Sri Lankan police at war with Tamil journalists in Jaffna

[TamilNet, Thursday, 09 April 2015, 22:44 GMT]
A two-member squad, dressed in civil clothes, was trying to knife three journalists in Jaffna after chasing them in a motorbike for 2 kilometres at Nalloor on Tuesday night. The journalists were returning to their offices in two motorbikes after collecting news of a hunger strike when the incident took place. The journalists managed to escape from the attackers and rushed to the Police station in Jaffna to lodge a complaint on the assassination attempt. At the police station, they saw the motorbike of the attackers parked inside the premises and the alleged attackers were a police inspector and a sergeant. The police officers at duty refused to file the complaint from the journalists. In the meantime, another reporter from Point Pedro has been remanded on Wednesday for filing a story about an attempted rape of a school girl by a police constable belonging to Nelliyadi police station.

[L-R] Journalists Vinojith Tharmapalan, Piratheepan Thampithurai and Mayurathan Sreeramachandran

Mr Tharmapalan Vinojith, the staff reporter at Yaazh Thinakkural, who is also the chairman of Jaffna Press Club, Mr Piratheepan Thampithurai, the Jaffna correspondent of Hiru TV and Mr Mayurathan Sreeramachandran, the reporter of Ada Derana and Tamil Mirror were the three journalists, who were intercepted by the two-member squad at Nalloor around 9:45 p.m. on Tuesday.

When the journalists spotted the attackers wielding knives against them, they managed to flee from them.
The journalists say that the attackers in civil clothes were also wearing t-shirts used by the police. One of them was wearing a helmet.
When the three journalists arrived at the Jaffna police station, they witnessed that the attackers were already there and that they were policemen from the same station.
The policemen at the station not only refused to register the complaint of the journalists, but they also attempted to assault them, the journalists said.
A complaint was accepted only on the following day, on Wednesday, after a long process and that too was registered as a ‘minor offence’, the journalists said.
In the meantime, the Senior Police Superintend in Jaffna was seeking to negotiate with the journalists on Wednesday night in attempt to avoid legal proceedings against the policemen, informed sources in Jaffna said.
Although the SL police has now accepted that it was two of their police officers who were behind the incident, the police says that their men took the knives only for their ‘personal security’. The involved police officers have in turn alleged that the three journalists had attempted to assault them and that they wielded the knives only in their self defence.
The journalists say that the attackers intended to cause major harm as the squad had chased them for 2 kilometres and pointed knives against them while intercepting them. “How could three journalists confront two trained police officers who were armed with knives”, one of the journalists asked.
In the meantime, a spokesman of the Jaffna Press Club (JPC) has said that the three journalists have been continuously harassed by the SL police, the so-called Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) and the SL military intelligence in Jaffna.
The journalists Mayoorathan and Vinojith have been harassed after they brought out a news of houses being destroyed inside the High Security Zone (HSZ) in Valikaamam North. Majurathan was also subjected to an attack on the road by an unknown squad, the JPC spokesman said.
The journalists, who do not want to drop the case against the police squad, have approached the Human Rights Commission in Jaffna on Thursday.
“We still remember that the assassinated journalist Nimalrajan was harassed by police squad that visited him before he was slain,” one of the journalists told TamilNet.
Meanwhile, S. Logathayalan, a journalist working for Uthayan and Thinakkural was remanded on Wednesday for investigations against filing a story on an alleged rape attempt by a policeman from Nelliyadi station.
The story was published in Uthayan paper on Tuesday. The story didn't mention the name of the policeman.
On Wednesday, the SL police went out with a denial against the story in the same paper.
The SL police wanted the editor T. Premananth and the staff reporter Logathayalan to record their statements at their station. But, Logathayalan was arrested after he gave his statement and was taken to the court on the same day. Point Pedro court's acting Magistrate P. Subramaniyam remanded the journalist till 17 April.
The journalist was released on bail on Thursday. It is very strange that the journalist was legally remanded for publishing a story that didn't violate the norms of journalism, journalists in Jaffna said.

In Defence Of Capitalism: A Response To Sumanasiri

By R.M.B Senanayake -April 10, 2015

R.M.B Senanayake

Response to Mr. Sumanasiri Liyanage’s comments on Dr W.A Wiijewardena’s article on Bastiat

I refer to Mr. Sumanasiri Liyanage’s comment on Dr. Wijewardena’s article which he says is to offer “legitimacy to Capitalism and its latest phase,neoliberalism, including the undefined economic policies and strategies of the present government”.

Yes indeed it is a defense of Capitalism against the attacks of those like Mr. Sumanasiri Liyanage who keep on harping on how immoral the Capitalist system is. He refers to what he calls the new neo-liberal version of Capitalism which was the answer of the defenders of Capitalism to the crisis that had emerged in the 1970s when because of strong trade unions acting irresponsibly was endangering not only Capitalism but the entire process of economic development in the modern world.

A capitalist economy involves millions of individuals and capitalist firms, all making decisions that are not deliberately coordinated beforehand. When some people decide to save part of their incomes, it does not automatically mean that they will find others who want to borrow and invest. When some people decide to invest, it does not automatically mean that they will find buyers for the goods produced as a result. Keynes pointed out that there was no automatic mechanism to ensure the two are equated always. So Capitalism had a tendency to alternate between periods of boom and periods of decline or bust.

Generally such crises were short lived and did not need much corrective action by the State or anybody else. But things had changed with the Full Employment ushered in by the Keynesian policies in the post war period. Workers had been protected by the State and termination of employment was made difficult. The trade unions had become strong and still held the Marxist view that the capitalist was an enemy of the worker. The workers were by and large socialists and were opposed to the capitalists although much less so than in the past.

Capitalism requires capital accumulation and the investment of such accumulated capital in the process of production. It is this process of capital accumulation followed by investment and innovation that drives economic development. It requires social conditions which provide for the capitalist producers to make a sufficient profit to cover the cost of capital. Keynesian policies had provided for the recovery of the economy from a deep depression in 1929. But the postwar years had led to the emergence of strong trade unions which had a much larger and more secure place in the capitalist economies owing to State protection. The unionization rate had peaked and the trade unionists were aggressive and mouthed anti-capitalist and socialist slogans. They considered the capitalists as the enemies of the workers- a hangover from the earlier Marxist rhetoric. In such an environment where workers demanded and obtained higher wages outstripping productivity increases. Capitalist firms cannot turn a profit and they will not have an incentive to invest. If capitalist companies do not invest, factories will be shuttered and workers unemployed.

Such crises in the past ( except in a few exceptional situations) generally led to a more or less automatic recovery as unemployment increases and the wages of workers stop rising creating an environment for the recovery. But over-regulation by the State and over-protection of the workers had caused a social structure to emerge in the 1970s where capitalist production and wealth creation had stagnated. This social environment was to be blamed and in the 1970s there was stagflation- inflation with stagnation. Then came another shock in the form of the sudden oil price increases. In 1973-1974, the first of two major “oil shocks” increased the price of petroleum four-fold, dramatically raising energy costs for both consumers and businesses. Workers’ wage demands outpaced the rate of productivity growth, driving up unit labor costs for businesses. The annual inflation rate in the developed economies, spiked to over 10% in 1974 and again in each of the three years from 1979 to 1981. Economists realized that the driving force of the capitalist economies had petered out. They realized that it depends on the institutional framework in which capitalist companies operate. If the institutional framework does not work, and the market forces do not mesh, the result is a crisis.

The economy seemed trapped in “stagflation,” so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment (“stagnation”) with high rates of inflation. Traditional macroeconomic policy tools seemed powerless to deal with it. In the 1960s, the idea of a stable inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation (known as the “Phillips curve”) became part of the economic-policy orthodoxy. If the unemployment rate was high wages would fall. This no longer seemed to work.

Keynesian economic policies were found to be failing in dealing with inflation and the freedom of the markets was sought to be restored. The institutional framework that had fostered economic growth was no longer working. It was necessary to curb the power of the trade unions while respecting their trade union rights.

Margaret Thatcher realized the need to tame the trade unions and tightened the laws regulating them. She was followed by other western countries and even the statist European States like France had to follow suit.

In fact our economy has been unable to forge ahead because of the excessive power of the trade unions particularly in the public sector which are still dominant in our economy. The over-protection of labor and the extremist actions of the trade unions have to be curbed for economic growth whether by the State driven or Capitalist driven.

I don’t want to write a eulogy for Frederic Bastiat for neo-liberal economists recognize his work as important for economic growth through free markets. The Bastiat society was inaugurated recently and its task is to promote free market ideas and expose the un workability of socialist economics.

Regime Change in Sri Lanka

Asoka Bandarage 

-04/09/2015

The defeat of Mahinda Rajapaksa at the Sri Lankan Presidential elections on January 8 is hailed internationally as a victory for the rule of law, democracy, freedom of expression and good governance. The Rajapkasa government (2005-2015) defeated the terrorist LTTE in 2009 ending the longest running conflict in Asia. It also contributed to substantial economic growth turning Sri Lanka into a middle-income country in a region with the greatest concentration of poor. Despite these political and economic achievements, Rajapaksa narrowly lost the elections due to charges of corruption and authoritarianism of his government.

Rajapaksa was defeated by Maithripala Sirisena, the so-called 'Common Candidate' of a new political alliance which claimed that the extent of corruption in the last few years of the Rajapaksa government was "unprecedented and unheard of before" in Sri Lanka. The current government, however, is not entirely a new regime; only Rajapaksa and his core circle were replaced. Sirisena, like a number of others in his administration served as senior Ministers of the Rajapaksa administration until the election campaign. As such, they too bear responsibility for alleged excesses of the Rajapaksa regime.

Sirisena promised to bring in a new era of morality, compassion, freedom, democracy and good governance (yahapalayanaya). His Election Manifesto promised to address urgent issues during the first 100 days of his regime, notably the abolition of the Executive Presidency and the 18th Amendment to the Constitution that Rajapaksa had introduced to remove term limits to the Executive Presidency. Sirisena also promised to implement a six-year program with the government to be established after the parliamentary elections to be held after the 100 days. Given relative absence of international media coverage following the euphoria over the January 8 election, it is necessary to look at how good governance is progressing in Sri Lanka.

Rule of Law

Sirisena came to power calling for the abolition of the 'unlimited powers' of the Executive Presidency that Rajapaksa was accused of abusing. Ironically, Sirisena himself has misused the powers of the Executive Presidency. The Sri Lankan Constitution does not call for change of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet along with a change of the President. Not only did Sirisena immediately appoint a new Prime Minister, Ranil Wickramasinghe, but he has allowed Wickramasinghe to become the Executive Prime Minister making all the important decisions in the government. This has reduced the Presidency largely to a ceremonial function. The legality of this role reversal accomplished without parliamentary elections or a change in the Constitution, is a cause for much concern in the country. People voted to bring Sirisena to power: not Wickramasinghe. As Prime Minister in the 2001-2004 period, Wickramasinghe empowered the LTTE during the Norwegian brokered Peace Process and subsequently lost the Presidential elections to Rajapaksa in 2005.

Another controversy pertaining to respect for the rule of law by the new Sri Lankan government involved the removal of the Chief Justice (CJ) Mohan Pieris and reinstatement of former CJ Shirani Bandaranayake on January 30 (she retired the next day when Justice K. Sivapalan was appointed CJ) Wickramasinghe stated in Parliament that the process by which Bandaranaike had been removed by Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2013 was 'flawed'. Her removal, however, had come after a parliamentary majority vote, a move then supported by Maithripala Sirisena and other members of the current Cabinet. In contrast, Mohan Pieris, a close confidant of Rajapaksa was removed merely with a letter from President Sirisena, without even a 'flawed' legal process. As critics point out, "The only process at work was intimidation and thuggery in the form of street demonstrations demanding his removal." There is public concern that if the Chief Justice can be removed in such a manner, the removal of persons in lesser offices can also be accomplished extra-legally and even more easily to satisfy the interests of those in power.

The new government received an electoral mandate to democratize the 'autocratic' Executive Presidency, However, most people expect a judicious transition under a new parliament and a new Prime Minister after electoral reforms are passed along with other necessary constitutional changes. In contrast, the controversial methods being used by the interim government to abolish the Executive Presidency through the 19th Amendment violate Sri Lanka's Constitutional process in significant ways. The proposed 19th Amendment to the Constitution upholds every Sri Lankan citizen's right of access to information. Yet, the process being followed does not give the public the opportunity to express their views on this important legislation. There are some 18 petitions against the bill. However, it is reported that in the rush to enact the 19th Amendment, the legal Counselors appearing for the cases before the Supreme Court have not been given the chance to study the proposed amendments. Basic differencesexist between the version of the 19th Amendment that was presented in the Sri Lankan Parliament on March 24 by Prime Minister Wickramasinghe and the version presented to the Supreme Court on April 1. Even some Ministers in Sirisena's shaky government suspect a 'constitutional conspiracy': a hasty and secretive transfer of power from the Presidency to the Prime Minister with the ulterior motive of destabilizing and breaking up the country in the near term.

Local and international print media continues to bring charges against the former Rajapaksa government but overlooks the dangers posed by the current Sri Lankan regime to the rule of law, democracy and freedom of expression. Discontent and protest are growing: massive rallies organized around the country by opposition parties are calling Mahinda Rajapaksa to contest the parliamentary elections. If the current regime does not honor its pledge to dissolve Parliament after the completion of its 100 days and hold parliamentary elections, greater resistance is bound to emerge.

Follow Asoka Bandarage on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ABandarage

The 24th Amendment ….

INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS

Rajiva Wijesinha-rajivawijesinha.wordpress.com

April 9, 2015 in In Parliament 

Productive day in Parliament, with the first reading of two amendments to the Constitution that I had proposed, seconded by Upeksha Swarnamali.The 24th, which is the more important I think, is about making Secretaries to Ministries Permanent, and restoring their appointment to the Public Service Commission. I hope that all those who are keen on independent commissions will accept that these will have no teeth if the most important appointments in the Public Service are left in the hands of the Executive.

The text in all three languages, as gazetted a couple of weeks back, is available athttp://tiny.cc/19thAmendment

The other amendment, the 23rd, is to fulfil the pledge in the Presidential manifesto to introduce an electoral system that ensures individual representation for constituencies but makes the whole of Parliament proportionate to the will of the people. I cannot understand why we are making such a meal of this particular reform, since the text as gazetted indicates how simple it is to ensure this. The only question is the number of constituencies, and since the election Commissioner said that 125 would be hard to define, I have suggested that the first election under this system could be for 150 constituencies. He said that reducing the current number to this would not take him more than three months.

I can only hope that, now that these are before Parliament, they will be discussed more widely. To go for an election on the present system would be disastrous, since we would once again have a Parliament elected on a system that privileges money and strong arm tactics.

Before I presented the Amendments however there was a long discussion on the Supreme Court ruling regarding the 19th Amendment. That is excellent and well presented, but from something Ranil presented, I fear that there will be further sleight of hand. The Supreme Court, rightly, looked only at the gazetted version, and did not comment about the amendments that had been virtually smuggled in, contrary to the consensus at the Party Leaders Meeting on March 15th. But they did refer to one amendment which helped to overcome one of the objections raised to the gzetted draft. Ranil used this to suggest that those amendments had also been subjected to the scrutiny of the court.

This was emphatically not the case, and in fact the only other suggested amendment they mentioned in the judgment was another the Attorney General said would be brought in at Committee stage. In fact the text cited is nonsensical, so I hope that the actual amendment to be introduced is drafted more carefully.

But the real danger is that Ranil will try to claim that the smuggled in amendment to the newly introduced 33A has been approved by the Court. This is a very substantial amendment, which requires the President to always act on the advice of the Prime Minister.

This provision had been in the original draft but had been removed after it was objected to by everyone at the meeting on March 15th who spoke, except for Ranil. It was then that he said that he would complain to President Kumaratunga. He denied in Parliament that he had complained, but he could not deny his plaintive threat to go and tell mummy that the other children were depriving him of his toys.

That clause then was removed from the gazetted draft, though Jayampathy Wickremaratne allowed the even more offending provisions, that the Prime Minister should head the Cabinet and decide on Ministries, to remain. He claimed that this was a mistake, and it was human to err.

That so-called human error was struck down by the Supreme Court, but it did not comment on the smuggled in 33A. However the judgment does say very clearly that ‘If the people have conferred such power on the President, it must be either exercised by the President directly or someone who derives authority from the President….If the inalienable sovereignty of the people which they reposed on the President is trust is exercised by any other agency or instrument who do not have any authority from the President, then such exercise would necessarily affect the sovereignty of the People. It is in this backdrop the Court in the Nineteenth Amendment Determination came to a conclusion that the transfer, relinquishment of removal of a power attributed to one organ of government to another organ or body would be inconsistent with Article 3 read with Article 4 of the Constitution. Though Article 4 provides the form and manner of exercise of the sovereignty of the people, the ultimate act or decision of his executive functions must be retained by the President. So long as the President remains the Head of the Executive, the exercise of his powers remain supreme of sovereign in the executive field and others to whom such power is given must derive the authority from the President or exercise the Executive power vested in the President as a delegation of the President.’

This makes it clear enough that subordinating the decision making power of the President to the advice of the Prime Minister is unacceptable. But Ranil tried to skate over this, and talked about his usurpation of powers not applying to the currently elected President. However the draft makes clear that the President loses much residual authority after the next General Election.

But we cannot leave such important issues to the subterfuges Ranil will employ. I hope it will be possible for the matter to be canvassed in the Court, which should be asked to rule on whether the smuggled in 33A can be passed without a referendum. The wording of the judgment, as quoted above, makes clear that there can be no such derogation of power. But it may be best to get a clear ruling from the Court if possible, otherwise the Amendment may well be smuggled in to Parliament.

It was agreed at the meeting to decide on when the Bill would be taken up that only the gazetted version could be voted on at the 2nd reading, which is standard practice. I suspect there will be a lot of amendments, including my own, which will try to introduce specific Cabinet portfolios. But it will be necessary to discuss these at length, and also to disallow anything that contradicts the very clear opinion of the Court regarding the continuing Executive authority of the President.

Birth of 19A to mark end of parliamentary term

*Two clauses of Bill need to be approved by people direct

* The rest can be passed by parliament with 2/3 majority

* Prime Minister agrees to drop clauses requiring referendum

* Present Parliament without mandate to change Constitution - Susil

* ‘What has become of document Kiriella submitted to SC?’

April 9, 2015, 12:00 pm 

By Saman Indrajith

Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa announced in Parliament yesterday that the Supreme Court had determined that two clauses of the Bill titled 19th Amendment to the Constitution needed the approval of the people at a referendum and the rest thereof required a two-thirds majority for its passage.

When the House commenced sitting Speaker Rajapaksa said: "I wish to announce to the House that I have received the determination of the Supreme Court in respect of the Bill titled ‘Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution’ which has been challenged in the Supreme Court in terms of article 121 (1) of the Constitution. The Court has determined that the Bill complies with the provisions of article 82 (1) of the Constitution and requires to be passed by special majority specified in Article 82(5) of the Constitution and that the paragraphs 42 (3), 43 (1), 43 (3), 44 (2), 44 (3) and 44 (5) in Clause 11 and some sections in Clause 26 require the approval of the people at a referendum in terms of the provisions of Article 83 of the Constitution."

A referendum will be required for the sections that provide for making the Prime Minister the head of the Cabinet of ministers and enabling him to determine the number of ministers and subjects and functions to be assigned to the ministers, change those assignments and the one which says ‘at the request of the Prime Minister, any Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers may, by notification published in the gazette, delegate to any minister who is not a member of the cabinet of ministers, any power or duty pertaining to any subject or function assigned to such Cabinet minister, or any power or duty conferred or imposed on him or her by any written law, and shall be lawful for such other minister to exercise and perform any power or duty delegated notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the written law by which that power or duty is conferred or imposed on such minister of the cabinet of ministers.

The section in Clause 26 of the Bill seeking to amend the sections pertaining to appointment of a competent authority to look over the state and private electronic media institutions during the times of elections, too, needs to be approved by people at a referendum.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said that the government would withdraw, at the committee stage, the clauses that required a referendum and hoped to get others passed in Parliament.

UPFA parliamentarian Prof. G.L. Peiris said that the substance of the Bill was to seek transferring the powers of the President to the Prime Minister and Cabinet of Ministers. The very same sections seeking the transfer of powers had been referred for the referendum by the Supreme Court. The rest of the content of the Bill, too, were supportive of that and, therefore, we need this to be further discussed and precautions and care taken in preparing a Constitution.

Gampaha District MP Ven Athuraliye Rathana Thera: We have agreed only to remove certain draconian powers of the executive presidency and not to do away with that institution. We thought that this amendment to the Constitution would be beneficial to people. But, that that is not so. The Prime Minister is an experienced yet cunning politician. He has shirked his responsibility. We are not against everything in this Bill. But, there was another document prepared by the office of the Leader of the House. We cannot find the Sinhala and Tamil versions thereof. This should be brought up again.

JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake: The substance of this Bill is positive. There could be some technical problems. We can sort out the technical problems and move ahead.

UPFA Colombo District MP Susil Premajayantha: The matter we discuss today is the Bill that had been entered in the Order Book. It is the one submitted for Supreme Court determination. But, now we have come to know that the Office of the Leader of the House had submitted another document of 12 pages to the Supreme Court. We have not seen it yet. It has not been provided to us. President J.R. Jayewardene presented his plans before elections to amend the Constitution and obtained a mandate for bringing in the 1978 Constitution. This Parliament was formed in 2010 has not been given a mandate by the people to amend the Constitution. No one presented a manifesto to people promising the transfer of President’s powers to the Prime Minister. This amendment and the subsequent document should be incorporated and published in a gazette.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe: We have no problem with the clauses which need a referendum. These amendments would come into power after the present term of President Maithripala Sirisena. We have informed all UNP MPs of this. The Constitution has outlined the process of amending all the laws. We have brought this Bill in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders. We could bring in amendments at the committee stage. If anyone needs to consult the Attorney General on some matters his opinion, too, could be obtained during the committee stage. All we needed is to empower Parliament.

Meanwhile, President Maithripala Sirisena said in Polonnaruwa yesterday that Parliament would be dissolved after the passage of the 19th Amendment to be presented to the House on April 20.

Another Piece Of Insurance From A Familiar Buyer!

By Emil van der Poorten –April 10, 2015 

Emil van der Poorten

I just had, from a friend who has a sterling record in the matter of ecological concern, an email informing me of the plans that are afoot to open a major highway into Kandy city through an irreplaceable little piece of truly beautiful forest – Udawattakelle Sanctuary.

There aren’t too many urban settings that could boast of such as this wonderful little forest with its little lake surrounded by giants of the jungle.

As someone who spent his entire youth in a school immediately adjacent to this sylvan setting, I have always had wonderful memories of it even though I was not among those who ran along its footpaths during Trinity College’s annual cross-country competition!

Udawattakelle Sanctuary – Photo courtesy Daily FT

Udawattakelle has been reduced in size over the years by urban encroachment of one description or another, but what is proposed will certainly constitute the final tolling of that particular bell.

I understand that some years ago, there was a similar initiative launched and a man I consider one of the privileges of life to have called a friend, that great pillar of Kandy society, Dr. Nihal Karunaratne, spearheaded the opposition to that bit of potential desecration and, with the aid of the President of Sri Lanka at the time, J. R. Jayewardene, spiked the guns of those promising the destruction of this last little bit of forest within the Kandy Municipality.

The recent initiative has been advertised as having the avid support of Minister Lakshman Kiriellawho has already given ample evidence of his readiness to buy insurance from those who his government claimed to have pledged to prosecute and castigate: those who were well on their way to destroying the fabric, both moral and financial, of this country.

                                Read More

Defense ministry entrusts detection of crimes of political revenge to an unhinged villain of a lawyer

(Lanka-e-News- 10.April.2015, 11.00PM) The defense ministry has appointed a committee to inquire into crimes of political revenge. Believe it or not , the chief of that committee is a lawyer who was Gotabaya’s official half brother and had himself committed all the political revenges against the enemies of the Rajapakses , directly assisting in the cruelties and barbarities  of the previous brutal despotic regime.

By name he is Harigupta (right Gupta) Rohanaweera , but going by his bestial nature he is  Veredhigupta  (wrong Gupta) Rohanaweera for  there was nothing in him that was hari (right) , mentally and morally. Indeed , based on his putrid antecedence ,truly  he should by now be behind bars. The reason for this is : he is a brute who took steps to arrest Kotikawatte local body chairman Prasanna Solongarachi on a frame up when the latter   came forward  to extend support to the opposition common candidate Maithripala Sirisena at that time.

While  claiming that Solangarachchi gave him an illegal firearm , an urban council member made a complaint to the police along  with a pistol. The lawyer who appeared with this complainant to make  this  false complaint was this  Harigupta the black coated shark that knew not what is ‘hari (right) and what is veredhi (wrong ) . If the law was truly being abided by ( which never was under the bestial  Rajapakses), first and foremost it is the complainant and the lawyer who accompanied him who should have been arrested, and the individual against whom the complaint   was made that the latter gave him the pistol should have been arrested subsequently.

What should have been done by the defense ministry in respect of this false complaint against which no action has been taken until today is , enforce the law duly against this complainant , and arrested him . Sadly , instead of this available course of action , the lawyer who carried out vindictive activities against the enemies of the previous government has been appointed now as the head of the  committee investigating political revenge .

In the circumstances , while knowing  this manimal lawyer is a criminal , those who appointed him as the head  of the committee inquiring into political revenge   are certainly  mental , and they must be subjected to a psychiatric evaluation , to ensure whether by any chance those who should be inmates of the lunatic asylum have become political mates of  the sane and sensible. Besides , this lawyer contested elections  too under  the Rajapakse ticket .When this is the actual position ,how can such an unscrupulous scoundrel search and identify  the true victims of the venom and vengeance   of the Rajapakses ?

Again believe it or not, to secure advice and recommendations pertaining to the complaints made by the former officers of the army who have been subjected to injustice , it is the corrupt Rajapakse lickspittles and bootlickers like Lal Perera , (Rajapakse relative), Sumedha Perera , and Ambanpola  , the chiefs of the present regiments who have been appointed . Lanka e news had already exposed the misdeeds and evils  committed by  these scoundrels under the Rajapakse regime
.
Similarly to obtain advice and recommendations in regard to the complaints made by the Naval officers who suffered injustice , it is the navy commander Jayantha Perera (Rajapakse relative) , and Rozairo , the  Rajapakse loin cloth sniffer dogs have been sought . About these rascals too Lanka e news had the fortune to garner information and  expose them – that is how they stooped to the lowliest levels to serve the  brutal crooked Rajapakses .

These villainous incompetent army and Naval officers (some even past  retiring age and suffering from senile decay)  are still continuing in the high positions  because it is they who earlier on expelled the genuine honest officers who have made these complaints. . In such circumstances ,to call for advice and recommendations from the lapdogs and lackeys of Gota  in regard to the officers who suffered injustice and  cruelties under MaRa –Hora (murderer cum rogue)  administration is something that is  incomprehensible let alone excusable  by any  stretch of imagination. It is tantamount to inquiring about the culprit from his own mother 

---------------------------
by     (2015-04-10 19:44:41)

58 former Ministers in Bribery net

By Gagani Weerakoon and Skandha Gunasekara-2015-04-11

The opposition UPFA charged yesterday that 58 ministers of the previous government are facing bribery and corruption charges of which 90 per cent were initiated by anonymous letters. Challenging the Police Chief, the CID and the Director General of the Bribery Commission on allegations brought against him, former Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage said it would have been easy for the government if it opened a branch of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) in the Parliamentary complex itself.

He also offered to relinquish his seat in Parliament if allegations against him and his son are proved in Court.
Meanwhile, the government says it will look into the credibility of the allegation that MP Mahindananda Aluthgamage had deposited Rs73,795,000 in a bank account in his son's name.

Minister of Public Order, Disaster Management and Christian Affairs, John Amaratunga said that he would look into the credibility of these allegations while responding to MP Aluthgamage who vehemently rejected the allegation.
MP Aluthgamage said the interrogation of his son by the Criminal Investigations Department was uncalled for as he was not involved in any way and that he had not opened an account in his son's name in Singapore.

"You have been misled minister. I have not opened any bank account of such a nature. I opened an account at the Bank of Ceylon following all regulations for the purposes of my son's higher education and there are records of this. Why did the authorities involve my son? It is an unethical move by the authorities" MP Aluthgamage said.
In response Minister Amaratunga said he had no personal vendetta against MP Aluthgamage and that the MP's son was involved in the case as a result of the allegations against the MP.

However, MP Aluthgamage retorted saying that the minister had been fed with false information to mislead him.
"You have been given false information. There is no truth to these allegations, you are being misled. If you can find proof of a bank account with Rs 73,795,000 in Singapore I will vacate my position as a Member of Parliament. I'm prepared to do so because I know there is no such bank account. Are you willing to vacate your post as an MP if you are proven wrong?"
Minister Amarautunga said he would look into the credibility of the allegation to ascertain its legitimacy.

"Why should I vacate my post? I have no reason to do so. I did not bring these allegations. I am merely responding to criticism brought against me and the police force by the opposition. However, because you insist that these allegations are false I will look into the issue to determine the truth of the matter" the minister said.

The minister also said that MP John Seneviratne's claim that MP Wimal Weerawansa's daughter had been questioned by the police was false.
"I made inquiries of all the police divisions in the country and no one has questioned MP Weerawansa's daughter. This is a false claim."

Leader of the National Freedom Front, Wimal Weerawansa said that MP Seneviratne had mistaken MP Weerawansa's wife being questioned as his daughter being questioned.
"I had told MP Seneviratne that my wife was questioned by the authorities. He had misunderstood what I said and thought it had been my daughter who was interrogated. So far my daughter has not been questioned by the authorities" MP Weerwansa said.

Basil’s wife Pushpa Rajapaksha under probe

Friday, 10 April 2015

The Colombo Fort Magistrate ordered managers of two state banks and a private bank that the bank account details of the foundation of former Minister Basil Rajapaksa’s wife Pushpa Rajapaksa be handed over to the Police Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) to assist a probe carried out by the unit.

The Police FCID has commenced investigations on the alleged deposit of US$ 150,000 in an account of an NGO named Pushpa Rajapaksa Foundation by providing false information.

The police have filed a report on the investigation before Colombo Fort Magistrate Thilina Gamage and the Magistrate has accordingly permitted the police to obtain bank account details over the alleged deposit belonging to the Pushpa Rajapaksa Foundation.

The monies are reportedly belonged to the Sri Lanka Ports Authority.

Yoshitha Rajapakse dispatched expensive vehicle engines illegally from Singapore to SL !

(Lanka-e-News- 10.April.2015, 11.00PM)  This news is only for the information of the Sri Lankans and  not to be encouraged to follow the illicit routes and rackets of the Rajapakses – no , not for all the world !

Misusing Diplomatic powers , the ex president’s son Yoshitha Rajapakse had got down motor spares from Singapore via Sri Lankan airlines enlisting the members of the Sri Lankan forces, our Singapore correspondent reports .

In order to facilitate his illicit smuggling business , Yoshitha  had secured the assistance of a retired staff sergeant of the forces , namely Ruwan Fernando who was attached to the Singapore office of the SL High commission there . Moreover , Fernando has been drawing salary from the High commission as well as the pension  from the forces , though it is absolutely illegal to collect salaries   from two government Institutions at the same time. 

Fernando who did no work at the High commission has been fully occupied with dispatching the motor spares of Yoshitha from Singapore to SL. This culprit Fernando had also been discharging  the private duties of Yoshitha while being attached to the  SL High commission in UK even when Yoshitha was in London .

Among the motor spares dispatched were also  very expensive vehicle  engines. Mind you all these goods have been sent to SL without abiding by any rules and regulations governing import –export , and sans any documents. They have been sent via Sri Lankan Airlines directly  to Colombo taking advantage of diplomatic privileges . Even the air fare had not been paid! The Singapore government had been given the impression that these are goods dispatched to the SL defense ministry .

It is Major Ruwan Ellepola and Major Ratnayake of the defense ministry security division who have been receiving these spares in Colombo on behalf of Yoshitha .

This fraud was first exposed in the report of Weliamuna commission that was appointed to probe into the corruption in Sri Lankan airlines .

---------------------------
by     (2015-04-10 19:49:08)

Rs.18 Million Spent On Food Alone At Three Rajapaksa Functions

April 10, 2015

Funds worth Rs. 18,592,750 had been spent as food expenses alone at just three functions hosted by the Rajapaksas in 2010.

This was revealed through a random check by the Sri Lankan Airline Board of Inquiry team into the receipts and bills of Sri Lankan Catering on the expenses incurred by the institution for functions held at the President’s House.

The BOI inquiry into the financial misappropriations of the national carrier had found that the expenses had later been settled by the Presidential secretariat.

The BOI inquiry team has also probed into a series of donations made by the SLC in the forms of cash, material and cooked food worth Rs. 2,537,941 between 2010 -2014 for various government functions.

Listed below are the conspicuous expenses:

• 600 kg of rice worth Rs. 25,200 given to the President’s House on 4/5/2010
• Cash worth Rs.1,810, 654 given for the IIFA function on 29/6/2010
• Meal packs for children worth Rs. 702,087.00 given to the Chairman on 31/10/2012
• May Day lunch worth Rs. 330,000 given to Civil Aviation Minister Priyankara Jayaratne  27/05/2014

The BOI inquiry report notes that the practice of the SLC resources being diverted to political activities is clearly established through the financial transactions they probed into and most of them had been approved by the CEO, causing a loss of the SLC.

While emphasizing the fact that there is no corporate culture for the management to ensure governance against external political interference, the Weliamuna report has recommended for steps to be taken to recover the losses caused or at least partially, from those who approved all the illegal payments.