Biafrans of Achebe’s era no sacrifice was too much.

Some of Achebe’s Nigerian critics have called him a Biafran in Nigerian cloak. How apt and true. No one that experienced Achebe’s Biafra, even for a day, ever renounced their citizenship of that country. In fact, every one of Achebe’s people ceased from being Nigerians and renounced their citizenship of Nigeria forever, since May 30, 1967. The late poet and dramatist Esiaba Irobi said it even better when he described himself as a Biafran citizen on exile in Nigeria.

Achebe has been through very hot crucibles defending and working his Biafran country. Even if they were throwing flames, Achebe will not be bothered with the present puny egg-throwers in their desperate attempt to soil his sparkling image. Achebe’s position as the eagle on the peak of the tallest iroko around is secured and Lilliputians at the foot of the tree can try every antic in their bag of tricks.

The bottom line is: For Achebe and the rest of his people, they know that there was genocide and there was a Biafran country. Achebe is the most credible narrator and he has clearly and emphatically said that, in part, because there was genocide then his people were compelled to work towards establishing their own country from 1967.

Now, to the consternation of Achebe’s critics the world finally accepts, from the testimony of a most dependable witness, that there was genocide in Biafra and there was a Biafran country. That is the first step. The next one is to call the perpetrators of Achebe’s people killers to the tribunal so that the world, our world can be made safer through the execution of remedial justice and the process of collective global accountability. That has been done before.

( Osita Ebiem is a Biafran citizen and the Sri Lanka Guardian's special correspondent on Nigeria.)

Expose: BBC Sinhala Head ‘Knowingly Mislead’ The Public

By Colombo Telegraph -January 1, 2013

Head of the BBC Sinhala Service Priyath Liyange knowingly misled the public and Sri Lankan newspaper editors with regard to BBC employees applying for the Sri Lankan government’s interest free vehicle loan, the Colombo Telegraph exclusively reveals today.

Priyath Liyanage

Priyath Liyanage said on Monday, 03 December that ‘the BBC wishes to make clear that no BBC employee will be accepting car loans from the Sri Lankan government, now or in the future’

The Nation carried the full correspondence between its Editor Malinda Seneviratne and BBC’s Liyange under the title ‘Factoring integrity into media freedom’. (Read here).

Add caption

Editor, BBC Sinhala Service Priyath Liyange, using the BBC Global News letterhead, on May 24, 2012 wrote to the Director General, Government Information Department of Sri Lanka that he endorses BBCs Colombo reporter Elmo Fernando’s interest free loan application to purchase a motor car.

In the letter he said; “Mr Fernando is a permanent employee of the BBC. He had been working for over twenty years and is paid a monthly wage of £750 ( Seven hundred and fifty pounds). I recommend Mr Fernando’s application to purchase a motor car under the above scheme. ( Read the original letter below)

Section 3 of the BBC Editorial Guidelines says; “We must not knowingly and materially mislead our audiences with our content.” “Now the question is whether BBC editors are allowed to mislead public and newspaper editors in official correspondence” one BBC ethics expert told Colombo Telegraph

Two of BBC journalists, BBC World Service producer Chandana Keerthi Bandara and the Colombo Reporter Elmo Fernando, applied Rs. 1,200,000/-each by way of ten year interest free loans from the state banks to purchase cars or vans, where the interest will be paid by the Treasury using tax payer money.

*Photo courtesy: Robert Sharp / English PEN

India’s Date with Sri Lanka: 2009-2012

Posted by Karthiyayini on December 30, 2012 

Year 2009. The end of a war without witnesses. The year marked the end of the bloody ethnic conflict that witnessed heavy civilian casualties involving gruesome killings of 100,000 Tamils in Sri Lanka. Massive internal displacements, many left homeless, loss of innumerable lives and limbs, broken families, women turning into sex workers and a string of ghastly human rights violations by genocidal Lanka – marked the war-torn island nation.

Post-War Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka under the dictatorial Mahinda Rajapakse regime was/is marked by anti-Tamil attitude with its many reported and unreported violent acts of white van abductions, demolishing of Hindu temples, militarization of north, Sinhalese encroachments in Tamil lands, coercion of Tamil women into joining Sri Lankan military, abduction of ex-LTTE members, usurping of Tamil lands, abusing of Eelam Tamils in their own mother land, arrests of Tamils and as recent as the detention of Jaffna University students for their Heroes’ Day observance.

Rajapakse’s regime is infamously tainted with media gags, intimidation and assassination of media men making press freedom a key concern in Sri Lanka. Press freedom in Sri Lanka became the “worst in any democratic country” in Rajapakse’s rule according to the Reporters without Borders index.

Across in India – indiscriminate shootings on Tamil fishermen robbing their lives and livelihood at Rameswaram by Sri Lankan Navy are a regular occurrence.

Cut to 2012

With an unwavering support in many spheres, India has been extending a friendly arm to Sri Lanka against the backdrop of Sri Lanka’s direct and veiled anti-Tamil stand.

India is an active partner in a number of development projects in infrastructure, education, health and military training for Sri Lanka.

National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon in June 2012 went on a tour to Sri Lanka to engage in high-level talks that were expected to be in the lines of Sri Lanka’s obligation towards delegation and decentralization in line with the 13th amendment to the Constitution. What was the outcome?

Delhi’s veiled endeavours to keep Sri Lanka ‘happy’ and to remain in its ‘good books’ are in the name of preserving its political interests and security concerns. But, at whose cost? Eelam Tamils are the poor victims who have lost their homes in their very own soil and live like ‘orphans’.Or,they go seeking asylum in foreign soil (Australia), either crossing dangerous waters or falling into the tyrannical hands of the Sri Lankan Navy.

Interestingly, India was one among the 24 nations who voted against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC meeting held in March 2012, urging it to implement its own LLRC (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission) recommendations and ensure accountability.

Rajiv Gandhi’s Memoirs

Way back in 1987, what good did India do by entering into the Indo-Sri Lankan Peace Accord signed in Colombo between Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lankan President J.R.Jayewardene? Though it was aimed at resolving the ongoing Sri Lankan civil war waged by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) against the Sri Lankan government, it only flared up the ethnic strife further. India under Rajiv Gandhi regime sent Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) to Sri Lanka to enforce the disarmament of Tamil militant groups, which infamously indulged in human rights violations and has to his credit the infamous Jaffna Hospital Massacre, in which about 70 patients and staff were killed.

After rubbing the wrong sides and facing internal opposition, IPKF was withdrawn from Sri Lanka in 1990.

Indo-Lanka Trade Relations

The end of ethnic strife in 2009 saw a doubling up of Indian investment in Sri Lanka from $78 million in 2009 to $147 million in 2011, according to Sri Lanka Board of Investment data.

Corporate giants like Tata, Bajaj, Godrej, Bharti and RPG have set up their bases in Sri Lanka. Britannia, Ultratech, Ambuja Cement and Ashok Leyland are said to have made advances in Sri Lanka.

Defence Ties

India and Sri Lanka have been looking to retune their defence relationship ever since Sri Lanka crushed the Tamil tiger rebels in May 2009. Indian Army Chief General Bikram Singh went to Sri Lanka on a 4-day tour in December 2012 to look at the unfinished agenda of entering into a formal Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) between the two countries that has been pending since 2003.

Despite political opposition from various quarters of Tamil Nadu, Sri Lankan military personnel are undergoing military training in various Indian training institutions. A combined military exercise between the two countries is currently in progress at the Special Forces Training Centre at Nahan in Himachal Pradesh according to NDTV reports.

India has been a preferred destination for training of Sri Lankan military officers though China and Pakistan have more military involvement with the island nation in the past decade.

India also extended its assistance to Sri Lanka open its Military Intelligence School at Kandy in February 2009.

Rajapakse at Sanchi

Rajapakse, a war-criminal accused of unspeakable war crimes and who massacred thousands of innocent Tamils arrived in Sanchi,India as a special guest to inaugurate the International Centre of Buddhist Studies in September 2012, though marked with widespread opposition from Tamil parties in Tamil Nadu.

There was a public outcry about who ‘invited’ Rajapakse to Sanchi? All the key national political parties staged a massive drama and ‘dutifully passed the buck’, leaving the common man of India to wonder who invited him in the first place?

Tamil Nadu’s Take on Sri Lanka

Tamil Nadu CM Jayalalithaa had pointed out there had been 38 incidents of harassments and 23 incidents of threats involving 379 fishermen from May 2011 till September 2012. Intimidating attitude and brutal attacks on Tamil Nadu fishermen by Sri Lankan Navy continue unabatedly robbing them of their lives and source of living. High-level diplomatic talks assuring of preventing such attacks on Tamil fishermen have only proved to be empty words till date.

In August 2012, after Tamil Nadu CM requested Dr.Manmohan Singh to order the Defence Ministry to stop the training given to nine Sri Lankan personnel and send them back to Sri Lanka immediately, the centre moved them to Yelahanka air station at Bangalore! If not Tamil Nadu, the Indian Lion crouches to accommodate the Lankan ‘Lion’ in Karnataka!

There had been 167 incidents of shooting on Indian fishermen and killing of 85 fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy in the Indian waters during the years 1991- 2011, stated Tamil Nadu government, as reported by TOI in August 2012.

Karunanidhi’s Dramatics and Somersaults

DMK patriarch, Karunanidhi claiming himself to be a pro-Tamil force unfailingly issues statements to media and shoots out letters to Prime Minister of India condemning attacks on Tamil fishermen, discouraging sporting ties between India and Sri Lanka and opposing military training of army personnel in India.

What did he do in his much-hyped Tamil Eelam Supporters Organization (TESO) conference? Karunanidhi, out of the blue revived TESO and was raising his pitch about creating separate Eelam, proclaiming separate Eelam to be a key agenda of the TESO conference. His voice died down after the then-Home minister P Chidambaram pressured him to drop the Eelam agenda from TESO conference. Keeping in mind his politico-familial interests, Karunanidhi went on to say it is just an opinion and did not want to create any confusion by putting it up as a topic for discussion in TESO meet.

Sporadic cries of help for Eelam Tamils from political parties of Tamil Nadu and shooting out letters to Manmohan Singh have not yielded any results. Talks, letters, protests, fast campaigns, empty statements, conferences, media outbursts are all that we are spectators to so far!

What did Rajapakse aim to do through LLRC which he initiated in 2012? Conclusions of the commission squarely proved to be a mixed bag of contradictory statements putting the blame on LTTE for civilian killings and violation of international humanitarian law.

Independent international investigation pressed by International bodies, Tamil forums, various Diaspora groups could only be the solution for the Tamils languishing in Sri Lanka.

Till then, no respite and no solution in sight for Eelam Tamils!

Tags: DMK, Eelam Tamils, India, india sri lanka relations, Karunanidhi, Rajapakse, Sanchi, Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan Navy,Tamil Fishermen, Tamil Nadu

Britain, Sri Lanka And Living Examples Of True Democracies

By Nagananda Kodituwakku -January 1, 2013 

Nagananda Kodituwakku

On Friday the 05^th October 2012, the High Court in London allowed three elderly Kenyans to pursue damages for torture they suffered in the hands of the British during the colonial era.

The UK government is bracing itself for thousands of similar legal claims from people who were imprisoned and allegedly mistreated during the final days of the British Empire. The said High Court ruled that the three elderly Kenyans who were detained and tortured during the Mau Mau rebellion have the right to sue for damages.

The High Court judge rejected claims from the government’s lawyers that too much time had elapsed since the seven-year insurgency in the 1950s, and it was no longer possible to hold a fair trial. Last year the same high court judge, Mr Justice McCombe, rejected the government’s claim that the three claimants should be suing the Kenyan government as it had inherited Britain’s legal responsibilities on independence in 1963. And this ruling may also make it possible for victims of colonial atrocities in other parts of the world to sue.

The UK Foreign Office acknowledged that this ruling had “potentially significant and far-reaching legal implications”, and said it was planning to appeal. “The normal time limit for bringing a civil action is three to six years,” a spokesman said. “In this case, that period has been extended to over 50 years despite the fact that the key decision makers are dead and unable to give their account of what happened.”

During the course of their attempts to have the claims struck out – efforts that the claimants’ lawyer, Martyn Day, described as “morally repugnant” – the British government’s lawyers accepted that all three of the elderly Kenyans were tortured by the colonial authorities.

Day said, “The British government has admitted that these three Kenyans were brutally tortured by the British. There will undoubtedly be victims of colonial torture from other countries, who will be reading this judgment with great care”.

There may also be claims from Malaysia, and even from Sri Lanka where some native people were massacred during number of uprising against British rule including the Matale rebellion.

It is very interesting to note whether the judges in Sri Lanka would enjoy a similar or somewhat faint independence in dispensing justice in matters, which come before them where the government is involved.

For instance, when integrity and conduct of Presidential Candidate Mahinda Rajapakse was challenged before the Supreme Court, where he was accused for embezzlement of tsunami funds the then CJ Sarath N Silvasimply ruled against the application. Then some time thereafter this same individual had the audacity to say that if he had acted as required by law Mahinda Rajapakse would have been behind bars. And now this very same person defends the obviously wrong process the government adopted to eject the CJ from office.

The people should revisit the circumstances under which the impeachment motion was brought in against the current CJ. Recently the government sought legal cover to the police to refrain from producing suspects taken into custody for 48 hours. This was clearly against the fundamental freedom enjoyed by the people and hence refused by the Supreme Court.  When the said proposed amendment to the criminal procedure code was refused by the Supreme Court the government ministers (Nimal Siripala de Silva and Keheliya Rambukwella) said in pubic that the govt respects the observance of the rule of law by the Court and would not resort to bring an impeachment motion against the CJ for defying the will of the government that violated the sovereign rights of the people. But the actions which followed thereafter were the exactly the opposite.

Democracy is something, which people should earn not something a society can be bestowed with by foreign powers. This is food for thought for right thinking people to comprehend what a fake democracy the people of Sri Lanka enjoy under the so-called freedom from British colonial rule.