After UN Spun Congo Failure As Allowing Monitoring, NowBan Ki-moon Speaks

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 25 -- The inaction of UN peacekeepers under Herve Ladsous as M23 mutineers took over Goma and then Sake is one of the biggest UN failures in some time.

  A member of the UN's C-34, to which Ladsous first proposed drones in March of this year, has analogized it to previous UN breakdowns, such as in Srebrenica (not to say as in Congo's neighbor Rwanda in 1994).

  While the numbers in Srebrenica, which some put at 7000, were higher the structure is the same: the UN says it will protect a place, people gather and remain -- then the UN does nothing when the place is attacked. Here, the UN ended up saying it was better it did not fight. Better for whom?

  The UN also said that by not fighting, it could remain and "keep records." But how? And for whom?

  After Herve Ladsous refused again on November 21 to answer any Press questions, including "would MONUSCO defend Bukavu" and about the protests against the UN, Inner City Press on November 23 submitted simple questions in writing to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's three top spokesmen.

  They forwarded the Congo questions to Ladsous spokesman Kieran Dwyer, who had been the one to tell UN personnel to make sure not to give the microphone to Inner City Press, to instead search for a friendly question "en Francais."

  Dwyer, who by that and other acts appeared to become something other than a spokesman, emailed a response to basic questions, I am looking into that, before 4 pm on November 23.

  A day and a half later, despite major developments and more UN failure on the ground, including in Minova, and the statement issued by a meeting of the International Conference of the Great Lakes Region, neither Dwyer or the other UN spokespeople have provide any of the promised responses to the questions.

  One awaited as of 11 am on Sunday at the UN in New York even any comment on the ICGLR plans, on which Inner City Press asked the three top UN spokespeople for UN "comments and plans on the roles assigned to it by what was announced."

  Surprising in light of its failure, the UN's MONUSCO mission, which did nothing as the M23 took over Goma, was assigned the task of standing between the new territory taken by M23 and the city of Goma, which the statement says M23 should leave - except, paradoxically, for its airport. For full 24 hours after the communique, the UN had no response. 

  Then, still without any responses from Ladsous' DPKO, the UN put out a statement in which Ban Ki-moon "calls on the M23 to immediately lay down their arms in accordance with the agreements reached in Kampala, and comply with the immediate withdrawal of their forces from Goma."

   Ban "is also determined to ensure that the United Nations presence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo be adjusted to respond to the evolving challenges in line with relevant Security Council resolutions on the Democratic Republic of the Congo." 

  So why did the UN, evne under its mandate, do nothing in Goma, and why does it not answer since?

    And now DRC President Joseph Kabila has said there will only be talks with M23 if they leave Goma first.

   Meanwhile, Ladsous' Department of Peacekeeping Operations is issuing short statements about the "background" and mandate of MONUSCO. When a Tweeter with three followers asked online why the UN and its humanitarian chief Valerie Amos didn't respond as in Somalia,  with AMISOM, the UN Peacekeeping accountreplied with MONUSCO's mandate.

   But when asked by a more active Tweeter with hundreds of followers why Ladsous does not resign after his failures, here, there was no response from UN Peacekeeping. And so others online answered the question themselves. Who will be held accountable? Watch this site.

War Tourism Skips Reality

Tourists from southern Sri Lanka walk past the gutted remains of the Jordanian cargo vessel Farah III, which was commandeered by the LTTE. Credit: Amantha Perera/IPS

Analysis by Amantha Perera-Sunday, November 25, 2012

MULLAITIVU, Sri Lanka, Nov 24 2012 (IPS) - The tour guide’s voice echoes around the dark, musty room, three stories underground. Fifty visitors – among them mothers holding infants, youths snapping pictures on mobile phones and grandparents leaning against the walls – are crammed into the narrow stairwell that leads down into the chamber, listening attentively to his every word.

The tourists have travelled hundreds of kilometres to see this underground bunker, once home to the most feared man in Sri Lanka: the leader of the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Velupillai Prabhakaran.

Located a short drive south of the town of Puthukkudiyiruppu, a former LTTE operations hub in the northern Mullaitivu District, some 330 kilometres from the capital Colombo, the bunker complex is nestled deep within the jungle.

The massive compound boasts a firing range, a semi-underground garage, a jogging path, a film hall and a small funeral parlor where the Tiger leader paid his final respects to fallen cadres.

“This is out of this world, how did they ever build something like this?” a woman who gave her name as Ranjini asked while walking down the narrow stairs.

Other attractions on the tour of former rebel-held areas include the shipyard where the Tigers experimented with building submersibles, complete with a dry dock and the skeletal remains of the Farah III, a Jordanian cargo vessel that was commandeered by the LTTE.

What is sidelined, however, are details of the beleaguered Tamil population that lived in this region throughout 30 years of civil war, and is now struggling to survive.

Beneath war attractions, suffering continues

The Sri Lankan military came across the bunker complex after the Tigers were defeated in May 2009, signaling the end of a three-decade-long civil war in which the LTTE fought the Sri Lankan government for control over the north and east of the island in order to establish a separate state for the minority Tamil population.

Puthukkudiyiruppu and Mullaitivu, once the central command headquarters of a massive guerilla operation, now play host to thousands of visitors, mostly from the majority-Sinhalese southern regions of the country.

But while these guided tours offer locals a rare glance into the inner workings of the Tigers’ de facto state and the extent of its former military capacity, rights activists fear that many tourists are missing the “bigger picture” – the horrors of the aftermath of the war and the suffering that has become an everyday experience for tens of thousands who were displaced during the last bouts of fighting.

what happened here during the first half of 2009 and who was responsible.

The government has maintained a firm line that the Tamil civilians caught in the crossfire of the conclusive battle were “rescued” in a humanitarian operation and moved to safety in government “welfare camps”, while U.N. officials and aid workers classified this process as mass incarceration of Tamil civilian survivors in open-air detention centres, in violation of international law.

These unresolved questions are now being sidelined as the tourists arrive in droves, intent on one thing only – seeing as many of the war relics as possible, according to Saroja Sivachandaran, head of the Centre for Women and Development, a gender-based rights group in northern Jaffna.

“They fail to see that they are travelling through an area of absolute destruction where thousands still live in makeshift shelters,” she told IPS.

Some 450,000 displaced people, including around 236,000 who were rendered homeless during the last months of the war, are only now returning to their home villages in the north, even though basic amenities are still scarce in the region.

So far, just 21,000 permanent houses have been constructed for the roughly 170,000 still in search of homes.

The latest U.N. situation reports warn of serious funding shortfalls for rehabilitation work, a bleak forecast for the displaced.

Prashan de Visser, president of the national youth movement ‘Sri Lanka Unites’, told IPS that the gulf between visitors and those living in the former war zone stems from language barriers and a long history of cultural and social.

Sri Lanka Unites has engaged its island-wide base of 10,000 members to breach the ethnic divides, but there is still a long way to go since misconceptions are deeply “ingrained in the (social) system”, de Visser told IPS.

Sri Lanka Unites organises field tours and conferences for youth from all over the island, and for members of the vast Sri Lankan diaspora. Its main annual event, the Future Leaders’ Conference, was held in Jaffna this year, brining over 10,000 youth together for a week of activities.

During these intimate interactions, de Visser said, youth from different ethnic groups begin to see through the cultural and social barriers that have held them apart for so long.

This year, a group of youth leaders from the southern-most district of Hambantota pledged to raise 300,000 rupees (about 2,300 dollars) for work in the north after taking a field tour of the war-affected areas.

But most of the visitors flocking to the region are unlikely to make similar pledges.

Fernando warned that ‘gawking tourists’ will only reinforce ethnic divides instead of bridging them.

“This is still a massive curiosity park for the visitors, they really don’t want to see beyond the (thrills) offered by attractions like the bunker,” said Mahendran Sivakumar, a 61-year-old retired government education official who lived in the war zone throughout the entire conflict.

Former CJ Asoka de Silva Himself Purchased A House From Ceylinco Having Been On The Bench – CJ

By Colombo Telegraph -November 25, 2012 

“It may be relevant to note that after 6.5.2010 case No.262/2010 was taken up before the former Chief Justice Hon. Justice Asoka de Silva. The former Chief Justice Hon, Justice Asoka de Silva himself purchased a housing unit at trillium residencies demonstrating that there was no impediment to purchase such a housing unit.” says Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake.

Asoka de Silva

Responding to the charge number one in the impeachment motion her lawyers made above remarks.

Below is the charge number one and the response;

PURPORTED CHARGE 1

Note: English translation of the purported charges, were obtained from the Parliament’s website at www.parliament.lk

“1. Whereas by purchasing, in the names of two individuals, i.e. Renuka Niranjali Bandaranayake and Kapila Ranjan Karunaratne using special power of attorney licence bearing No. 823 of Public Notary K.B. Aroshi Perera that was given by Renuka Niranjali Bandaranayake and Kapila Ranjan Karunaratne residing at No. 127, Ejina Street, Mount Hawthorn, Western Australia, 6016, Australia, the house bearing No. 2C/F2/P4 and assessment No. 153/1-2/4 from the housing scheme located at No. 153, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08 belonging to the company that was known as Ceylinco Housing and Property Company and City Housing and Real Estate Company Limited and Ceylinco Condominium Limited and is currently known as Trillium Residencies which is referred in the list of property in the case of fundamental rights application No. 262/2009, having removed another bench of the Supreme Court which was hearing the fundamental rights application cases bearing Nos. 262/2009, 191/2009 and 317/2009 filed respectively in the Supreme Court against Ceylinco Sri Ram Capital Management, Golden Key Credit Card Company and Finance and Guarantee Company Limited belonging to the Ceylinco Group of Companies and taking up further hearing of the aforesaid cases under her court and serving as the presiding judge of the benches hearing the said cases”

1. The crux of the charge is that our client wrongfully took over the hearing of a case so that she could purchase using a power of attorney a housing unit in the Trillium Residencies in the name of her sister and her sister’s husband.

2. The allegation is totally baseless and groundless.

3. Our client had a special power of attorney from her sister and her brother in law because her sister and sister’s husband were the purchasers.

4. The housing unit was not purchased by our client in the name of her sister and her brother in law. It was in fact and in truth purchased by her sister and her sister’s husband.

5. The total purchase consideration was remitted by our client’s sister and her brother in law as more fully set out hereinafter [vide paragraphs under charge 3 below].

Thus it is clear that our client’s sister and brother in law provided the total consideration. Our client did not provide a cent of the purchase consideration.

Thus the premises was in fact bought by our client’s sister and her brother in law and not purchased in the names of our client’s sister and brother in law.

Our client’s sister or brother in law received no benefit whatever by the case being called or heard before our client.

We may mention that our client and her sister are the only children of that family and our client had been looking after her sister’s interest in Sri Lanka for the last 22 years whilst her sister was living in Australia; she held their general power of attorney from about 1990 when they left Sri Lanka.

Relevant dates

The proceedings of 6.5.2010:-

The Supreme court (consisting of Hon. Justice Thilakawardene, Hon. Justice Sripavan and Hon. Justice Imam) made inter alia the following order on 6.5.2010:-

“ …The properties to be disposed would be:-

(1) pioneer tower (head office building)

(2) trillium residencies (sale of housing units)

(3) celestial residencies…”

In the circumstances there was no restriction for the sale of any of the housing units of Trillium from 6.5.2010.

In the circumstances from 6.5.2010 the housing units in Trillium residencies were in effect not a property in the list of properties in case 262-2009 that could not be alienated.

Our client became chief Justice on or about 18.5.2011, which is one year after the above order of the Supreme Court.

In the circumstances our client did not in any way participate in the order in which housing units in trillium residencies was permitted to be sold.

Cases bearing numbers 262-09, 191-09 and 317-09 referred to in the charge were meant to be taken up together. On 23.8.2011 a motion was filed asking that the matter be heard by a bench of 5 judges. This motion was submitted to our client, who made order that the motion be supported before the bench which sat on 29.6.2011, which was Hon. Justice Thilakawardene, Justice Ekanayake and Dep P.C J.

In the circumstances it is incorrect to allege that our client wrongfully took over the case.

It may be relevant to note that after 6.5.2010 case No.262/2010 was taken up before the former Chief Justice Hon. Justice Asoka de Silva. The former Chief Justice Hon, Justice Asoka de Silva himself purchased a housing unit at trillium residencies demonstrating that there was no impediment to purchase such a housing unit.

In summary then,

(1) the sale /purchase of housing units of trillium residencies was permitted by order of the SC dated 6.5.2010 (Supreme Court bench consisting of Hon. Justice Thilakawardene, Hon. Justice Sripavan and Hon. Justice Imam);

(2) there was no restriction in the sale of housing units of Trillium Residences after 6.5.2010

(3) our client became Chief Justice on or about 18.5.2011;

(4) the case was mentioned before our client for the first time on 13.10.2011;

(5) there was nothing wrong in the manner in which the case came before our client;

(5) the properties were purchased by our client’s sister and brother in law and not by our client; and

(6) our client’s sister and brother in law did not receive any benefit whatsoever by our client hearing the case.

Read the full response here

Related stories;

Breaking News: Here Is the Full Charge-Sheet Against Chief Justice

PRESIDENT NOT VISITING MALAYSIA NEXT MONTH

November 25, 2012

With various Indian groups objecting to the visit of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa to Malaysia early next month for an international forum, it has now been confirmed that Rajapaksa will not be visiting after all.

This has been confirmed by the Sri Lankan High Commission’s media affairs counsellor, Rizvi Hassen.

“President Rajapaksa will not be coming due to unavoidable circumstances,” Rizvi said in an e-mail correspondence to FMT.

Rajapaksa was invited to attend the World Islamic Economic Forum (WIEF) in Johor Baru from December 4 to 6.

The invitation, however, had sparked off protests from leaders of the Indian community in Malaysia.

The Sri Lankan leader’s absence, however, is not due to the various protests by political and non-political entities, said Rizvi.

“It is not due to the protests. The decision [to not attend the WEIF] was decided before the protests took place,” he said.

On Friday, MIC Youth sent a protest memorandum to the Foreign Ministry objecting to the planned visit by Rajapaksa.

Separately a committee was also set up by Penang Deputy Chief Minister P Ramasamy to object to Rajapaksa’s presence in Malaysia.

Yesterday, Sri Lanka War Victim Concerned Team (Api) protested in front of the Sri Lankan High Commission over the proposed visit. MIC Youth members also lodged a police report against Rajapaksa for alleged war crimes.

The Indians in Malaysians who are largely made up of ethnic Tamil have been expressing their displeasure due to Rajapaksa’s role in quashing the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 2009 after a 26-year civil war, Free Malaysia Todayreported.

Lady Doctor missing SATURDAY, 24 NOVEMBER 2012  A 28 year-old female doctor employed at the Matara hospital has been reported missing since last evening, the Police said. The Police said she had been travelling home from Habaraduwa towards Unawatuna during the time she went missing. According to her husband who lodged a complaint at the Matara Police about the disappearance, her phone has been unreachable since 6.50 pm yesterday. Further investigations are being carried out by the Matara Police. (LP) Missing anesthetist surfaces at Anurdhapura MONDAY, 26 NOVEMBER 2012 The Anesthetist of Matara Hospital Dr. Mrs. Erandi Kulasinghe who had been reported missing has been found at Anuradhapura says police spokesman SSP Prishanthe Jayakody. She has told the police that she had gone to participate at a ‘Bodhi pooja’ at Ruwanwelisaya to get blessings for her sick father. Her husband had complained to the police that she had disappeared while driving to her residence at Hikkaduwa after completing her day’s duty at Matara Hospital.

Similarities And Dissimilarities Between The PSC Trial And The Moscow Show Trials

By  Basil Fernando -November 25, 2012 

Basil Fernando

In the mid-1930s, Stalin staged several trials that are now known as Moscow Show Trials. The similarities and dissimilarities between them and the “trial by PSC” are as follows.

1. Stalin’s trials had a façade of justice, in that they were conducted in a court by a judge and prosecutor, and it was an open trial. In fact, the wide openness of the trial was one of the very important factors of that kind of trial. However, the PSC trial is by seven parliamentarians and conducted in secret, and even the reporting of the process is contrary to the Standing Orders.
2. The central aspect of Stalin’s trials was the confession; the accused admitting his guilt and apologizing to the nation. This was to create the public impression that the verdict is based on actual guilt, admitted by the accused himself. In a “PSC trial”, there is no such possibility of “voluntary” confessions. (In fact, in Stalin’s trials the confessions were obtained by torture and if the victims were not willing to make a public confession, they would have been killed without the trial. However, in a PSC trial the issue of proof, even in an artificial way, does not seem to be required. In fact, it is the issues relating to proof that are being challenged by the cases filed before the Supreme Court.)
3. In Stalin’s trials, there was no show of hurry. Of course, the entire process was pre-determined and if anything went against the script, the cases were postponed and the victims were made to understand, by torture or otherwise, that the script has to be followed. In the PSC trial, there is a mighty hurry and, according to reports, even the request for a reasonable time for preparation by the Chief Justice has been denied.
4. Stalin wanted the Western world to believe that the trial was a genuine one. That was the reason for allowing observers – and even inviting very high level observers – to the trial. When the PSC trial is held, ignoring requests by the Supreme Court to withhold the trial until they determine some questions relating to the legality of the PSC process, there is not even an attempt to give an impression of a fair trial.

A good book to read these days as we watched the PSC trials is Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler, where the sheer irony of so-called justice is brilliantly exposed.

Tardy extradition bid allows abusing Catholic brother to flee to Sri Lanka

Bernard McGrath. Photo: Dean Kozanic

Paul Bibby, Rory Callinan and Martin Van Beynen 
Published: November 26, 2012 - 12:00AM

A FORMER Catholic brother charged five months ago with hundreds of counts of sexual abuse against children and young adults is now living in Sri Lanka because authorities dragged their feet in seeking his extradition to Australia.

Former St John of God brother Bernard Kevin McGrath, who recently served two years in a New Zealand prison for sexually abusing boys there, had 252 abuse charges laid against him in a Newcastle court on June 27.

The 65-year-old is alleged to have repeatedly raped, molested and abused dozens of young boys at church-run institutions in the Newcastle-Maitland diocese during the late 1970s and '80s.

It is understood that a number of the charges relate to McGrath's time as a brother at the notorious Kendall Grange College in Morissett, New South Wales.

Fairfax media revealed on Sunday that McGrath is one of three St John of God brothers being sued by Sydney's so-called "playboy rapist", Simon Monteiro, who is currently serving a jail sentence for aggravated rape and who claims that the abuse he suffered has left him with severe psychological disorders.

Among the charges faced by McGrath are 30 counts of homosexual intercourse with a male between the age of 10 and 18, 30 counts of homosexual intercourse between a teacher and a student aged between 10 and 18, and 102 charges of indecent assault.

NSW police were meant to extradite McGrath to Australia from Christchurch where he had lived since being paroled in 2008. But Fairfax Media has learnt that McGrath was allowed to fly out of New Zealand some time after the charges were lodged and is currently staying on a tea plantation in the highlands of Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka is a known haven for paedophiles, particularly its rural areas where criminals run large, organised child-sex operations. Australia does not have a direct extradition treaty with Sri Lanka.

McGrath's New Zealand brother, Clem McGrath, said the accused man had flown out of Christchurch in early winter after a friend had told him: "Why don't you come to Sri Lanka? You've got nothing here."

When asked on Sunday, neither NSW Police nor the office of federal Home Affairs and Justice Minister Jason Clare would say when the process of extraditing McGrath had begun.

"NSW Police will not comment in relation to this investigation as speculation may jeopardise current lines of inquiry," a police spokesman said.

But a New Zealand police source told Fairfax Media that the formal extradition request had only come to them from Interpol on November 15 - nearly five months after the charges were laid, and many weeks after McGrath reportedly left the country.

It is understood that the

extradition may have been delayed by the multiple levels of bureaucracy involved in the extradition process.

It is not known whether Sri Lankan authorities have been informed that an accused paedophile is living in their country.

Although Australia does not have a direct extradition treaty with Sri Lanka, it can extradite suspects from there under the London Scheme, which enables Commonwealth countries to extradite fugitive criminals to each other upon the presentation of prima face evidence.

Fairfax Media understands that Australian federal police based in Sri Lanka have been made aware of McGrath's presence and may have been following his movements.

Brother McGrath was transferred to New Zealand to be a teacher and dormitory master at Marylands, a SJOG boarding school near Christchurch for boys with learning and behavioural difficulties.

In 1993 he was sentenced to three years' jail in New Zealand for offences at Marylands and the Hebron Trust, a learning centre for street kids.

In 2002, more complainants contacted New Zealand police concerning sexual assaults by McGrath, culminating in his conviction in 2006 on 22 counts of abuse.

According to the online Factbook on Global Exploitation, 10,000 to 12,000 children from rural areas in Sri Lanka are trafficked and prostituted to paedophiles by organised crime groups every year.

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/national/tardy-extradition-bid-allows-abusing-catholic-brother-to-flee-to-sri-lanka-20121125-2a1n7.html#ixzz2DFsyY7vq

SRI LANKA: Saliya Wewa Police Collude With Murderer of Young Girl Who Died of Severe Burn Injuries

Letter by William Gomes Salem-News.com-Nov-24-2012

Story of cruelty and injustice is one of the worst we have ever heard.

Courtesy: Lonely Planet

(SALEM) - This is one of the saddest, most distressing and generally upsetting letters Mr. Gomes has written so far; it is about a girl in Sri Lanka who was robbed of her childhood and life in the cruelest way, literally.

Muddara Pedilage Suneetha Sandamali was 14-years old when she was first kidnapped and raped by a 25-year old civil defence force soldier named Wijesundara Pedige Thusitha Priyaranga.

He didn't stop there.

Under threat of death, she stole at the man's request from her own family. When authorities were notified of his crime against the child, he was neither arrested or relieved of his duties. While he faced charges for her abduction, with a long extended court date, the girl moved in with him and became his so-called 'partner'.

How many child rape victims willingly 'move in' with their attackers who are not under threat and intimidation? At the age of 16, early last December, Muddara suffered terrible burns on her body when she was alone with 'Thusitha'. He said her dress inexplicably burst into flames.

Later before her death from the burns, she told doctors and others at the hospital that he set out to kill her in the cruelest possible manner. Six hours after setting her on fire, he agreed to take her to the hospital, but only if she did not tell them he set her ablaze.

Salem-News.com has written many reports about crimes against humanity in Sri Lanka and as soon as I prepare this to be published, I am going to write to Rajiva Wijesinha, a well-known Sri Lankan politician and writer, and see if he can help ensure this is being investigated.

“

Mr. N K Illangakoon Inspector General of Police New Secretariat Colombo 1 SRI LANKA Fax: +94 11 2 440440 / 327877 E-mail: igp@police.lk Dear Inspector General of Police, I am William Nicholas Gomes, Human Rights Ambassador for Salem-News.com I came to know about the situation from ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION-URGENT APPEAL PROGRAMME Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-194-2012. Name of the victim: Ms. Muddara Pedilage Suneetha Sandamali (16) of No: 03, Neelabamma Viyaparaya, Saliya Wewa Junction in Anuradhapura District Alleged perpetrator: 1. Wijesundara Pedige Thusitha Priyaranga (25), a soldier attached to the Civil Defence Force 2. Officers of the Saliya Wewa Police Station Date of incident: 4 December 2011 Place of incident: The victim’s home I am writing to express my serious concern over the case of Ms. Muddara Pedilage Suneetha Sandamali (16) of No: 03, Neelabamma Viyaparaya, Saliya Wewa Junction in Anuradhapura District. Sandamali succumbed to severe burn injuries at the Puttalam Base Hospital on 13 December 2011. She had been admitted to the hospital by Wijesundara Pedige Thusitha Priyaranga (25), a soldier attached to the Civil Defence Force, and the Saliya Wewa Police Station whom she lived with as a partner. Sandamali was alone with Thusitha at their home at the time of incident which happened at 7 AM on 4 December 2011. She suffered severe burn injuries which led to her death. On arrival at the hospital Sandamali initially stated that her clothing suddenly and inexplicably burst into flames. However, after some days she revealed to members of her family and friends that Thusitha had intentionally set her on fire and threatened her with death if she revealed to anyone that he had done so. He kept her at home for six hours after the incident before taking her to hospital and did so only after she agreed to follow his instructions. He had concealed the fact that Sandamali had been seriously injured by closing the windows and curtains of their house so that her parents, who lived within sight of their house, would not find out. He made attempts to treat her with pain killers and burn medication but when the pain became too much to bear she pleaded with him to take her to the hospital. Sandamali’s second statement to the police reveals the deliberate and ruthless intention of Wijesundara Pedige Thusitha Priyaranga to kill her in the cruelest possible manner. During the period between 4 to 13 December, 2011 when she was visited at the hospital by family and friends she revealed to them that Thusitha had set her on fire. Police officers attached to the Saliya Wewa Police Station, to which Thusitha was also attached took the second statement from Sandamali and in a most suspicious manner the officers ordered the mother and sister to leave the ward. The officers then remained with Sandamali for three hours against the doctor’s advice. Prior to the incident when Sandamali was below 15 years-of-age she was abducted and raped by Thusitha. At that time he was arrested and remanded and a case was filed before the Magistrate of Puttalam under Case No. BR 231/11. However, when he was enlarged on bail he again abducted the under-aged girl and brought her to his home where he continuously abused her physically and mentally. He also forced her to take money from her parents with threats of violence. Following this Sandamali made a written complaint to the Saliya Wewa Police Station. Inexplicably, while Thusitha was on bail and under investigation for rape in the Magistrate’s Court of Puttalam he was still permitted to work in the Civil Defence Force and the Saliya Wewa Police Station. This case was postponed to 19 February, 2013 where he stands accused of statutory rape. After the death of Ms. Muddara Pedilage Suneetha Sandamali the Saliya Wewa Police Station reported to the Magistrate’s Court of Puttalam under case No. BR/1740/11/P. In that report the police mentioned Thusitha as being responsible for her death. However, when later the police proceeded with the case in the same court they failed to mention this fact. The Honourable Magistrate attended the scene of the crime but by that time Thusitha had cleaned up and removed all the evidence. Despite the fact that it was clearly their duty to do so the police did not record this. When Thusitha made his statement to the police he falsely gave Sandamali’s age as 18. He further stated that at 7:30 AM on the day of the incident Sandamali, who was wearing a long dress, suddenly and inexplicably burst into flames. In the police report they intentionally did not give the actual time when Wijesundara Pedige Thusitha Priyaranga took Sandamali to the hospital six hours after the incident. No doubt acting on information provided by the Saliya Wewa Police Station the Attorney General instructed the Magistrate of Puttalam to release Thusitha. I request your urgent intervention to ensure that the Attorney General’s Department reopens the case and conducts a proper investigation. The parents state that they have been denied an investigation and that their daughter has been denied judgement. Action must be taken against the officers of the Saliya Wewa Police Station for their obvious collusion with Thusitha in concealing the facts behind the death of Ms. Muddara Pedilage Suneetha Sandamali. Yours sincerely, William Nicholas Gomes Human Rights Ambassador for Salem News.com www.williamgomes.org

A Response To Chandraprema: Bangalore Principles Are Certainly Not For The Removal Of A Judge

By Nihal Jayawickrama -November 25, 2012 

Dr.Nihal Jayawickrama

In seventeenth century England, the Stuart Kings seriously undermined the independence of the judiciary by the practice of dismissing judges who gave decisions unfavourable to them. Consequently, in 1701, as part of the revolution settlement on the accession of William and Mary, the English Parliament enacted the Act of Settlement which guaranteed the tenure of judges “during good behaviour”, and provided for their removal only “upon the address of both Houses of Parliament”. That law was intended to guarantee security of tenure beyond what was enjoyed by a civil servant under the Crown, since civil servants held office “at the pleasure of the Crown” and could be removed at will. The intention was to ensure that judges of the superior courts will be virtually irremovable, since Parliament rarely, if ever, did what the King desired.

Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka today, there is no distinction between the Executive and Parliament. Nearly every member of the government parliamentary group is a member of the Executive, whether as a minister, deputy minister or a monitor. Therefore, whatever the Executive desires, Parliament will render, including an impeachment motion. Indeed, the political columnist of the Sunday Island (18 November 2012), authoritatively admits that the motion to impeach the Chief Justice (which he appears to unreservedly support) is motivated “by political reasons”, namely the Supreme Court’s decision, unfavourable to the Government, on theDivineguma Bill.

A week earlier (11 November 2012), the same political columnist endeavoured to support the “charges” contained in the impeachment motion by reference to the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. Apart from inaccurately claiming that his “hero”, the former Chief Justice Sarath Silva, was involved in the preparation of the Bangalore Principles (he actually participated in reviewing an initial “secretariat draft” prepared by me), the columnist either misquoted or proceeded to “quote” a few non-existent provisions from the Bangalore Principles (as distinct from its Commentary) in support of his contention. Wherever he accurately reproduced an extract from the Commentary, it was often cited out of context.

The Bangalore Principles are not intended to form the basis for disciplinary sanctions, and certainly not for the removal of a judge from judicial office. They are ethical or professional standards based on six judicial values – Independence, Impartiality, Integrity, Propriety, Equality, and Competence and Diligence – which judges should aim to develop and towards which all judges should aspire. Of course, an exceptional situation could arise when the consistent breach of professional standards might be of considerable relevance in a disciplinary inquiry.

Contrary to the assertions of the political columnist, none of the Bangalore Principles appear to be breached by the alleged conduct of the Chief Justice. For example, a judge may hold a power of attorney from a family member or a close friend who is abroad, or act in any other fiduciary capacity. A judge’s spouse is not prevented from engaging in any activity, so long as the judge does not get involved in such activity. A lack of circumspect or good sense on the part of the spouse in choosing which activity to engage in, is not a matter for which the judge can be held responsible unless the judge was, in fact, or appeared to have been, thereby improperly influenced in his or her conduct as a judge. A judge is not prevented from publishing an article, and indeed judges are encouraged to contribute to legal literature. A judge is advised not to participate in the determination of a case only if a member of the judge’s family has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy.

Under our Constitution, a Judge of the Supreme Court may be removed from office only for “proved misbehaviour”, and not for non-compliance with the Bangalore Principles. I have already submitted  that, in terms of Article 4 of the Constitution, proof of misbehaviour (which involves the exercise of judicial power) can be determined only by a court or other institution established by law. The expression “misbehaviour” is not defined in the Constitution or in any other Sri Lankan law. The Australian annotated Constitution prepared in 1901 has defined “misbehaviour” to include:

“firstly, the improper exercise of judicial functions; secondly, wilful neglect of duty or non-attendance; and thirdly, a conviction for any infamous offence, by which, although it be not connected with the duties of his office, the offender is rendered unfit to exercise any office or public franchise”.

More recently, in 2010, the UN-sponsored Judicial Integrity Group, having examined contemporary law and practice, recommended that a judge may be removed from office:

“only for proved incapacity, conviction of a serious crime, gross incompetence, or conduct that is manifestly contrary to the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary”.(see www.judicialintegritygroup.org).

As these definitions suggest, a finding of “proved misbehaviour” on the part of a judge, and especially of a Chief Justice, is a matter of serious consequence. Apart from the constitutional requirement referred to above, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which Sri Lanka has ratified) requires such a determination to be made only after “a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. To act in defiance of our supreme law, as well as of international law, in the pursuit of some petty personal or political objective, is to go back in time to step into and walk in the shoes of the megalomaniac Stuart kings.

Emotion-charged homage paid to slain diaspora activist in France

[TamilNet, Saturday, 24 November 2012, 18:30 GMT]
Thousands of Eezham Tamils paid their last respects at a state-like funeral given on Saturday to Nadarajah Mathinthiran alias Parithi, who was assassinated outside Tamil Coordinating Committee office in Paris two weeks ago. While the International Community has been unable to exert any meaningful pressure on the Sri Lankan state, the continued ban of the LTTE in countries outside the island, only encourages the SL state to deal with the diaspora through a militaristic counter-insurgency approach, activists in Paris said, adding that the mass attendance at the funeral of the slain Tamil activist was also a message to the International Community of Establishments (ICE) that was projecting the Tamil diaspora as a hostile actor, from the UN panel report to the latest document of the International Crisis Group (ICG). 

Tamil activists and representatives of grassroot diaspora organizations across Europe attended the funeral event held at DockEiffel hall in La Plaine Stade de France.

The mass attendance of Eezham Tamils was also revealing the profound respect Mr Parithi evoked in the hearts of his people, an attendee of the funeral told TamilNet. 

French politicians and solidarity activists, who addressed the mourners, denounced terror tactics against activists who engaged in peaceful campaign to win their rights. French government cannot allow the culprits to escape, they said. 

Both the parents of Parithi lit the flame of sacrifice as Anusha Mathinthiran, the wife of late activist and their 16-year-old daughter Sarah Mathinthiran started the floral tribute. 

Eezham Tamils from France and other countries in Europe came in their thousands paying floral tribute from 10:00 a.m. till 4:15 p.m.

Poet Kasi Anandan addressed the mourners from Tamil Nadu. Messages from Tamil politicians in Tamil Nadu were also broadcast at the event.

The funeral saw active participation of Eezham Tamil youth activists in France. 

Frederic Fappani, the president of Cercle National de Reflexion sur la Jeunesse (CNRJ), a youth organisation based in Paris, in his address urged the Tamil youth to continue their just struggle to win peace and dignity. 

Councilors Mireille Giton, (Clichy) and David Fabre (Savigny sur orge) also addressed the audience. 

Mathinthiran's remains are to be buried at the cemetery where Kandiah Gajendran alias Gajan, the editor of Paris based Tamil weekly 'Eezha Murasu' and Kandiah Perinpanathan alias Nathan, remain buried after they were assassinated in 1996. 
Chronology:

08.11.12  Tamil nationalist political organiser assassinated..