Three year limit on the term of the Chief Justice: a grave danger to independence of judiciary

Three year limit on the term of the Chief Justice: a grave danger to independence of judiciary

M.A.Sumanthiran MP-

SUNDAY, JANUARY 27, 2013

On 15th January 2013, by no less than violent means, Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was de facto removed from her post. This was done despite a ruling by the apex court of this country that the purported process by which she was sought to be removed was illegal and unconstitutional.
The purported removal of Chief Justice Bandaranayake resulted in various responses by governments, political groups, the legal fraternity and Human rights groups both here and abroad.

Spokesperson for the United States State Department Victoria Nuland expressed her country’s deep concern over the impeachment and said it also raised serious questions about the separation of powers:

“…we are deeply concerned about the impeachment of Sri Lankan Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. The impeachment proceedings against her were conducted, as you know, in defiance of the Supreme Court order. And from our perspective, this impeachment raises serious questions about the separation of powers in Sri Lanka, which is a fundamental tenet of a healthy democracy. Throughout these proceedings, we’ve repeatedly conveyed to the Government of Sri Lanka our concern that there was a lack of due process, and we’ve also made very clear our view that actions undermining an independent judiciary would impact on Sri Lanka’s ability to attract foreign investment.”

Ms. Nuland also noted that:

“… The United Kingdom, Canada, the European Union, and the United Nations have all issued statements expressing strong concerns about this process”

A press release by spokesperson for UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay stated:

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay is deeply concerned that the impeachment and removal of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice has further eroded the rule of law in the country and could also set back efforts for accountability and reconciliation. The removal of the Chief Justice through a flawed process — which has been deemed unconstitutional by the highest courts of the land — is, in the High Commissioner’s view, gross interference in the independence of the judiciary and a calamitous setback for the rule of law in Sri Lanka…Sri Lanka has a long history of abuse of executive power, and this latest step appears to strip away one of the last and most fundamental of the independent checks and balances, and should ring alarm bells for all Sri Lankans. The jurist sworn in by the President as the new Chief Justice … Mr. Mohan Peiris, has been at the forefront of a number of government delegations to Geneva in recent years to vigorously defend the Sri Lankan government’s position before the Human Rights Council and other human rights mechanisms. This raises obvious concerns about his independence and impartiality, especially when handling allegations of serious human rights violations by the authorities. We are also concerned that the impeachment process has caused bitter divisions within Sri Lanka, and that it sends an ominous signal about the Government’s commitment to accountability and reconciliation. It flies in the face of the strong calls by the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission, and by leaders of Sri Lanka’s civil society and legal profession, to rebuild the rule of law which has been badly eroded by decades of conflict and human rights violations.

The Lawyers’ Collective of Sri Lanka stated:

The politically motivated process of removal of the Chief Justice was nothing but a misuse and abuse of Constitutional provisions and Standing Orders…With this impeachment, the Government of Sri Lanka has demonstrated that it will not respect the Constitution and the Judiciary. The manner in which the impeachment process was conducted, in and outside parliament, by the government, the state media and the government-sponsored goons leaves the country with unforgettable memories of a horror period in our history…The conscience of the nation and the BAR is disturbed and is in anguish-and will never accept the illegal and unconstitutional removal of the Chief Justice

The response of the Sri Lankan government to these concerns however, has been both disturbing and sadly predictable.

Media reports last week indicated that government plans to enact a 19th Amendment to the constitution, expected to contain, among other things, the following two provisions:

- A three year time limit on the term of the Chief Justice

- Include the Standing Orders of Parliament within the definition of ‘law’ in the Constitution.

Three year limit on the term of the Chief Justice

It is widely accepted that judicial independence is promoted by granting life tenure or long tenure for judges, particularly those of the superior courts. The thinking behind this is that judges must be left make rulings on the law, independently and impartially without the threat of losing their jobs.
If judges felt that they could be easily thrown out of government, they would have their decisions swayed a certain way, and no longer be impartial and independent. This thinking is evident in many of the judicial terms of modern democracies. In the United States, Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are appointed for a life term. In Germany, Greece, Netherlands and the United Kingdom judges generally enjoy life tenure subject to a compulsory retirement age, ranging between 65 and 75 years of age. Hungary, India, Japan and Spain all protect judicial tenure upto a retirement age ranging between 62-70 years of age. Judges in South Africa serve for what is effectively a fixed term with appropriate provision being made for retirement. Judges of the Constitutional Court serve for a term of 12 years or until the age of 70, whichever comes first. In some circumstances, this can continue for a term of 15 years, or until the age of 75.

Currently, the Sri Lankan constitution too only indicates that judges must retire at 65 years of age. There is no other time limit on the term of any judge. In these circumstances, the threat to judicial independence by placing a limit of merely 3 years on the tenure of the most superior judge in the country is self evident.

The role of Chief Justice Bandaranayake in several judgments that went ‘against’ the government, including the notorious ‘Divineguma Bill’, is widely perceived to be the political motivation behind her purported impeachment. It is also no secret that at age fifty-four, she had more than ten years ahead of her as the head of the judiciary. But despite this and the ruling of the Supreme Court, she was, by violent means, prevented from occupying her official chambers and thus de facto removed from her post.

At this critical juncture, one hopes that the response of the government will serve as a reassuring harbinger of the restoration of judicial independence, democracy and the rule of law.

With the proposed time limit, however, the message by the government to the judiciary is clear:

Play by our rules, or do not play at all.

Standing Orders as law

Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was purportedly removed from her post under the process set out in Standing Order 78A. The Supreme Court in its determination held that one of the reasons this process was unconstitutional was that it was not a process established ‘by law’, which is a constitutional requirement relating to impeachment of the Chief Justice.

Standing orders are a body of rules by which proceedings within parliament are conducted. They thus come within the definition of written law as defined in Article 170 of the Constitution:

“written law” means any law and subordinate legislation and includes Orders, Proclamations, Rules, By-laws and Regulations made or issued by any body or person having power or authority under any law to make or issue the same.

“Law”, on the other hand is defined in Article 170 of the Constitution as:

Any Act of Parliament and any law enacted by any legislature at any time prior to the commencement of the Constitution and includes an Order in Council.

Article 4(c) of the constitution requires that any body that exercises judicial powder must be established by law, not written law.

The process by which Standing Orders and laws are brought into effect is also important in this regard. Laws are published by way of gazettes. This happens before they are passed, when they are at the stage of Bills. In keeping with principles of transparency and democracy the public therefore is not only made aware of what the laws is, but is also given a window of opportunity (albeit restricted) to scrutinize, and even challenge laws before they are passed by way of an application to the Supreme Court.

Further, Standing Orders, as internal rules governing conduct in Parliament, may be suspended from time to time by Parliament itself. It is hardly necessary to state that this is unlike the applicability of laws.

It is thus clear, as recognized by the Supreme Court, that Standing Orders are indeed, not law. Standing Orders are in effect, merely the ‘internal’ rules of Parliament. The law, on the other hand is applicable to all citizens of Sri Lanka. It is in light of this that the Supreme Court has held that Standing Orders are indeed not law, and thus a process to impeach the Chief Justice of the country established by Standing Order is both illegal and unconstitutional.

The responsible response of a government in such a situation, is surely to initiate action to properly establish, by law, a process by which a Chief Justice may be impeached.

The response of the Sri Lankan government, however, is to elevate the status of Standing Orders – internal rules of Parliament of which the public are not, by any proper means, informed and are thus unable to scrutinize, question or challenge – as law.

Instead of ensuring that its processes and actions are in accordance with the law and the Constitution, the government has chosen to ensure that the law and the Constitution do not inconvenience it’s processes and actions. Instead of righting a wrong, it has chosen to elevate a wrong to the status of that which it right.

And so, one crisis of democracy leads to another. Will Parliament finally succeed in defeating yet another attack on democratic and constitutional values? Or will it, with distressing predictability, once again cow down to an all powerful regime?

Rajapakse illicit affairs ‘Kitchen Cabinet’ attended by chief (thief) justice leaks out

(Lanka-e-News -27.Jan.2013, 11.30PM) The appointment of Mohan Peiris as the C(T)hief justice who is a crony of the Rajapakses, and as crooked as the Rajapakses as well as a close friend of murderers, rapists, rogues and liars had caused irksome issues for the international community , yet sadly it has caused no problem and is of no concern for the opposition in SL. Mohan Peiris is a crook because he reduced the payment of Rs. 76 million due to the Govt. from Fernwood Co. in connection with which case he appeared for them as Lawyer, to Rs. 2.6 million after he became the attorney general, thereby robbing the balance amount due . ( vide case No. FR 308 – 2008) Mohan Peiris proved that he is an accomplished liar when he told at the Geneva assembly that Prageeth Ekneliyagoda who went missing was in another country , but later blatantly contradicted it by saying ‘ aney, I don’t know , only God knows’ at the Homagama courts. That Mohan Peiris is a bosom pal of rapists was testified to when he was the Attorney general he withdrew the case filed against Duminda Silva based on charges of teenage rape. This same Mohan Peiris had illustrated that he is a close friend of murderers , when he withdrew the case while he was the AG despite there being eye witnesses in the murder of SLFP Kesbewa Organizer Kathriarachi . On top of all this , it has now come to light that this thief (chief) justice Mohan Peiris has secured a central role in the ‘Kitchen Cabinet’ of the Rajapakses . Every Tuesday of the week this ‘Cabinet’ meets . The name ascribed to this is ‘Tuesday Tea party’. They meet at the Central Bank lower wing conference hall. Those who are present compulsorily are : Gotabaya Rajapakse, Basil Rajapakse, Ajith Nivaard Cabraal and Mohan Peiris. On that day when needed , the necessary security chiefs are also summoned when conspiracies are hatched. The decisions taken here are forwarded to the Cabinet by Mohan Peiris as Cabinet advisor via MaRa . None of the important decisions of the official Cabinet are taken up. However , since Mohan Peiris is the central figure in the Rajapakse ‘kitchen Cabinet’ , and he is now appointed as the Thief justice , he is unable to attend the Tuesday morning kitchen Cabinet session. Hence the ‘Tuesday tea party’ conspiratorial assembly has to be changed to another day.  When such a shameless sordid unscrupulous scoundrel is around and worst when he is the chief justice , whither laws of the country ? With this thief justice Laws will never be implemented or respected, rather they will be dismantled and disgraced, that is for sure.

Judicial Independence; Beyond The Horizon

By Thushara Rajasinghe -January 28, 2013 

Thushara Rajasinghe

The stormy winds surrounded over the impeachment of the former Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake are gradually and mutely settling down and the propagators, both in support and in opposition of the impeachment are silently moving on to another issue in which they could find a forum to propagate. This usual post conflict amnesia within the so called issue centric freedom propagators in developing democracies is a stumbling block for more sustainable positive development over many social and political issues. It is a pertinent obligatory duty to avoid this post conflict amnesia over the issue of impeachment of the former Chief Justice and continue more constructive discourse over many issues which surfaced during the height of the conflict which undoubtedly link to the very existence of the judicial independence and democracy at large. Unprecedented to many common law jurisdictions, the judicial officers of Sri Lanka expressed their disagreement and concern opposition openly over some incidents by staying away from performing their day to day judicial duties. Apart from Justice Wigneswaran’s brief reference as “intrinsic freedom”, no much attention was given to the inner functional behaviors of a judicial officer and its impact on his judicial functions. This paper tries to discuss the impact of such inner functional behaviors of judicial officers on the issue of judicial independence.

As the title of this paper suggests, the concept of Judicial Independence consists of an invisible outer limit which goes beyond the visible limit that everybody could see and observe. In the famous speech made by Isaish Berlin on “Two concepts of Liberty” at Oxford in 1958, he identified two components of liberty as negative and positive, which provides an ably analogy to define the concept of judicial independence more conclusively[i]. He stated that “The first of these political senses of freedom or liberty (I shall use both words to mean the same), which (following much precedent) I shall call the ‘negative’ sense, is involved in the answer to the question ‘What is the area within which the subject – a person or group of persons – is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?’ The second, which I shall call the ‘positive’ sense, is involved in the answer to the question ‘What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?”[ii]. He further elaborated  negative freedom as, “ If I am prevented by others from doing what I could otherwise do, I am to that degree unfree; and if this area is contracted by other men beyond a certain minimum, I can be described as being coerced, or, it may be, enslaved. Coercion is not, however, a term that covers every form of inability. Coercion implies the deliberate interference of other human beings within the area in which I could otherwise act”[iii]. In his explanation of Positive Freedom, he emphasized that “The ‘positive’ sense of the word ‘liberty’ derives from the wish on the part of the individual to be his own master. I wish to be somebody, not nobody; a doer-deciding, not being decided for, self-directed and not acted upon by external nature or by other men and conceiving goals and policies of my own and realising them”[iv].

 Read More

GMOA SLAMS MEDIA FOR “PAINTING A WRONG PICTURE”

January 28, 2013

The Government Medical Officers’ Association says that media had made the presumption that the doctor was at fault over the incident at the Matara Hospital, which resulted in a law student losing her hand.

It was reported yesterday that initial inquiries found that the amputation of a law student’s hand, after suffering fracture injuries in a fall, was caused due to negligence on the part of the doctor who treated her and the hospital staff.

Preliminary inquiries regarding the incident have not been completed yet and the investigative team is still nearing the hospital, GMOA spokesman Dr. Navin de Soysa said at a press briefing in Colombo.

He stated that “painting a wrong picture” by presuming that the doctors are fault will result in the public losing faith towards the health sector.

The report being compiled by the committee appointed to probe the incident should not be turned into a mere “piece of paper” and its recommendations should be implemented immediately, Navin de Soysa told reporters today.

He further pointed out that the GMOA has no objection towards any action being taken against the doctor if he is found guilty through a proper inquiry.   

Sri Lankan Judiciary And Provincial Councils

 by Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

Chief Justice Dr. Bandaranayake

( January 28, 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) I write in response to the Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘The Post-Impeachment Future and the Role of the Judiciary’ by Dr. Jayantha Dhanapala and Ms Suriya Wickremasinghe.

The authors state in relation to the dismissal of the Chief Justice ‘In this political landscape, it is the resolute actions of the judiciary that gives a glimmer of hope to the people of Sri Lanka. The judiciary did not cave into the wishes of the Executive as did Parliament. The Courts stood their ground despite the pressures under which we presume they had to function during the impeachment. That can be said irrespective of whether one agrees or disagrees with the judicial opinions expressed by the courts on the constitutionality of the impeachment process.’

I identify fully with the above as per what actually happened. To that extent my belief in the Sri Lankan Judiciary is strengthened. But what about the Plan? – the structure through which the activities of the Chiefs are required to be regulated. There is question in my mind as to the appropriateness of the structure of the Government (as per the Constitution) that is claimed to uphold the independence of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary from each other. I therefore conclude that there is room for confusion, from the lay person’s point of view, about how to intellectually use the powers of sovereignty as stated in the Constitution – the highest national plan. As per the events that actually happened – the Executive would be seen as being above the Judiciary, resulting in higher respect being placed on the Executive and the elected members of Parliament than the Judiciary .

To the surface reader of the Constitution the Judiciary are equal to the Parliament and to the Executive. Yet, the Executive has the power and duty to appoint the Heads of the Judiciary. To that extent the Executive is in the higher position. To be truly equal and parallel, the Head of Judiciary would need to be appointed by the Governing Council of the Judiciary which Council needs to be elected by the Judiciary itself, through its ordinary members. That is true sovereignty.

Article 107 (1) of the Constitution states ‘The Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and every other Judge, of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal shall be appointed by the President of the Republic by warrant under his hand.’

The word ‘appointed’ taken at its common meaning gives the picture that the appointer is in a higher position than the appointee. The fundamental value of sovereignty requires the core power to be placed when we divide. Hence a citizen is divided into Governor and the Governed when a member of Parliament is elected. It is this power which is taken as being ‘full’ after division of the form that renders the Legislation its powers to make laws on behalf of the people. When a child is born – the human powers of the mother and child are equal – even though at body level – they are seen as more than one. This is the concept of sovereignty through which we elect people to represent us. A child thus represents a family until known otherwise on merit basis. When a mother believes that the child is herself - her powers protect the child naturally and the mother feels the pain and pleasure of the child as if they are hers.

Appointments on the other hand are made through conscious calculations based on common principles. In form therefore the mother has higher status than a child. As per the above structure outlined in the Constitution of Sri Lanka, the President has the duty to appoint the head of Judiciary. He is not required to ‘elect’ the head of Judiciary. At that point – the powers of the whole are no longer placed in the appointed person. It is the parallel of when the Chief Justice appoints other judges. If the President elected the Judicial heads then the President is giving birth to others like her/himself. Not so in appointment where the First power is divided into two or more equals or less. When you add them up – the power would be equal to the First power. When one is elected – each elected part has the power of the whole. When given form – each individual part has the same power as the whole. Hence it cannot be divided as per substance. This is the value of Love / Truth / Sovereignty. As Professor Bruce Dowton often said when he was Dean of Medicine at the University of New South Wales – the value of the whole would be greater than the sum of the individuals in such a system.

Hence under the current wording of the Sri Lankan Constitution, the Head of Judiciary – (The Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and every other Judge, of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal) is at best Equal to the Government if they could – through their performance demonstrate this in Administration of Justice. Neither has the power of the whole. Given that the President has the power and duty – the level of sharing is determined by the President. Even when taken to be equal to his own power – the Judiciary’s power to be equal to the President needs to be the total of the ‘Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and every other Judge, of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal’

The parallel of this is the Tamil community’s problem regarding devolution. The President appoints the Governor. Provincial Councils are elected by the People and the Chief Minister is the parallel of the President. Where does the Governor appointed by the President stand in terms of ranking? – above or below or equal to the Chief Minister? Article 154B lists the process to remove a Governor and these are similar to the ones listed in relation to the removal of the Chief Justice. The President has the ultimate power to remove. The requirement to get the advice of elected members in each case – is constitutional. But the President is not required to act as per that advice.

Hence in both instances the structure is not democratic once a President is elected. To continue to be democratic – elected persons have the right to be removed only by majority vote by the body that elected them. The rest are strictly Administrative.

Article 4 (c ) of the Constitution confirms this: ‘(c) the judicial power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament through courts, tribunals and institutions created and established, or recognized, by the Constitution, or created and established by law, except in regard to matters relating to the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of its Members, wherein the judicial power of the People may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law’

This is how an independent lay person would read the logic of this Constitution.

Reality however could be different. When there are more citizens practicing democracy than the government – the gap between their earned status and their allocated status – becomes real power which spreads naturally to connect them to others beyond local borders. This is how, so many migrants of Sri Lankan origin have had head starts in Western countries where practice of democracy including the Doctrine of Separation of Powers is at a higher level than in Sri Lanka. Whether we remain physically in Sri Lanka or outside Sri Lanka, to the extent we draw on this real credit – we would empower the side that we identify with. That is how Natural Justice works. It did in the case of the Chief Justice also. In turn such leaders need to share their international status with others in similar need – especially those below them in status and therefore do not have access to international bodies such as the UN.

Dharman says that Mr. 10 percent is now Mr. 15 percent

Monday, 28 January 2013

Media Advisor to the Economic Development Ministry, Dharman Wickremaratne it is learnt is telling the staff of advertising departments in local newspapers that Minister Basil Rajapaksa is no longer Mr. 10 percent since he is now Mr. 15 percent.

Wickremaratne has made this comment in connection to collecting 30 percent from the newspaper advertising offices for each advertisement published by the Economic Development Ministry – 15 percent for the relevant advertising agency and 15 percent for the Minister. Sources from national newspapers say that the respective newspapers were facing many difficulties due to Wickremaratne’s actions.

Wickremaratne has made arrangements for all advertising of the Economic Development Ministry to be given to advertising agencies affiliated to him. He earns the usual 15 percent in giving advertising assignments to national newspapers. However, he has managed to take a commission amounting 30 percent inclusive of 15 percent said to be for the Minister.

The decline in advertising has compelled the managements of national newspapers to agree to Wickremaratne’s demand although it was unfair.

Every week, the Economic Development Ministry publishes at least six full coulour one page advertisements that cost around Rs. 6 lakhs each. Therefore, the six advertisements would cost Rs. 3.6 million. Therefore, 30 percent of this amount would be around Rs. 1,080,000. The total amount earned by Wickremaratne using Minister Basil Rajapaksa’s name amounts to around Rs. 4.3 million monthly.

Sources from national newspapers say that Wickremaratne earns an additional amount through advertising in daily newspapers as well.

Also, large amounts of monies are spent on advertising agencies that produce the relevant advertisements. However, all the money spent on producing the advertisements are also taken by Wickremaratne since the advertising companies are either owned by him or affiliated to him. Therefore, he most often uses his company,' Live Media', to produce advertisements for the Economic Development Ministry. Media circles stated that this practice as 'Dharman's new media guide'.

Uncorrected Full Parliamentary Hansard Report – Impeachment Of Shirani Bandaranayake

By Colombo Telegraph -January 28, 2013 

We publish below the full Hansard document of the  Impeachment Of Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. The Priciple content of the document; Resolution as per Article 107(2) of the Constitution for a motion of Parliament to me presented to his excellency the President for the removal of the Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanselage Shirani Bandaranayake from the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Democratic Republic of Sri Lanka – Passed

Read the Hansard  here

Incentives for those who cultivate Basil’s seeds

Monday, 28 January 2013

Persons who reap a good harvest after planting the seed packets distributed by Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa under the Divi Neguma programme are to be given many incentives.

The seed packets were distributed through the Grama Seva Niladharis island wide and many people who had received them have complained that the seeds could not be cultivated properly and there was no proper harvest. The Grama Seva Niladharis have said the complaints have dot be directed to Basil Rajapaksa’s ministry. The reason the seeds have not given out a proper yield was due to the fact that the seeds had passed its expiry date.

Each seed packet contains seeds of about 10 varieties of vegetables and the seeds had been imported by several leading companies. The Economic Development Ministry had spent millions of rupees for this contract to import seeds and the relevant companies in turn had paid millions of rupees as commission to the Economic Development Minister.

The relevant officials now claim that they cannot be held responsible for the low quality seeds since the transaction is now over.

Case against Malaka, six others referred to AG MONDAY, 28 JANUARY 2013 The case against Minister Mervyn Silva’s son Malaka and six others who are alleged to have assaulted an Army Major has been referred to the Attorney General for his advice, the Kompanna Veediya police informed Court today. Kompanna Veediya OIC told court that extracts of the investigation report had been referred to the Attorney General on the instruction of Western Province Senior DIG Anura Senanayake. The seven suspects -- Malaka Silva, the late Minister Mano Wijertane’s son Rehan, Nalinda Janaka, Nilu Aravinda, Suresh Pushpakumara, Sarath Upali, Rumesh Sathyajith -- were present in Court when the case was taken up before Colombo Fort Magistrate Kanishka Wijeratne. However, on September 17 in an affidavit filed in Court the complainant said Malaka and Rehan did not assault him and he was prepared to arrive at an amicable settlement. Further magisterial inquiry was postponed for March 11. (Lakmal Sooriyagoda) SC bench differed for Rishard's petition MONDAY, 28 JANUARY 2013 Mohan Peiris sitting as Chief Justice at the Supreme Court today stated that he would not sit on the bench hearing the petition filed by Minister Rishard Bathiudeen, against the contempt of court proceedings on him. The Minister petitioned the Supreme Court after a case was filed against him for alleged threat and intimidation of the Mannar Magistrate. The case was postponed to March 18 in order to relist the bench. Teso team off to Delhi to help Lankan Tamils MONDAY, 28 JANUARY 2013 Chennai: Members of the revived Teso (Tamil Eelam supporters organization) led by DMK treasurer M. K. Stalin will go on a two-day tour to New Delhi from today (28) urging the Centre and other nations to expedite rehabilitation of war-hit Eelam Tamils A statement issued by the DMK Parliamentary party leader T. R. Baalu said the team would personally meet and urge Union external affairs minister Sal­man Khurshid and ambassadors of 47 UN member nations to prevail over Sri Lanka to implement the resolution of UN Human Rights Com­mission to hasten the rehabilitation of the war-hit Eelam Tamils and find an early political solution there. The team comprising DK president K. Veeramani, VCK leader Thol Tiru­mavalavan, professor Su­bha Veerpandian and former Union minister Sub­bulakshmi Jagadeesan will leave to the national capital on Sunday. Referring to the 14 resolutions adopted at the Teso conference at Chennai on August 12, 2012 and subsequent representations made with the UN deputy general secretary Yan Lia Sen by Stalin earlier, the statement said that Teso led by DMK chief M. Karunanidhi has decided to approach the UN member nations to urge UN to exert more pressure on Lanka to change the prevailing situation in the Island nation and restore the political, economic and cultural rights of Eelam Tamils there. (Source: deccanchronicle)

Posted by Thavam

abduction and assault of Journalis Jayantha

TNA MP’s Sec: I was forced to watch porn while being videoed

TID raid on Tamil National Alliance �office in Kilinochchi

By Chris Kamalendran-Sunday, January 27, 2013

A Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Member of Parliament has called on the Inspector General of Police to conduct an impartial probe on a raid carried out on his office in Kilinochchi by the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID), where they claim to have recovered explosives, pornographic CDs and condoms.

The leaflet that was distributed in Kilinochchi town

Sivagnam Shritharan, dismissing the claims by the police, told the Sunday Times he was calling for an impartial probe, as he believes that the motive for making false allegations was to get his office closed down.
The raid on the TNA office was carried out on January 12 by about 20 officials, following the arrest of a three-wheeler driver in Jaffna, with low density explosives, who had reportedly provided information.
Later, the three-wheeler driver was released, but TNA Kilinochchi District Coordinator Arunaslam Welamahalithan and the MP’s Private Secretary Ponnambalam Lechchmikanthan were arrested.

Mr. Lechchmikanthan, before his arrest, lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission (HRC) explaining the events about the raid.

He said in his complaint that he was in his office at the time of the raid, when about 20 armed men, along with some cameramen, arrived at the office.

On requesting them to disclose their identity, they claimed they were from the TID, with one of them producing his Identity Card.�He said that the three-wheeler driver arrested earlier, was also brought with them and taken to the storeroom in the office, where they claimed to have found the explosives.

Mr. Lechmikanthan said the TID officers showed him a shopping bag, claiming they contained explosives, but he had denied the existence of explosives in the storeroom.

“Thereafter, I was detained in the middle of the hall, threatened and my hand-phone taken away from me and examined. I was not allowed to contact anyone.�“While I remained detained in the hall, the TID officers ransacked my room. Thereafter, they took me into the room and told me to remove the contents from a bag, which turned out to be condoms,” he said.

He said the men also played pornographic videos on a laptop they had brought, and ordered him to watch them, while being videoed by persons including pro-government media persons based in Kilinochchi.
Mr. Lechchmikanthan was arrested on January 18 – six days after the raid on the office.

Police spokesman SP Prishantha Jayakody said investigations were continuing into the cases.�Meanwhile, leaflets containing pictures of Mr. Lechchmikanthan pulling out condoms from a bag, and watching pornographic videos on a laptop inside the TNA office, have been distributed in Kilincohchi town.
MP Shritharan said that two police guards deployed at his office too, were withdrawn with effect from December 4.

He charged that false allegations were being levelled against his staff, as they were gearing for the Northern Provincial elections which the government has promised to hold this year.

US diplomats met Jaffna Bishop

[ Sunday, 27 January 2013, 03:04.05 PM GMT +05:30 ]

Group of US diplomats met Jaffna bishop at the bishop this Sunday evening.

During the time of discussion US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State James Moore went on to say that the United States of America well aware on misplaced persons in SriLanka. However Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa recently announced that he was unaware on people reported missing during the time war and peace situation in the country. Officials inquired bishop about situation end of war, militarization, resettlement activities and especially about present situation of people in these areas. Responding to the quarry bishop noted since end of the war government carry out various development activities in the Northern Province but they fail to grant political solution and also fail to reduce military presentation in these lands. People face hardships to enjoy freedom in these areas, bishop said. US officials further noted comparing with the last 5 months now situation is changed in the province. SriLankan Defence Secretary unaware on misplaced people. People appeared before the LLRC commission clearly brief about their misplaced relatives. We also paid special attention on this issue., officials said.

I was ill-treated by Bribery Officials, says Kanagasabai »

By Nirmala Kannangara - Pictures by Asoka Fernando- Sunday, January 27, 2013

Following the arrest of Kanagasabai Ranjan, Director (Preventive), Prevention Division Directorate, Sri Lanka Customs on January 3 for an alleged bribery charge of accepting Rs.1 million to release five containers of full car units, he was given bail by the Colombo Chief Magistrate Rashmi Singappuli on Thursday, January 24.
Kanagasabai was to be appointed as an Additional Director General of Customs on January 11, 2013 but was deprived of the promotion on January 3 – just one week ahead. He was arrested on Thursday January 3, 2013 for an alleged bribery charge for accepting Rs.1 million to release containers of cars as full units.  After his release, Kanagasabai told The Sunday Leader how he was ill-treated by the bribery officials soon after the arrest in his office at Sri Lanka Customs and within the walls of the Bribery Commission office later that day.
While recalling the ordeal he had to undergo at the hands of those who arrested him, Kanagasabai said he was traumatized and queried whether it was because he is a Tamil national.
“I am a Tamil and was traumatized by certain officials in the Bribery Commission to give my statement in Sinhalese. When I showed my reluctance they yelled at me and said that if I didn’t give the statement in Sinhalese I would have to wait till sun up by which time it was around 4.30pm,” alleged Kanagasabai.
According to him, not only he was troubled by these officials but they had used abusive language disregarding the fact that he has served this country with honesty and integrity for over 30 years.
Assuming Kanagasabai would have recorded what they were telling; Inspector Abeysinghe has grabbed the mobile phone and had wanted to dash it on the ground but had not done so. “When I was kept in the van near Gafoor building for many hours I wanted to go to the washroom. When I informed of this to the bribery officers they wanted me to go to the pavement. Since it was a congested time I felt embarassed to answer the call of nature on the pavement. However there was no other option but to follow their instructions,” said Kanagasabai.
He further described as to how he was threatened to give the statement while having his dinner.
“They even chased away my wife when she requested them to allow me to give the statement in Tamil. It is unimaginable as to how I was traumatized at the hands of those who paid scant regard to all forms of decency and fair-play. However when I told them that I was hungry they bought a ‘bath packet’ around 10.30pm and gave it to me to which kind act I am grateful to them. When I wanted to eat since I was so hungry, they still did not allow me to have my dinner but forced me to eat while making the statement around 11pm,” said Kanagasabai.
Meanwhile, members of the Joint Customs Trade Union Alliance (JCTUA) described how they were surprised to see the way Kanagasabai was dragged away from his office like a criminal.
“When he was taken away we followed him but we were not allowed to accompany them in the lift. However, we were told that our Director was kept in the bribery van near the Gafoor building in Fort. Most of us took turns and went to see him. We were shocked to see the way the bribery officers allowed other racketeers in league with Harsha to insult Kanagasabai and also allowed them to photograph the Director who was surrounded by the bribery officials. We saw as to how these racketeers mocked at Kanagasabai,” the sources added.
The sources further alleged that it was not a surprise for them if this ill-treatment had been meted out at the hands of police officers but added they never knew that bribery officers were more cruel than police officers.
According to them, the bribery officials had told the Director General that they had followed Kanagasabai for over two weeks before he was trapped.
“We also came to know that these officers have told Kanagasabai’s deputy Walawage that the bag of money was found on the ground. This is hilarious. When Kanagasabai was produced before courts on January 4, the same officials said that the money was found in the third drawer. They contradict their own statements each day. As said to our Director General if these officers were following Kanagasabai for over two weeks, they would have recorded the conversations between our Director and Harsha and had enough of time to video the ‘drama’. Since we have a competent finger print section in Sri Lanka Police, they would have used a good quality envelop to put the money so Kanagasabai’s fingerprints would have been traced easily. We overheard one of the bribery officers saying that the ‘drama’ was videoed. Even we are happy to see those records to see how Kanagasabai ‘accepted’ the money,” claimed the sources.
Meanwhile, startling revelations have now come to light as to how the bribery officers – IP Abeysinghe and Weersinghe verbally pressurized the eyewitness Shiran Duminda Subasinghe not to give statements in favour of Kanagasabai Ranjan claiming that the end result would be harmful to him (Subasinghe).
“Since there was a court order to give a statement to the Bribery Commission I went with my lawyer one afternoon around 2.30. Then I was told that they cannot record a statement since they have not received the court order and wanted me to stay for a while. Around 5pm they wanted me to go back and come on the following day. When I went the following day, my lawyer was not allowed to be with me and wanted him to move out. Then I objected and said that he has to be somewhere he can see me for security reasons. From the time I sat to give my statement IP Abeysinghe was trying to influence me not to give evidence in favour of Kanagasabai. He said that my life would be in danger if I gave evidence in favour of Kanagasabai,” Subasinghe told The Sunday Leader. According to Subasinghe, IP Abeysinghe has threatened him not to give false evidence as they had taped how the bribe was accepted by the Customs officer.
“He further threatened that I would lose all my business if I supported Kanagasabai and added that he would not help me if come later seeking any advice. After attempting several hours to change my mind he went off shouting at me saying ‘do anything what you want and see what the consequences would be in near future,’” said Subasinghe.
“Since I have done nothing wrong and has no connection with any one in Customs I stood firm and said that unlike police officers who could be bought for money, we as honest citizens would not get scared by any threats nor can be intimidated. For them to record my statement it took more than four and a half hours and had to take the service of four typists. In my statement without my permission they stated that I was turning back to Kanagasabai’s room when this ‘drama’ took place. When I asked them to delete it they did not. Instead the typist walked out and the officer said that it couldn’t be changed without the typist. They further said that the last sentence would not be an issue but I insisted that it has to be scribbled. Since they did not do it I scribbled the sentences that they typed without my consent. When I was scribbling the officer shouted at me asking not to do so, as the magistrate would reprimand them for bringing scribbled notes. But however I had to scribble them despite their strong agitation,” Subasinghe added.

Price for being honest…
W. P. Amarapala (Additional Landing Officer)
(Shot dead on February 28, 1987 while jogging at BRC Grounds).

Amarapala was an Additional Landing Survey (equivalent to Director Customs) who did not allow the racketeers to play out Sri Lanka Customs. A brilliant officer who was honest to his fingertips enhanced customs revenue. He was hated by some Customs officers since they were not able to ‘earn’ money.

Sujith Perera (Assistant Superintendent of Customs)

Sujith was entrusted to file disciplinary charges and to prosecute two of his senior officers – Weerawansa and Ratnayake.   While driving to office from his residence in Gampaha, Sujith was shot at Kiribathgoda and died on the spot on March 21, 2001.
He too has been an honest officer who discharged his duties without prejudice. It was Ratnayake’s private Warf Clerk that rode the killer motor bicycle and one of Weerawansa’s contractors had shot Perera. Although both Ratnayake and Weerawansa were involved in the murder, Ratnayake later gave evidence against Weerawansa and escaped a jail term. Later Weerawansa was found guilty and his appeal was rejected. Weerawansa was sentenced for life and is now serving his jail tern in Welikada

Karunanayake (Assistant Controller at the Duty Free Office in Kollupitiya)

Acid was thrown at him in Pettah between 1988 and 1989 while on his way home from work. Karunanayake too has been an honest officer who did not allow the racketeers to play out.