Sri Lanka’s Ongoing Shift To Authoritarianism Under Rajapaksa And His Cronies

By Neil DeVotta -February 23, 2013 

Dr. Neil DeVotta

One word that is increasingly mentioned when discussing contemporary Sri Lanka is “authoritarianism.” This is primarily due to President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s frittering away of citizens’ civil liberties even as he and his “First Family” arrogate power and—together with their close relatives, cronies, and supporters—govern extra-constitutionally and extrajudicially. The malpractices were tolerated, even justified as necessary, during the war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). That war, however, ended in brutal and controversial fashion in May 2009, with the military accused of committing war crimes during the final campaign. Since then, the Sri Lankan government has vociferously castigated the United Nations and western countries for demanding accountability for those alleged crimes. In addition, the government has also deliberately undermined reconciliation with the Tamil minority, while simultaneously manipulating a climate of Sinhalese Buddhist triumphalism to further strengthen the executive’s powers.

On the subject of political reform, Rajapaksa’s government discarded the 17th Amendment of the Constitution—which created a Constitutional Council with powers to appoint and dismiss independent commissioners overseeing elections, public services, police, human rights, finance, bribery and corruption, and the judiciary—and instead rammed through the 18th Amendment, which effectively puts the president in charge of appointing these commissioners, while also eliminating presidential term limits. The latter permits Rajapaksa to run for a third term and fashion a milieu conducive to creating a political dynasty. Sri Lanka’s 1978 constitution enabled a powerful executive with minimal checks and balances. This combined with the gruesome civil war allowed presidents to stretch their powers, and Mahinda Rajapaksa has done so to every degree. Indeed, politicians, bureaucrats, media, business, and civil society are so cowed and weakened under Rajapaksa that Sri Lanka today is more of a pseudo democracy—one that is rife with nepotism, corruption, sabotaged political and bureaucratic institutions, weak rule of law, and a culture of impunity among the elites. Furthermore, the Sri Lankan military has not been demobilized since the end of the civil war, instead it is venturing into civilian commercial projects in ways that undermine fair business practices.

A compromised judiciary that occasionally stood up to politicians was considered the only entity able to check the regime’s authoritarian rampage. This expectation is now questionable, given the impeachment in January this year of Shirani Bandaranayake, the country’s first female chief justice. Executive meddling has long politicized and corrupted Sri Lanka’s courts system. “Telephone justice,” whereby the attorney general’s or president’s office calls judges and tells them how to rule in particular cases, is rumored to be common right up to the Supreme Court. In return, individual judge’s unethical and otherwise illegal transactions are tolerated. Pliant justices are also rewarded with perks and their family members showered with sinecures—usually high-ranking positions in state corporations. Impeached Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake’s husband, for example, was made Chairman of the National Savings Bank despite a controversial tenure at the Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation. It was widely recognized that his appointment was related to her position on the Supreme Court.

President Rajapaksa appointed Shirani Bandaranayake chief justice in May, 2011. She, like her predecessors and fellow justices, contributed to court rulings that have strengthened the executive presidency. Yet, when one of her decisions upset the First Family, a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) comprised of politicians from the ruling coalition found her guilty of financial and official misconduct and recommended impeachment—despite the Supreme Court ruling that the PSC had no right to investigate a senior judge and the Appeals Court ordering parliament to abandon the impeachment process. Civil society organizations, clergy members, foreign governments, and various international bodies likewise objected strenuously. The president’s reaction was to summarily sign the order removing Mrs. Bandaranayake, even as pro-government thugs brandishing poles gathered outside her official residence to celebrate the presidential ruling and intimidate her—lest she refused to give up her post. Their actions were consistent with recent attacks against those associated with the judiciary, including an assault on the Judiciary Service Commission secretary after he complained about executive interference in the courts; members of Sri Lanka’s Bar Association being issued death threats; and prominent lawyers who protested vocally against the Chief Justice’s impeachment receiving threatening letters from a secret group identifying itself as the Patriotic Front.

The episode that caused the rift between the First Family and Chief Justice Bandaranayake was the government’s attempt to create a Divinegume (Improving Lives) department, which amalgamates the operations of three extant entities under the authority of the current Minister of Economic Development Basil Rajapaksa, who coincidently is a brother of Mahinda Rajapaksa. Another presidential sibling, Gotabaya, oversees the Ministry of Defense and a third brother, Chamal, is Speaker of Parliament; combined, the Rajapaksa family controls nearly 70 percent of Sri Lanka’s budget. The Divinegume program is designed to give Basil Rajapaksa an additional $600 million for development and low income households with hardly any oversight, thereby effectively expanding the First Family’s patronage system. Indeed, the bill sanctioning the program contains a secrecy clause that prohibits Divinegume department personnel from divulging any information associated with its operations. The Supreme Court’s ruling that the bill violated aspects of the constitution is what led to the dismissal of Mrs. Bandaranayake.

Successive presidents have often promoted personnel from the Attorney General’s office to the higher courts, resulting in a judiciary that harbors an “executive mindset.” This troubling phenomenon is best illustrated byMohan Pieris, the person chosen in January to replace Shirani Bandaranayake. Peiris, like Bandaranayake, has not served as a judge. Instead, he has spent much of his professional career working for the Attorney General’s office as a State Counsel and later as a Senior State Counsel. He also served as a legal consultant to the Ministry of Defense before being made Attorney General in 2008. He was serving as legal consultant to the cabinet when chosen to be the Chief Justice. Peiris has been accused of misleading—on the government’s behalf—a United Nations investigation into the whereabouts of a disappeared journalist and few believe he can operate independently as Chief Justice. General Sarath Fonseka was the army commander who finally defeated the LTTE, and he later ran, unsuccessfully, against Mahinda Rajapaksa in the last presidential election. Following the election, Fonseka, the national war hero, was dragged out of his office, charged with corruption, and ultimately jailed for over two years. The message communicated to Sri Lankans was a simple one: if the army chief who defeated the LTTE could be thus humiliated, no one is immune. Mrs. Bandaranayake’s impeachment has now sent a similar message to the judiciary.

It is instructive that governing coalition parliamentarians affirmed their willingness to abandon Mrs. Bandaranayake by signing a blank sheet of paper devoid of the impeachment motion. With governing politicians so servile, the country’s opposition impotent, the media muzzled, civil society persecuted, and judiciary intimidated, Sri Lanka is clearly moving towards an entrenched brand of political authoritarianism under Mahinda Rajapaksa and his cronies. As presidential sibling Basil Rajapaksa proclaimed to The Economist in November 2010, “an era of ‘ruler kings’ has begun.”

*Neil DeVotta is an Associate Professor in the Department of Politics and International Affairs at Wake Forest 
University. He can be contacted via email at devottn@wfu.edu. Courtesy Asia Pacific Bulletin  East-West Center

Written statement to UNHRC:Freedom of Expression

Written statement to UNHRC:Freedom of Expression

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2013

Introduction[1]

 Since the end of the civil war in 2009, Sri Lankan journalists and media workers have been subject to a campaign of intimidation and violence,[2]resulting in an oppressive environment of de facto censorship. Individual journalists, who speak out on issues such as national politics, corruption, human rights, or the civil war and its aftermath, are subject to intimidation and vilification. Some of them have been publicly branded as having links to a ‘terrorist’ organization.

At the same time, the Government of Sri Lanka has engaged in sustained harassment and intimidation of media outlets and workers,[3] while the Committee to Protect Journalists lists Sri Lanka sixth on the list of countries from which journalists are forced to flee.[4] These actions have serious implications with respect to the freedom of expression rights. This submission highlights that, despite longstanding attention from the international community, the Government of Sri Lanka has failed to undertake any effective actions to ensure media freedom and  to protect journalists /media workers. Given the centrality of the right to freedom of expression to the protection of all human rights, this issue demands the urgent attention of the Human Rights Council.

Freedom of expression is an inalienable fundamental right , which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information through any media of choice.[5] An important guarantee for media workers, the UN Commission on Human Rights has also recognised the right “stressing the need to ensure greater protection for all media professionals and for journalistic sources.[6]” States are subject to an active responsibility to prevent attacks against journalists, through legislation protecting the freedom of expression, whilst effectively investigating and prosecuting crimes that breach this freedom.[7]

Attacks and Obstacles in the North

The focal point and culmination of the civil war occurred in the North of Sri Lanka, and ongoing violent attacks in this region continue to remind the Sri Lankan and international community of the unresolved tensions of the conflict.[8] International organisations have regularly reported issued reports with titles such as “Jaffna’s Media in the Grip of Terror”[9], yet regular violent attacks on journalists, students and politically active Tamils continue.[10]Attacks on the Uthayan, Jaffna’s leading newspaper, demonstrate this continuing problem; Uthayan’s editor was hospitalized by armed attackers in late-2012,[11] and attacks upon Uthayan journalists have continued in recent months,[12] up-to the time of submission.[13]

               

Restrictions on Access to Media Outlets

Violence does not constitute the only obstacle with respect to freedom of expression rights. In November 2011, the government blocked six news and media websites for allegedly portraying the president and top government officials disreputably.[14]

On June 29, Colombo city police raided the offices of two news websites, SriLanka-X-News and SriLanka Mirror,  took into custody all the staff present and impounded all their equipment.  All media workers present were detained within the locked premises for three hours and questioned by the police, following which they were taken away to the headquarters of the Crime Investigation Department (CID). Computers and other equipment were confiscated from the premises of the news websites.[15]

The day that the website offices were raided by police, Shantha Wijesooriya, a journalist working with SriLanka-X-News approached by a group of toughs  with evident intent to kidnap him..Wijesooriya managed to evade his intending captors and run to safety and lef the country soon after.[16]

The challenges for Sri Lankan media reporting in such circumstances have been recognized internationally, with calls on the authorities to “heed the voice of the world and remove all restrictions that they have imposed on the media through legislation and ordinances.”[17]  Still number of  news websites remained blocked to-date. [18]

Attacks on Journalists

Following the end of the civil war in 2009, Sri Lanka accounted for more than a quarter of the worldwide total of journalists who fled their countries because of harassment and (threats of) violence and/or imprisonment.[19] According to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s 2011 Report, there is a “persistent pattern of attacks and obstacles placed on journalists and media institutions”[20] in Sri Lanka. During the civil war, the Government imposed a blackout on media coverage of the war effort while restricting independent and foreign news agencies’ access to conflict zones..[21]

In the aftermath of the civil war, these policies and practices remain in place. Frederica Jansz, former editor of The Sunday Leader, states that since the end of the civil war, ‘the level of intimidation, the harassment has continued, they have continued to call journalists traitors. Lawyers appearing for me, and The Sunday Leader, were terrified, or called terrorists and traitors.”[22]

In 2012, human rights organisations made written submissions to the Human Rights Council, calling for Sri Lanka to end attacks, threats and harassments against human rights defenders.[23] This submission followed recommendation 39 of the 2008 Universal Periodic Review of Sri Lanka: “to take measures to safeguard freedom of expression and protect human rights defenders, and effectively investigate allegation of attack on journalists, media personnel and human rights defenders, and prosecute those responsible.” As continued attacks illustrate, no action has been taken to protect those who are critical of the Government, or to prosecute those responsible for criminal acts.

Instances of self-censorship have increased, leading to the preclusion of critical reportage on post-civil war cases of corruption, governance issues, and human rights violations.[24] Some media workers, including Jansz, have been forced into exile and today Sri Lanka is listed as one of the most dangerous places in the world for media workers.[25]

We are particularly concerned that human rights defenders and journalists who supported a Human Rights Council’s Resolution before its March 2012 session were identified and branded as terrorist-sympathizers and “traitors” on state media.[26]

The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) was given new powers in 2011 that allowed journalists to be convicted and imprisoned for a maximum period of thirty days without any judicial process.[27]

Impunity

The Government of Sri Lanka has yet to address is its own failure to effectively investigate violent attacks and killings of journalists and media workers.[28] Since 1992, 19 journalists have been killed, with nine being murdered in the era since then Prime-Minister, now President Rajapaksa came to power in 2004.[29] The Government has failed to prosecute any suspects with respect to these nineteen killings. Highlighting the atmosphere of intimidation and impunity, it is noted that officials have publically threatened their critics with violence,[30] and sixty percent of recorded victims were known to have received threats before they were killed.[31]

The pervasive climate of impunity has led the Committee to Protect Journalists to rank Sri Lanka fourth in its annual Impunity Index.[32] The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) note that failure to bring the “perpetrators to justice” does little credit to the Sri Lankan Government and “undermine[s] the process of reconciliation and the Rule of Law”.

In late 2012, the editor of a Jaffna-based newspaper was brutally beaten was brutally beaten in late 2012 after his newspaper attempted to cover tthe military intrusion in to the  Jaffna University. [33]  Peaceful student protests and boycotts following the incident were met with military attacks.[34]

Administrative detention is a tool routinely used by law enforcement against those the government believes may be security threats, including journalists,[35] many of whom have been detained without charge for significant lengths of time.[36] Although the government of Sri Lanka accepted UPR recommendation 18 to “increase its efforts to prevent cases of kidnapping, forced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings”, the  subsequent Freedom of Information Bill could not be passed in the parliament as a result of its dissolution in 2004,  and so legislation has yet to fully develop to support and protect journalist in their work.

Concluding Remarks

The killing of 19 journalists since 1992 has been met with total impunity.[37]  Since 2001, at least twenty-five journalists have fled Sri Lanka to live in exile.[38] The implications with respect to freedom of expression – “the core of the Covenant and the touchstone for all other rights guaranteed therein”[39] – are self-evident. It is essential that the Human Rights Council take specific action to protect Sri Lankan journalists and media workers, and to ensure the Government of Sri Lanka’s compliance with its obligations under international human rights law.

Written Statement to UNHRC: Arbitrary Detention in Sri Lanka[1]

Written Statement to UNHRC: Arbitrary Detention in Sri Lanka[1]

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2013

Arbitrary Detention in Sri Lanka[1]

In 1983, at the outbreak of the civil war in Sri Lanka, the International Commission of Jurists concluded that Sri Lanka’s abuses of prisoners constituted a “systematic” and “almost universal” practice;[2] that year, for example, 53 Tamil inmates were killed by Sinhalese guards at the Welikada high security prison.[3] Thirty years later, the system remains unchanged and the systematic abuse of prisoners continues to be the norm; in November 2012 it was reported that 27 inmates were killed at Welikada prison.[4] Continuing abuses highlight the unchanging nature of Sri Lanka’s detention policy and the associated violations of human rights that have resulted in over 11,000 internments since the end of the civil war in 2009.[5]

While States have acknowledged the on-going violations committed by the Government of Sri Lanka, the Government has failed to address these concerns. This intransigence with respect to human rights and the rule of law is evidenced by the recent Universal Periodic Review (UPR), wherein the Sri Lankan government rejected 100 of 210 recommendations, the largest number of outright rejections in the UPR’s history.[6]

The systematic practice of arbitrary detention utilised by the Government of Sri Lanka in the repression of civilians requires immediate and sustained attention from the Human Rights Council and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

Sri Lanka’s International Obligations

Sri Lanka is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which contains stringent regulations intended to safeguard against abuse in detention. Article 9 prohibits arbitrary detention – including in the context of a legitimate derogation under a state of emergency[7] – while establishing further protections with respect to an individual’s right to a fair trial within a reasonable timeframe, and the right to be informed of any charges.[8]

The Civil War: Emergency Regulations & Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA)

During the civil war, tens of thousands of individuals were detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Regulations.[9] While the majority of these individuals were ethnic Tamils suspected of association with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Sinhalese and Muslim civilians were also arrested and subject to ill treatment.[10] For example, Amnesty International reports that two Sinhalese political activists detained on suspicion of assisting the LTTE were subject to particularly severe treatment, coupled with intense media coverage intended to vilify the individuals.[11]As of December 2011, one of these Sinhalese activists, arrested in 2006, is still awaiting trial at Bogambara prison.[12] While detention-related abuses disproportionately affect the Tamil community, Sri Lanka’s detention policies and practices have serious consequences for the entire population.

Post-Civil War: The ‘Emergency’ is lifted, but the PTA continues

In August 2011, Sri Lanka lifted the declared state of emergency.[13] However, the Government of Sri Lanka has continued to keep the Prevention of Terrorism Act in force, elements of which violate international obligations under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as discussed below. The Government has also introduced supplementary provisions in order to detain LTTE suspects without charge or trial, some of which have been deemed unconstitutional by leading Sri Lankan constitutional lawyers.[14]

Detention Without Charge

               

Under Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, individuals may be arrested without charge and detained for up to 18 months by a detention order. While detainees must be brought before a magistrate within 72 hours of their arrest, the magistrate “shall order the remand of [the individual] until the conclusion of the trial”.[15] This order cannot be challenged in court.[16] As an example of this practice, it is reported that as of December 2011, 42 of the 65 Tamil detainees held in Anuradhapura prison have yet to be charged, after two to six years in prison.[17]  Evidence also indicates that where protections are afforded, such as an individual’s right to be informed of the reasons for their arrest, such protections have been consistently violated in practice.[18]

Arbitrary Detention

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considers a deprivation of liberty to be arbitrary when “the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial… is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character”.[19] The length of detention in waiting for a trial can last years, often without charges ever being brought; these policies suggest that the Government of Sri Lanka is systematically carrying out arbitrary detention. Individuals being held without these protections amounts to a violation of the right to be informed of charges against an individual as well as the right to trial within a reasonable timeframe, guaranteed under Articles 9(2) and 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The use of emergency laws and the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Sri Lanka has resulted in a culture of impunity wherein arbitrary detentions and widespread torture and ill treatment has become the norm.[20] Further, the UN Committee against Torture recently stated that it was “seriously concerned” regarding the “widespread use of torture… in police custody.”[21] Between 1998 and 2011, the Asian Human Rights Commission documented 1,500 cases of police torture in Sri Lanka,[22] which indicates a pattern of arbitrary detention resulting in an environment whereby detainees are more susceptible to torture and other forms of ill treatment.[23]

A number of individual issues will now be addressed.

Detention for Political Beliefs

The Government of Sri Lanka claims that there are 318 political prisoners currently incarcerated.[24] However, documentation by Sri Lankan activists indicates that up to 810 detainees are currently in detention for their political beliefs, many of whom have been awaiting charge for at least five years.[25]

Transfers and Access to Information regarding Detainees

Several prisoners’ families interviewed by the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice in late 2012 stated that their relatives have been transferred between at least three prisons during their detention – often to delay their release – without any prior information or reasons for transfers given. According to Section 7(3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, police have the power to transfer a detainee without judicial permission or supervision.[26] With no central registry in place, these unsupervised transfers can result in an individual effectively becoming lost in the system, with a substantial risk for abuses of this policy, such as torture and disappearances.[27]

Thousands of families have also had limited access to their relatives, and are often denied all access.[28] This issue is exacerbated because families typically received little to no information from the authorities regarding the whereabouts or health of detainees, implicating the right to respect for family life.[29]

The following case study is illustrative with respect to a number of the human rights issues addressed above.

Case Study: Vavuniya Prison

According to a study by the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice, in June 2012, following a riot at Vavuniya prison, 205 prisoners were transferred to Anuradhapura prison. Twenty-eight of these detainees were allegedly tortured with the involvement of up to 250 prison guards, resulting in two deaths.[30] One of the most critical cases involved Mariadas Delroxan. On a visit prior to the riot, Delroxan’s father remembers Delroxan saying to him, “If they don’t release us [from prison], we will die.” Delroxan’s father next saw his son in the hospital, with a large bandage on his head and injuries indicating broken bones. The guards would not allow him to see the lower half of Delroxan’s body. After many hours in a coma, Delroxan died as a direct result of the injuries sustained during his detention. The authorities did not inform Delroxan’s family about his involvement in the riot or the injuries he sustained; his father learned of the riot from neighbours.

Recommendations

Prisoners are being held in captivity for extended periods of time without charge or trial. We therefore call upon the Government of Sri Lanka:

·         To immediately end all forms of arbitrary detention;

·         To immediately release all political prisoners or to bring charges against them by a specified date, while complying with the requirements of international human rights law;

·         To invite the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on Torture to visit Sri Lanka on an official mission to ensure transparency and accountability regarding detention policies;

·         To allow an independent investigation into the Vavuniya prison riot of June 2012;

·         To provide clear justification for the transfer of prisoners with adequate notification to families;

·         To make public the list of detainees as pledged by the Government of Sri Lanka during the UPR 2009 and 2012.

Written statement to UNHRC - Independence of Judicairy

Written statement to UNHRC - Independence of Judicairy

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2013

Attacks and interference regarding independence of judges and lawyers in Sri Lanka[1]

 Today, lawyers and judges in Sri Lanka are subject to systematic political and physical attacks.[2] The independence of the judiciary is widely recognized as a safeguard with respect to the protection of human rights and the rule of law, and serves as an essential check on the other branches of the State. As such, these attacks, and the coercive climate they engender, constitute a significant threat to the independence of the Sri Lankan judicial system, the maintenance of the rule of law, and the protection and promotion of human rights.

Sri Lanka’s legal obligations

Sri Lanka, as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is bound to provide a “competent, independent and impartial tribunal [or court] established by law”[3] - “an absolute right that is not subject to any exception”.[4] The Human Rights Council has emphasized that the integrity of the judicial system, namely the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, are essential prerequisites for the protection of human rights and the non-discriminatory administration of justice.[5] Under international human rights law, the Government has a duty to not only guarantee the “independence of the judiciary from political interference by the executive branch and legislature”,[6] but to take special measures secured by law, including “security and physical protection,”[7] to protect members of the legal system from conflicts of interest and intimidation,[8]

               

Attacks against the Judiciary

The judiciary in Sri Lanka is currently subject to widespread interference, including, but not limited to: written and verbal threats, bribery, unjustified transfers, and violence. The Asian Human Rights Commission reports that high-ranking officials, including President Rajapaksa, may be responsible for some of these activities.[9]

Contemporary instability in Sri Lanka is illustrated by the events surrounding the impeachment of the Chief Justice, discussed below. In 2012, Parliament began proceedings to impeach the Chief Justice. This process was opposed by the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional.[10] During and after these proceedings attacks against lawyers and members of the judiciary, particularly those seen as opponents to the Government or tied to the Chief Justice’s defense efforts, “dramatically increased”[11] and turned violent, escalating to physical assaults and attempted assassinations.[12]

The International Commission of Jurists notes that this interference has eroded accountability and the rule of law and caused a “constitutional crisis of unprecedented dimensions”.[13] The situation in Sri Lanka may be illustrated by reference to a number of contemporary case studies.

Attack on the Magistrate’s Court of Mannar and Threats to the Magistrate

On 17 July 2012, a day after the Magistrate of Mannar made an order regarding a dispute between Tamil and Muslim fishermen, Government Minister, Rishard Badhiudeen, telephoned the Magistrate and demanded that the he reverse the order, accusing the Magistrate of “working against the Muslims”.[14] According to an interview with the Asian Tribune, the Minister threatened that “Mannar town would burn”[15] and that the Magistrate would “face severe consequences”;[16] allegations denied by the Minister. On 18 July 2012, after another failed attempt to persuade the Magistrate to change his decision, the Minister met with the Secretary of the Judicial Services Commission and demanded the Magistrate be transferred,[17] prompting the Magistrate to file a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission.[18] The Magistrate Court and High Court of Mannar were subsequently attacked by a mob, purportedly instigated by the Minister, which threw stones and set fires,[19] while State media labeled the Magistrate a Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) sympathizer.[20] Mr. Badhiudeen has denied the allegations against him[21] and his case for contempt of court is still pending.

Attack on the Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission

After the Judicial Services Commission was subjected to threats, intimidation and a vilifying public campaign run by State-controlled media,[22] the Commission’s Secretary, Manjula Tillekaratne, issued a statement on 28 September 2012 expressing concern for “the security of all of us and our families beginning from the person holding the highest position in the judicial system.”[23] On 7 October 2012, the Secretary was accosted by gun-wielding assailants while stopped in his car on a public road, and beaten with a pistol, an iron rod, and bare fists.[24] The President ordered a police investigation into the attack, but it was never completed.

Impeachment of the Chief Justice

On 23 November 2012, impeachment proceedings on charges of professional and financial misconduct and abuse of power began against Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake.[25] Lawyers and Sri Lankan civil society suspect that the proceedings are connected to Bandaranayake’s opposition to the Divinaguma Bill – a bill that would centralize power, limit checks and balances, and give more authority to the Ministry of Economic Development, the President’s brother.[26] The Supreme Court held that Parliament was unable to hold such an inquiry against a judge without passing a specific law to that effect. Further questions regarding the proceedings arose when it was reported that when asked by a former Chief Justice why he was moving to impeach Bandaranayake the President responded: “I didn’t want to, but she got too big for her boots.”[27]

Bandaranayake was found guilty on three of the five charges and impeached by Parliament on 11 January 2013.[28] The Court of Appeal declared the impeachment unconstitutional.[29] Despite significant opposition, the President’s senior advisor, Mohan Peiris was appointed and sworn in as the new Chief Justice.[30] The impeachment and subsequent appointment of the Chief Justice has drawn criticism from the US, UK and the Commonwealth, among others,[31] condemnation from the International Commission of Jurists, and public declarations from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and the Lawyers Collective that they refuse to recognize the legal standing of the new Chief Justice.[32]

Threats and Attacks Against Lawyers

The Lawyers Collective allege that the Government of Sri Lanka is engaged in a campaign intended to instigate adverse public opinion against lawyers and judges, the consequences of which leaves them open to physical attacks.[33] An example presented in this regard is the attempted assassination of Gunaratne Wanninayake – a lawyer who worked against the impeachment of the Chief Justice – on his way home from work on 18 December 2012.[34]

In similar incidents, gun shots were fired at the houses of MP Wijayadasa Rajapake, President of the Bar Association, and Parliamentarian Wijedasa Rajapaksa, in the early morning of 20 December 2012. Both victims retrieved three ammunition cartridges from outside their homes, but police insist the incidents can be attributed to firecrackers, and not gunfire.[35] Investigations are pending.

During the week following the Chief Justice’s impeachment, four prominent lawyers involved in the Chief Justice’s defense – Romesh de Silva PC, Jayampathi Wickremarathna PC, MA Sumanthiran MP and JC Weliamuna – received threatening letters, naming them as traitors and declaring that drastic measures would be taken to silence them.[36]  On 17 January 2013, it was also announced that a plot to assassinate JC Weliamuna had been uncovered.[37]

Threats have also been made against those protesting against the Government’s actions. On 21 January 2013, a female lawyer who supported the impeached Chief Justice, was leaving a police station after filing an assault complaint when her vehicle was stopped and an unknown man attempted to strangle her. The lawyer was able to call attention to the situation and the assailant fled before the attack turned fatal.[38] No suspect has been arrested or charged.

On 5 February 2013, the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute released a statement voicing its concern regarding the decision by the Sri Lankan Government to deny its high-level delegates entry to the country.[39] The delegation, consisting of respected international figures and headed by a former Chief Justice of India, was scheduled to meet with legal professionals, representatives of Government, media and civil society to discuss the development of the legal profession, rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary. Each delegate had been issued a visa for the February visit, but these were revoked or suspended.[40] The Government claims that the information provided regarding the reasons for the country visit was inaccurate. The International Bar Association “wholly refutes”[41] this allegation, and expressed its disappointed at the lack of cooperation by the Sri Lankan authorities.[42] The Government’s lack of transparency and unwillingness to have objective parties look at current threats to its judiciary brings its commitment to upholding the rule of law into question.

                Conclusion

International standards, including those put forward by the Human Rights Council, such as the ‘UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary’, stress that judicial independence is critical for upholding the rule of law and promoting and protecting human rights. The threats and physical attacks currently being carried out against lawyers and members of the judiciary in Sri Lanka indicate an attempt to interfere with legal proceedings and decisions. The impunity which the perpetrators of these attacks have enjoyed, the Government’s lack of transparency, and failure to ensure the required protection with respect to lawyers and judges, stands in conflict with Sri Lanka’s binding obligations under international human rights law and should be addressed urgently by the UN Human Rights Council.

Written statement to UNHRC: The absence of action regarding complaints of torture and ill-treatment

Written statement to UNHRC: The absence of action regarding complaints of torture and ill-treatment

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2013

Sri Lanka: The absence of action regarding complaints of  torture and ill-treatment

The ALRC and its sister organisation the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has submitted to the government of Sri Lanka in 2012 a total of 46 complaints relating to torture and ill-treatment. All these cases related to serious assaults on persons after arrest and during the period of detention at police stations. The victims in these cases and the date of the incidents are listed below:

1. Mr. Narahenpita Gamage Sisil Weerasinghe-(48) - Wattala Police - 30 December 2011

2. Mr. Muttiah Chandra Mohan (36) - Teldeniya Police - 6 April 2008

3. Mr. L. M. Jagath Kumara (22) - Thalathuoya Police Station - 10 February

4. Ms. Chandramohan Denusha - Ambakotte Tamil Vidyalaya - January 2012

5. Mr. Soriyamoorthy Givoshan (25) - Katugastota Police Station - 18 September 2009

6. Mr. Ramesh Kumar (29) - Terrorist Investigation Department (TID) - 9 August 2008

7. Mr. Mohamad Rasul (11) - Palanguthura Al-Fala School - 19 January

8. Mr. Kanahipadi Kankanamge Nalin (29)  - Dodangoda Police Station  -

20 November 2011

9. Mr. Ramasamy Prabakaran  - Sri Lanka Police/Intelligence Services - 11 February,

2012

10. M. Nishantha Fernando Jayawardena - Panadura police - 4 June, 2010

11. Mr. Santhan Stanys Ramesh (33)  - Kandy Terrorist  Investigation Division (TID)

30 July 2011

12. Mr. A Navajeevan (27)  - Kandy Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) Kandy  –

9 August, 2008

13. Ms. Madurasinghe Arachchilage Chandrani Madurasinghe (42)  - Chairman

Udubaddawa  Pradesheeya Saba - 20 January

14. Mr. JP Samson Kulatunga (62) - Marawila Police - 9 February, 2012

15. Mr. R D Wickramasinghe - Criminal Investigation Department - 26 June 2006

16. Mr. Surendra Rajan (30) - Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) - 26 August, 2009

17. Mr. Thankshanamoorthy Selvakumar (24)-Kandy Terrorist Investigation Division

(TID) - 16 August 2008

18. Mr. Chandrasiri Dasanayaka - Wadduwa Police - 15 April 2012

19. Mr. N A Aruna Roshantha (42) - Chilaw Police - 24 March 2012

20. Mr. WA Pramal Meheran (29) - Thambuththegama Police Station - 3 July 2012

21. Mr. R M Chamara (17) - Pallama Police Station - July 4, 2012

22. Mr. Yapa Mudiyanselage Chaminda Priyashantha (35) Vanathavilluwa Police Station -

5 July 2012

23. Name withheld - Kothmale Police Station - 6 July 2012

24. Shantha Wijesuriya - 9 July 2012

25. Mr. Mihindukulasuriya Anthony Vinisious Fernando (34) - Negombo Police Station –

9 August 2012

26. Mr. Dadallage Ajith Kusumsiri (38) - Angunapalassa Police Station - 13 August 2012

27. Mr. Don Prasanna Dilrukshana Aquinas Mallawaarachchi (22) - Pamunugama Police

Station - 13 August 2012

28. Mr. Alexander Thayaparan (49) - August 15, 2012

29. Ms. K K Neesha Chaturangi (17) - August 15, 2012

30. Mr. Mahalingam Sasikumar (34) - August 17, 2012

31. Mr. Dilshan Suran Janz (27) - Negambo Police Station - August 21, 2012

32. Mr. Sivapalan Pradeepan (28) - 28 August 2012

33. Mr. G R Sampath Prasanna Piyadasa (37) - Rattota Police Station - August 29, 2012

34. Mr. Sundaram Sathies Kumar (34) - August 29, 2012

35. Mr. Gallalagama Arachchige Thilanka Niroshan Gamaarachchi (27) - Bandaragama

Police Station. - August 30, 2012

36. Mr. Abasinghegedara Mahesh Niroshan Palamakumbura (19) - Bandaragama Police

Station - August 30, 2012

37. Mr. Randunu Pathiranalage Susil Priyankara Seneviratne  (27)  - Thambuththegama

Police Station - 31 August 2012

38. Mr. D P Anil Thushara (34) - Thambuththegama Police Station - August 31, 2012

39. Ms. Warnakulasuriya Tresa Dorin Marcus (45)  - Pamunugama Police Station  –

4 September 2012

40. Mr. Koggala Marakkalage Thushara Samanthilake (37) - Hungama Police Station  –

11 September 2012

41. Mr. Thangaraja Ramesh Kumar (32) - 12 September 2012

42. Mr. Gunasundaram Jeyasundaram (57) - 2 November 2012

43. Ms. Muddara Pedilage Suneetha Sandamali  - Saliya Wewa Police Station  –

15 November 2012

44. Mr. T.A Erantha Srinath (27) - Giriulla Police Station - November 20, 2012

45. Mr. Porawakara Arachchilage Pramesh (34)  - Thambuththegama Police Station  –

21 November 2012

46. Mr. RHMPB Udangamuwa (27) - Peradeniya Police Station - 12 December 2012

The ALRC is not aware of any investigation into any of these cases under the CAT Act,  No. 22 of 1994 which makes torture and ill-treatment a crime punishable by 7 years of  rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/=. The ALRC is concerned that those  investigations under the CAT Act, No. 22 of 1994 are no longer conducted and that no prosecutions have been filed under this Act during 2012. In fact, the prosecutions under this  Act seem to have stopped from around 2009 or so. While the complaints relating to torture are increasing the investigations and prosecution into the cases under the relevant law, that is Act, No. 22 of 1994 has stopped.

-ALRC

is Act, No. 22 of 1994 has stopped.

Paradise Lost – A Post Script

By Gamini Dullewe -February 23, 2013 

Reading the comments for the previous article Paradise Lost, it was observed that some were under the misconception that since there was inequality in society, there was no paradise for the majority as alleged, in this country. Incidentally, Inequality is not only peculiar to Sri Lanka, but is prevalent in all societies.  Inequality is more apparent in the tropical countries as Sri Lanka, more than the Western countries that are snow bound where Nature has designed the basics for mankind. In the snow bound countries tenements as ours are not possible to survive winter, without heating. Besides the citizenry also cannot be ill clad, sans foot wear for the same reason. Hence in those societies the basics in society for all to be dressed similar and live in some form of housing with heating regulates uniformity, unlike ours where shacks and rags are common place as nature provides and allows so, highlighting inequality.

It must be remembered that it was Ranil Wickremasinghe who was responsible for ending confrontational politics in this country, which fact was confirmed by C.A. Chandraprema.

Inequality and the need to distribute the wealth, has been a major concern for most societies in the 20^th century and some countries ventured to wipe out inequality, adopting Socialism and Communism. Two such countries Russia and China today has created Neo-Capitalism in it’s worst form in those countries, by those very individuals whose hearts bled for the poor, after taking over the reins to liberate the poor. However poverty in both countries remains to be addressed although much is boasted today, having the largest number of millionaires and booming economies, where the women folk of the former is practising the oldest profession in most countries including ours and large volumes of menial labour seen at work sites on projects undertaken by the latter in a few projects as in Sri Lanka at the moment. In ours also at that time although we had a wider segment of poor, they were quality poor who had a house to live in and a vocation to fall back on. The poor then in the country, soon after Independence was not unemployed, starving or homeless. The poor then, were given a free Education and a free Health Service and Public transport was subsidised Ceylon then being a welfare state.  Further the landless were given a few acres of paddy land, a couple of acres of highland with a house built and a Co-operative system to make their purchases to be paid back from their harvest, in the vast extents of Colonies opened in the entire NCP, where tens of thousands of family units were settled. These were the Poverty alleviation schemes adopted then, without any song and dance, as done today for Janasaviya, Samurdhi or Divinaguma.  It was with such facilities offered to the poor in this country that a few Left oriented, Western educated Capitalists as S.A. Wickremasinghe, Colvin R De Silva, Pieter Kennuman,N.M. Perera et al were trying to woo the masses with comradeship, to take the reins of governance of the country, but the poor did not reciprocate with their vote other than in the electorates they represented. It was then, that with their participation they organised the first Hartal in the Port in ’53. This was at a time, when the Port workers were provided individual housing down Bloemendhal Road, which are still in existence and a subsidised lunch. Yet they crippled the Port and continued with strikes in every govt. department for long years to ruin the country and the economy. As a result of the Hartal in the Port, we lost the bulk of the Shipping business and Singapore stood to gain.

While I was working I had the occasion to meet Mr. Tao who built the Twin Towers in the Fort called the World Trade Centre. He told me how he was amongst a few other Singaporeans working in the Wharfs in Colombo prior to Sri Lanka gaining Independence. What immediately struck me was whether Singapore had a hand in destabilising our Port then to their advantage. This is only my presumption and I cannot help but think so, as when one sees the level of intrigue prevalent even today by powerful countries against smaller and weaker Nations. A cursory glance at events here including the JVP uprising, the 30 year LTTE war, how it was ended under thirty months and the present lukewarm approaches to the powers in governance, destroying Democracy are all indicative of such intrigue.

It was the British through Education that emancipated the ordinary masses in this country to become Professionals and Academics to create the new elite in the Sri Lankan society, who were otherwise were mere vassals in the former Feudal system that prevailed in the country. The elite base was further widened by the govt. of the day, by opening Central Colleges and the inclusion of Iriyagolles, Malalasekaras, Kularatnes et al. None of the forefathers of the Sri Lankan elite then were British, but natives of this land.  They all climbed the social ladder through hard work and with an education irrespective to which community or religious group they belonged to. Therefore the elite then consisted of the Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, Burghers and any other Sri Lankan. Religion was no criteria. The rich in society had acquired their wealth over a few generations as there was no easy Drug money, Gun Money or Commissions on deals as today, to become rich overnight or simply within the span of a few years. The work force of the country consisted of all communities and religions. Had we retained this system and allowed all the people who were forced to leave this country to remain, we certainly would have been spared of the misery experienced and this country still would have served us as the PARADISE for all of us to live comfortably with pride. However this was not to be and we were overtaken by a set of Opportunists and Humbugs, parading as Patriots, clamouring for Swabasha and a due place for Buddhism, where even the founder Lord Buddha never clamoured for such position during his day, when there were so many other faiths and beliefs in practise then. These new born again Buddhists, both the laity and the clergy are totally responsible for the degeneration of this once noble Philosophy that served solace to mankind. The Buddhist Priests then were held in high esteem in society, unlike the Humbugs of today seen being baton charged and beaten at demonstrations by the very same State powers who Christened them, running for life with umbrellas and their robes tucked. Today Buddhist Priests are accused of Rape, Molestations, Thuggery, Armed robbery and even Murder. The funny thing is they commit all this villainy and still have the audacity to seek State protection, where the scum of Politicians are willing to, as seen today with the notorious Bodu Bala Sena, a disgrace to all Buddhists in this country. It is no wonder when Sir John wanted to send them back to the Temple with their backs tarred, it was opportunists as Banda who brought them to the political           platform, ridiculing Sir John then. The consequences of such political expediency are glaring at this society today. So the rot, started to set in this country with the onset of SWRD Bandaranayake giving leadership to the destructive, corrupt and the murderous. Education was switched to the vernacular with the promise to do so in just 24 hours. First an efficient Bureaucracy was replaced with a mediocrity, qualified in Swabasha. Capitalism was a dirty word that only suited the Rapacious West. Therefore the Politicians promised to bring down the Capitalists in society with limitations on property, houses and wealth, to make all equal. Some of the poor, naturally thought that once the wealth of the rich was distributed amongst the have nots, that all would end up as haves. Let alone the poor achieving a better quality life, certainly the Poor Politicians, who shouted loudest to bring the Capitalists down, became better Capitalists than the rich of yore whom they brought down. The Socialist policies of the day, created a class of ‘Dughi’, abject poverty in society that had ‘Govi’ and ‘Kamkaru’ to represent the poor in society before. The Socialists never understood that the strength of a country’s economy is not gauged by the number of beggars in the country but by the number of rich in that society, because one beggar cannot help another beggar.

Thereafter with a mediocrity as Govt. Servants compared to the former, was made worse making them subservient to the Politicians by the ’72 Constitution, where it started to plummet down in every sphere, in discipline, Law and Order, while corruption, bribery, lethargy and inefficiency became the order of the day. This new breed of Public Servants started pandering the Politicians for position and promotions. Therefore is it surprising to see even today many of these Public Servants being servile to the Corrupt Politicians, thereby insulting the high positions they hold as Professionals and Academics. The only lot who benefited were the non pod Politicians of all hue and their catchers. Besides the Politicians who benefitted were, the Under World from the Shanties who earlier provided the muscle to all the Political Parties, but later some of them turned big time businessmen while some others took to Politics, to even lead this country. Today when one looks at the society it is not difficult to identify some of those who have had a meteoric rise, although some today may not know them, as to who they were fifty years ago.

If one were to assess the amount of money robbed by Politicians and their catchers of all governments to date from Independence, living lives of ultra luxury today, having fat bank balances both locally and outside, offspring with Foreign education and qualifications holding high positions, compared to what their families were fifty years ago, would easily add up to trillions upon trillions of rupees which could easily provide decent housing to all shanties numbering over four million, living in sub human conditions that have grown after the down trodden were promised a place in this resplendent isle, by their benefactors. Further imagine the money currently spent to maintain Rapists, Thugs, and Murderers as members of various Councils across the country, burdening the whole society with a high cost of living for what purpose, only they know. So is it any wonder that these uneducated Ruffians unable to do a proper job of work, has to kindle Patriotism, Nationalism and Religion to sow strife to remain in power.

It is in this context that as an alternate I proposed, even at this late stage for the society as a whole to benefit, for us to turn to someone from the present political firmament, rather than look for Diyasena (Ku) Marayas, who has lied and robbed this Nation. I well understand the ire of those who are inimical to my proposition ofRanil Wickremasinghe as the only alternate this society has, because there are still some waiting to climb the social ladder through short cuts, using Religion and Race as the Passport. Then there are the businesses as Maharajah & Co., Professionals and Academics seeking recognition, where Ranil was not willing to, but readily accommodated by the current corrupt leadership and most have been already discarded. It is also understandable the ire of all those who have already amassed wealth and position in order to shield themselves, as it would be difficult for them to survive in a future society with Law and Order. So what is it that irks,  the anti RW to resent him so much? Is it because RW has not given leadership to FUTA and the Impeachment of the former CJ to topple MR? Does one in his senses really believe that even if Ranil did so, that MR will be toppled by now? The truth is if Ranil did so, many would have got hurt, killed and some would be behind bars today. Remember the SF saga? Leave Ranil out, why did not these Deshapremis come out and topple MR and freed SF? There is nothing to prevent them doing so? Besides it is not through Ranil Wickremasinghe’s vote that MR was elected. Ranil Wickremasinghe was branded as a traitor for signing the CFA, claiming that he handed one third of the land mass and two thirds of sea front to the Tamils the LTTE. When RW questioned, if it is so why VP helped MR and not RW to become President, none of these critics of Ranil has an answer. It must be remembered that it was Ranil Wickremasinghe who was responsible for ending confrontational politics in this country, which fact was confirmed by C.A. Chandraprema.  Further it was Ranil Wickremasinghe again who prevented the violent element, from re-entering the UNP to continue the cult of violence as they did when in power.  Today RW has instilled discipline in the UNP and have been taking pains to select a set of decent, educated individuals to carry the UNP and this country forward for the future generations. Therefore now it is the responsibility of the majority in this country, without blindly bashing Ranil Wickremasinghe, where most do so because others say so, but to realise the damage they cause each time they berate RW for no justifiable reason, but because they believe to be in vogue.