Ravi to make another complaint against Cabraal

Thursday, 22 November 2012

UNP parliamentarian Ravi Karunanayake has complained to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption that there was an irregular financial transaction behind Central bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal’s move to invest monies in Greek Bonds resulting in a financial loss to Sri Lanka.

The Central Bank of Sri Lanka invests its monies in various bonds, but such actions are carried out only after studying the situation in the market conditions at the time.

The Central Bank had purchased Greek Bonds that were of a face value of 35,000,000 Euros in April 2011 and July 2011 at 26,267,000 Euros. The transaction however had taken place in an arbitrary manner without the Central Bank or the Governor making any study of the market conditions.

Karunanayake’s complaint states that the loss from the transaction stands at 803,500 Euros and it was caused due to the arbitrary actions of the Central Bank Governor. The parliamentarian states that the transaction has so far not been investigated by any institution.

Karunanayake has called on the Commission to investigate into the transaction since it is defined as a corrupt transaction and to initiate legal action against the Central Bank Governor. He has added that relevant statistics and details could be given to the Commission if an investigation is held.

Radhika Coomaraswamy Receives Fondation Chirac Special Jury Prize 2012 In Paris

By Colombo Telegraph -November 22, 2012 

On November 22^nd, 2012, Radhika Coomaraswamy, former Under Secretary General of the United Nations/Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, was awarded the Special Jury Prize 2012 by the Fondation Chirac for her actions in favor of the protection of children during armed conflict in the presence of Bernadette Chirac, wife of the former French president Jacques Chirac.

Radhika Coomaraswamy

Presenting the Special Jury Prize, former President of Senegal and Secretary General of La Francophonie, H.E. Abdou Diouf highlighted Coomaraswamy’s contributions to the protection of children during armed conflict “Dear Radhika Coomaraswamy, you appear in the same rank as these courageous womenwho devote their talent and energy to help the victims while making sure that their social rights are better protected both normatively and institutionally.”

In her acceptance speech, Coomaraswamy thanked those who had inspired her throughout her career. “I must thank my mentor, Dr. Neelan Thiruchelvam, who inspired a generation of Sri Lankans to work for the values of peace, truth and justice until he was cruelly assassinated in 1999. I must also thank the peace and human rights community in Sri Lanka and South Asia in general for making me understand the importance of struggle and for fighting fearlessly for humanity and human rights despite difficult circumstances. [...] Finally I would like to thank my family, my father, my brother and my mother. I dedicate this prize to her, to my mother and mothers everywhere who encourage their daughters to defy conventions, reach for the stars, to pursue their dreams so as to make the world a better place.” she said.

Dayan Jayatilleka and Sanja Jayatilleka with Radhika Coomaraswamy

The Foundation also awarded Father Francisco De Roux, s.j. Provincial of the Jesuits of Colombia, the prestigious Prize for Conflict Prevention for his action in favor of development and democracy in the Magdalena Medio area, in Colombia.

The laureates were selected by an international jury and a committee of experts. This year’s jury, presided by Jacques Chirac, was composed of leading peacemakers: Boutros Boutros-Ghali (former Secretary-General of the United Nations), Michel Camdessus (former Director-General of the International Monetary Fund), Joaquim Alberto Chissano (former President of Mozambique), Vaira Vike Freiberga (former President of Latvia), Federico Mayor (former Director-General of UNESCO), Andrea Riccardi (Minister for International Cooperation/Italy), Jean-Pierre Landau (Inspector-General of Finances), Ismaïl Serageldin (Director of the Library of Alexandria) and Simone Veil (former State Minister/France).

“The event was also attended by former French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, former Minister of Economy, François Baroin, French politicians and Ambassadors. Ambassador Dayan Jayatilleka and Madam Sanja Jayatilleka were also present on this occasion.” says Sri Lankan embassy in Paris.

Complaint to the Bribery Commission on Gold Quest financial fraud

Thursday, 22 November 2012

A complaint has been lodged by UNP parliamentarian Ravi Karunanayake at the Bribery Commission against Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal over the alleged financial fraud committed through a pyramid scam by Malaysia’s Gold Quest Company with Sri Lanka’s Fern Tea Company.

The complaint states that the pyramid scam had been formulated by Gold Quest and that it had received over Rs. 10 billion through Fern Tea. The monies had been directly sent to Malaysia without following any foreign exchange regulations.

A complaint in this regard had been received by the Exchange Control Unit of the Central Bank in 2004 and an investigation had been initiated on the matter. The investigation had found that Fern Tea Company and its Director Anura Fernando had violated exchange regulations.

Anura Fernando is a close friend of Cabraal, who was appointed as the Central Bank Governor in 2006. The Central Bank Governor immediately put a stop to the investigation into Gold Quest and Fern Tea. Central Bank officials say that even the files on the investigation had gone missing after the inquiry was stopped.

The exchange regulations on the maximum amount of money that could be taken out of the country and the monies that has to be paid for such a move have been violated. Karunanayake has pointed out that the incident came under the category of corruption and should therefore be investigated.

Founders of Latima House themselves denounce impeachment motion : Slap in the face of politicos who talked of Latima statement idly

(Lanka-e-News -21.Nov.2012, 11.55PM) Three main organizations forming the backbone of the Commonwealth have expressed their bitter resentment in respect of the impeachment motion that was tabled in Parliament against the Chief justice of SL , Dr. Shiranee Bandaranayake. These are the three Organizations which were responsible for the launching of the Latima House which has been the theme of much conversation during these days. The Associations of Magistrates and Judges , Lawyers and the legal monitoring of the Commonwealth had today issued this joint statement . It is most significant to note that they have roundly deplored and denounced the SL Parliamentary action. This motion brought against Dr. Shiranee Bandaranayake which impacts on the responsibilities and balanced relationship of all three State divisions must be resolved by a free and just panel of judges with absolute security . This must be made an indispensable condition , they have emphasized. When seen in the above context and condition , it is very obvious and most clear that the select Committee appointed by the SL Parliament does not even in the least conform to the requirements or expected standards, and cannot be said as just and free by any stretch of imagination when in that panel is , Rajitha Senaratne who was convicted and punished by a court and Wimal Weerawansa the notorious foul mouthed moron whose educational attainment is limited to grade nine and who had been openly and vacuously castigating the chief justice . Even the chief whip of the Govt. Nimal Siripala De Silva too who had been in the news for the most nefarious reasons is also similarly unsuitable to be in the panel , to deliver a right and proper judgment, singularly or collectively . In addition, even a blind person will admit the ratio of 7: 4 in the panel in Govt.’s favor is also absolutely unfair .At least now , it is hoped that the opposition leaders who were carrying the Latima statement on their shoulders sleepily and blabbering about it to idle away their time will open their eyes , after the Organizations which originated it had themselves clearly enunciated their stand and bitterly resented the Parliament Committee, the legal circles say. The joint statement of the three Organizations is given hereunder :

Beware Wolves In Sheep’s Clothing!

By Elmore Perera -November 22, 2012 

Elmore Perera

Beware Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing! 

Diabolical/Enigmatic Sarath N. Silva

Sarath N. Silva was never guilty of attempting to conceal his arrogant conviction that no individual or body of persons could possibly have any right to call in question or inquire into his conduct, both personal and official.

In a clear attempt to prevent any inquiry into his alleged misdeeds, for which he has never shown any remorse, in June 2001 Sarath N. Silva’s Supreme Court made order restraining the Speaker from even entertaining the impeachment motion against him. Then Speaker, Anura Bandaranaike, held that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to issue interim orders restraining the Speaker of Parliament in respect of the steps he was empowered to take under Standing Order 78A. Not to be outdone, Sarath N. Silva exploited the goodwill of President Kumaratunga, (to whom he had already administered the Oath of office for her second term as President, initially in public, in 1999 and once again secretly in 2000, in accordance with his unique interpretation of the Constitution), and prevailed on her to immediately prorogue and thereafter dissolve Parliament. A second attempt at impeachment was effectively thwarted, and he continued his personal and official misdeeds with redoubled vigour, in a most cavalier fashion.  In public, he even denounced lawyers who charged exorbitant fees from their clients, stating that they would “roast in hell”.

On 30^th December 2004, at a meeting of the Judicial Service Commission, Sarath N. Silva abused Shirani Bandaranayake J in vile language in the presence of Weerasooriya J, and others and continued to unilaterally conduct the affairs of the Judicial Service Commission in 2005, compelling them to resign from the Judicial Service Commission in January 2006, citing matters of conscience.

Having administered the “Karapincha” treatment to Minister S.B.Dissanayake and President Kumaratunga, Sarath N. Silva shifted his allegiance to Leader of the Opposition Mahinda Rajapaksa, cleared him from allegations of misappropriating Tsunami funds, and now proudly proclaims that he “was responsible to bring Rajapaksa into power.” His lust for power was such that he shamelessly exercised Executive power to the extent of even granting permits for harvesting of sand, until he barked up the wrong tree by determining the price at which petrol should be sold, fell foul of the President and virtually waged war on him. The chimes of time eventually rang out the news that his “reign of terror” was over and, he would have slipped unsung into oblivion, if not for his newly found religious fervour.

His overt support of General Sarath Fonseka gave him some respite and he made strong statements highly critical of the Rajapaksa regime. Having turned full circle, he is now back in the Rajapaksa camp, attempting to lend credence to the attempts to impeach the Chief Justice, whose appointment to the Supreme Court, he claims, was due to his defending the challenges to her appointment.

He has stated, inter alia, that, she should not have declined to accept the President’s invitation to meet him, she should quietly resign and go away to save the Judiciary, and, the President has the power to appoint an Acting Chief Justice in view of the impeachment proceedings.

Having exercised the power of the Judicial Service Commission to appoint a Chairman of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in terms of Art. 59(1) of the Constitution for a period of 3 years in terms of Act. No. 4 of 2002, enacted in terms of Art. 59(3) of the Constitution, he unlawfully appointed another Chairman under the same provisions when the incumbent Chairman had served only for two years. He seems to believe that Article 109(1)  which provides that “if the Chief Justice is temporarily unable to exercise, perform and discharge the powers, duties and functions of his office, by reason  of illness, absence from Sri Lanka or any other cause, the President shall appoint another Judge of the Supreme Court to act in the office of Chief Justice”, could be interpreted to mean that, notwithstanding the fact that the Chief Justice is neither ill nor absent from Sri Lanka, the words “or any other cause” could be interpreted to mean that initiation of a process of impeachment empowers the President to make such an acting appointment. He certainly knows that the “Rules of Interpretation of Statutes”  does not permit any such interpretation.

Is he entitled to continue having his name in the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law?

*Elmore Perera, Attorney-at-Law, Founder, Citizen’s Movement for Good Governance, Past President, Organisation of Professional Associations.

Retribution begins : chairman of Committee inquiring into impeachment struck by dengue! (Lanka-e-News -21.Nov.2012, 11.55PM) Today , that is just a day before the CJ has to appear before the Parliament , Minister Anura Priyadharshana Yapa ,the chairman of the Committee to inquire into the impeachment motion against the chief justice (CJ) , has been struck by the fatal dengue ailment. He was admitted to the Navaloka Hospital this evening. According to reports , he had developed fever , and after admission on an examination of a blood sample , it had been discovered that he is suffering from dengue. Interestingly , this impeachment motion that was steered most unjustly, crudely and cruelly by the Rajapakse regime to expel the CJ had incurred the wrath of the entire nation . Having no choice against the unjust , iniquitous , dictatorial and lawless rulers , many groups of people had recently resorted to performing bodhi poojas and religious rituals of cutting limes and burning chilies in Kovils cursing the regime, according to reports. Though many had died of dengue in Sri Lanka , so far until now , there had been no reports of a Minister being struck by dengue. While the people are cowardly and idly watching so much injustice and inequities raging in the country in their own midst , it must be appreciated that at least a mosquito had taken upon itself the responsibility of punishing the perpetrators of injustice , a lawyer speaking to Lanka e news , exclaimed.

CJ to be mistreated when she arrives in parliament

Thursday, 22 November 2012

Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake is to be mistreated when she arrives in parliament on the 23rd to appear before the parliamentary select committee (PSC) probing the impeachment motion against her, sources from parliament said.

Sources said that orders have already been issued from a higher office not to allow the Chief Justice to travel up to the parliamentary complex in her vehicle and to make her travel in the shuttle bus after subjecting her to the normal security checks at the main gate.

It is learnt that the orders are to treat the Chief Justice in the same manner like any ordinary citizen without offering any preferential treatment to her.

An opposition politician said that the government has stooped to such low levels due to the firm stance of the Chief Justice. Although the government believed that the Chief Justice would abandon her post due to the pressure placed on her, she has stood firm and remained in her post making things difficult for the government in the local and international arena.

The Courts Are Expected To Blindly Support The Executive

By Asian Human Rights Commission -November 22, 2012 

 Executive presidential system and the judiciary- An over-view

From the beginning of the executive presidential system, the most important threat to it was perceived to be the judiciary.

With a four fifths majority in parliament, J.R. Jayawardene, the UNP leader, made sure that all his party members in the legislature surrendered their rights to him. He got this through undated letters of resignation he took from everyone except for a few who refused to comply. He was therefore certain that there would be no challenge to his authority from the parliament.

JR saw the judiciary as the real threat to his authority -Photo by Kaku Kurita

However, he saw the judiciary as the real threat to his authority. Being the cunning politician that he was, he adopted many strategies to counteract any possible challenge to him from the judiciary.

The first step he took was to appoint his former lawyer and friend, Neville Samarakoon QC, as the Chief Justice. 1n 1977, as the new constitution was being prepared, he wanted to ensure that there would be no opposition to the passage of the constitution from the judiciary. By the appointment of Neville Samarakoon QC as Chief Justice, he managed to avoid any direct threat to the passing of this constitution. It was quite possible that if Neville Samarakoon QC was not there in the Supreme Court, that the court may have examined the new Constitution more critically. At this stage, Neville Samarakoon QC naively believed in the good faith of his friend J.R. Jayawardene and the conflicts between the two only began later.

However, it was at this early stage that the 1978 Constitution should have been scrutinised more closely. If that had been done, many of the internal contradictions of this constitution would have been exposed and the court could have quite possibly taken up the position that several of the provisions were a serious threat to the character of the constitution as a republic and a democracy. In particular, the threats posed by the constitution to the rule of law should have been examined at that stage, prior to its promulgation.

Particular attention should have been paid to the threats posed to the independence of the judiciary itself. The possibilities of the quick passage of some bills, including those for amendments to the constitution itself, were clearly contrary to democratic norms and practices and posed a threat to the independence of the judiciary, in that they did not provide adequate time for interventions by the public and thus the court was deprived of the opportunity of proper consideration of such proposed amendments. It was the possibility of passing laws hurriedly that was created by this constitution, which later enabled the executive president to enhance his power through several amendments. There were other provisions too which should have been examined closely from the possible threat that was posed to the independence of the judiciary. Article 35 (1) which placed the president outside the jurisdiction of the courts should have been subjected to scrutiny at this stage itself. Article 107 (3), which related to the impeachment of superior court judges, should also have been subjected to scrutiny, and safeguards for the judges should have been insisted on by the courts. However, with Neville Samarakoon at the head of the judiciary, none of these things happened.

Even worse, several Supreme Court judges who were functioning prior to the promulgation of the constitution were not reappointed. The objections to this issue were quite publically raised. However, Neville Samarakoon as Chief Justice did not take objection to the ‘dismissal of the judges by the Constitution’.

Thus, appointing Neville Samarakoon QC as Chief Justice was an important maneuver that J.R. Jayewardene resorted to.

The first conflict with Neville Samarakoon as Chief Justice was the closing of the doors of the Supreme Court to prevent the  judges from entering the court. The problems that arose from this situation are discussed inVishvalingam vs Liyanag. How strongly the Chief Justice felt is quite clearly expressed in this judgement. He said it was the greatest insult against the courts in Sri Lanka since their inception.

From that point on, J.R. Jayawardene’s strategy was to harass and humiliate Neville Samarakoon QC, the Chief Justice, as openly and blatantly as possible. In doing this, J.R. Jayawardene was clearly passing a message to all other judges. Any kind of opposition to him would lead to unpredictable, adverse consequences to any judge.

That message was more forcefully conveyed when the impeachment motion was filed against the Chief Justice. It was not merely a threat to Neville Samarakoon QC. It was a clear demonstration to all other judges, showing them that the president had the ultimate weapon against them and that once it was used they would be helpless.

It was a deliberate maneuver on his part to get the Standing Orders relating to the impeachment of judges made in such a way as to deny them the right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. This was not an oversight, this was a deliberate strategy. In fact, the court should have struck down these Standing Orders, as they contravened the constitutional principles relating to the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. It was an irony of history that having come to the top as a friend of the president, the Chief Justice was unwilling to pursue all the possibilities that existed for his defence within the judicial system itself.

After this period, a much more brilliant strategy were adopted by Chandrika Kumaratunga as president. She brought someone in as Chief Justice who would do every possible service to the president, not only by preventing opposition from the judiciary to the executive president, but also support the president when opposition arose from other quarters. Sarath N. Silva as Chief Justice provided this service both to Chandrika Kumaratunga as well as Mahinda Rajapaksa.

With the end of the tenure of Sarath N. Silva, again the problem of the possibility of people resorting to seeking relief from the courts against the actions of the executive president arose.

It is this problem that President Mahinda Rajapaksa is trying to resolve again through the impeachment proceedings against Shirani Bandaraniake. The strategy again is to eliminate the possibility of a threat to the president from an independently functioning judiciary.  The courts are expected to blindly support the executive.

INDIA: Does impeachment of the Chief Justice in Sri Lanka matter?

November 22, 2012

The Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, is facing impeachment in that country. Those who know the state of affairs in Sri Lanka, might have no doubt, that the impeachment is politically motivated. To justify the process, the government has levelled allegations of corruption against Justice Bandaranayake. The Constitution of Sri Lanka (Article 107) and the Parliamentary Standing Orders, though allows such a process, in law and theory, the entire process is devoid of legal and jurisprudential merits, a question that the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka is now considering, by way of receiving a reference petition to consider the constitutional vires of Article 107 of the 1978 Constitution.

Sri Lanka is not a country far and distant from Indian shores. Neither are the people, culture and politics of Sri Lanka alien to India. Though some people in both countries would argue for and against India's involvement in Sri Lankan affairs, the impeachment of the Chief Justice for purely political reasons is not something that India could pretend to ignore. Sri Lankans and Indians and all those who believe in democracy have the moral duty to express their opinion about the impeachment process. New Delhi has a little more difficult job, perhaps in expressing its concern about the impeachment process to Colombo, a responsibility nonetheless. The notion of state sovereignty is not a moral or legal impediment to this. 

That no government in India would ever dare to initiate impeachment proceedings against a judge in the country, without complying the constitutional requirements that guarantee universally accepted norms of justice, fair trial and due process strikes a stark contrast to the process adopted in Sri Lanka.  That none of these guarantees are offered to a judge, when a judge is judged in Sri Lanka, is reason persuasive enough for any government to express its concern to Colombo about the impeachment.

Whenever in India, the state legislatures or the central parliament has tried using parliamentary privilege for unjustifiable reasons against the judiciary, the judiciary has corrected the legislative houses. Additionally, the basic structure doctrine, postulated in Kesavananda Bharati (petitioner) against State of Kerala and others (respondents) [All India Reporter 1973 Supreme Court p. 1461], triumphs the clarion call of the power of judicial review and the limits drawn upon the parliament, even in its legislative authority. Justice J. R. Mudholkar who first postulated the concept in 1965 proposing a limit to legislative power of the parliament, or Justice Hans Raj Khanna and his brother judges who together in 1973 put the concept into practice were not attempted to be impeached by the then all-powerful Prime Minister of India, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, though the fallout from the judgment resulted in the promotion of junior judges. That too was not left without critique, immortalised in the words of former Chief Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah as an "attempt of not creating 'forward looking judges' but 'judges looking forward' to the office of Chief Justice." 

At the core of the issue is the concept of independence and separation of powers in governance. Power of judicial review, is one of the building blocks required by all states to prevent the deterioration of democracy into dictatorship. In that, the impeachment of a judge in Sri Lanka is the impeachment of the entire justice process in that country. The asphyxiation of what is left of judicial independence in Sri Lanka will have far-reaching and damaging effects upon its neighbours, India included.

During Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi's visit to India, she said that India's active appreciation of the military junta in Burma saddened her. Ms. Suu Kyi said that she was not surprised by India's accommodation of Burma's military dictators, who have brutally denied and continues to do so, the people of Burma, their freedom. Pretending ignorance of the impeachment proceedings in Sri Lanka will only cement this image.

Democracy and institutions of democracy are not internal affairs of a country, since no country can claim absolute ownership of democratic norms and values. Neither is this concept western, as often wrongly portrayed by individuals like Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, who has self-assumed the right of all Singaporeans to decide what is best for them, on the basis of a fake Asian value doctrine, or like Mr. Hun Sen of Cambodia who has decided on behalf of the Cambodians to continue in power until he is 80 years old. 

The concepts of democracy and freedom, the institutions necessary to sustain these concepts and the character of these institutions and their relationship between each other are the results of centuries of human struggle to free the public from unwarranted state control over fundamental freedoms. Crystallised into legal theory, these concepts translates into legal restrictions against arrest and detention; as concepts of bail; presumption of innocence; right against torture and everything that is understood as fair trial. In constitutional theory this means among others, the separation of powers between the organs of the state and the respect state institutions maintain about each other while discharging constitutional mandates. 

The quintessence of democracy is freedom and administration by consultation, embodied in the concept's ability to check absolute control. Judicial independence is elementary to this premise and the judiciary's ability to review acts of the executive, legislature and the judiciary itself, openly and freely is a prerequisite to realising democracy. When these spaces of freedom and consultation are shrunk, no matter where it happens in the world, it is the moral and legal responsibility of everyone who values these concepts to express concern and be worried. 

When it happens in the neighbourhood, it brings matters close to home.

For information and comments: Bijo Francis, AHRC. Telephone: + 852 - 26986 339, Email: india@ahrc.asia

Tamil Nadu: 4 fishermen attacked by Sri Lankan navy

Rameswaram: Four fishermen were injured on Thursday when they were attacked allegedly by Sri Lankan naval personnel when they were fishing near Katchatheevu in the Palk Straits, officials said. Sticks, bottles and stones were allegedly hurled by the Lankan navalmen at the fishermen and their boats also suffered damage in the attack, officials said.

The attackers also snapped the fishing nets and seized global positioning and wireless equipment. The injured fishermen have been admitted to a hospital at Ramanathpuram.

Katchatheevu is an islet ceded to Sri Lanka by India under a 1974 agreement between the two countries.

Four fishermen were injured on Thursday when they were attacked allegedly by Sri Lankan naval personnel.

300 kg of sea cucumber seized

A Naval Patrol team on Thursday seized 300 kg of sea cucumber, an endangered marine species, from two mechanised boats in the sea off Kothandaramar Temple here and nine persons arrested in this connection. Those on board the two vessels were arrested, Naval Commander T Satyanarayana who led the team, said. Sea cucumbers which were alive were let back into the sea,and the rest handed over to forest department officials, he said.

Though fishing and trading of sea cucumber was banned by the Centre in 2002, it is smuggled in large numbers to Japan, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, where people believe it has medicinal properties.

UN Internal Review Reinforces The Need For An Int’l Commission Of Investigation – TGTE

By Colombo Telegraph -November 21, 2012

“In the aftermath of the release of the Report of the UN Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action In Sri Lanka on November 14, 2012, Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), has reiterated its call for the creation of an International Commission of investigation on Sri Lanka by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, under Article 99, as recommended by his own legal team.” says Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam.

Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran - Prime Minister TGTE

Issuing a statement TGTE says; “We question if the conduct of Ambassador Francis Deng was an act of “quiet diplomacy” or an act of appeasement. If the quiet diplomacy did not save the lives of tens of thousands of Tamils at the last phase of the war in Sri Lanka, then it clearly is time for a public and robust diplomacy.”

We publish CPA statement in full;

In the aftermath of the release of the Report of the UN Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action In Sri Lanka on November 14, 2012, Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), has reiterated its call for the creation of an International Commission of investigation on Sri Lanka by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, under Article 99, as recommended by his own legal team

TGTE called on the Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, Mr. Adama Dieng, to make public its report on Tamil Genocide.

TGTE also called for prosecutions should not be limited to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity but should also include Genocide.

Given the constraint mandate of the LLRC coupled with the “lack of an enabling environment for a judicial follow up” as stated in the UN Internal Review Report, the Secretary-General need not wait till the exhaustion of the domestic remedies. Justice delayed is justice denied.

According to this Internal Review Report, Ban Ki Moon‘s own legal advisors recommended that he has the authority under UN’s Article 99 to appoint an International Commission of Inquiry on Sri Lanka to investigate the killing of over 100,000 Tamil civilians in the final five months of the war that ended in May 2009.

“We are urging the UN Secretary General to implement his own legal advisors’ recommendation on the creation of an International Commission of Inquiry under Article 99 and we are also urging Mr. Deng to make public his report on Tamil Genocide” said Mr. Deluxon Morris, TGTE’s Minister for investigation of Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“We hope that the Review Panel Report will put an end to the blaming the victims syndrome that we have seen for so long. We have been repeatedly saying that there is no moral equivalence between the aggressor and the aggressed, between the persecutor and persecuted.”

The Review Panel Report clearly demonstrates with facts that there was no equivalence between the Sinhala Buddhist aggression and the victimization of the Tamils. He continued, “We are appalled to see the Sri Lankan Government’s obstructions and manipulations of the UN Personnel”

The Internal Review Panel in its report stated that “according to the UN data most casualties are caused by government fire.” It went on to state “Some UN staff in Colombo expressed to the UN Country Team leadership that they are dismayed that the UN was placing primary emphasis on LTTE responsibility when the fact suggested otherwise”.

TGTE wrote a letter to the UN Secretary General as far back as April 29, 2011 following the report of the Panel of Experts, stating that the acts mentioned in the Panel of Experts report clearly constituted an act of Genocide.

It is stated in the Review Panel Report that:

“The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, who also has an international Human Rights and humanitarian law mandate, raised concern with the Government and the Secretary-General over the situation but favored quiet diplomacy and told the Government he would “not speak out.” When his office later tried to issue a public statement this was not supported by UNHQ”

We question if the conduct of Ambassador Francis Deng was an act of “quiet diplomacy” or an act of appeasement. If the quiet diplomacy did not save the lives of tens of thousands of Tamils at the last phase of the war in Sri Lanka, then it clearly is time for a public and robust diplomacy.

We urge that Mr. Adama Dieng who replaced Ambassador Deng to make public the report on Tamil Genocide in the island of Sri Lanka.

We also repeat our demand for an independent international investigation on Sri Lanka under Article 99; and we call for prosecutions which should not be limited to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity but should also include Genocide.

For Info Contact: Deluxon Morris (UK): Tel: +(44)794-002-0758 or Email: warcrime@tgte.org

Why Britain Has Blood On Its Hands

By Ian Cobain -November 22, 2012

Ian Cobain

How did the British government get involved in the torture of its own citizens?

When the US and its allies went to war in Afghanistan in 2001, it was inevitable that a small number of those captured on the battlefield would be British. For more than a decade, MI5 had been aware that British Muslims had been travelling to Pakistan and Afghanistan in what it saw as a form of jihadi tourism that posed no threat to the UK. All that changed after 9/11.

Among the Britons who were picked up in the wake of the attacks was a man called Jamal al-Harith. Born Ronald Fiddler in Manchester in 1966, Harith had converted to Islam in his 20s and travelled widely in the Muslim world before arriving in Afghanistan. After 9/11, he had been imprisoned by the Taliban, who suspected him of being a British spy. At one point he and several other prisoners were forced to share their large cell with a horse that had offended a local Taliban leader in some ill-defined way. A British journalist found Harith languishing in the prison in January 2002 and alerted British diplomats in Kabul, believing they would arrange his repatriation. Instead, they arranged for him to be detained by US forces, who took him straight to an interrogation centre at Kandahar.

Harith then spent two years at Guantánamo, being kicked, punched, slapped, shackled in painful positions, subjected to extreme temperatures and deprived of sleep. He was refused adequate water supplies and fed on food with date markings 10 or 12 years old. On one occasion, he says, he was chained and severely beaten for refusing an injection. He estimates he was interrogated about 80 times, usually by Americans but sometimes by British intelligence officers.

Nine months after his release, Harith issued a statement in which he said he was still in pain as a result of the beatings he received before interrogation. “The irony is that when I was first told in Afghanistan that I would be in the custody of the Americans, I was relieved. I thought that I would then be properly dealt with and returned home without much delay.”

Cruel Britannia: A Secret History Of Torture, by Ian Cobain, published next month by Portobello Books at £18.99. To order a copy for £15.19, with free UK mainland p&p, go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0330 333 6846.

A number of US Department of Defense documents leaked several years later showed that, like other men who were rounded up and taken to Guantánamo, Harith was there not because he was thought to be dangerous, but because the information he possessed was considered useful. Harith’s file shows that he was sent to Guantánamo “because he was expected to have knowledge of Taliban treatment of prisoners and interrogation tactics”. Eighteen months later, the camp authorities had satisfied themselves that he had no connection with the Taliban or al-Qaida, but decided against releasing him because his “timeline has not been fully established” and because British diplomats who had seen him in Kandahar had found him to be “cocky and evasive”.

In all, nine British nationals were sent to the maximum-security prison at Guantánamo, along with at least nine former British residents. All were incarcerated for years, and from the moment they arrived they suffered beatings, threats and sleep deprivation. All were interrogated by MI5 officers and some also by MI6. When Harith was eventually released, along with three men from the West Midlands known as the Tipton Three, a man called Martin from the Foreign Office was waiting for them as they boarded the plane home. “Can you,” he asked, “make sure you say you were treated properly?”

Martin’s boss, foreign secretary Jack Straw, was particularly concerned that the wider world should never learn of the extent to which the British government had become involved in the torture of its own citizens at Guantánamo. In December 2005, the full truth about British complicity in rendition and torture was still such a deeply buried official secret that Jack Straw felt able to reassure MPs on the Commons foreign affairs committee about the allegations starting to surface in the media. “Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories,” he said, “and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces in the United States… there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition.”

Read More