Sunday, May 17, 2015

Sri Lanka: New Army Chief a Blow to Justice

6 Years After War, No Accountability for Serious Abuses

“Sri Lanka’s new government has promised genuine accountability for wartime abuses, but naming the general of an abusive unit the army chief of staff is a slap in the face for victims. Members of the UN Human Rights Council expecting genuine accountability in Sri Lanka need to closely scrutinize the government’s actions.”

Brad Adams, Asia director

MAY 17, 2015

(New York) – Sri Lanka’s promotion of a senior officer whose division was implicated in serious human rights abuses casts doubt on government pledges to credibly investigate alleged war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today.

Maj. Gen. Jagath Dias, who led the Army’s 57th Division during the last two years of the civil war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), was appointed army chief of staff, one of the armed forces’ highest post. Although effective May 7, 2015, the appointment was only made public on May 15.

“Sri Lanka’s new government has promised genuine accountability for wartime abuses, but naming the general of an abusive unit the army chief of staff is a slap in the face for victims,” said Brad Adams, Asia director.

“Members of the UN Human Rights Council expecting genuine accountability in Sri Lanka need to closely scrutinize the government’s actions.”

The last months of Sri Lanka’s 26-year-long civil war, which ended on May 19, 2009, with the defeat of the LTTE, were marked by widespread violations of the laws of war by both sides. An independent report commissioned by the United Nations secretary-general found that up to 40,000 civilians, mostly ethnic Tamils, died during the war’s final months.

The 57th Division took part in the last battles of the war, including the extremely bloody and abusive fighting on a small stretch of beach in Mullaitivu district. Human Rights Watch documented the indiscriminate shelling of civilians and hospitals by government forces in the region where the 57th Division was deployed.

The previous government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa denied any laws-of-war violations by the military and placed all blame for civilian losses on the LTTE. He rewarded top commanders for their role in the war. Gen. Dias served as the deputy head of Sri Lanka’s mission to Germany from 2009 to 2011. In 2013, Gen. Dias was denied entry visas to Australia and the United States for his possible involvement in war crimes.

In light of the Sri Lankan government’s resistance to accountability, the UN Human Rights Council in March 2014 adopted a resolution calling on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to open an independent international investigation into allegations of abuses by both sides. The Rajapaksa government refused to cooperate with the investigation.

The present government of President Maithripala Sirisena, elected in January 2015, has stated publicly that it intends to reverse Rajapaksa’s policies and deliver justice and accountability for war crimes. While positive steps have been taken to end the Rajapaksa government’s repressive governance style, the new administration has yet to make meaningful moves toward addressing wartime abuses.

The government should put into place an effective accountability mechanism with a significant international component. Previous government accountability mechanisms have been impaired by harassment, threats, and violence against witnesses and commissioners. The best way to address this problem would be to create a combined international and domestic court similar to the successful hybrid courts in Sierra Leone and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

“The government’s appointment of General Dias is further proof that Sri Lanka needs an independent justice process with a strong international component that can undertake impartial investigations and prosecutions,” Adams said. “Six years since the end of the brutal conflict, the victims of the war still await justice.”

New mantra of ‘hybrid courts’ in the game of geo-politics

[TamilNet, Sunday, 17 May 2015, 10:57 GMT]
The US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) was condemning the new regime of Sri Lanka for appointing Major General Jagath Dias, the war-time commander of the abusive 57 division of the SL Military as the new Army Chief of Staff. At the same time, the HRW was urging the new regime in Colombo to “put into place an effective accountability mechanism with a significant international component.” The Tamil people should note the terminology being adopted in the global orchestration in narrowing down the ‘pressure’ on Sri Lanka into a domestic process, Tamil activists for alternative politics in Jaffna cautioned on Sunday. Tamils should pay particular attention to how the HRW and other rights outfits are trying to justify a ‘domestic‘ process while the USA and China are competing with each other in building strategic partnerships in the Indian Ocean Region, the activists further said.

“The government should put into place an effective accountability mechanism with a significant international component,” the HRW said in its statement issued on Sunday.

The statement went on to say: “Previous government accountability mechanisms have been impaired by harassment, threats, and violence against witnesses and commissioners. The best way to address this problem would be to create a combined international and domestic court similar to the successful hybrid courts in Sierra Leone and Bosnia-Herzegovina.”
* * *
Responding, the Tamil activists for alternative politics said: “Within one year, the terminology being adopted by the personalities and outfits serving the global human rights regime has been systematically downplayed from ‘international mechanism’, through ‘international involvement’, and later ‘international assistance’ and into international component in Sri Lankan domestic investigations in addressing the war crimes and the crimes against humanity. The international players were systematically avoiding the term genocide.

What we have witnessed today in the statement issued by the US-based rights watchdog, is the introduction of the term ‘international component’ and the example of ‘hybrid courts’ of Sierra Leone and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The global outfits serving the geopolitics are also directing the Colombo-based legal activists and NGO circles in Colombo in an effort to justify a domestic process, the activists said.

“This is an orchestration of geo-politics-driven human rights agenda and Tamils should take particular note of these developments, as they mark the Genocide Memorial Day on 18 May,” the Tamil activists said.

The Sri Lankan state, and all its organs including the judiciary, is a guilty party in the crime of genocide. The apprehension around hybrid courts is that it gives legitimacy to the guilty party by virtue of giving legitimacy to the local judiciary.

“The emerging students of international law among the global Tamils should subject the role played by the outfits such as the Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group to critical scrutiny,” the activists for alternative politics further said.
* * *
Former Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, Louise Arbour, who became the UN Human Rights chief (1999 - 2004) and later the president and the CEO of the International Crisis Group (2009 - 2014), was reasoning out why the ICG was not supporting the claim of Tamil independence in the island. The ICG, under her leadership was in the forefront in denying the genocide committed on Eezham Tamils. Her successor in the UN Human Rights Commission, Navi Pillay, was also not recognising the allegation of genocide in 2013.

In an address to Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, Ms Arbour was also ‘explaining’ why the ICG was not backing the claim of ‘earned sovereignty’ to Eezham Tamils.

The video evidence added herewith would show how the CEO of the ICG, Louise Arbour. was negating the sovereignty and the demand for independence of Eezham Tamils in September 2010.

ICG, at that time, was calling for ‘international investigation’ into the alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka. But, the group was promoting the paradigm of equating the violations of the oppressive and genocidal state of Sri Lanka with that of the LTTE and the orchestration at that time was that an international investigation should subject the war crimes of ‘both sides’.

What did Scotland say in the elections?

SNP and TNA have shared trajectories

by Kumar David-May 16, 2015

It is surprising that most commentators, especially the UK media, seem to have drawn all the wrong conclusions from the May 7 elections. It seems a bit odd for me to say it, but the Conservative Liberal Democratic (C-LD) coalition lost ground and Labour gained. What an odd thing to say you may think but did you realise that the outgoing C-LD government jointly led by Cameron and Clegg commanded 364 seats between them in the Commons and the Tory majority government now has only 331 seats? Ok add the 8 seats the Liberal Democrats retained; the (former) coalition partners retained only 339 seats. Where did 25 seats disappear to – be patient till I let you into some secrets.

What Did Scotland Say in the Elections SNP and TNA Have Shared Trajectories by Thavam Ratna

ASP and a Sergeant of President’s Security Division interdicted

asp-sergeant-presidents-security-division-interdicted

SUNDAY, 17 MAY 2015
An ASP and a Police sergeant, attached to the PSD, who were on duty during a meeting of President Maithripala Sirisena in Agunukolapelassa on 25th of April have been interdicted.

They were interdicted following the investigations conducted regarding the incident where a former PSD officer who brought a firearm to the meeting of the President.

When our news team enquired regarding the matter, the police media spokesman’s office confirmed it.

Police stated that the CID conducted an investigation previously to find out if the security laws have been breached during the meeting of the President.

Meanwhile, the army corporal who brought a firearm to a meeting of the President, has been remanded until the 19th of this month.

Alien Sinahalese Re-Settlers From Hambantota Given Three Acres In Wilpattu… But Half Acre To Muslims Is An Environmental Disaster!

May 17, 2015

ByThe 2860 Sinhalese families settled in the Wilpattu area have been provided with three acres of land each compared to the half an acre for the Muslims, says the Muslim Council of Sri Lanka.

From where did the land for these settlers come from?, the Muslim Council of Sri Lanka has asked.

Writing to the JVP leader, the Muslim Council of Sri Lanka says;”Large extents of jungle and reservations had been cleared and handed over for their resettlement, grants and allowances disbursed, and all other facilities including schooling have been provided by the state. Neither land kacheries were held nor deforestation undertaken with proper approvals. It is also alleged that the Army built the houses for these alien re-settlers from Hambantota and elsewhere. Further, over 500 acres of Muslim land has been taken over by the Navy.”

We publish below the statement in full;

Hon. Anura Kumara Dissanayake Leader,
Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna Pannipitiya Road, Pelawatte.

Dear Hon. Anura Kumara Dissanayake

RECENT HYPE ABOUT THE RETURNING MUSLIM IDPs IN MANNAR DISTRICT

We wish to bring to your kind attention that racist elements with the support of some environmentalist and media have embarked on a campaign to harass and intimidate the Muslim IDPs who are being resettled 5 years after the end of the war. It is regrettable that the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), a party that had gained the respect and admiration of the Muslim community for its non-racial stand has been dragged and misled in to the controversy created by extremist Buddhist forces.

While we appreciate your attempt to resolve this issue as stated in your conversation with our vice president Mr. Hilmy Ahamed, without allowing racist elements to mislead, some of the recent remarks made by your members seem to be contradictory. Mr Lal Kantha who visited the resettlement zone spoke to the press and strongly emphasized that there has been no infringement by the Muslims on the land reservations as accused by the extremists. As you are aware, the Government administrative officers strongly emphasized that there was no illegal or unauthorized Muslim settlements and that due process has been followed in allocating the land for their resettlement. Later in Colombo, at a press conference convened by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, doubts have been cast on the statement of the Divisional Secretary and other government officials. Let me try to explain the background to these IDPs.

The Muslim IDPs who were expelled with less than 2 hours notice from the North by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 1990. As you are aware, this ethnic cleansing exercise by the LTTE is considered to be the worst that had taken place in the Sri Lankan history. An estimated 70,000 Muslims comprising of the entire Muslim community in the North had to leave abandoning their properties and livelihood and without any of their material possessions. Their losses could be estimated to run in to billions of rupees. They lived in refugee camps for over 22 years in Puttlam and other urban centers. They continued to face obstacles in their bid to return to their ancestral abode since the end of the war in 2009 and have now come under attack once again from Buddhist extremists and some environmentalists..Read More

MS wants SLFP renewal, MR interested only in himself, what is RW planning for the UNP?

by Rajan Philips-May 16, 2015, 12:00 pm

The country will soon have a replay of the January presidential election; sort of. Sure, it will be a parliamentary election unlike the presidential election in January, but just as in January the upcoming election will revolve around the same three key personalities although in a drastically different triangle of power relationship. In January, it was Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR) who was in power and seeking an unprecedented and fraudulent third term in office. This time, MR has created for himself an existential question: To run, or not to run? Either way he will be a factor in the election, but neither imposing nor intimidating as he used to be when he was President. Ranil Wickremesinghe (RW) will become the new incumbent in the next election, as incumbent Prime Minister, that is. He will be seeking to electorally validate his position that he obtained by way of a constitutional appointment after the January presidential election. Of the three, it will be Maithripala Sirisena (MS) who can afford to sit back and enjoy the fun and fray of the election.

MS Wants SLFP Renewal, MR Interested Only in Himself, What is RW Planning for the UNP by Thavam Ratna

Pro Gota verdict given by Eva and Abrew is unconstitutional , illegal and invalid in law : opinion of AG and legal luminaries

(Lanka-e-News- 17.May.2015, 2.00PM) The controversial interim order of the Supreme court delivered by two judges (who have by now earned the contempt of one and all) based on a preliminary inquiry into the fundamental rights petition filed by the ex defense secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse prohibiting his arrest , is not a valid determination and is therefore untenable in law, according to the Attorney general (AG), based on reports.

It is the opinion of the AG that the verdict delivered by two judges (Eva Wanasundara and Sarath Abrew by now dubbed as Bonnie and Clyde the notorious criminals of the past) based on the FR petition filed by Gotabaya is in violation of section 132 of the Sri Lankan constitution . While it is a mandatory requirement a three judge bench should hear this petition , these judges have arrogated to themselves illegal powers to deliver this wrong judgment from a bench of two judges , which order is therefore void in law.

When the Financial crimes investigation division (FCID) of the police headquarters had sought the advice of the AG regarding the validity and legality of the injunction order of the SC , the AG had made the aforementioned comments. The verdict is not valid constitutionally and legally ,the AG had pinpointed.

A two judge bench of the SC when examining a FR petition can only determine whether permission can be granted or not for its hearing , and nothing more ,according to the constitution and the SC rules .

Legal experts and luminaries say, while Gotabaya was facing imminent arrest and the FCID was ready to take him into custody, the two judges who examined the FR petition of Gotabaya instead of stopping with a determination on granting permission or not for a hearing , trespassed on their legal limits to issue an injunction order to avert the arrest of Gotabaya instead, which is a gross violation of the constitutional provisions and the SC rules.

In section 118 of chapter 16 of the constitution of the Democratic republic of Sri Lanka it is stipulated that the highest court where final judicial decisions are made is the SC, and the judges of the SC are bound to abide by the rules and regulations of the duly established SC under section 136 (1) of the constitution.

Hence , as the examination of Gotabaya’s petition by two SC judges , Eva Wanasundara and Sarath Abrew is in total disregard of the constitution and SC rules, as well as a gross violation of the sacrosanct laws , the interim order delivered by them is untenable in law ,various groups of the legal fraternity are at the ready to lodge complaints with the president and the AG.

Meanwhile a plethora of information has come to light pertaining to the secret discussion that was held between the group including ex president Mahinda Rajapakse ,the petitioner Gotabaya on the night previous to the day of the FR petition hearing , and the two judges Eva Wanasundara and Sarath Abrew at the business establishment of Ali Sabry PC at Kollupitiya . These two judges by participating in the secret sordid discussions aimed at making a travesty of justice are guilty of egregious professional misconduct , not to mention the shameless prostitution of their lofty official positions insulting the whole judicature wholesale.

In the circumstances a number of legal associations which are in receipt of a wealth of data relating to the most sordid conduct and sale of professional honor of these judges , are taking measures to request the president to conduct a probe and take remedial action into this mockery of justice perpetrated by the very judges who are appointed to respect and uphold the rule of law and country’s legal Institutions . The CID too is also to take steps to investigate these illicit manipulations and subterfuges.

Already information had surfaced that Ms.Eva Wanasundara was summoned to that discussion by Kalnga Indratissa PC who worked with her in the AG ‘s department . Rumors are also afloat that when Eva was at law College , she was a lover among the many of Mahinda who was noted for his promiscuity

---------------------------
by (2015-05-17 08:31:52)

Lanka’s judiciary and ‘Yahapalanaya’ contradictions

Sunday, May 17, 2015

If the issue was not so serious, the more mischievous-minded among us would surely chuckle at the decidedly awkward predicament that the Government has got itself into, on the cusp of a general election no less. Ambitious proclamations that the independence of the Sri Lankan judiciary has been fully secured, coming hot on the heels of the executive designating a Chief Justice ‘as if he had never been,’ are now being exposed as simplistic if not dangerously naïve.

Recognizing the complexity of the issue
Indeed, the impression created that all ills besetting the judiciary have been resolved in one fell swoop by that single executive order has catapulted the new Government into the worst ‘yahapalanaya’ contradiction possible of its own misplaced rhetoric.

In the first instance, a more measured approach should have marked the fact that challenges to the integrity of Sri Lanka’s higher judiciary did not stem from one individual alone, regardless of the multifarious allegations against him, be it ex-Chief Justice Sarath Silva under the Kumaratunga Presidency or ‘purported’ Chief Justice Mohan Peiris under the Rajapaksa Presidency.

On the contrary, the convulsions gripping Sri Lanka’s judiciary in recent decades are reflective of a far graver systemic problem concerning judicial accountability and the lack of critical scrutiny thereof. If a more nuanced debate on these issues had been encouraged post-election, public interest may then have rigorously focused on the judicial institution. Yet the converse was the case.

Surfacing of cracks in earlier boasts
Symptomatic of this misleading impression was a blithe if not infuriatingly casual remark made to me shortly after the dismissal of the ‘Rajapaksa Chief Justice’ by a highly skilled engineer who prides himself on being fully apprised of political events that, ‘well, now everything is corrected in regard to the judiciary, right?’

So the wider issue was lost in the impression promoted by the Government that declaring the appointment of a Chief Justice ‘null and void’ by presidential decree was effectively a magic wand restoring judicial independence. The culpability of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka in lending its voice to this worrisome precedent set for future heads of Government (executive President or Prime Minister as the case may be), was undoubtedly unfortunate.

Predictably therefore, the cracks in this shortsighted manufacturing of public opinion did not take long to surface. Witness therefore President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe pulling in different directions while responding to this week’s interim relief granted to the former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. The order by a two member Bench of the Supreme Court, (the third judicial member recusing himself) effectively shielded the former Defence Secretary from arrest, fixing the next date of hearing four months down the line.

Inadequately reflecting realities
The President, in his generally unflappable manner, observed this week that political interference has been removed from the judiciary, pointing to this instance and others as evidence thereof. To be fair, this credit must certainly be accorded to the new political dispensation. Such judicial orders would have been impossible under the iron hand of the Rajapaksa Presidency distinguished by its arrogant refusal to accept even a remote challenge to its authority. So when the former Defence Secretary lavishly thanks the Court for the relief granted to him, the irony thereof is profound. Make no mistake about that.

But this generalized Presidential assertion, as pleasing as it may be, inadequately reflects far more complex realities at play. Contrast therefore, the Prime Minister’s perturbation that he and the Cabinet have been effectively prevented from answering the matters in the former Defence Secretary’s fundamental rights petition until October this year where (probably) a new political dispensation will be in force. Indeed, the larger impact of the matter concerns the very legality of the new criminal investigations unit established by the Government which has been impugned in the petition. Undoubtedly this gives rise to grave questions regarding the legitimacy of the investigations in general.

Provoking other potentially inflammatory debates
Meanwhile the Prime Minister’s further claim (reportedly) that, in the wake of the order, there was nothing left to be done but to seek the advice of the Commonwealth, lawyers and ‘other relevant people of the Commonwealth’ provokes another potentially inflammatory debate of ‘foreign’ vs ‘local.’
In any event, these claims raise more questions than answers. Who are these ‘other relevant people’? Do seeking opinions from lawyers and the Bar in regard to such judicial orders constitute a healthy practice? This brings back recent memories best forgotten when demonstrators demanded that ‘a Rajapaksa Chief Justice’ be summarily dismissed, the Bar proffered an eager opinion saying that this was perfectly proper and all gratefully salaamed when these demands were met.

Contrast this, hypothetically, with the constitutional alternative of a prompt impeachment but with due process safeguards as per the admirably reasoned judgment of Supreme Court Justice Gamini Amaratunga referencing the ugly dismissal of former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. This option would have been firmly in consonance with the Rule of Law. It would have stamped the relevant judicial improprieties as part of the public record rather than remaining as mere allegations. It would have also held out definitive warning signals to other judicial officers inclined to err. But that was not to be.

No ‘quick-fix’ solutions to the problem
In the instant dispute as well, defined legal procedures apply whether this concerns challenging the propriety of a two member Bench awarding interim relief or the fact that the relief was awarded effective till October without the respondents being heard. So this flippant jump to invoking the Commonwealth on the part of the Prime Minister is somewhat baffling. Again, the resultant controversy promises to take the focus away from the actual issue in hand.

Even at this late stage, the treacherous path of ‘quick-fix’ solutions in rectifying the independence of the country’s judicial institution must be eschewed. It is high time that the ‘yahapalanaya’ Government recognizes this fact even as strongmen of the Rajapaksa regime rush to court successfully pleading judicial intervention.

And the need for serious public debates on judicial accountability as well as judicial independence remains stronger than ever.

In Defence Of Ranil In A Lamborghini To Latimer House

By Sarath De Alwis –May 17, 2015

Sarath De Alwis

“If you don’t know where you are going any road can take you there” – Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

The decision to seek advice from Commonwealth jurists is a wise decision. In 2013 then Leader of Opposition went on record that “adherence to Commonwealth principles and core values was an imperative to avoid the disaster of being labelled a pariah state by the international community.

He said “It is time for President Rajapaksa and his government to think of the country and its people: not only of themselves and their power ride. We have no wish to ride with him in this Lamborghini to disaster,” He was commenting on the deep flaws in the impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake.

This writer was not surprised to hear him voice his ‘weltanschsauung’ addressing the the National Consultative Summit on Media reforms. He then quite correctly reminded the Media that that “President Maithripala Sirisena was not only the President of Sri Lanka, but also the current chair of the Commonwealth,”

The Prime Minister should be commended and supported by all citizens who wish to see democracy and the rule of law restored in the country. The advice of commonwealth jurists in resolving an obvious impasse in the administration of justice is a recognition of an inconvenient truth. If Mahinda Rajapaksa can seek advice in Texas for his ailments, seeking the advice of Commonwealth jurists on what ails our body politic seems eminently sensible. This good sense has dawned three months too late. Reform of the Judiciary should have been a priority in the reform agenda.

Good governance is perceived as a prescriptive principle of administrative law. It compels the State to perform its functions in a manner that promotes the values of efficiency, non-corruptibility, and most importantly in the responsiveness to civil society. It is to be hoped that the Prime Minister will resolve the Bond Business to the satisfaction of civil society that forms an essential and vital component of his natural constituency.Read More

Judge Abrew who disgraced judicature and himself says ‘Yahapalanaya apita bamboo gahannadha?’ Masses outraged by Eva and Abrew (Bonnie and Clyde) verdict : Judiciary tops should appointed by the Commonwealth countries..!

(Lanka-e-News- 16.May.2015, 11.00PM) ‘Yahapalanaya apita bamboo gahanadhei’ (what can good governance do against us) was the question asked by supreme court (SC) judge Sarath Abrew when he met some Judges after delivering the outrageously illegal order prohibiting the arrest of Gotabaya Rajapakse , according to reports reaching Lanka e news inside information division.

Judges for independence of judiciary who did not wish to reveal their names expressing their views to Lanka e News revealed, the judges Eva Wanasundara and Sarath Abrew who heard the fundamental rights petition of Gotabaya have acted diametrically contradictory to the laws behaving like Bonnie and Clyde (notorious criminals of the past), and therefore degraded and disgraced the SC on a scale unprecedented in the history of SL.

The grounds in support of this are :

A two judge bench cannot hear such a petition as it is mandatory that there should be a three judge bench. On the day of the hearing when the third judge Buvaneka Aluvihara withdrew from the case , and refused to hear it, what judges Eva and Sarath ought to have done is , put on hold the trial until the third judge was replaced. Eva and Sarath by not abiding by that requirement had villainously abused the powers of the sacrosanct bench.

The interim order given prohibiting the arrest of Gotabaya from 14 th May until 6 th October is untenable in law.. Such an interim order lasting 5 months had never ever been issued in SL’s history of the of the judicature. Apparently Eva and Sarath have by this verdict shamelessly betrayed their ignorance of the fundamental laws despite holding lofty positions in the judicature , whereby they have insulted the bench , for in such a petition , a prohibition order is tenable only for 14 days. It is only after hearing the counter submissions of the other party to the case , can it be decided whether the order should be restricted or extended. In the circumstances it is a glaring fact that Eva and Sarath have done a most deplorable and disdainful strip tease act on behalf of the rogue , the accused , while the entire nation was earnestly expecting most honorable official conduct from them upholding the sacrosanct judiciary and its independence. Of course strip tease acts are enjoyed by one and all , more so when they are performed before crooks ands criminals , regardless of the age of the performers.

The lawyers for good governance are of the opinion that this case can be heard by a five judge bench again by a motion filed by the AG .Besides , the other judges say , Eva and Sarath who prostituted their official positions by meeting with Rajapakses secretly before the day of trial at the premises of Ali Sabry , lawyer , have been meeting with the Rajapkses even before time and again. Mahinda Rajapakse was having very close association with Eva and Sarath since their Law College days, these judges added .

In addition, of these two judges who had made a most disgraceful sale of honor through professional villainy , Abrew has additionally a most putrid antecedence that disqualifies him from being a judge : he is tainted with charges of sexual molestation committed on his domestic servant ; assaulting a police officer who was in his security detail ; and behaving most degradingly and aggressively in a market place unbecoming of a judge .Mahinda Rajapakse notorious for exalting criminals and crooks suppressed all his wrongdoings .

The government of good governance too by not conducting an investigation into these past criminal records of his despite being a judge had allowed these Rajapakse crooks and cronies to continue flourishing in their favorite occupation of selling the lofty judicial profession and sublime national interests at the altar of their self centered sordid ambitions and opportunistic gains .

Sarath Abrew is such a shameless judge by birth that when he was moving from the appeal court to the SC, of the 99 cases he heard in the appeal court he had not prepared even a single report on the 99 cases . Consequently , these cases have to be heard again , it is learnt. The Judicial service commission had not taken any action against him because he was a most faithful bootlicking stooge of the Rajapakse regime which all along considered bootlicking the regime and sniffing their loin clothes as the best qualification a public official must have irrespective of the latter’s crookedness , criminalities and treacheries which are most detriment to the country and people.

Sadly , the present judges of the appeal court and SC are mostly lickspittles and lackeys of Rajapkses and appointed by the Rajapkse regime. The judges for good governance have therefore pointed out , when this is the deplorable state of affairs in the judicature , the administration of true justice and upholding the rule of law to safeguard law abiding citizens of the country has become a major issue. The cooks and cronies of Rajapakses are not only having their way but even their say because the Rajapakses had systematically overturned the legal Institutions and processes so much so that the country is now at the brink of anarchy.

As a solution to this , the disconcerted and disgruntled judges who are wishing that the government of good governance will rectify this grave situation , say, like how SL judges are appointed to the SC of Fiji Island , the judges appointed as president of the appeal court or as chief justice or to the judicial service commission of SL temporarily at least should be by the Commonwealth countries

When such judges are appointed , as they will have no association with SL politicians , at least until an independent judicature is established in SL following the revival of the independent judicial commission , a legal foundation based on judicial independence can be put in place . the legal luminaries and lawyers for a lawful as opposed to a lawless SL asserted

---------------------------
by (2015-05-16 19:27:28)

Swiss Bank Exposé: Names of 40 Lankans Revealed; US$ 50 Million in Secret Accounts

17/05/2015

Some 40 Sri Lankans stashed away around US$ 50 million in secret Swiss bank accounts, according to details made available exclusively to the Sunday Times by the US based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The details were obtained by the ICIJ from the French newspaper Le Monde and led to many collaborative projects by the ICIJ in what came to be known as Swiss Leaks. The Sri Lankans are among 100,000 clients of the HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) worldwide. The names and account details are in a trove of 60,000 leaked files covering up to 2007. The highest amounts remaining in the accounts during 2006-2007 under different Sri Lankan names are available.

The largest amount is in the name of Edmund Wijenaike Balasuriya and members of his family. Mr. Balasuriya is described in bank documents as the “owner of a shop of games” with an address in Colombo north. The Balasuriya family amounts listed in the balances add up to US$ 16,325,742 which at today’s exchange rate works out at more than two billion rupees. Together with his wife, his account balance is shown as US$ 10,668,094. The balance in the name of his daughter Lakshmi Fernando is listed as US$ 1,989,370. His son Rohan Balasuriya, the records show, has a balance of US$ 1,975,594. Three other sons – Mahendra, Lakshman and Asoka – reflect the same balance of US$ 1,975,319 each in accounts under their names.

Documents from the HSBC describe the Balasuriya family as being “good clients of ours for many years and retain an account in Barclays Bank Suisse holding several million dollars.” Among some 17 Sri Lankans whose names appear as having closed their accounts are Jeevaka Lalith Bhupendra Kotelawala, the holder of the country’s highest national honour – Deshamanya — and head of the beleaguered Ceylinco Consolidated. His Golden Key Credit Card Company collapsed in 2008 owing millions of rupees to clients who are still fighting court action.

Mr. Kotelawala opened his account on December 21, 1988 and closed it on March 3, 1997. Also opened and closed on the same dates was an account in the name of Daya Ranjit Senanayake, described in Colombo business circles as Mr. Kotelawala’s deputy at one time. The Sunday Times is in possession of all details related to the Sri Lankan secret account holders. They include their IBAN (International Bank Account Numbers), dates of birth, listed addresses, dates of opening of account, dates of closure and other related details. Whilst some operated accounts giving Sri Lankan addresses, they were found to be residents in countries including Australia, Britain and Canada. At least one was an attorney representing a ‘client.’

Exchange Controller D.M. Rupasinghe declined to comment when the Sunday Times asked whether Sri Lankans were allowed to open bank accounts overseas, particularly secret offshore accounts. He only cited the Exchange Control Act which requires the permission of the Central Bank (CB). Another high ranking CB official who spoke on grounds of anonymity said no clearance was given for any Sri Lankan to operate offshore “secret” accounts since they were illegal and a mechanism to avoid tax payments.

The HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) was accused of knowingly aiding thousands of individuals to evade taxes and break other financial laws of a number of countries. The bank’s Chief Executive Officer, Stuart Gulliver, extended his “sincerest apologies” after his bank was charged with helping clients conceal their identities to avoid taxes on deposits. The apology was printed as large advertisements in British and other foreign newspapers.

The second highest amount in the secret accounts is held in the name of Subramaniam Surendran, a Colombo businessman and his wife. He is described in local trade circles as one who did a large volume of business with the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB). They are shown together in two separate accounts as holding US$ 13,129,904. While his balance is reflected as US$ 6,564,952 in two accounts, his wife Charlotte Ranjitha, described as a ‘housewife’ held a balance of US$ 6,495,287.

The names of others who are listed as holding large sums are Anura Leslie Perera (Bandarawela) US$ 1,692,959. He is described as an attorney and was reportedly representing an account holder. Others are Aruna Rajendran Vasvani (Colombo) US$ 1,384,149, Nikhil Kishore Hirdaramani (Colombo) US$ 817,446, Vinod Kishore Hirdaramani (Colombo) together with Leena Vinod Hirdaramani US$ 646,243
ST

Bond Issue Fiasco: Government Incur Loses!

By Hema Senanayake –May 17, 2015

Hema Senanayake

Does the government incur any loss? This question has become the ultimate question that needs to be resolved in regard to the alleged bond issue scandal that involved with the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) and his son-in-law. This can be technically resolved. The purpose of this article is to do that.

Over this question, now the government is divided into two groups. One group says that nothing wrong has happened. The other group says that something has happened but the government is not incurring any loss on interest payments. What is common for both groups is that they are united in arguing the government is not making any loss because the government needed money urgently to meet payment obligations inherited from the previous regime and hence had to increase the borrowing limit from rupees 1 billion to 10 billion and it is quite usual that interest rate goes up due to the increased demand for money by the government.

If the Governor of CBSL upholds the above view he immediately should resign from his position because he has never understood how a central bank functions. If the Minister of Finance Ravi Karunanayake upholds the said view he must be forgiven because he is an accountant by profession, but he needs to enlighten himself on the subject if he wishes to be a good Minister of Finance. I guess both hold the above view.

Let us get back to our analysis. Any loss could be possibly have incurred not by increasing the issue of bonds from 1 billion rupees to 10 billion rupees but by having to pay higher rate of interest exceeding what is known as CBSL’s indicative price or rate. When the bond issue was declared the CBSL indicated that the targeted borrowing rate (indicative rate) was between 9 to 9.5%. Hence, if CBSL accepted any bids over 9.5% interest, the government has to pay higher interest than what it expected to pay. This point is very clear. Now on February 27, 2015 the CBSL accepted bids up to 12.5% and it was an increase of at least 2% of interest rate. This increment of the rate of interest can be justified if CBSL had no other alternative to raise money badly needed for the government by that time. The government says that was the case and hence the government is not incurring any loss – And this perception is grossly inaccurate and misleading. Why?Read More