Revealed: UK sells arms to Sri Lanka's brutal regime

Exclusive: Government database shows that sales continue despite litany of rights 

abuses

 

MONDAY 18 FEBRUARY 2013

Britain is selling millions of pounds worth of small arms and ammunition to Sri Lanka despite the country’s dire human rights record, The Independent can disclose today.

Figures taken from the Government’s own database show how the authorities in Colombo have gone on a buying spree of British small arms and weaponry worth at least £3m.

Some of the items sold to Sri Lanka include pistols, rifles, assault rifles, body armour and combat shotguns – despite the Foreign Office still classifying the South Asian nation as a “country of concern” for rights abuses.

The sales indicate how far President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government has been welcomed back into the international fold by Britain, despite the behaviour of his armed forces during the brutal last few months of the 2009 civil war.

The conflict was the culmination of a 30-year conflict with violent Tamil Tiger separatists and resulted in the deaths of between 60,000 and 100,000 people over a four-month period, most of whom were civilians.

Both sides were accused of human rights abuses and although the Sri Lankan government won a comprehensive victory against the Tigers, it has since resisted international calls for an independent investigation into well-documented allegations that Sri Lankan Army soldiers were involved in rape, torture, extra-judicial killings and the deliberate targeting of civilians.

The figures on Britain’s most recent arms sales come from the Government’s own Export Controls Organisation, which releases quarterly figures. They reveal that in the three months between July and September last year, the UK approved export licences worth £3.741m, of which just over £3m were military items.

More than £2m of the sales came under the “ML1” label – a category used by the Government to denote small arms and weapons. Export licences were granted on four separate occasions – once in July and three times in August. In total the Government approved the sale of 600 assault rifles, 650 rifles, 100 pistols and 50 combat shotguns. The sales also included £330,000-worth of ammunition and £655,000 in body armour.

It is not clear whether the sales are a one-off or represent a significant increase in British weaponry heading to Sri Lanka. From the beginning of 2008 to June 2012, the value of export licences to Sri Lanka amounted to just £12m.

Nonetheless there were no licence refusals in the third quarter of last year, despite concerns being raised about human rights in Sri Lanka. At the time, judges in the High Court were granting a slew of last-minute injunctions to stop the Government forcibly deporting failed Tamil asylum seekers due to clear evidence that some of them risked being tortured on their return.

Human Rights Watch, Freedom from Torture and Tamils Against Genocide have documented at least 40 cases where Tamils who were returned to Sri Lanka from European nations in the past two years have been tortured during interrogation by the Sri Lankan authorities.

The rush of sales came just a month after President Rajapaksa was welcomed to Britain alongside fellow Commonwealth leaders to attend the Queen’s Jubilee celebrations in June. Although the trip involved no declared business deals, Mr Rajapaksa was photographed shaking hands with the Queen at a lunch for Commonwealth leaders.

His presence there sparked mass protests by British Tamils who were incensed that Mr Rajapaksa – whose brother Gotabhaya was in charge of the Sri Lankan army during the 2009 war – was being so publicly rehabilitated.

A spokesperson for UK Trade and Investment insisted that Britain has some of the most stringent export regulation in the world when it comes to arms.

But Kaye Stearman, from the Campaign Against Arms Trade, said: “Given Sri Lanka’s shameful military record and its continuing abuse of human rights, it seems extraordinary that the Government has approved these export licences for small arms and ammunition. In 2011-12, not a single licence application for these items was refused, even though the Foreign Office lists Sri Lanka as a ‘country of concern’ for its human rights record.”

Suren Surend-iran, from the Global Tamil Forum, a group based outside Sri Lanka that lobbies for Tamil independence, added: “The Coalition has a lot to answer [for], when especially the recent Foreign Affairs Select Committee report highlights the appalling status of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka.”

The final destination of the small arms is not known – but a footnote in the Government’s data suggests some of it may have been intended for “maritime anti-piracy” measures. Sri Lanka is fast turning itself into an anti-piracy hub, centred around the south-western port of Galle where many ex-navy and army servicemen who fought against the Tamil Tigers are making themselves available for security details on international shipping routes heading towards the pirate-infested waters off the Horn of Africa.

Anti-piracy measures could also include the Sri Lankan Navy, which has a controversial track record especially when it comes to firing on Indian fishermen from the southern state of Tamil Nadu. Over the past few decades hundreds of Indian Tamil fishermen have been shot and killed by Sri Lankans after they have inadvertently or deliberately strayed into their waters.

Earlier this month, 12 Indian fishermen claimed they were thrashed with sticks by Sri Lankan Navy personnel while fishing near Katchatheevu, an islet ceded by India to its neighbour. The Sri Lankan High Commission did not respond to calls to comment on the sales.

Ms Stearman said researchers have increasingly seen anti-piracy measures being used by the Government to justify arms sales but that the final destination for such weapons is often ambiguous. “Since the licence end-user is not listed, and the notes are often worded ambiguously, we don’t know which weapons are intended for this use,” she said.

“Given that Sri Lanka is now establishing itself as an anti-piracy centre, with operations staffed by ex-military personnel, there must be questions about who the weapons go to, how they are used, and where they end up. This is an area where greater transparency is badly needed.”

SRI LANKA: A YEAR OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

February 2012 Ramasamy Prabaharan, a Tamil businessman who brought a case against the police for torture and unlawful detention, is abducted days before he is due to give evidence. He is the latest victim of what Sri Lankans call "white van abductions".

March Amnesty International details how hundreds of mainly Tamil people are detained without charge, more than three years after the civil war.

June A British High Court judge grants the first of many last-minute injunctions halting the deportation of failed Tamil asylum seekers after hearing evidence that more than 30 people have been tortured after being deported to Sri Lanka from Western Europe.

July Sunday Leader editor Frederica Jansz is directly threatened by the President's brother, the Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, over an article she published on his use of private jets. Jansz's predecessor, Lasantha Wickramatunga, was killed in 2009.

October Senior High Court judge Manjula Tilakaratne is attacked and injured by armed assailants after he complains of attempts to interfere with the independence of the judiciary.

November Eleven prisoners are shot dead by the country's feared Special Task Force in disputed circumstances.

February 2013 British-Sri Lankan journalist Faraz Shauketaly is shot in the neck by unknown assailants. He survives the attack and is being treated in hospital.

We shouted loudest over Sri Lanka’s abuses. Three years on and we’re arming the regime

No matter how much red tape we put in place, we have no control over how such weaponry is used

Britain claims to have some of the world’s most stringent controls when it comes to exporting arms around the world. In many respects, the checks and balances we place on UK-made weaponry are significantly more onerous than those provided by our global competitors. But it doesn’t stop British hardware ending up in the hands of some pretty odious regimes. After all, Saudi Arabia remains Britain’s most loyal and extravagant arms purchaser to the tune of more than £4billion over the past five years.

But no matter how much red tape we put in place to limit who we sell arms to, the simple fact remains that we have no control over how such weaponry will be used once it leaves our hands.
Nothing proves this better than the Arab Spring. Arms campaigners had warned for years that Western weaponry sold to nepotistic, cash rich, paranoid and weapon-hungry regimes in the Middle East and North Africa would one day be used on their own people. Sure enough, when genuine calls for freedom were made on the streets of Benghazi, Cairo, Sana’a, Manama and Damascus, they were met with bullets – many were made abroad.
The British Government’s repeated claims that no export licences would be issued to countries where there is “a clear risk that the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts” looked entirely hollow when – as the Arab Spring raged – one only had to glance at our export lists to see countries such as Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen snapping up British arms in the preceding years.
This is why it is not surprising to see that we have granted licences to export weapons – including small arms and ammunition – to Sri Lanka. But it is depressing. After all, the Sri Lankan army and the Rajapaksa government stand accused of overseeing some of the most horrific war crimes of the 21st century and have repeatedly resisted pressure to allow access to investigators.
Tens of thousands of civilians died in the closing stages of the Sri Lankan civil war, with widespread reports of rape, extrajudicial killing and deliberate targeting of civilians. At the time, Britain was one of those shouting loudest. Three years on we are selling weaponry to the same regime.
A similar rehabilitation occurred with Bahrain. When scores of protesters in Manama were receiving nightly doses of bird-shot and tear gas – most of which came from European arms manufactures – Britain briefly suspended its export licences, acutely aware of the huge embarrassment such deals now caused.
The abuses continue to this day against Bahraini opposition protesters – yet the export restrictions have been quietly lifted and last summer Bahrain’s King Hamed al-Khalifa was welcomed into Downing Street.
The message Britain sends out is clear: while you are actively turning weaponry on your own people, we won’t sell arms to you. But give it some time, take your finger of the trigger for a while, and we’ll start resuming exports again.

Urban wetlands park plays host to Army tank

Urban wetlands park plays host to Army tank

18 Feb, 2013 Dinouk Colombage Colombo, Development, Environment

Urban Development Authority (UDA) has seen fit to place a used army tank there for everyone to see.

Every evening, as the park fills up, people clamour to get an up close look at the vehicle. While such objects naturally attract the attention of most people, it is surprising that the authorities have chosen to place this in a “child friendly” environment.

In fact, the image of the people crowding a tank in a public place is not too dissimilar to those images seen of people in the West Bank in Palestine crowding around abandoned Israeli tanks (see attached photos).

The only difference between the situations is Palestine is a war zone, the Urban Wetlands Park is exactly what the name suggests, a park. Officials have claimed that the tank was one that was used during the war and they wanted to give the public an opportunity to see it up close. As to why they chose to put it on display at a park rather than a military museum is not explained.

While such a park is a welcome addition to the city, the UDA will need to seriously reconsider the deployment of an out of use tank as an attraction.

Who Are Full Of “It?”

By Emil van der Poorten -February 18, 2013 

Emil van der Poorten

Consequent to my protest at my column not appearing in The Sunday Leaderon the 17th of February, I received a response from its editor stating that this was due to space constraints in that issue of the paper resulting from the need to report on the attempted killing of staffer Faraz Shauketaly.  I am accepting this explanation in the context of this being the second instance on which this has happened at The Sunday Leader since the change of editor (and control) at that newspaper and on the assumption that future contributions will be published without any similar untoward interruption!

Last week’s column contained a North American aphorism., a part on the title line and the rest in the opening paragraph.

This week I will again use another (slang) expression from the New World avoiding the temptation to provide a detailed explanation of its content!

However, if any reader’s curiosity is sufficiently roused, I am sure a web search will provide the relevant information!

The most recent example of “it” was the umpteenth repetition of what has become a part of the bana that this regime preaches, the (very) tired “final determination” from our Lords and Masters that “Sri Lanka is a sovereign state and whatever its rulers do within its boundaries is no business of anyone else.” Not even Adolf Hitler, to my recollection, made such a sweeping claim, not even when he was seeking to exterminate the entirety of world Jewry. He then advanced the theory, no matter how spurious, of an Aryan superiority that transcended everything else and which required preservation by what is now referred to as “ethnic cleansing.” I do not recall even that monster of modern history claiming what amounted to blanket impunity, that what happened within Germany – “Greater” or otherwise – was solely the concern of those within its boundaries.

However, this is specifically what those who rule the Debacle of Asia (hereafter referred to as the DoA) insist is their untrammeled right. Incidentally, “DoA” used to be the common acronym for “Dead on Arrival” and this could also be accurately applied to the current state of morality in this country!

Anyway, let me get to the heart of this debate and say, unequivocally, that, no matter how flawed, the practice of the Responsibility to Protect, it is the only means by which any type of justice might prevail in the world, without whole nations being surrendered to every despot who chooses to use the shield of “Territorial Integrity” to practice unspeakable cruelty, torture and violence of every form leading up to plain and simple murder of its citizenry. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, anything resembling the Nurnberg Trial for war criminality would not have taken place if the type of thinking (principle?) proffered by our rulers had prevailed. After all couldn’t those who were arraigned in Germany after World War II have, invoked the principle of “Territorial Integrity” because every place in which those heinous crimes was committed was part of Hitler’s empire?

Every time international fora, such as the United Nations, seeks to so much as inquire about such matters, our self-appointed defenders of Sinhala Buddhist Civilization, begin the chant of “Territorial Integrity,” claiming it takes precedence over any and every requirement of basic justice. The pass to which we’ve come in this country, is evident enough by the rampant lawlessness that is our day-to-day reality where politicians and murderous, thieving thugs – one indistinguishable from the other – rule the roost. In fact, THAT is the need that is met by invoking this fiction of “Territorial Integrity,” protection of the monstrosity that passes for “governance” in the DoA and a justification for its perpetuation.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, what is proposed as an alternative to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is total and absolute impunity in the name of “Territorial Integrity,” “National Integrity” or their fellow buzzwords, all of which do little except put murderous thugs beyond the reach of anything resembling investigation, leave alone charges being laid, trials being held and punishments meted out to those found guilty.

One needs to juxtapose these screamed slogans, repeated ad infinitum, against the blatant lies and half truths that have been spouted since the end of Eelam War IV. Then it all begins to make sense. The irrationality, I mean. The initial claims were that there were NO civilian casualties and our war heroes entered battle with the Geneva Convention (or was it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?) in one hand and alms for the refugees in the other. The doctors serving in the area under siege were taken into custody when the war was over and then released to a “Media Conference” without equal in the history of modern conflict where they recanted every report that they had submitted about bombardment from land, sea and air, civilian casualties and their desperate calls for help. The “field commander,” as it were, for this example of unprincipled behavior was one whose professional oath (that of Hippocrates) opened with the command: “Do no harm!”

As the evidence of civilian casualties began to mount, the tune began to change, the blanket claims were “massaged,” first into an admission that “there could have been civilian casualties because those non-combatants could have been mistaken for Tigers in “civvies.” Then came a grudging admission that there “could have been collateral damage.” Being so full of “it,” our Lords and Masters couldn’t produce a nuanced retreat from a blanket denial to a grudging acceptance of the fact that it was not ALL Tigers who were killed at Nanthikadal. Impunity, after all, doesn’t engender an ability to retreat intelligently from tales that cannot be substantiated. It breeds arrogance and then violent denial of reality bred of fear once the fat’s in the fire!

A couple of years ago, we were told that the next Commonwealth Games were “in the bag” insofar as Sri Lanka’s bid was concerned. Remember? And remember the reality that the Gold Coast (very easily) won the bid, given that it was a foregone conclusion to begin with?

Then slightly further back in time, we were told that “next year, you’ll be pumping Sri Lanka petrol into your cars.” Remember? All the smoke and mirrors and all the sycophantic posturing of minions couldn’t, obviously, bring up crude from under the Gulf of Manner. Or was it, in the first place, a blatant lie uttered with no respect for fact?

As laughable as all of this might seem, rest assured that it is NOT a matter for hilarity because murder and mayhem, even if practiced by those with imbecilic grins on their faces, is just that: murder and mayhem. And death is the final destination, no matter who causes it. All of this adds up to the fact that, just because “They are full of it,” doesn’t mean that they are any less a menace to civilized behavior as we have known it in this country.

Don’t Let the Rajapaksas Ruin Sri Lanka

View

By the Editors Feb 17, 2013

Sri Lanka was for decades an example of how sectarian conflict can wreck an otherwise fortunate country. It has had three years to show how devolving power to an ethnic minority can bring about lasting peace. Now it looks as if the opportunity will be lost.

Sri Lanka paid an enormous price to bring 26 years of civil war to an end. An estimated 40,000 people died in the last months of fighting in 2009, bringing the conflict’s final toll to more than 100,000. This includes a sitting president, Ranasinghe Premadasa, and a former Indian prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, who were killed in suicide bombings by the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

Yet there was hope of peace with the victorious government’s offer to cede autonomy to the country’s ethnic Tamil minority, most of whom live in the north and east. Unfortunately, Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa now intimates that he has no intention of following through on that offer.

In a speech Feb. 4, Rajapaksa said it wasn’t necessary to have “different administrations based on ethnicity.” He was referring, presumably, to his promise to devolve power to provincial councils. Already, the central government, which is dominated by the country’s majority Sinhalese, has denied these bodies even limited powers -- notably over land and police -- that they are guaranteed under the constitution’s 13th amendment. The Tamil-majority northern province hasn’t been allowed to so much as have a council.

Alarming Move

In October, Rajapaksa’s brother Gotabaya, the powerful secretary to the Defense Ministry, called for the 13th amendment’s repeal. Then last month, after a Supreme Court ruling affirmed the amendment, the country’s parliament, which is controlled by the president’s party,removed the chief justice. This alarmed not just Tamils but also the Sinhalese middle class.

Meanwhile, the government has made no significant effort to account for atrocities committed during the civil war and continues to treat Tamils harshly. Detention without trial, arbitrary arrests and disappearances persist in the north and east.

The Tamil National Alliance, a coalition of political parties, has been trying to negotiate improved conditions and genuine self-rule. The Rajapaksa brothers don’t seem to take the TNA seriously. Gotabaya has observed that with the battlefield defeat of the Tigers, the government is under no pressure to make concessions.

In response, some TNA leaders have begun hinting that separatism remains an option. Such talk, in turn, strengthens Sinhalese nationalists who argue that the Tamils would only pocket concessions on self-rule and move on to pursuing their own state.

Yet the Rajapaksas -- a third brother, Basil, is the minister of economic development -- aren’t entirely unmovable. They still seem to care how they are regarded in the wider world.

The government lobbied hard in its own defense last year at the annual meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The body nonetheless approved a resolution noting that Sri Lanka’s postwar Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission downplayed war-crimes allegations. The resolution also called on the government to implement the reconciliation commission’s recommendations. Sri Lanka responded in July with a vague framework that put the military and police in charge of investigating themselves.

The U.S. has said it will sponsor a new resolution at the Human Rights Council’s sessionbeginning Feb. 25. U.S. officials should work to persuade the group’s 47 members to use tough language that lets the Rajapaksas know Sri Lanka can’t jettison its obligations to its own people and escape a public shaming.

Summit Demands

In addition, members of the Commonwealth of Nations should revisit the decision to hold their biennial summit in Sri Lanka in November, a major coup for the Rajapaksas. Canada has said its prime minister, Stephen Harper, won’t attend unless the government addresses issues such as reconciliation with the Tamils and the judiciary’s independence; the U.K. has taken a similar approach.

It has been argued that leaning on the Rajapaksas will only push them further into the embrace of the Chinese, who have big investments in Sri Lanka and little interest in how the Tamils are treated. Yet Sri Lanka, with its parliamentary traditions and customary separation of powers, lives more comfortably in the sphere of other democracies. The Rajapaksas know what it takes to belong in that club. They need only keep the commitments they’ve made.

To contact the Bloomberg View editorial board: view@bloomberg.net.

Road development freeze due to Douglas�s interference.

Monday , 18 February 2013

Officials have pointed out the two segments of projects originated for roads restoration in the Jaffna peninsula from the financial aid acquired  from World Bank, due to political intervene will  face danger of getting deactivated.

Road restoration for six roads for the total expenditure of   700 million rupees has completely got halted.

The period for this task is concluded from this year May month, but due to the selection of contractors which cropped by merged Ministers level political interference; all these assignments have come to a standstill.  

In this state, if this situation continues for some more months, there is danger that this finance may get returned was pointed out by the officials.

Meanwhile the officials further pointed out, a situation may crop up in the future,  that World Bank will not provide financial assistance for road developments to the north.

406 million rupees was allocated for the Punnalaikattuwan Puliyankinatriadei Road, Mallakam Punnalaikattuwan Eevinai road, Chandilippai Uduvil road, totally for the three roads.

 300 million rupees was allotted for the restoration of Karainagar Sivan temple road, Velanai Suruvil road and Mandatheevu roads.

Euro the local Engineering Company was given the contract for the last quarter of year 2011 for the restoration of these roads and the contract should have been completed within 18 months.

But until last year end, even 5 percent of the restoration assignments by this Company was not completed. Hence the Provincial Road Development Department cancelled all the contracts on last year in the month of November.

90 million rupees was granted to the Euro Company as advance for the six restoration projects. However the relevant assignments were not carried out hence according to the instructions given from the World Bank, the contracts were cancelled.  However renewal contracts for the road restoration was not at all granted still.

 Due to the interference of Minister Douglas Devananda in this issue, queries were not requested for renewal of contracts hence it is pending.

Minister Douglas Devananda has forwarded a letter to Northern Provincial Governor requesting, the contract to be given over to the Euro Company.

Governor has accepted and has recommended the Local government provincial council Minister to handover the contract to the earlier contractor.

In this state in view of the advance money granted to the Contractor, according to bank security guarantee, a portion of the advance was handed over last week by the bank to Northern Province Chief Secretary Vijayalakshmi Ramesh.

But due to deviation to the rules and regulations, the check had been sent back to the bank. The reason is political interference was said by officials.

According to the approval obtained from World Bank, queries have been raised for these projects and if action is not taken to immediately transfer this to another contractor, in future, loan assistance for the Northern Province from World Bank will be a question mark was said by Provincial Council officials to "Udayan" press.

Even though the contracts were cancelled by the Provincial Road Development Department, by discussion with the relevant political leader, we got back was said by Euro Company Director Ramdas to "Udayan" press.

Jaffna people strongly condemned due to personal benefit, politicians are passing the ball in these development projects.

People urged the officials without dancing to the tune of politicians, in the proper manner to carry out the development projects in the north.

Monday , 18 February 2013

Destroying the President’s defenders

By Rajiva Wijesinha-February 17, 2013

Sri Lanka is full of conspiracy theories. There are many reasons for this, not least the fact that theorising about conspiracies is a universal practice, and we in Sri Lanka are victims of this as well as practitioners.

Then there is the fact that conspiracy theories are fun. Since they necessarily assume that evidence must be shadowy, they allow those with vivid imaginations to pursue their pet agendas under the guise of creative thinking. And since the conspiracies one discovers are the responsibility of others, one can promote one’s own conspiratorial efforts in the belief that they are mere reactions.

However, we must also remember that even if we, like perhaps all other nations, are paranoid in considering our own interests, that does not mean that others are not out to get us – or, rather, all others, like ourselves, want to pursue their own interests, and do not mind if we or anyone else goes to the wall in the process. This is obvious on first principles, as Thucydides so succinctly put it over two thousand years ago. And as was the case when Thucydides wrote, all nations try to conceal their pursuit of self interest by claiming that they are acting on principle. Where this is obviously not the case, the claim is that the other breached principles first.

This is not necessarily hypocritical. As that great analyst noted, there are consummate hypocrites around, and unfortunately they tend to exercise disproportionate power. But actual leaders are more often than not the victims of their fantasies about their own morality. Thus everyone knows that Barack Obama has been as forceful as his predecessors in using any means he thinks necessary to pursue the interests of his country, and the rhetoric he uses has accordingly changed. But there seems nevertheless a sincerity about his pronouncements that suggests he thinks he is as idealistic as before.

About some of Obama’s advisers I have my doubts. But I see no reason to believe that they are acting against American interests. In Sri Lanka, sadly, the same cannot be said about the President’s advisers. What some of them have managed to do in the last couple of years is to actually strip the President of his defences so that day by day he becomes more vulnerable to attacks.

Tamara

This became clear to me when I heard about the latest efforts of our Ministry of External Affairs to persecute Tamara Kunanayagam. They are now trying to make her pay for the transport of her goods from Geneva where she served as our envoy. This is because they announced her appointment to Cuba before she had agreed. They then subverted the agreement the President had made with her when he persuaded her to accept the appointment with additional responsibilities. They then tried to drive her into going to Cuba so that she could be deprived of the opportunity of presenting the Report of the UN Working Group on the Right to Development, which she had been selected to chair. And now that she wishes to go to Cuba as a private citizen, they are insisting on sending her property to a residence in Switzerland they imagine she owns, though she has made it clear she gave up her Swiss residence rights when she first acceded to the President’s request to serve her as an envoy, in Brazil.

Ironically, I learnt about all this just as Navi Pillay’s draft report was publicised. That is a subtle document, which is perhaps the first nail in the coffin that has long been in preparation for this government. The Ministry of External Affairs has responded, and this is a better effort than the diatribe which Navi Pillay received last month. But reading through it, I remembered how we used to deal with the lady in the old days, trying to understand the genuine concerns in areas where we could be doing better, while responding clearly to fallacies that we felt had been fed to her.

In those days we had Dayan Jayatilleka, and even his worst detractors who are supportive of the government grant he did a fantastic job in building up a coalition of solid support for Sri Lanka, while parrying every thrust, through the teams he deployed. While Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe led the regular delegation, Dayan also made arrangements for individuals like Prof Peiris and Prof. Vitharna to meet different audiences, so that all concerns could be addressed.

Tamara did not have the same freedom of action when she was called in to remedy the situation but her knowledge of the UN system, and the excellent rapport she developed with her counterparts, made her very effective. The last letter she sent Navi Pillay, which the Ministry of External Affairs basically denounced, shows what in intelligent and consistent diplomat could achieve. I hasten to add that the present incumbent is also very able. But as a career diplomat he is under the control of a dispensation in Colombo that will ensure he fails.

Dayan

For that, I fear, is the game now. There is no other explanation of the fact that Dayan was got rid of just when it became clear that diplomacy was even more important than before. The Security Forces had done a superb job and, though Dayan’s service in fending off resolutions in Geneva before they had eliminated terrorism from our shores was vital, it was that elimination that was the main requirement. But when the post conflict resolution made it clear that a witch hunt was on, surely any sane government would have realized that Dayan was even more essential?

Perhaps he was the victim of his own success. The massive majority he secured for the resolution he put forward at the Special Session may have made the idiots in Colombo think that any idiot could win a diplomatic victory. And so they sacked him, and no one with Executive Office bothered to even speak to him when he came back. When he mentioned this to the President, who did summon him when no one else did, he was told laconically that they could hardly do that after the way they had treated him.

The President, having first offered him Japan, then sent him to Paris, where he did an excellent job, though adverse reports were sent back about him talking to Tigers – unfortunately he seems to have been the only envoy who did what the LLRC notes is necessary, discussion with the diaspora, which our Ministry of External Affairs is still not doing systematically. I should note though that junior members of the diplomatic service did their best, though they were got rid of for their pains, which happened to both Deputy High Commissioner Amza in London and Deputy High Commissioner Krishnamoorthy in Chennai (though the brilliance of both seems now to have been recognized, even though characteristically Mr Krishnamoorthy is being sent to a station where his particular gifts cannot be exercised).

Even in Paris however Dayan was persecuted by the Ministry, and though the President assured him he would not be dismissed, it was clear that he was not wanted. Sadly, now that his term is up, without him having requested an extension, Paris remains empty. He himself is not apparently of the view, which he puts with a skill in intelligent English that no government spokesman can rival that, though the President is still the best person to lead the country, the team he has is so appalling that some sort of change is essential.

Meanwhile Tamara also was sacked from Geneva, even though all observers not belonging to or sent by the Ministry thought she was the best thing we had there – including Lord Naseby, one of our staunchest supporters in Britain. Ironically, in the struggle between Ministers Samarasinghe and Peiris, she was firmly on the side of the latter, but it is the Foreign Ministry that disposed of her so ruthlessly. Similarly, I should note that Dayan was one of those who persuaded me at the time that Prof Peiris would make a better Foreign Minister than Mahinda Samarasinghe, which I agreed with then, though I realize now that I was wrong (Dayan still thinks he was right, having greater reliance on intellect than I do, but grants that this says little about actual suitability).

This problem has been going on for a long time, and is perhaps best summed up in the comment by Mangala Samaraweera, who flatteringly told me that he held Dayan and me responsible for the ills of the country. I asked for an explanation, and he said that what we had achieved in Geneva had led to the government thinking it had licence to do whatever it liked.

I do not think he was correct, though certainly there has been much less circumspection since. But we should also think about the constraints that Mangala would have liked applied to government. We need constraints, but they should come through the Constitution. Since our Constitution is inadequate and inconsistent there is need of a comprehensive review and reform. But because we ignore our own minor problems, we will soon be subject to greater ones, in the form of the constraints and controls that others wish to impose. These will soon be upon us unless the changes this country needs at the Ministry of External Affairs occur soon.

Rajapaksa Transparency: Come! Come Over And See For Yourselves!

By Elmore Perera -  February 18, 2013 

Elmore Perera

As reported in the “Island” of 5^th February 2013, President Rajapaksa has belligerently and emphatically stated at the Independence Day Celebration “Do not believe something just because it is said …..  We tell the people of the world – Come! Come Over and See for yourselves!” Any individual who accepts this at face value can only conclude that Sri Lanka is blest with a self confident and assertive President who is, at the same time, the last word in “Transparency  and Accountability”. He has rightly cautioned the whole world against believing anything merely because (i) it is said verbally (ii) reports say so  (iii)  critics say so or (iv) the media has published it. Regrettably however, several of his close relatives, his hand-picked Ministers and other appointees to lesser positions in the hierarchy of the State do not seem to have understood or absorbed this exemplary personal vision of the President.

Without his knowledge or approval his minions in the Parliament that claims to be Supreme walked into the trap set for them by a scheming opposition, and initiated a process to impeach his “good friend Shirani” theChief Justice, on the patently untenable and ridiculous  grounds that she had behaved in a manner that they did not consider to be “good” behaviour. Breathing fire and brimstone, a female M.P. announced to the media on 1^st November 2012 that she had handed over to the Speaker a Motion (which in fact contained little more than 117 Signatures) purportedly containing 7 charges against the first female Chief Justice  of Sri Lanka. Strangely however, by the time it was served on the Chief Justice on 15^th November 2012, it contained 14 charges. This female, whose power and energy presumably caused this increase, has since been duly reprimanded by the President who assigned her the management of the bankrupt and powerless Ministry of Power and Energy. Her latent talent (or lack of it) may well be celebrated (or exposed) ere long.

In strict compliance with purported SLFP rules against nepotism, (as clearly demonstrated in the case of former Minister S.M.Chandrasena and his brother) the President refused to appoint his elder sibling as a Minister in his Cabinet. However, he reluctantly agreed to his being appointed as Head of the Legislature as Speaker because, in that capacity the elder sibling was required to act strictly in accordance with the rule of law. He was specifically prohibited from acting partially to satisfy every whim of the Executive. This Speaker accepted a motion tendered to him by the ‘power house’ aforementioned (even though it made no reference whatsoever to any “proved misbehaviour” and only contained some vague allegations) and appointed aParliamentary Select Committee of 11 M.Ps, mandated only to inquire into these allegations and report. This Committee’s mandate specifically did not include any requirement to arrive at a finding of guilt or innocence, as unequivocally confirmed by the lawyer, Deputy Speaker.

On 22^nd November 2012, before inquiries commenced, the Supreme Court invoked the implied mutual respect and trust between the Legislature and the Judiciary and recommended that the PSC inquiry be deferred until the Supreme Court determined the question of law re interpretation of Article 107(3) referred to it by the Court of Appeal – as required by Article 125(1) of the Constitution. The President (who consistently reiterates that, as a Senior  Lawyer he respects the independence and the integrity of the Judiciary) must surely have been greatly embarrassed by the Speaker’s ruling on 29^th November 2012 that Court notices received by him and by the members of the PSC appointed by him were irrelevant, a nullity, and entailed no legal consequences. However, as Rajapaksa blood appears to be thicker than water, the President feigned ignorance of any such preposterous statement. The Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition (both Lawyers who displayed clear ignorance of the abolition of the supremacy of the Legislature in 1977) in unison proclaimed vociferously that “Parliament is supreme!  Court cannot challenge the impeachment motion! No one can issue notices on the Speaker or the 11 members of the PSC!”. The President who was well aware that he alone was Supreme, let this insult pass him by.

In the only previous instance of an impeachment inquiry viz. that of Chief Justice Samarakoon, the PSC held 14 meetings between 11^th September and 27^th November 1984  in spite of the fact that the Chief Justice was due to retire on 21^st October 1984. The one month period for conclusion of the PSC inquiry was extended to 3 months, by Parliament. CJ  Bandaranayake’s retirement was not due for another 11 years and the  one month period could well have been extended to 12 months or more.  During 3 preliminary sessions on 23^rdNovember, 4^th December and 6^th December 2012, the CJ was subjected to an increasingly vile barrage of insulting comments by the Speaker’s handpicked experts on the PSC. When the PSC met on December 5, the four Opposition members requested that the CJ be given more time to answer the 14 Charges. The Chairman and entire PSC agreed that the inquiry proceeds till December 12^th and then a request be made to the Speaker for a month’s extension. However, when they met on the 6^th December, the Chairman announced that the charges would be decided on the documents before them. The Chief Justice was informed that there would be no cross-examination of witnesses as no oral evidence would be led against her. More than 1000 pages of documents were delivered to her at about 4.30 p.m. on 6^th December and she was informed that the inquiry proper would commence at 1.30 p.m. the next day. Compelled to arrive at the irresistible conclusion that there would be no fair or impartial inquiry, the CJ withdrew from the inquiry at about 5.30 p.m. on 6^thDecember, stating that she was willing to participate at any time, in any inquiry conducted by a lawfully appointed tribunal.

The 4 Opposition members met the PSC Chairman around 11.30 a.m. on the 7^th December and requested him to stand by the earlier agreement and grant the CJ more time. The Chairman replied that the inquiry had to be finished on that day itself. It was clear then, that there was an unseen hand at work.  Manifesting his respect for the Separation of Powers, the President seemed to have chosen to remain a mere spectator to the high drama enacted by the Legislature.

The Leader of the Opposition (a lawyer) intervened and caused the four Opposition members of the PSC to also withdraw from the inquiry by 5.30 p.m. on 7^th December. In anticipation of their withdrawal, 18 witnesses were summoned by telephone. The 16 witnesses who responded to the summons, furnished statements at the ex-parte inquiry conducted by the 7 government members of the PSC, after the opposition members walked out at 5.30 p.m. on 7^th December. These  7 members not only recorded these 16 statements, they analysed them, wrote a 35 page “judgment” incorporating references to relevant case law and compiled a PSC Report of 1575 pages in the incredibly short  period of 14 hours ending at 7.30 a.m. on 8^th December, 2012. The Report of these 7 members was vetted by Minister Basil Rajapaksa. Thereafter it was handed over to Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa by 9.30 a.m. on 8^th December. Soon thereafter the Speaker announced in Parliament that the CJ had been found guilty of 3 charges, that the gravity of the findings and time constraints made any further inquiry unnecessary, that he had allocated 10 days for the debate on this PSC report and that the exact dates would be assigned after one month.

ICJ Asia Pacific Director Sam Zarifi said “Parliament is pushing ahead with an impeachment process that fails to adhere to fundamental principles of due process and fair trial. The Chief Justice’s impeachment is part of a relentless campaign waged by the Rajapaksa government to weaken the judiciary. An independent judiciary is the principle check on the exercise of Executive and Legislative powers vital to the functioning of a healthy democracy. Any process for removal must comply with all of the guarantees of due process and fair trial afforded under international law, notably the right to an independent and impartial hearing”

The United States urged the Sri Lankan Government and the PSC to act with transparency and guarantee due process in the impeachment probe. Minister John Seneviratne stated that the CJ walking out saying she would not get a fair trial was a humiliation to the Constitution. Commenting on this Select Committee that probed the CJ, Attorney-at-Law and Deputy Speaker Weerakkody commented that “you can’t be a judge of your own cause”. The Bar Association staged island-wide protests against the PSC findings. The leaders of three constituent parties of the UPFA government expressed their dissent stating that it was unjust to inquire into the charges against the CJ under Standing Order 78A. They suggested prorogation of Parliament to provide space for a fair procedure. Senior Attorney Mr. S.L.Gunasekera, an avowed supporter of the Government, stated that what is at stake is not the virtue of the CJ but the Independence of the Judiciary and called for the boycott of a new CJ if the incumbent was impeached. Judge Weeramantry felt compelled to comment on the process adopted and sought a fair trial for the CJ.The Chief Justice issued a statement alleging malice, that she was made to suffer indignities at the PSC inquiry and that she was ready to counter the PSC findings at an impartial inquiry.

Apparently embarrassed and presumably angered by the obviously arbitrary manner in which the PSC had arrived at its findings, the President announced that his conscience directed him to seek the views of an Independent Panel of eminent persons, before deciding on further action. He did, in fact appoint a panel of 4 persons with Dr. Mark Cooray domiciled in Australia, as Chairman and Ranee Jayamaha, Dhammika Kitulegoda and Jeevan Thiagarajah as members. The views expressed by that eminent Panel are not as yet in the public domain.

The Judicial Service Association, the Bar Association, Leaders of all Major Religions, the Congress of Religions and several Commonwealth and International Law Groups urged that the impeachment be set aside. LSSP Leader and Minister Tissa Vitarana stated that either retired judges or some other legal experts should have been appointed to prove the charges. Cabinet spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella stated that Parliament was not bound by Supreme Court rulings re constitutionality of the PSC. Leaders of all major religions said that Civilisation was at stake and called for Justice for the CJ. The Court of Appeal issued notice on the Speaker and the Members of the PSC and warned of a chaotic situation emerging. The Chairman of the PSC admitted that the PSC had decided to seek an extension till 14^th  January 2013, but on 7^th December decided otherwise after the pre-planned walkout of the CJ to discredit the PSC,  and the Opposition Members walked out. The Deputy Speaker said that the Speaker and PSC Members will not comply with Court’s notice.  Rajiva Wijesinghe Government MP said “The way the Chief Justice was impeached and the haste with which the PSC has acted suggest political motives”. The TNA favoured prorogation and enactment of a law to provide for impeachments. Lawyer Susil Premjayantha, PSC Member said that proving of charges was not necessary as the impeachment was a legislative process and not a legal probe.

The Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha in India, Dr. Agnihotri quoting the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 stated that any motion to impeach a SC  Judge in India is referred to a Committee of a SC  Judge, a CJ of a High Court and an  eminent Jurist. If that Committee absolves the Judge of misbehaviour the matter ends there. The Rajya Sabha or Lok Sabha can only proceed with it if that Committee finds the Judge guilty of misbehaviour. The UNP alleged that offensive remarks of PSC members had been expunged from the report. Lawyer Nimal Siripala de Silva, PSC Member, ruled out prorogation or reversal of the impeachment process. The Deputy Speaker warned PSC Members not to appear before the Court of Appeal. However the JVP and TNA members did appear.

Notwithstanding threatening calls received, the Appeal Court ruled the PSC probe into CJ’s deeds was void in terms of the SC interpretation that Standing Orders were not law and could not empower the PSC to make a finding adverse to the legal rights of a Judge. It held further that no address of Parliament can be made without a valid finding that charges have been proved. Minister G.L. Peiris briefed the Diplomatic Corp that Court should not involve itself in impeachment proceedings conducted under domestic procedures, and that the Judiciary cannot be the repository of  authority for making determinations. The Deputy Speaker stated that the PSC did not find the CJ guilty. The Supreme Court had given a ruling that hardly anyone could seriously argue against. It posed an insurmountable hurdle of constitutional credibility to the Government’s plan to impeach the CJ. The special UN Rapporteur warned that impeachment of the CJ could send a negative  signal to the International community about Sri Lanka’s commitment  to human rights obligations. The Sunday Leader Editor warned that Sri Lanka was digging its own grave. MP Kiriella, Opposition member of the PSC said, proceeding with the impeachment would be a violation of the oath to obey and defend the Constitution and those who did so were liable to lose their seats in Parliament. The Opposition walked out of the Party Leaders meeting protesting against Government’s decision to proceed with the impeachment on the basis of the quashed finding of guilt. The BASL condemned the debate on quashed PSC findings and boycotted Courts.  Biz Chambers of Commerce requested the President to steer the country away from a Constitutional crisis. Leader of the House  Lawyer Nimal Siripala said “Supreme Court can’t define Constitution as it wishes” Minister G.L.Peiris accused the Supreme Court of encroaching on powers of the legislature and setting a wrong precedent.

The Impeachment Motion was passed with a 2/3^rd majority. 3 ministers and a nominated Government MP abstained. Thugs and hooligans attacked lawyers while Police merely ‘looked on’. Canada’s Liberal Party Leader Rae said “In Sri Lanka Government was accountable and the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs should raise it with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Minister’s Action Group. Sam Zarifi Asia Pacific – Director of the International Commission of Jurists observed that  “Sri Lanka  Parliament and Executive have effectively decapitated SL’s Judiciary”. Kamalesh Sharma Secretary General of the Commonwealth expressed grave concern and urged a pause in impeachment.

Notwithstanding all requests, urgings and threats, the President appointed Mohan Peiris as Chief Justice. Disbelieving Sri Lankans were reminded of Shakespeare’s Words in Macbeth viz. “Confusion now has made his masterpiece, Most sacrilegious murder hath broke ope The Lord’s anointed temple,  And stole thence The life of the building” The Bar Association, including many Silks and Senior Attorneys, boycotted a ceremonial welcome to Mohan Peiris. The International Commission of Jurists urged the Government to reinstate the Chief Justice and condemned the appointment of Mohan Peiris, who was the legal advisor to the Cabinet, saying it raises serious concerns about the future of the rule of law and accountability and a further assault on the independence of the Judiciary.  The US said that the Sri Lanka Government’s explanation was unsatisfactory. The UNHRC expressed concerns and issued a scathing attack over the impeachment. Canada initiated moves that may result in Sri Lanka being suspended from the Commonwealth. Australia’s Law Council sought Canberra’s intervention on the CJ issue and urged independence of the Judiciary. The British Bar Committee condemned the impeachment of the CJ.

To make an assessment of the Rule of Law and Judicial Independence the International Bar Association appointed a delegation headed by former Indian Chief Justice J.S.Verma, but, contrary to the President’s declared policy, they were denied visas, purportedly in the best interests of the country, stating that the visit would have “clashed with the dignity and privileges of the Sri Lanka Parliament”. The Cabinet spokesman went on to declare that Sri Lanka will carry forward its policies on its own programme in our own way, and anyone was free to come to Sri Lanka, without personal agendas, and see for themselves what Sri Lanka is doing. On a recent visit to India, the President countered protests by reiterating his open invitation to “Come to Sri Lanka to know the truth”.

To provide a much needed respite, the print media published a statement of Sir Paul Judge (President of the Chartered Institute of Marketing) in support of the impeachment. This was discounted as a marketing gimmick. On behalf of an International Council of Jurists, one Dr. Aggrawal had issued a statement assuring the President that the ICJ backed the Government’s impeachment of the Chief Justice and the appointment of Mohan Peiris instead. This statement has been contradicted by the Chief Justice of Pakistan and two Vice-Presidents of the said ICJ. Two British Jurists cited as Vice Presidents of the said ICJ protested against the statement and stated that they were not even aware of the letter re the controversial impeachment. Sir Justice Gavin Lightman resigned from the Council which issued the statement saying “I was never consulted on the statement issued by Dr. Aggrawal purportedly on behalf of the (Indian) ICJ. Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma expressed concern over impeachment of the CJ. and emphasised the Latimer house principles on the Separation of Powers.

Typically, Minister G.L.Peiris “rubbishes” statements made by all and sundry who dare to express any views contrary to his own, strangely fluctuating views, and follows it up with extensive globe-trotting at tremendous expense to the Sri Lankan taxpayer, in a bid to avert a hearing on Sri Lanka at the forthcoming Commonwealth Ministers’ Action Group meeting. The Foreign Minister of Estonia has stated that Estonia expects Sri Lanka to be open to international investigations –an expectation in keeping with the President’s open invitation to “Come over and see for yourselves”. Hopefully, our self-confident and assertive President will ‘set the tone’ by firmly putting an end to the puerile efforts of his own foreign Minister to merely ‘rubbish’ such spontaneous expressions of concern by Sri Lanka’s fast diminishing host of friendly nations.

*Elmore Perera, Attorney-at-Law, Founder CIMOGG, Past President OPA