With UN War Crimes Report Delay, Sri Lanka Must Deliver on Post-War Accountability

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena photographed at an official event in India.

By Ankit Panda-February 18, 2015

The Sri Lankan government has successfully bid for a delay in the release of a U.N. HRC report on alleged war crimes.

Following several weeks of intense lobbying by the Sri Lankan government, the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has agreed to defer the release of an update to an expected human rights report regarding war crimes allegations. A 2011 U.N. report  from the Secretary-General’s office alleged that the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) separatists committed war crimes in the final years of the country’s civil war. Since then, Sri Lanka has been subject to international scrutiny over its human rights record. The HRC report, which was scheduled for a March 2015 release, has now been postponed until September as part of a “one time only” grant.

The decision by the U.N. comes after Maithripala Sirisena trounced sitting president Mahinda Rajapaksa in the early national elections held in January 2015. Rajapaksa’s government was intransigent regarding international efforts to investigate potential war crimes in Sri Lanka, instead preferring to set up domestic mechanisms for investigation that lacked independence and held narrow mandates. Sirisena’s government, however, seems to be interested in a different approach.

The U.N. decision is an important boon for the Sirisena government, which is not quite as reluctant as the Rajapaksa government to work with the international community on war crimes investigations. Sirisena’s government has additionally taken positive steps in addressing human rights and minority rights concerns in Sri Lanka. Under Rajapaksa, many of Sri Lanka’s minority Tamils, particularly in the country’s Northern Province, lived under excessively militarized conditions, drawing international criticism. The new government has attempted to improve conditions in the country’s north. For example, Sirisena’s government appointed a civilian successor to the Northern Province’s ex-military governor.

Additionally, Sirisena reversed a Rajapaksa government mandate which banned travel by non-Sri Lankans to the country’s Northern Province. Reversing the ban, which was made out of concern that foreign independent observers could gather evidence of war crimes during the civil war, sends a positive message of transparency to the international community. Indeed, Sirisena’s government has been proactive about its engagement with the United Nations as well. Jayantha Dhanapala, an adviser on foreign affairs to the new government and former U.N. under-secretary-general, was dispatched to brief U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein on the new government’s plans to address post-war accountability. Meanwhile, Sri Lanka’s new foreign minister, Mangala Samaraweera, met with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to negotiate a delay in the release of the report.

Sirisena’s approach to the question of an international investigation does have its limits. For example, both during his election campaign and since coming to power, Sirisena has said that he would ensure that senior Sri Lankan officials, including the former president, would be safe from international prosecution. Additionally, though Rajapaksa was criticized internationally for setting up toothless domestic investigative commissions, Sirisena has said that his government also prefers the route of handling investigations domestically without excessive foreign involvement. With the delay of the U.N. report, Sirisena’s government has the opportunity to demonstrate that its approach to domestic investigative commissions will be more satisfactory to international observers than Rajapaksa’s. Whether his government manages to realize this outcome remains to be seen.

Hussein notes that the delay in the report will “allow for a stronger and more comprehensive report.” He added that Sirisena had given clear signals and commitments “on a whole range of important human rights issues — which the previous government had absolutely refused to do.” The delay is a vote of confidence in the Sirisena government at this time, but an already bad public relations problem for the Sri Lankan government could get far worse if the government fails to deliver on its promises. Sirisena’s proactive approach to addressing his predecessor’s fumbles on post-war accountability have won his government more time. Now the onus is on his government to use this time to deliver a realistic path toward justice with the cooperation of the international community.

Prior opinions?

17/02/2015

From the outset, Sri Lanka’s Presidential Commission on Missing Persons has been beset by controversy. We have previously written about our concern that it is little more than an attempt to undermine international attempts for accountability via a discredited mechanism containing inherent conflicts of interest.

Since the demise of the Rajapaksa regime there have been further revelations, with the Sunday Times alleging that theCommissions lead international legal advisor, Sir Desmond de Silva, was paid a salary of around £60,000 per month.Subsequent allegations suggest that payments to Sir Desmond, the others five international legal advisors (David Crane, Geoffrey Nice, Avdhash Kaushal, Ahmer B Soofi, and Motoo Noguchi) and another British QC (Rodney Dixon) totaled around £660,000.

We have now been sent photographs, reproduced below, from a credible source which purport to depict a legal opinion Sir Desmond De Silva drafted for the Government of Sri Lanka in February 2014, some five months before he was appointed to the Presidential Commission on Missing Persons. If authentic, he exonerates the Sri Lankan Government of war crimes in this opinion.

We have written to Sir Desmond to ask him whether he did indeed provide such an opinion, which would suggest that he had already formed a view on one of the key questions the Commission was tasked to address.

The Commission was asked to consider “whether such loss of civilian life is capable of constituting collateral damage of the kind that occurs in the prosecution of proportionate attacks against targeted military objectives in armed conflicts and is expressly recognized under the laws of armed conflict and international humanitarian law”. The opinion Sir Desmond allegedly authored states “my opinion is that the great mass of civilian deaths during the last stages of the war were regrettable but permissible collateral damage.”

Were he to have written such an opinion, it would cast significant doubt on his credibility and that of the Presidential Commission on Missing Persons. It could be seen to conflict with Sri Lanka’s domestic legislation, which protects the notion that Presidential Commissions are independent (the reality notwithstanding) as well as with the code of conduct for barristers, as expressed in the UK Bar Standards Board handbook (in particular rules C13, C21.10, and C8, and Core Duty 4), and potential grounds for a complaint.

End Term Of Eastern VC; Confusion For University, Corruption For UGC, Acid Test For Ministry

By Thangamuthu Jayasingam –February 19, 2015

DR. Thangamuthu Jayasingam

End of term of DR Kobindarajah as Vice Chancellor of Eastern University: Confusion for University, Corruption for UGC, Acid test for Ministry

The Registrar of Eastern University had informed the UGC by his letter dated 12^th January 2015, that the period of the current Vice Chancellor ends of 12^th February 2015. This is in accordance with the E-Code. Chapter III, section 18:13:2 reads as “ It is the duty of the Secretary of the Commission, Registrar of the University or an open university / Secretary of a University College to satisfy himself that an appointment is in order and to advise the appointing authority of the position”. The Registrar had done his duty and informed the UGC to take action for acting arrangements until a VC is appointed from 13^th February 2015 onwards.   If there were any concerns the UGC had all the time to communicate to the Registrar until he left on 31^st January 2015. It is murky that the UGC sends clarification to a subsequent query from the Actg Registrar on 5^th February 2015 by fax on 9th quoting section 3:8 of the E-Code. Very unprofessional and I would go beyond to consider it as inefficiency and malpractice. (however the administration has kept this a secret not divulging it to the Teachers Association)

Dr. K Kobindarajah

A letter was sent by the UGC chairperson Prof K Hirimburegama to the Eastern University CLARIFYING the date of end of term on 9th February 2015( the date of her Resignation). It stated that the date of assumption of duties would be 4^th March 2015, as per section 3:8 of the E Code. ( section 3:8 of the E-code: Section 3:8 states, “The effective date of an appointment or promotion will be the date specified in the letter of appointment or the date on which the person first assumes the duties of his new post whichever is the later….”). Little do they realize that this is an appointment by the President, effective from the date of appointment ( 13^thFebruary 2012) to a defined period of three years as per section 34(i) of the University Act.

The appointment of the University Grants Commission or the Vice Chancellor is not spelt out in the Establishment Code,; states in the First para 1:1 in effect, that the commission shall be appointed by the President under section2(1) AND 4(1) ; it does not speak of the appointment of the Vice Chancellor at all. Thus the regulations laid there may not be directly applicable to these positions as they are governed by the act and the appointing authority being the President of the Country. If not, the following questions would become relevant;Read More

61 Politicians in bribery net

By Niranjala Ariyawansha-2015-02-20

Charges of corruption had been levelled against 61 politicians, including members of Parliament and ministers, Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, Dilrukshi Wickremasinghe, said yesterday (19).
She said that investigations have already commenced into these complaints.

Addressing the first ever media briefing in the history of the CIABOC yesterday, she said that 521 complaints have been received by the Commission since January 2015 and that she is directly responsible for them.
She added that, the Bribery or Corruption Investigation Act should be amended and that she firmly believes that there should be a separate Court to hear these cases.

She also said, at the time she assumed duties 1,600 files, containing complaints received during the past few years, had filled a room in the Commission building.
She said that 423 of these files have been inspected and referred for future investigations while 525 more files have been taken over by her for monitoring.

She stated further that she will take steps to consider the accusations targeting officials of the Commission prior to looking into the corruption, fraud and irregularities that exist in the country.
"Before I assumed duties, I heard that officials of this institution had been engaging in irregularities. This is my second home. As a result my first responsibility is to remove the garbage from my home, only then will I be able to peek into the homes of other people in the country. I will take action regarding the complaints I receive against my officials and commissioners, not taking into consideration their status," she said.

She said that, people of this country could call 0776011954 and inform the commission of such complaints and that she herself will personally provide responses to these telephone calls. Meanwhile the new Director General has taken steps to cancel leave of the officials of the commission for a period of two months.

Ex-President Rajapaksa ordered to appear before court

12 Little Known Laws of Karma (That Will Change Your Life)

( February 19, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) High Court ordered former president Mahinda Rajapaksa to appear before court on 31st of March.

Three member judge panel headed by Chief Justice K.Sripavan issued this order.

This order was issued according to the petition filed by the Front Line Socialist Party leader Dhuminda Nagamuwa. Petitioner blamed that president Rajapaksa and his supporters attempting to create tense situation on 9th of January.

According to the constitution this was a human rights violation.

Rajapaksa’s Battle Cry; Not For PM But For Sinhalese & Buddhism!

By Veluppillai Thangavelu -February 19, 2015 

Veluppillai Thangavelu

Mahinda Rajapaksa is down but not out. The fact remains he polled 5.64 million votes from the 16 districts predominated by Sinhalese in the south barring the solitary Nuwara Eliya electoral district. He also won 10 out of 22 electoral districts in the south.

Yesterday, the Sinhala supremacists in the SLFP, NFF and other fringe parties held a largely attended rally at Nugegoda. The aim of the rally is to bring back Mahinda Rajapaksa to active politics and promote him the next Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. Not surprisingly former Ambassador Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka attended the rally. As we all know DJ is in the forefront deftly playing the national security card to whip up Sinhalese racism. He read a message sent by Mahinda Rajapaksa to the organizers of the rally. The message said that the thing he told the people who came to meet him was that what he suffered was not a defeat but the result of a conspiracy.

He does not explain what the conspiracy is about. He does not name the conspirators. But, we may make an intelligent guess. The conspirators’ are Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe. May be we have to add USA and India as those behind the conspirators.

Mahinda Rajapaksa conveniently forgets the fact that in the 2005 presidential election he e just scraped through only by a razor thin majority of 186,786 (1.57%) votes. So he should not complain about Sirisena’s victory margin of 449,972 (3.70%) votes.

Not surprisingly one of the organizers of the rally is Vasudeva Nanayakkara the erstwhile Trotskyite leader. Comrade Trotsky must be turning in his grave seeing him in good company with another red-shirted pseudo Marxist Wimal Wimalawansa. Both are supporting the return of the fascist, chauvinistic and murderous regime of Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Here are some important extracts from the message sent by Rajapaksa and read at the rally:

“I do not hesitate to accept the defeat as a defeat because it is not new to me and disgrace is not new to me either. Even jail is not new to me. All of you know that I have undergone all of them for your sake,” he said in the message. This is clear when you consider the two-thirds majority of the Opposition in parliament. I challenge the opponents of the country to state that they had obtained a great victory with their heads straight. I emphasise to them that enjoying the benefits of a shrewd agenda is not a victory.”

Mahinda Rajapaksa has repeatedly claimed he will not accept the democratic verdict of the people. After Rajapaksa vacated Temple Trees and went to Medamulana his ancestral home he addressed his supporters. In an emotional speech he gave went to his frustration as follows:Read More

Beating the Communal Drum by Hardcore Sinhala Nationalists

• by Achintaka 
 
• - on 02/19/2015

Yesterday’s rally in Nugegoda organised by the hard-core Sinhala nationalists, i.e. Weerawansa, Dinesh, Gammanpila and Vasudeva with the blessings of former President Mahinda Rajapakse and their pseudo intellectual appendage Dayan Jayatilleke reminds us that the politicians who made a life out of Sinhala communalism/nationalism at the expense of a pluralist, liberal democratic Sri Lanka are well and alive. The defeat of the former government by a coalition of parties and civil society groups on January 8th 2015 has not dampened the spirit of these die-hard Sinhala nationalists. 

Beating the Communal Drum by Hardcore Sinhala Nationalists by Thavam Ratna

Tamils call for Sri Lanka's paramilitary leader Iniya Bharathi to face justice

19 February 2015

Tamils in Amparai protested on Wednesday demanding that the Tamil paramilitary leader, K Pushpakumar (alias. Iniya Bharathi) should face justice for crimes committed during his time as Amparai's UPFA district coordinator, when hundreds of Tamil youths were reported missing.

"Iniya Bharathi, where are our children abducted by you?," read placards held mothers, who also held photographs of their missing children.

Calling for an investigation into the arrests and abductions made by Iniya Bharathi during his time as coordinator, protesters also demanded that the bodies and the remains of missing people to be excavated from his premises and sent for investigation.


Properties, wealth and jewellery confiscated by Iniya Bharathi and hidden inside bunkers within his compound in Thirukkovil should also be recovered, urged protesters.

The protest, held in front of the Thampiluvil Central Market building in Thirukkovil, was attended by Tamils across villages in Amparai district, reported BattiNews.

Other placards read: "Put Bharathy in jail!"; "Bharathi! Where is my son abducted by you?"; "You have destroyed our people by oppression".

Handing over a petition to the police, the TNA MP Chandraneru Chandrakanthan said "this is just the beginning by the TNA."

"we will continue to protest until we get our justice," he added.Iniya Bharathi who was part of the paramilitary group in the East, led by Vinayagamoorthy Muralidharan alias Karuna, called the TMVP, was appointed as Amparai district coordinator and was a member of the Eastern Provincial Council.

In 2011, the UN Security Council, detailed evidence of child abductions by Iniya Bharathi and the TMVP continuing in the East after the end of the armed conflict. See here.

A leaked US embassy cable in from July 2007, stated that Mr Chandrakanthan and his family had been threatened by Iniya Bharathi: 

"In addition to challenging other pro-government paramilitary groups, the Karuna faction has threatened existing political parties.  The Tamil National Alliance has been the traditional Tamil political party in the East but critics have often accused it of being sympathetic to the Tigers.  In the absence of the Tigers, Karuna seems intent on taking political power from the TNA by any means necessary. 
For example, Ampara TNA member of Parliament C. Chandranehru told Poloff that on June 11 TMVP Eastern Deputy Commander Iniya Bharathi threatened to kill him at gun point if he did not relinquish his seat in Parliament.  (Note:  The Karuna faction may have believed that a general election will be held rather than municipal or provincial elections.  End 
note)  This threat was followed by a phone call warning Chandranehru that his wife and son, currently living in London because of security concerns, would be killed if he did not resign.  Chandranehru told Poloff that he will notabandon his seat in Parliament, despite Karuna's threats."

“Command Responsibility” In Sri Lankan Governance

By Emil van der Poorten –February 19, 2015

Emil van der Poorten

Let me begin this piece with a rhetorical question that should perhaps be the final question asked: why, despite the very loud pronouncements about “newborn media freedom,” “freedom of expression,” “the re-emergence of the rule of law,” “the return of human rights” and a plethora of other motherhood-and-apple-pie slogans, have not those freedoms been exercised by those proclaiming them from the rooftops? Why have they not simply asked Percy Mahendra Rajapaksa some very obvious questions that relate to the plight that this country is in today?

As background to all of this there is one very obvious fact. J. R. Jayewardene declared the republican constitution for which he was responsible as empowering him to do anything except effect gender change. After the passage of the now (in)famous 18^th Amendment to the Constitution enacted by the sheep (or is it goats?) of very violent persuasion who inhabit our legislature, it would appear that even that “shortcoming” had ceased to exist!

I have regularly seen, on far less prima facie evidence, for crimes of significantly lesser magnitude, “ordinary” Sri Lankans taken into custody, often without access to lawyers, leave alone bail, and then languishing in one of our “remand facilities” or a cell hidden from public view for an inordinate length of time, sometimes being sent home because no prosecution could be launched for lack of evidence or simply because the “framing” of the accused had only been needed on a short-term basis. In all fairness, much of this, even if of lesser magnitude, existed before the Rajapaksa Regime’s attempted takeover of every aspect of our lives.

Why, when there has been embezzlement of Sri Lanka’s resources on what can truly be described as “an industrial scale” has Percy Mahendra Rajapaksa, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief, not so much as been questioned when, time after time, the joining of any set of corruption dots has led clearly and conclusively to him?

I’ve heard the claim being made that there was some form of Presidential Immunity from prosecution for any and all crimes, up to those of a capital nature. However, I’ve also heard that any such immunity did NOT extend beyond the period in which the individual held such office.

Even if the former opinion can be sustained, why has the media of the country refrained from so much as asking Percy Mahendra Rajapaksa ONE SINGLE QUESTION about the mountain of corruption for which he certainly had “command responsibility?”Read More

The Latimer House Principles

by Ruwantissa Abeyratne

( February 19, 2015, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) From current news reports and essays in the media, one gets the distinct impression that some are dissatisfied with the new regime in Sri Lanka – that it is dragging its feet in bringing to justice miscreants guilty of corruption, cheating and abuse of power of the former regime. The Daily News of 19th February, in a refreshingly balanced editorial says: “They (the public) want the government to go after the big fish rather than net in the sprats. The public naturally feel let down and justifiably so. There is little doubt that a sizable portion of the overwhelming mandate received by President Maithripala Sirisena was for putting to an end the large scale corruption and financial profligacy that was witnessed on an unprecedented scale in post Independence Sri Lanka These segments would naturally feel angry because this mega corruption was at the expense of the public by way of additional taxes and levies on essential items. These feelings are naturally exacerbated when the nature and scale of the corruption is being unraveled in the media almost on a daily basis.”

The overall message the reader receives is that over a month has lapsed since the new regime took over and only the “sprats” are being investigated and that the government is dragging its feet in bringing the guilty sharks to justice.

What is needed to be investigated, if indeed top officials of the previous government were guilty of corruption (for which the proof is yet to come) is an investigation by a body trained to deeply probe, alleged corruption.  The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation is a good analogy.

There is also the claim that the new government is doing things that are inconsistent with the rule of law and are quite the opposite of their criticisms of the former government. Kishali Pinto Jayawardene, in an eloquently argued essay in this newspaper calls this The Rule of Law Paradoxes of the Sirisena Presidency and says inter alia: “Indeed, we see unpleasant and worrying paradoxes where observance of the Rule of Law is concerned at other levels. The President’s calling out of the armed forces to exercise police powers under the Public Security Ordinance (PSO) is another case in point. Heavily critiqued during the Rajapaksa tenure, this emphasizes the continued militarization of law enforcement which the Sirisena campaign promised to redress”.

The Daily News has advised in this context that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe has promised the establishment of an Anti Corruption Secretariat to investigate the sharks of corruption.  This is a valid and democratic measure.  However, where the writer gets confused is that to Mr. Wickremasinghe is attributed, as justification for this measure, the Latimer House Principles, on the basis that Mr. Wickremasinghe is reported to have reminded the previous regime of these principles during their tenure of office. It is also claimed that since Sri Lanka’s President is the Chair  of the Commonwealth of Nations Sri Lanka is obligated to abide by  the Latimer House Principles which are guidelines that drive and direct nation members of the Commonwealth in their governance.

The formal title of the Latimer House Principles is  Commonwealth Principles on the Accountability

of and the Relationship between the Three Branches of Government (as agreed by law ministers and endorsed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Abuja, Nigeria, 2003). The three branches of government are the legislature; the judiciary; and the executive, and the principles are mere principles – nothing less, nothing more-  that offer guidelines on how to keep these three branches separate in their functions without overlapping.  The legal term for this practice is separation of powers.   The objective of the Latimer  Principles is to provide, in accordance with the laws and customs of each Commonwealth country, an effective framework for the implementation by governments, parliaments and judiciaries of the Commonwealth’s fundamental values.  Principle IX says that  the promotion of zero-tolerance for corruption is vital to good governance. A transparent and accountable government, together with freedom of expression, encourages the full participation of its citizens in the democratic process.

Steps which may be taken to encourage public sector accountability include: (a) the establishment of scrutiny bodies and mechanisms to oversee Government, enhances public confidence in the integrity and acceptability of government’s activities. Independent bodies such as Public Accounts Committees, Ombudsmen, Human Rights Commissions, Auditors-General, Anti-corruption commissions, Information Commissioners and similar oversight institutions can play a key role in enhancing public awareness of good governance and rule of law issues. Governments are encouraged to establish or enhance appropriate oversight bodies in accordance with national circumstances.

This principle is applicable to government oversight and not to retrospective investigation and certainly not to anti corruption bodies that would look into past corruption activities of defeated regime. It is therefore inconceivable as to how general principles of governance of a body of States  that are irrelevant to the investigation and punishment of  past crimes  can be linked to the investigative process of a sovereign State.

What is needed to the proof is yet to come) is an investigation by a body trained to deeply probe, alleged corruption.  The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation is a good analogy.  The FBI’s approach is:  “Public corruption poses a fundamental threat to our national security and way of life. It impacts everything from how well our borders are secured and our neighborhoods protected…to verdicts handed down in courts…to the quality of our roads, schools, and other government services. And it takes a significant toll on our pocketbooks, wasting billions in tax dollars every year”.

On this sensible note, the Criminal Investigations Department seems the only logical way to go.  If an Anti Corruption Secretariat is established, it would apply to current governance.  This is probably what Prime Minister Wickremasinghe, himself a lawyer (both academically and professionally)  meant.

Censored by Pro Rajapaksa Owner, Sunday Leader Editor Resigned

[Shakuntala Perera  was appointed after Asnaga Senavirathna bought the newspaper]

19/02/2015

Editor of the Sunday leader Shakuntala Perera has resigned after the owner of the newspaper Asanga Seneviratne imposed a internal censorship over matters related to Rajapaksa family.

Asanga Seneviratne is was the Rugby coach of former President’s eldest son Namal Rajapaksa and close friend of Rajapaksa family.

The resignation letter of Sunday Leader editor follows:

Mr. Nalin Jayatilake
CEO
13.02.15

Dear Mr. Jayatilake,

This has reference to your intimation on 11.02.15 to me that I must with immediate effect, forward all articles finalized for publication to both you as the CEO and Mr. Asanga Seneviratne, before leaving my desk for placement in the said pages and print thereon.

You indicated the pressure brought upon the management, following the article carried in the newspaper on 08.02.15 ‘High-Flying Corruption in Aviation’ by Nirmala Kannangara, hence the decision. I am sorry about this pressure that has come upon you in the course of upholding the public interest and the public’s right to know the truth about their country and government.

I am also in receipt of a letter sent by you on 19.01.2015 directing me and ‘warning’ me against carrying articles that could serve legal implications to the Company, following the publication of two articles ie: ‘Flying high with Public Funds’ and ‘The Rs. 4 Billion Computer Scam’, both connected to corruption under the previous regime. It was also intimated to me that the management was not keen on dealing with such corruption conducted under the previous regime in general, and naming the first family in particular.

As far as I am concerned, these articles were published as a matter of routine, in the best interests of the newspaper and its readership. Many stories of a similar nature have been published in prior editions of this newspaper. The sole criteria for publication on my part during my tenure as editor has been the availability of foolproof documentary evidence. I did no more than publish articles that were foolproof and supported by documentary evidence.It is also pertinent to note that these were not the only individuals about whom investigative stories have been carried. There have been other politicians, public officials and businessmen too.

Therefore, as a journalist who believes in journalism in the public interest I feel that your request that I submit all my copy to you for final approval is difficult to accede to. While I appreciate your concern on the business aspect of the newspaper, it is important to note the crucial role the credibility of the newspaper plays in meeting these interests. The credibility of the newspaper rests on its independence and lack of bias in its reporting. You will agree that even in very difficult circumstances we have always sought to maintain the accuracy and integrity in our news. I have always followed these principles as editor of the Sunday Leader.

It is also my belief that as the editor of the Sunday Leader I owe a certain duty to my readership to carry whatever story that comes my way that highlights misdemeanors and corrupt practices. I also wish to state that on no occasion have these stories been sourced by me. I have merely seen to their publication in the interests of the public. I wish to bring to your attention that my experience as a journalist for two decades has ensured that the practices of responsible journalism has not once evaded me.

It is also pertinent to note that with the change of government, we have been trying to engage in journalism, free from state and political influence, as promised by the new government. I am therefore surprised that while any pressure from the previous political regime has ceased, I am being asked by you as the publisher, to curtail from carrying on my duties as the Editor of the newspaper, and engage in practices that go against the principles and ethics I have hitherto exercised.

I therefore find it very difficult to agree to the suggestion of forwarding articles, which have already been scrutinized by me and received my approval for publication, to be sent to you and Mr. Seneviratne for further approval.I believe this poses a serious threat on the freedoms that I wish to share with my Editorial staff, as well as undermining my role and credibility as an Editor who is called on to act in the public interest; a role in which I wish to remind you I have not failed since I took over.

It is under these circumstances that I wish to tender my resignation from the post to you.

Yours sincerely,’

Shakuntala Perera
Editor-in-Chief
Sunday Leader

Another army official who received the protection of Gotabaya

Thursday, 19 February 2015 

LNW earlier disclosed about offering high positions to corrupt officials in the army thereby influencing them to commit secret and deceitful frauds of the former defense secretary. LNW possess a similar news of offering a higher position by the former defense secretary.

Brigadier R.P. Rajapathirana who is serving as the legal director in the SL army is another officer who got a higher position in the army and abused his power by the blessings of the former defense secretary. The defense secretary appointed him as the head of the legal section in the Kotalawala Defense Academy and exploited for his wishes. This person acted as the legal officer during the exorbitant court marshal conducted against General Sarath Fonseka.

Brigadier Rajapathirana is quite famous for demanding sexual extortions from female officers and soldiers in the army. When he was serving as the legal director in the army there are complaints that he has demanded sexual extortions and tried to molest female officers when giving transfers.
When brigadier W.P.U Weerasinghe reported this incident and forwarded the victims to the Army commander, the Army commander has failed to take action against brigadier Rajapathirana due to his rapport with the latter.

Later these male and female officers attached to the legal department of the army have complained this to the Bribery & Corruption, Women & Child Care Bureau and to the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. Following the exposure of this incident the army commander who has fluttered has convened a preliminary inquiry court consisting Major General Renaka Udawatta and Brigadier Tissa Nanayakkara who were very close associates of brigadier Rajapathirana. Meantime these two officers were serving in favour of the court marshal of General Sarath Fonseka. It was believed that this preliminary inquiry court convened was not to investigate the abuses but to hide facts.

The army commander has prevented these female officers going to the Bribery & Corruption and to the Women and Child Care Bureau to give evidence.

When the abuses could be proven at a stage the army commander has tried to demote him from the position but due to the influence of the former defense secretary he was promoted and made the head of the Kotalawala Defense Academy.

By appointing him as the head of the Kotalawala Defense Academy the defense secretary has further influenced him to continue his abuses. Appointing a womanizer to a defense academy of female cadet officers and paid female undergraduate are studying is quite a risk.

It is perplexing and the opinion among the army who knows this persons character as how such an undisciplined person can be appointed to a place of high reputation when there are ample evidences found against him and where it is compulsory to appoint high discipline officers to a reputed defense academy.

Besides this while serving as a legal service director he has acted partial to different people when performing his duties during inquiries of abuse and frauds. There are allegations against him for acting loosely during inquiries against female officers.

One such example of Brigadier Rajapathirana accused of following a loose policy was performing his duties in favour of a female commanding officer Major Silva who was second in command attached to the Dehiyattakandiya third female battalion. When this female major officer was accused for committing a fraud on a railway pass, brigadier Rajapathirana has discharged all her allegations and sent a legal service letter to the army headquarters confirming her innocence. Further he has assisted to make her the commanding officer to the third female battalion under the necessity of Major General Lal Perera of the eastern defense force commander who is another corrupt official in the army.
Appointing such a foul person as the head of the Kotalawala Defense Academy which is reputed for its discipline and administration is a black mark for the character of the academy and is a risk to all female students.

The former army commander did not take any stern action against this person who is charged with egregious allegations but the present commander promoted him and offered another post.

The outcome of the preliminary inquiry court has been exhausted. Members in the army questions following Maithri governance how these corrupt officers are still in service.

Previous article 

The true facts of General Mahinda Hathurusinghe

It is believed to be a bargain for Sumedha Perara than before

Airshow - European arms sellers look to get foot back in India's door

 A policeman speaks on a mobile phone outside a 'Make in India' pavilion at the "Aero India 2015" air show at Yelahanka air base in Bengaluru February 19, 2015. 

A person walks in front of the Saab factory in Trollhattan June 23, 2011. 

Indias untouchables trudge through sewers

BY TOMMY WILKES AND SIVA GOVINDASAMY-Thu Feb 19, 2015

(Reuters) - European defence firms, aiming to catch up with U.S. and Russian rivals that dominate the sector in India, are pursuing supply deals by agreeing to more generous technology transfer and local manufacturing terms.

Europe's share of defence sales to India, the world's top arms importer, slid to less than 4 percent in 2013 from more than a fifth in 2005, data from think tank Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) showed.

With the country estimated by analysts to spend $250 billion over the next decade to modernise its armed forces, defence contractors across the globe are queuing up to get a piece of the pie.

But India has stipulated that for winning defence deals, foreign firms give domestic companies access to more advanced technologies they can use in India, rather than simply outsourcing basic assembly work.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi told an audience at the Aero India airshow on Wednesday that his government would cut down on imports by welcoming in foreign firms who transferred technology to local companies through his "Make in India" campaign.

European firms are hoping to cash in on this shift towards indigenous development.

Sweden's Saab, for instance, is in talks with two Indian dockyards about a joint bid for an upcoming submarine tender that would need to be built in India, and is also offering to manufacture a short-range air defence system in the country, said Deputy CEO, Lennart Sindahl.

"We are very open to transfer technology, to sharing intellectual property rights with India," he said on the sidelines of the airshow.

France-based Airbus Group is looking at potential Indian partners for a bid to make close to 200 light utility helicopters for the Indian Navy and Air Force.

It emerged as the sole bidder for a $2 billion replacement programme for India's Avro cargo aircraft last year that would see Tata Advanced Systems manufacture and assemble 40 of the firm’s C295 transport planes within India.

Airbus Group India President Yves Guillaume said U.S. and Russian sellers had benefited from government-to-government lobbying that Europe struggled to match. "It's been difficult for us to compete with them," he told Reuters. According to SIPRI data, U.S., Russian and Israeli sales made up about 95 percent of all arms exports to India in 2013.

French firm MBDA, meanwhile, is pitching its Maitri surface-to-air missile programme at this week's airshow to clinch a long-stalled multi-billion dollar deal that would require it to co-develop the missile alongside Indian researchers.

TEST CASE

A big test will be the fate of the deal by France's Dassault to sell 126 Rafale fighter jets to India, showing how much ground European firms and the Indian government are prepared to concede.

The deal, whose value could go up to $20 billion, has stalled, amid a disagreement over the sharing of work with state-run Hindustan Aeronautics, one of several public defence companies Modi on Wednesday said must perform better.

Most foreign firms agree that improving the capability of India's domestic industry is crucial for sustained technology transfer.

While domestic companies like Tata, Larsen & Toubro and Mahindra & Mahindra have expanded aggressively into defence in recent years, they remain small as India’s defence industry only opened to the private sector in 2001.

"With companies, we have seen very good capability here but still there are challenges, like a lot of raw materials are not available here,” said Inderjit Sial, managing director at the Indian subsidiary of Textron Inc.

"The aerospace industry and the defence industry have a long gestation period. It cannot be done overnight,” Sial said.

(Additional reporting by Sagarika Jaisinghani and Sweta Singh; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman)