The Move To Impeach And Remove The Chief Justice Must Be Denounced By All Who Cherish Democracy

By Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga -November 23, 2012 

Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga

Democracy, The State And The Judiciary

The last few months have seen several attempts at interference with the proper functioning of the judiciary.  The Mannar incident, the unprecedented statement of the Judicial Service Commission, the physical attack on the Secretary of the JSC who released the statement on the direction of the JSC, use of State media to attack the judiciary, especially the Chief Justice, and now a Motion to impeach the Chief Justice.  A Member of Parliament who submitted the motion to the Speaker has publicly stated that the reason for the impeachment motion is the Supreme Court’s determination on theDivineguma Bill.  As that Bill seeks to make severe inroads into the areas of competence of Provincial Councils while concentrating power in the hands of a single Cabinet Minister, such a determination was only to be expected.  But, in the intolerant political environment that pertains today, judicial decision unpalatable to the Government are not tolerated.

The JR Jayewardene Constitution of 1978, while providing for the impeachment of judges of superior Courts, did not set out safeguards for accused judges.  The Standing Orders adopted in 1978 by a Parliament dominated by a 5/6^th majority of UNP members, provides for an inquiry into allegations against a judge to be conducted by a Select Committee of the very Parliament that makes allegations against the judge and which parliament will consider whether or not to submit an address to impeach the judge.  Surely, justice must not only be done but also seen to be done.

The procedure provided in the standing Orders is in stark contrast to that followed in India, where an inquiry is held not by a committee of parliamentarians but by a three-member committee consisting of a judge of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice of a State High Court and a distinguished jurist.  As the inquiry is judicial in nature, the judge concerned has recourse to a judicial review of the committee’s findings.

Under our Constitution, where a motion for the impeachment of the President is passed by Parliament with a 2/3 majority, the allegations are forwarded to the Supreme Court for inquiry or report.  Thus, the guilt of the President is determined not by the parliamentarians who have made the allegations but by the highest court of the land.  A mayor, chairman or member of a local authority can be removed only after a retired judicial officer has inquired and found such person guilty of incompetence, abuse of power etc. and such findings are liable to be judicially reviewed.  While a dismissed workman can go before a Labour Tribunal and appeal therefrom to the High Court and the Supreme Court, a public officer can appeal to the Public Service Commission and then to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and if still dissatisfied have recourse to judicial review by the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.  However, under the JR Jayewardene Constitution, judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal who constitute the highest authority that dispenses justice to all, have no remedy if justice is denied to them.

The issue of safeguards for judges of superior Courts against whom allegations are made was considered by the Select Committee on Constitutional Reform appointed during my Presidency.  On the basis of consensus reached in the Select Committee, both my Government’s Proposals for Constitutional Reform, 1997 and the Constitution Bill, that I presented to Parliament on 03 August 2000, provided for an inquiry of a judicial nature to be held outside Parliament when a motion for impeachment is presented against a judge.  In the case of the Chief Justice, the inquiry would be held by a committee consisting of three persons each of whom hold, or have held, office as judge in the highest Court of a Commonwealth country and in the case of any other judge by a committee consisting of three persons who hold, or have held, office as a judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal.  Of course, the Constitution Bill of 2000 did not become the supreme law of the land due to the inopportune actions of the UNP.  What is surprising today is that a government led by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party has thought it fit to follow the Jayewardene Constitution and the Standing Orders passed during the Jayewardene administration, rather than amend Standing Orders or bring in legislation to provide for an inquiry of a judicial nature as envisaged by the Constitution Bill of 2000, a Bill presented by a Government led by the SLFP.

Democracy demands that Governments respect judicial decisions unpalatable to them.  During the People’s Alliance administration led by me, several judgments went against the Government.  Prominent amongst them were the cases in which the Courts struck down the dissolution of the Sabaragamuwa and North-Central Provincial Councils; the nomination of persons from outside the nomination papers to fill vacancies in Provincial Councils; the proposed agreement for the exploration and mining of phosphate in Eppawala and so on.  When the Supreme Court held against the Government in the Katunayake Airport Taxi Drivers’ Case, on the basis of a statement made in Parliament by Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle among other facts, the judges were not impeached for allegedly breaching Parliamentary privilege.  Rather, a petition for the review of the judgment was filed in keeping with accepted legal practice.  The Supreme Court refused to review its decision.  Indeed the most glaring example of the Courts holding against the Government is the Supreme Court judgment of August 2005, cutting short the Presidential term from 06 to 05 years.  This judgment was even more surprising, in the circumstances that the Chief Justice himself previously gave advice to the President that she could “take the presidential oath any number of times – even every day, as long as she took oaths at the end of her first presidential term – at the end of 06 years in November 2000”. That President did not move to impeach the said Chief Justice, despite enormous pressure from her Ministers and legal advice that the judgment was incorrect and could be contested before a full bench of the Supreme Court.

Many judicial appointments made in our history have led to controversies and my administration was not spared in that regard.  A judge may or may not perform to the expectations of the appointing authority or of the People.  But judicial decisions need to be respected by all, especially the government.  Dr Colvin R De Silva, one of Sri Lanka’s most eminent lawyers, once sated “There have been bad judges, there will be bad judges but there are no bad judges”.  Such is the spirit in which unpalatable judgments need to be received.

It took several millennia for humans to decide that democracy and democratic governance were the most suitable institutions to guarantee individual freedoms and a properly functioning, humane government.  Democratic governance requires that there exist assemblies elected by all the citizens to represent all citizens, such as Parliament, regional and local assemblies.  It also necessitates the existence of a corpus of laws which will govern the actions of governments and the rulers, the public and so on.  This in turn requires that there exists an institution to judge and monitor that the government operates according to the laws of the land.  That institution has grown through the ages, to be the Judiciary, which evidently must function independently of those they judge – the government, all its instruments and of course the citizens.

The concept of Separation of Powers, guarantees that the 3 branches of a State – Parliament and other elected bodies, the Executive and the Judiciary have the power and the ability to function freely and independently of each other’s undue influence. The concept of Separation of Powers has proved to be a most essential cornerstone of Democratic governance.

A government that believes that the judiciary must act according to its will and whims, bodes serious danger to democracy and people’s freedoms.

It is necessary that all parliamentarians, especially those of the government and of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party in particular, do not view the issues that have arisen from the perspective of narrow personal political gain.  The move to impeach and remove the Chief Justice must be denounced by all who cherish democracy and stand for the independence of the judiciary.  It is our duty to protect the judiciary for, by protecting the judiciary, we protect ourselves and our fundamental freedoms.

Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga

Former President

'Manipulation of the rule of law is the order of the day' - Chrishantha Weliamuna

21 NOVEMBER 2012

BY KITHSIRI WIJESINGHE

Chrishantha Weliamuna - better known as JC Weliamuna - is a leading constitutional and human rights lawyer, who has been active in the field of human rights for almost two decades. He is the former Executive Director of the Sri Lankan chapter of the Transparency International (TISL) - the global coalition of civil society organisations working against corruption. As the head of the TISL, he drew the wrath of the government for exposing serious corruption scandals and appearing in highly sensitive cases involving human rights violations. In September 2008, he and his family survived a grenade attack on his residence in Colombo.

Speaking to JDS, he shruged off threats as a less important matter. 'I rose from humble beginnings in rural down south to become a professional. It's my duty to stay and fight' he says.

In 2010, he was elected to the Board of Directors of the Berlin based Transparency International. Currently he serves as a convener of the Lawyers for Democracy (LfD), apart from playing an active role at the forefront of the human rights movement in the island.

Excerpts from the interview follow:

JDS: The continuous attacks on judiciary, including the physical attack on Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) can be seen as an open manifestation of a cold war brewing between the judiciary and the Executive. Despite such views, the government has categorically denied any such involvement in the attack. Any comments on government's denial?

J.C. Weliamuna: In my opinion, it was quite obvious who and what paved the way to this ugly scenario. There is no point of trying to sweep the obvious evidence under the rug. For example the physical attack was undoubtedly a result of the differences emerged between the Judicial Service Commission and the Executive. The Executive president himself accused the Secretary of the JSC as the main culprit responsible for fanning such differences and then within days he got beaten up. You don't need to be a genius to put two and two together if you have the basic intelligence to figure out the the way politics work in Sri Lanka. When the Executive president of the country threw unsubstantiated accusations at JSC Secretary for committing various 'malpractices', the consequences can be easily predicted. President's comments clearly indicated that there is an open desire to tame and subjugate the entire judicial system. Before the secretary was attacked, the assailants have asked whether he is the 'JSC guy'. The message hidden behind this question was absolutely clear: it simply means 'don't mess with us!'

JDS: Nonetheless, the stand off between the judiciary and the government didn't last long and it even appeared as if the judiciary itself wanted to sweep the issue under the rug. Why the reluctance?    

Read more

                                                                                                   

Will Canada recommit to boycotting next year's commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka and encourage other member states to do the same?

Foreign Affairs 

   [Table of Contents]

Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP):  

    Mr. Speaker, the United Nations' responses during the final days of the Sri Lankan civil war were highlighted in the Petrie report. The deep tragedy and high civilian cost of the conflict is clear. Sri Lanka's human rights record continues to cause concern around the world. Improvements are nowhere in sight.

    Unless concrete action is taken for an independent, impartial international human rights violations inquiry, will the Conservatives recommit to boycotting next year's commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka and encourage other member states to do the same?

   [Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): 

    Mr. Speaker, no government around the world, no leader of any government around the world more than this Prime Minister has fought harder to ensure that there is genuine reconciliation in Sri Lanka. No government has fought harder to ensure that there is accountability for the terrible and disgraceful events that happened near the end of the civil war and no government has spoken up more forcefully against the ongoing and deteriorating human rights situation in many parts of that country.

    This government will continue to do what is best to promote the interests of people in Sri Lanka, including the Tamil population. We have not yet made a decision as to what will happen at the commonwealth summit, but I can say that the House and all Canadians can count on this government doing the strong and principled thing to ensure the support of Sri Lankan people.

   [Table of Contents]

Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP):  

    Mr. Speaker, this UN report is clear. Responsibility for the atrocities lies both with the Sri Lankan government and the rebels. However, the report also found serious failures at the United Nations. The report states the UN failed to stand up for the rights of people it was mandated to assist.

    What is the minister doing to ensure the implementation of these recommendations so that this never happens again?

  [Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): 

    Mr. Speaker, I think this is a first. We have the official opposition running down the United Nations on the floor of the House of Commons.

    I can assure the House that we will work with our international partners and with the United Nations. We believe this is a thoughtful and intelligent report that points to the need for all of us to ensure we do our best. Canadians can count on this Prime Minister and this government to do what is best on this issue.

Sri Lanka: Here lies the rule of law

Published Wednesday, Nov. 21 2012,

BOB RAE

There was no doubt among those watching on the ground as the Sri Lankan army carried out its blitzkrieg across the northeast of the island in early 2009. The loss of civilian life would be mammoth, and those killed would, as often as not, be in “safe zones.”

In my last meeting with the chief political spokesman for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 2005, there had been an eerie exchange of messages and warnings. S.P. Thamilselvan told me his cause was just and the LTTE would prevail. I told him the international community wanted real negotiations and there were no guarantees that a breakdown of discussions would not lead to renewed conflict.

MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY

• FRANCES HARRISON The UN’s ‘grave failure’ in Sri Lanka demands an answer
• Britain’s Cameron urged to follow Harper’s lead on Sri Lanka rights abuses

After the ceasefire collapsed and the Sri Lankan army went on its final, brutal offensive, Mr. Thamilselvan was dead, taken out by a targeted assassination. While the “ceasefire” wasn’t formally renounced by the government until 2008, both sides fell back into violence. But the government side would prevail, aided by its size and technology as well as the world’s indifference.

A civil war that had lasted, on and off, for 40 years was finally brought to a close by a bloody military assault on the Tiger territory that had been briefly protected by the ceasefire of 2002. The hundreds of thousands of civilians who had returned to the Vanni area with government support found themselves trapped. If they left, they would be shot by government troops and condemned for desertion by the Tigers.

Along with many other international representatives, I had spent many days in Kilinochchi, the Tigers’ one-time capital, meeting with political leaders, visiting schools and farms, talking long into the night about the prospects of an elusive peace. But as government forces moved northeast, bombing and occupying Kilinochchi, the civilian Tamil population moved ahead of them, in the tens of thousands, to a tiny strip of land on the coast. Government planes and artillery pounded civilians and hospitals, with nothing but an international “tut-tutting” that the government knew full well would produce no practical reaction from the United Nations and the international community.

The Tigers, for their part, continued to recruit children, denied requests to leave and, by forcing civilians to dig trenches and help their cause, exposed everyone to greater harm. As the UN put it in 2011: “All this was done in a quest to pursue a war that was clearly lost; many civilians were sacrificed on the altar of the LTTE cause and its efforts to preserve its senior leadership.”

In a new report, the UN has pointed to its own failures as an organization: It succumbed too easily to pressure from the Sri Lankan government and withdrew observers from the field when it was clear the absence of witnesses allowed both sides to get away with murder.

There were serious efforts to effect a real ceasefire and allow for a surrender, but this was turned down by the Tigers. This has now been documented, both in the new UN report and in Frances Harrison’s stirring book Still Counting the Dead. The Sri Lankan government denied entry to Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, and then to me, by that time a Canadian member of Parliament, to see the refugee camps for ourselves.

The important question now is: Will the UN and its members learn from the tragedy of Sri Lanka or just move on, oblivious? The dead number in the tens of thousands. There is still no accountability in Sri Lanka or internationally. Governments wag their fingers – three years too late – while more tragedies unfold, with no effective response, in Syria and elsewhere.

The League of Nations collapsed because it proved to be irrelevant as Europe descended into a chasm of belligerence and wars of conquest in the 1930s. The humanitarian tragedies of our own time are different, yet the failure of international governance is no less grave. We have laws and rules, but no means of enforcement. We have high ideals, but no apparent capacity for action. We either wring our hands or wash them, blaming others for our own inaction.

It is not simply the United Nations as an institution whose reputation is at stake – it is whether we have the collective means to curtail the violence that poses such a threat to human life in so many corners of the globe.

Let there be no doubt: A sovereign government brutalized and killed its own civilians. Rebel fighters committed their own crimes. No one has been held responsible for what happened. The Tigers paid with their lives. Leaders of the Sri Lankan government believe they have triumphed. Many tens of thousands of lives have been lost. And there is one more tombstone: “Here lies the rule of law.”

Bob Rae is Leader of the Liberal Party. From 1999 to 2006, he served as chairman of the Forum of Federations and was an adviser to the Sri Lankan peace process.

State terrorism and resistance: The genocidal occupation of the Tamil homeland

 

                                                         
BY ATHITHAN JAYAPALAN-21 NOVEMBER 2012

Three years have passed since the genocidal killings in Mulli'Vaykal in the North-East of Sri Lanka (Eezham). The Colombo government inhumanely portrays the conclusion of the Tamil Genocide on 19th May as Victory Day. Amidst Colombo’s euphoric, romantic and triumphal portrayals of the post-war period, the conditions of the Tamils are appalling and testify to their existence as a shackled and besieged nation.

While Colombo celebrated the 3rd anniversary of the V-day, the stateless Tamils continue to face multifaceted oppression indicating the government’s commitment to continue the protracted genocide.  Though the material base, distorted and manipulated to suit Colombo's most favored rhetorical tool "The Tamil Terrorist" is non-existent, the state violence pulsates on. It was thought the state could no longer utilize its much cherished term the fight against terrorism as a cloak to exert blatant genocidal violence against Tamils and brutal suppression of dissent. Contrarily the state violence remains in the post war scenario and displays the structural and systematic nature of it. The state sanctioned and manned violence is in fact inalienable from the functioning of the unitary nation state and is legitimized by the dominant Sinhala nationalism. The state centric discourses present the workings of Colombo as developmental in the North-East and that the situation of Tamils is progressively improving. Hence it is sung that with the ‘Northern Spring’ campaign, this oppressively centralized and unitary country is moving towards reconciliation, prosperity and peace.

The reality for Tamils is quite different as not even the shadows of equality, peace and security fall upon their homeland and so the political, socio-cultural and economic situation of the Tamils deteriorates drastically. Self determination is nonviable and as a nation their existence is under rapid erosion and faces annihilation or total subjugation. The prevalent situation was recently illuminated in a Washington post report ⁽¹⁾, and in internal reports produced by diplomats in the Norwegian embassy ⁽²⁾.

In both it is pointed out that the entire Tamil homeland is under heavy military governance and that every aspect of civilian life including the local economy is dictated. During fieldwork conduction in the North-East in early 2012 to assess the situation of Tamils, the Norwegian diplomats also noted the constant following presence of the military, even during meetings with the locals.

Undoubtedly in the Tamil homeland a military occupation with genocidal intent is bent on marginalizing and conditioning the Tamils’ capacity to lead their lives with dignity, to govern and independently empower themselves. Such a regime also prevents any form of just devolution of governance and the restoration of justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity. An environment which facilitates Tamils to express grievances, injustice, atrocities and their political demands is by no means available. It seems to be the intent of the state to eradicate the capacities of Tamils to reproduce their national consciousness, identities, socio-cultural characteristics and intricate connections to the traditional homeland. With the erosion of these elements, Colombo can without many obstacles assimilate the Tamils into its chauvinistic nation building project, a united and centralized Buddhist Sinhala Sri Lanka with dependent minorities. President Mahindra Rajapakse even said once that "there are no minorities in Sri Lanka, only Sri Lankans", and such understandings stem from and illuminate the mono-ethnic nature of the nation state and its ideology. An ideology falsely propagating the notion that Tamil-speakers are results of numerous migrations and invasions. They are then understood as immigrants and second grade citizens in contrast to the Sinhala who are the ‘sons of the soil’. Thus is the sectarian conceptual base formed to understand the island’s national question. Accordingly it is understood that non-Sinhala nations within the state are neither entitled to independently assert themselves nor to mobilize politically on such grounds.

Alarmingly the genocidal intent of the Sri Lankan state is increasingly becoming more impudent and manifest. The President capitalized the V-day speech to rebuke Hillary Clinton’s statement from 18th May urging Colombo to demilitarize the North and East ⁽³⁾. Recently The Sri Lankan Army Chief, Lt. General Jagath Jayasuriya reassured the world that it is he alone who decides the military affairs of the island and that “Where the army camps are deployed is my problem, not anybody else’s.”⁽⁴⁾. Militarization and the ongoing colonization and occupation in the Tamil homeland are out rightly legitimized by the foremost authorities of the State.

Proliferation of Organized Resistance

Read more...

Midweek Politics: The Summons

By Dharisha Bastians -November 22, 2012 

Dharisha Bastians

Friday, 23 November marks a watershed in Sri Lankan judicial history. For only the second time ever, the country’s top judge has been ordered appear before a parliamentary panel convened to probe charges of misconduct against her in a process that has been roundly criticized as unconstitutional and going against all principles of natural justice. How Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake answers her accusers during the process that begins with her ‘summons’ tomorrow, will determine the fate of the country’s judicial system – whether it will submit to executive will or continue to stand firm as the final hurdle on the road to authoritarianism

Justitia, the Roman goddess of justice, is often depicted with a set of scales in one hand and a double-edged sword in another. Later replicas of this icon depict Lady Justice with a blindfold over her eyes.

Through the centuries the statue has come to represent the moral force of the judicial system, with scales to represent the weighing of merits of a case, the sword to symbolise the power of reason and justice and perhaps most importantly, the cover over her eyes to signify the objectivity of the law in the face of identity, money, power or weakness. It is only if the law is blind and judges see nothing but the merits of a specific case that the citizen can be guaranteed fair trial and equality before the law.

Tomorrow, Sri Lanka’s fourth citizen and chief custodian of the people’s judicial power, has been ordered to present herself before a Select Committee of Parliament tasked with probing wide-ranging allegations of ‘improper conduct’ against her. If she answers the summons, Shirani Bandaranayake, Justice of the Supreme Court, Doctor of Law and first female Chief Justice in the country’s judicial history, will learn what others have learned before her – that in President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s administration, the fall from grace often has brutal consequences.

Ironically, the most fundamental question regarding this attempted impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake is whether there is any chance of objectivity in her case, whether she will be guaranteed the right to a fair trial, even as Government legislators presume to judge the merits of the impeachment motion against her despite the obvious perceptions of bias inherent to the process.

Senior lawyers point out that process to impeach the Chief Justice violates the legal principle of nemo iudex in sua causa or ‘that no man should be judge in his own cause’ because the motion will be heard by panel of members of whom a significant majority hail from the same Government that is bringing the charges against her.
Perhaps this watershed moment will reinforce for the Chief Justice and every judge in the land, how critical the independence of judicial officers is to the safeguarding of individual freedoms. But there is no guarantee in this case that the rights of the Chief Justice will be upheld as the PSC begins deliberations on the charges against her.

Legal action against PSC

A ‘meme’ or image being passed around electronically, that speaks to the heart of a democracy in crisis

.Read More

Sri Lanka-China satellite aims at spying on India

Thursday, 22 November 2012

The first joint telecommunications satellite between Sri Lanka and China is to be launched today (22) from the Shing Chang satellite center. The media has reported that once the satellite is launched, Sri Lanka would become the 45th country to have launched satellite.

India however is keeping a close watch on the real reason for the launch of the satellite. The amount of US$ 320 million required to manufacture and launch the satellite is to be given by the Chinese government to Sri Lanka as a long term loan. China is to also allocate another US$ 40 million to Sri Lanka for the satellite management center that is being set up in Pallekele in Kandy and to set up a training facility there.

Sources connected to the project say that China has agreed to consider the entire US$ 360 million for the entire project as grant to Sri Lanka, if the project serves China’s needs.

The modus operandi in the satellite programme is for the Chinese government to get internal and external information related to India through Sri Lanka.

China has already accepted the task of training technicians and satellite engineers needed fro the programme. One of the key conditions in the process is that all information received through the satellite should be shared with the Chinese. India meanwhile has already expressed doubts over the threat to the country’s internal security once the satellite is operations.

Relaibale sources said that although the Chinese government has tried to show that the entire project is a child’s programme after putting the President’s son, Rohitha Rajapaksa, the Indian government is well aware of the impending threat to the country.

MP Saravanan Speech in Parlienment

  

Full Text: Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne’s Petition Against The Impeachment Of The CJ

By Colombo Telegraph -November 21, 2012

S. L. Gunasekera, senior lawyer who appeared for President’s Counsel Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne argued that the procedure set out in Standing Order 78A of the Standing Orders of Parliament which has been used to impeach Chief Justice Bandaranayake was unconstitutional and patently an unfair and unreasonable procedure and it lacked transparency and integrity.

Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne

The petitioner claimed that the said Standing Order prejudicially affected  the independence of the judiciary and it was detrimental to the interest of the legal profession and also the public interest and sought an interim order to prevent PSC members from taking any step under the said Standing Order against CJ Bandaranayake.

The Court of Appeal yesterday referred to the Supreme Court for its constitutional interpretation of Article 107(3) of the Constitution on the procedure to be adopted on the impeachment of a Judge.

We below publish the full text of the petition;

 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

In the matter of an application for a mandates in the nature of a Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne

President’s Counsel

231/12A, First Lane

Kalapaluwawa

Rajagiriya

C.A. Writ Application No: 361/2012

Petitioner                                                Read More

Govt. distances itself from satellite launch

THURSDAY, 22 NOVEMBER 2012

The Government yesterday distanced itself from the first communications satellite to be launched today, despite it being endorsed by Scientific Affairs Senior Minister Tissa Vitarana and backed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s youngest son Rohitha.  

Sri Lanka’s Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRCSL) Director Anusha Palpita told Daily Mirror yesterday that the government was in no way involved in the satellite launch.

“It is a venture undertaken by a private company and we are not involved in the project in any capacity. However, the company has applied for a downlink and uplink services’ licence from the TRCSL. We have not granted approval yet,” he said.

Mr. Palpita said TRCSL approval was required for new satellite services to be provided to local consumers just like the licence granted to television stations, corporations and other telecommunication carriers to promote their space-technology related services within the country.

He said the stationing of the satellite due to be launched today, is not based on a Sri Lankan footprint (the ground area of the communication satellite’s receivers and transmitters that offer coverage).

“At present Sri Lanka possess two satellite footprints but this particular satellite has not obtained approval for Sri Lankan footprints,” he said adding that even if the company applied for approval to obtain a local footprint, it would take at least two or three years because approval had to be sought from the International Telecommunications Union and other neighboring countries prior to reserving a footprint.

Mr. Palpita said though discussions were carried out on several occasions concerning the launch of a satellite with government involvement, the task was not undertaken as it would cost about USD400 million.

“It is a huge investment and there is no guarantee of a return on the funds invested,” he added.

What’s described as Sri Lanka’s first communications satellite – SupremeSAT I, is due to be launched today at the Chinese Xichang satellite launch centre at 3.43 p.m. (local time). During the news conference held on Tuesday at the minister’s office, it was announced that two other satellites will be launched next year and in 2015, as part of a five-year project handled by the private-owned Sri Lankan company Supreme Group. The design, manufacture and production of the satellites are assisted by the China Great Wall Industry Corporation at an estimated cost of USD320 million. (Lakna Paranamanna)