You can’t report truthfully on Israel without facing its wrath

Richard Falk-

4 January 2016

Makarim Wibisono says Israel has blocked him from fulfilling his UN mandate to report on human rights violations in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

 Jean-Marc FerréUN Photo

Makarim Wibisono has announced his resignation as UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, the position I held for six years until June 2014.

The Indonesian diplomat says that he could not fulfill his mandate because Israel has adamantly refused to give him access to the Palestinian people living under its military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

“Unfortunately, my efforts to help improve the lives of Palestinian victims of violations under the Israeli occupation have been frustrated every step of the way,” Wibisono explains.

His resignation reminds me in a strange way of Richard Goldstone’s retraction a few years ago of the main finding in the UN-commissioned Goldstone report, that Israel intentionally targeted civilians in the course of Operation Cast Lead, its massive attack on Gaza at the end of 2008.

I responded to media inquiries by saying that I was shocked, but not surprised. Shocked because the evidence was overwhelming and the other three distinguished members of the UN fact-finding commission stuck by the finding.

I was not surprised because I knew Goldstone – a former judge of the South African constitutional court – to be a man of strong ambition and weak character, a terrible mix for public figures who wander into controversial territory.

In Wibisono’s case I am surprised, but not shocked. Surprised because he should have known from the outset that he was faced with a dilemma between doing the job properly of reporting on Israel’s crimes and human rights abuses and gaining Israel’s cooperation in the course of gathering this evidence. Not shocked, indeed grateful, as it illuminates the difficulty confronting anyone charged with truthful reporting on the Palestinian ordeal under occupation, and by resigning Wibisono doesn’t allow Israel to get away with neutering the position of special rapporteur.

It is worth recalling that when Wibisono was selected as my successor, several more qualified candidates were passed over. Although the selection guidelines stress expert knowledge of the subject matter of the mandate, Wibisono gained the upper hand precisely because of his lack of any relevant background.

I can only hope that now the UN Human Rights Council will redeem its mistake by reviving the candidacies of Professor Christine Chinkin and Phyllis Bennis, both of whom possess the credentials, motivation and strength of character to become an effective special rapporteur.

The Palestinians deserve nothing less.

Honesty

When I met with Makarim Wibisono in Geneva shortly after his appointment as special rapporteur was announced, he told me confidently that he had been assured that if he accepted the appointment the Israeli government would allow him entry, a reassurance that he repeated in his resignation announcement.

I warned him then that even someone who leaned far to the Israeli side politically would find it impossible to avoid reaching the conclusion that Israel was guilty of severe violations of international humanitarian law and of human rights standards, and this kind of honesty was sure to anger the Israelis.

I also told him that he was making a big mistake if he thought he could please both sides, given the reality of prolonged denial of fundamental Palestinian rights. At the time he smiled, apparently feeling confident that his diplomatic skills would allow him to please the Israelis even while he was compiling reports detailing their criminality. He told me that he was seeking to do what I did but to do so more effectively by securing Israel’s cooperation. It was then my turn to smile.

Facing the heat

What I discovered during my six years as special rapporteur is that you can make a difference, but only if you are willing to put up with the heat.

You can make a difference by giving foreign ministries around the world the most authoritative account available of the daily realities facing the Palestinian people. By so doing you have to expect ultra-Zionist organizations and others to react harshly, including through a continuous defamatory campaign that seeks by any means to discredit your voice and will mount accusations of anti-Semitism and, in my case, of being a “self-hating Jew.”

What both shocked and surprised me was the willingness of both the UN secretary general and US diplomatic representatives at the UN to bend in Israel’s direction and join the chorus making such denunciations.

Although periodically tempted to resign, I am glad that I didn’t. Given the pro-Israel bias of the mainstream media in the United States and Europe, it is particularly important, however embattled the position, to preserve this source of truth telling.

My hope is that the Human Rights Council will learn from the Wibisono experience and appoint someone who can both stand the heat and report the realities for what they are.

Richard Falk is Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University. Among dozens of books, he is the author of Palestine: The Legitimacy of Hope.

There are no female qadis in Israel

Look how far the Orthodox monopoly has dragged us and religious life in Israel. As a result of its tyrannical rule, Muslim women, too, are paying a heavy price. Such a pity.

An Arab woman sells holiday decorations during the Festival of Festivals. (photo credit:ARIEL COHEN)

By YIZHAR HESS \

12/30/2015

Tell me, David Azoulay, what have the Arabs done wrong? For decades you have been abusing us – not that we like it, but we’ve gotten used to it. But what injustice have they committed? Why do you have to punish them with the Orthodox monopoly’s capricious lashings? Only to keep us from making demands? We are talking here about the Qadis Law of 1961, which was signed by the late prime minister Levi Eshkol. At the time, he was serving as finance minister and simultaneously as acting minister of religious affairs. How did a member of Kibbutz Degania Bet find himself in the Ministry of Religious Affairs? The incumbent minister, Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Toledano, the Sephardi chief rabbi of Tel Aviv, had been hastily ensconced in the position by then-prime minister Ben Gurion in the wake of the resignation of the National Religious Party from the government. Rabbi Toledano, who was not a member of the Knesset, died of cardiac arrest a few days after his 80th birthday. Ben Gurion knew that the NRP would return to the government (and he was right, of course, because that same year, Zerach Warhaftig was indeed installed as minister). In the meantime, however, the prime minister asked Eshkol to take charge. Today, regrettably, the office is occupied by Religious Services Minister David Azoulay, who is the one behind the government’s disgraceful opposition to the proposed amendment to the Qadis Law. A qadi is a judge in a Sharia court, the Muslim equivalent of a rabbinic beit din. Sharia courts make decisions according to Muslim law in matters of personal status affecting Muslims in Israel, mainly marriage and divorce. It is not entirely an inaccurate oversimplification to say that the monopoly is Orthodox for Jews and Sharia for the Muslims. In contrast to Jewish law (the Orthodox interpretation of it), Muslim women can actually serve as qadis, and there is nothing legally preventing them from doing so. In recent years, women have been appointed as qadis all over the Muslim world: in Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, in Malaysia; and even right next door to us, in the Palestinian Authority. So if the Sharia courts in Israel operate according to Muslim law, and there is no reason to prevent women from serving as qadis, what’s the problem? Ah, but there is a problem: the Jews. MK Esawi Frej (Meretz) wanted to initiate an amendment to the law that would enable the appointment of women qadis. He met with Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked, and she was not only in favor of the amendment, but also expressed enthusiasm for the initiative. A month ago, she attempted to bring up the proposed amendment in the ministerial committee for legislation, and was met with strong opposition. Health Minister Ya’acov Litzman (United Torah Judaism) and MK David Azoulay (Shas) put their feet down. This will never happen, they said. If we allow the appointment of a Muslim woman, Jewish women will also make similar demands. Hoping to reason with the ministers, Frej went to talk with them. “According to Muslim law, we can do this,” he tried to explain. “I’m not Jewish, why do I need to live according to your religious law? I respect Jewish law; you should respect my law.” Litzman shrugged his shoulders and said “no.” Azoulay tried another tack: “I heard that among you there is also opposition.” “I’m from Beit Hillel,” Frej replied. But this issue cannot be put on hold. Five new qadis are about to be appointed, a lineup that will have an impact on the nature of the Sharia court for some time to come, and Frej, along with his colleagues MK Zouheir Bahloul (Zionist Union) and Aida Touma-Sliman (Joint List), co-signers of the proposed legislation, are working together so that the historic opportunity to appoint at least one woman qadi will not be lost. In 1951, when Israel was only three years old, it passed a law that granted equal rights to women. “An ideological, revolutionary law that changed the social order,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Moshe Zilberg, one of the greatest scholars of Jewish Law. Israel expressed great pride in this progressive law, and rightfully so, in every possible international forum. Now look how far the Orthodox monopoly has dragged us and religious life in Israel. As a result of its tyrannical rule, Muslim women, too, are paying a heavy price. Such a pity. The author is the director of the Masorti Movement.

Ministers able to campaign for either side in EU referendum

David Cameron will allow his cabinet ministers to campaign for and against EU membership in the build-up to the in/out referendum.

TUESDAY 05 JANUARY 2016

They will be given this freedom after he has completed his renegotiation with other EU leaders.

Mr Cameron is following the policy adopted by Harold Wilson in 1975 when Britain voted on whether to remain in the EEC. His Labour cabinet colleagues were able to campaign on either side.

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said the Prime Minister was "failing to lead" and "putting his own internal party strife above what's best for Britain", while Alan Johnson, chair of the Labour In For Britain campaign, said Britain's place in the world was "far more important than any internal Conservative issues or jockeying for position in a post-David Cameron leadership contest".

The Prime Minister had been under pressure from Conservative eurosceptics to allow MPs to campaign as they please in the run-up to the referendum, which is likely to be held this year.

Several senior eurosceptics were thought to be ready to resign if they were forced to back an in vote following Mr Cameron's renegotiation.

They will not be able to break ranks with Mr Cameron, whose objective is to secure a deal that will keep Britain in the EU, until the renegotiation has been agreed. This cannot happen until next month's EU summit at the earliest.

Split

The Conservatives are deeply split over Europe, with MP Steve Baker, of the Conservatives For Britain group, recently suggesting more than half of his colleagues were "strongly leaning" to leave and that senior resignations were inevitable if the cabinet was forced to toe a common line.

Former Tory leader Lord (Michael) Howard had urged Mr Cameron to allow his cabinet to campaign on both sides, while former prime minister Sir John Major called for cabinet collective responsibility to be maintained.

The prime minister's renegotiation is built on several key demands. He wants Britain to be exempted from "ever closer union" and to receive protection from further eurozone integration.

He is also demanding that efforts are made to boost the EU's competitiveness, but his call for migrants from other EU countries to be denied in-work benefits and social housing until they have lived in Britain for four years has been rejected by other EU leaders.

'Most important decision'

Mr Cameron said in November he was not seeking "mission impossible", adding: "I have every confidence that we will achieve an agreement that works for Britain and works for our European partners.

"If and when we do so... I will campaign to keep Britain inside a reformed European Union.

"But if we can't reach such an agreement and if Britain's concerns were to be met with a deaf ear, which I do not believe will happen, then we will have to think again about whether this European Union is right for us. As I have said before, I rule nothing out."

Mr Cameron said the referendum was "perhaps the most important decision the British people will have to take at the ballot box in our lifetimes".

There are no female qadis in Israel

As president Pierre Nkurunziza continues to cling to power, Amnesty International has documented arbitrary arrests, disappearances and deaths

 An explosion in downtown Bujumbura during an anti-government demonstration in May. Photograph: Dai Kurokawa/EPA

Murithi Mutiga-Tuesday 5 January 2016

Innocent Ntawumbabaye had obeyed police orders to open his front door when two officers walked wordlessly into his home and shot him several times in the head.

The 44-year-old milk seller wasn’t the only victim that day. On 11 December, after an attack on military installations in the capital, security forces loyal to president Pierre Nkurunziza responded by summarily executing 87 civilians in the space of a few hours.

Nkurunziza, a former rebel turned president, announced in April that he wouldrun for a controversial third term, in a move many observers say contravened a 2005 peace deal that ended the 12-year civil war which claimed 300,000 lives.

His decision plunged the small central African country into a political crisis, prompting weeks of demonstrations by young activists in the capital demanding that the 52-year-old president step down.

An African Union proposal to deploy 5,000 troops to restore peace was rejected by the Burundian authorities, with Nkurunziza last week warning that forces failing “to respect Burundi’s borders” would be attacked. Peace talks scheduled for Wednesday in neighbouring Tanzania have been delayed, with no fixed date given for when they might take place.

Human rights campaigners say Nkurunziza has now responded to any opposition to his third term with a blanket campaign of murder and intimidation in neighbourhoods where protests against his third term bid have been most intense.

“There is an atmosphere of real fear and impunity,” Rachel Nicholson, a researcher at Amnesty International who visited the country in early December, told the Guardian.

“Arbitrary arrests, disappearances and cordon-and-search operations accompanied by the killing of civilians have become routine at a time when many independent human rights organisations have been forced out of the country and people do not know who to turn to for redress,” she said.

 

Burundi’s president Pierre Nkurunziza in July, as the country awaited the results of the disputed election. Photograph: Marco Longari/AFP/Getty Images

Amnesty International reported that the worst attacks since unrest began took place in early December, when police officers rounded on civilians after the unsuccessful dawn attack by armed men on military sites in Bujumbura.

Witnesses told Amnesty that the police responded by going into a number of the capital’s neighbourhoods, dragging men out of their homes and executing them.

Raoul Nijimbere, a 41-year-old said to have mental health problems, was shot and his body abandoned in the streets. The bodies of a teacher, a mobile phone seller and two bicycle taxi operators were also discarded in public, witnesses said.

At least 400 people have been killed since April, with both the African Union and United Nations coming under fire for doing little to stop the carnage, which has sent more than 220,000 people fleeing from their homes.

Ethnic violence

Though the resistance to Nkurunziza, a member of the Hutu community, has so far been multi-ethnic, locals say most of the killings by security forces have been carried out in Tutsi neighbourhoods of the capital Bujumbura.

Campaigners fear the political unrest will spark a repeat of the civil war between the Tutsi and Hutu ethnicities, or worse, a new cycle of genocide.

Thierry Vircoulon, of the International Crisis Group, says though the opposition has remained impressively united across ethnic lines, the danger of deterioration remains.

“The government seems to be playing the ethnic card, trying to demonise communities while this is in fact a political crisis about the third term. The regime rhetoric has created a lot of fear among the public and this dynamic of fear is dangerous particularly because of the lack of information,” he said.

 

Opposition protesters make a barricade in a street in the Buyenzi district of the capital Bujumbura in May. Photograph: Berthier Mugiraneza/AP

Burundi once enjoyed one of the region’s most vibrant media environments but that has changed in recent months. “Almost all the journalists have left, the lawyers have fled, entrepreneurs and players in the NGO world are all gone,” Vircoulon said.

When the crisis first broke out in April, Alexandre Buja, chairman of the union of journalists, consulted with colleagues and set up a joint newsroom to pool information for various FM stations.

But on 27 April the press centre was surrounded by police officers. Many journalists were physically assaulted and the security services demanded that they shut down the newsroom.

“They didn’t show us the order they said they had from the prosecutor,” Buja told the Guardian. “They just started brutalising us. They beat some of my colleagues very badly and we finally had no choice but to oblige.”

Buja went into hiding for several weeks but when a grenade was lobbed into the house his family were sheltering in, he arranged for them to take a flight to Kigali.

“It is a real tragedy what is happening,” he said. “When you shut down all avenues of independent expression what you have is a dictatorship.”

Mexico: A New Year’s message from the Zapatistas — “We chose life”

From Southern Mexico, on the 22nd anniversary of the War Against Oblivion, the EZLN has a message to all compañeras and compañeros worldwide.

This communiqué was originally published at Enlace Zapatista

( January 5, 2016, Mexico City, Sri Lanka Guardian) Good evening, good daycompañeras andcompañeros, today we are here to celebrate the 22nd anniversary of the beginning of the war against oblivion.

For more than 500 years we have endured the war that the powerful from different nations, languages, colors, and beliefs have made against us in order to annihilate us.

Mexico A New Year’s message from the Zapatistas — “We chose life”.odt by Thavam Ratna

‘Third World’ dentistry crisis in England

More than 400 dentists write to the Telegraph arguing the NHS dentistry system is ‘unfit for purpose’ as 46,400 children are admitted to hospital for tooth decay

The rising number of young tooth decay patients has raised questions about whether dentists should carry out more childhood fillings 

By John Bingham, Social Affairs Editor-03 Jan 2016

Dental health standards are falling to “Third World” levels in parts of England because of a crisis of access to NHS treatment, more than 400 dentists claim today.

In a letter to The Telegraph, a coalition of professionals from across the country argues that the system is “unfit for purpose” with millions of people seemingly going for long periods without even seeing a dentist, or ignorant of basic dental hygiene.

‘Third World’ Dentistry Crisis in England by Thavam Ratna

Why Do We Need a New Constitution?  

If the constitution is drafted on a future vision, justifiable on ethical, moral and practical grounds, it would last and it would be easily approved by ‘We the people.’

by Laksiri Fernando

( January 4, 2015, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) Constitutional making in a polarized society is not an easy task. I prefer to use the term ‘polarized society’ than a ‘divided or a deeply divided society,’ with a cautiously optimistic note. Sri Lanka unfortunately is still polarized not only in ethnic but also in political terms, like many other countries in the region. However, as the two elections last year (presidential and parliamentary) and the current ‘national unity’ government, of course mainly the UNP and the SLFP, show there are some possible consensus on a New Constitution, yet uneasy.

Why Do We Need a New Constitution by Thavam Ratna

A Constitution for the People or for our 

"Rulers"?

by Dr A.C.Visvalingam-January 4, 2016, 12:53 am 

President, CIMOGG

The government is planning to have a fresh Constitution for Sri Lanka and has indicated that the current crop of 225 MPs will function as the members of the Constitutional Assembly (CA). It was announced some weeks ago that the government’s proposals would be revealed on 9 January 2016 and that citizens and interested organizations would be allowed six weeks to study these proposals and call for whatever changes they deem desirable. Subsequently, it has been reported that the Prime Minister has obtained Cabinet approval for a 24-member Committee (of persons selected by him, with a pre-named Chairman) "to obtain proposals for a new Constitution from political parties and the general public". 

A Constitution for the People or for Our Rulers by Thavam Ratna

Reconciliation Is A Personal-Narrative

By Natale Dankotuwage –January 3, 2016 

Natale Dankotuwage

Reconciliation is a part of my intimate-personal narrative. It is a journey dictated by love; an effort to love society in its wholeness, beginning with learning to love myself in my completeness.

As I walk back into the ancestral clutches of an Island past-on to me. I see the Island’s society as it may perceive me and my blood; worthy or unworthy of their honour. I seek to reconcile this disharmony.

There are parts of me that I can pipe with pride. My mother, the child of a high-caste Kandyan who was educated in English and spent his afternoons with his glasses at the rim of his nasal reading English newspapers because he couldn’t read Sinhala. My grandfather was the son of a great lineage where doctors, lawyers and government officials were born. And he married my grand- mother of the same black-smith caste.

But, there are parts of me I whisper under my breath to the unsuspecting. I look pensively through their eyes after having spoken to see if I’ve been accepted. The part where I am the daughter of a father that grew up on a small plot of land in the low-income ‘hoods of Kotahena. His mother educated only to know Sinhala. She was a proud indigenous woman that ran her own Kadai, but she had no Victorian sensibility. She was known for her aggressive and almost manly nature. Ministers would come in search of her to round up votes in the area. An Arachi by sir name, when I hear stories of her, I feel she carried her village chiefdom tact into the urban city.

The little I do know of this side of my family has been picked up in bits and pieces. The history of this side of my family is often left un-spoken. I know very little of my father’s father. They were always at odds, for as long as he was alive. And it was only in his passing, when returning for his funeral, that I discovered my grandfather’s brother’s sons were known as house-builders.

I don’t know when I learned to hide the part of me that revealed ancestry that lacked wealth or western education; the things that a Euro-centric-minded individual would de-value.

But as the love child of these two converging human narratives, I am subjected by the very nature of my being to learn to love these sides of myself equally for the social poise or lack thereof.

Thus, Reconciliation is coming to terms with why parts of me are deemed worthy while others are not. And in that search for personal healing and acceptance, I have aligned with the stories of the marginalized and their stories of oppression. Somewhere in their critical analysis of their histories, I hear mine as well.

I am Educated enough to know better than to sweep the past away, rather than to come to terms with the shame I and others have been taught to carry. A few post-colonial history courses set me off course to rediscover a part of me that I was taught to disown, devalue. To learn to fall in love with a part of myself, I had been taught to not share; the part of me that would set me at the bottom of an imagined social hierarchy.

                                                                              Read More

Colombo will not act in haste on war crimes special court: Sirisena

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

• JUDGE HIRUNIKA PREMACHANDRA

• 
  
• T. RAMAKRISHNAN-January 3, 2016
• 
  

The Sri Lankan government would not act “in haste” on the issue of setting up a special court on allegations of violations of human rights in the last stages of the civil war, President Maithiripala Sirisena said on Sunday.

Answering questions on the status of implementation of a resolution adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council in October on accountability, Mr. Sirisena, in an exclusive interview with The Hindu at his residence, replied in Sinhala that what should be done first was to “evaluate” what had happened [during the war]. Only after ascertaining the situation would “subsequent steps” become necessary.

Gradual approach

Calling for a gradual approach in the implementation, he alluded to the resolution and maintained that “we have not been ordered to do anything.” The government would do “whatever is necessary.” The implementation should be a “collective exercise,” he said, referring to the establishment of a body headed by former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga on reconciliation and another institution to go into complaints regarding alleged disappearances.

As for the move to draft a new Constitution, the President pointed out that he would make a statement in Parliament on January 9, initiating the process. However, he clarified that only after a “comprehensive, organised and nationwide” debate among different sections such as constitutional experts and civil society organisations, would a decision be taken whether a fresh Constitution was needed or amendments to the existing Constitution were sufficient. The debate was expected to go on for a year. At the same time, Mr. Sirisena made it clear that he was firm on the abolition of executive presidency, one of his key promises during the 2015 January presidential elections.

Asked whether the 13th Amendment, an outcome of the India-Sri Lanka agreement of 1987, would be retained in the event of having a new Constitution, he replied that this would be finalised at the conclusion of the debate.

On his stand on devolution, Mr. Sirisena recalled that Sri Lanka had a “long history” of devolution and emphasised that new constitutional provisions should be made after a “proper study” of issues concerning the nation’s sovereignty and interests. He went on to refer to assassinations of world leaders, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi and S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike and added that when attempts were made to bring in changes, the history of humankind had always seen opposition. “But, one had to carry out what is good for the people, undeterred by the threats of assassination,” he said. On India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the President called him a “very good friend.”

Govt. protecting female MP in abduction 

case: JVP

2016-01-04
The Government is protecting a particular female parliamentarian who was charged with the abduction and assault of a man recently in Dematagoda, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) claimed today.

JVP Propaganda Secretary Vijitha Herath said she was being protected and her wrong doings were being covered up because she was a member of the ruling party.  (Piyumi Fonseka)

Pasupathy Rejects Wigneswaran’s Invitation To Join Radical Tamil Outfit

January 4, 2016 17:18

Former Sri Lankan Attorney General and constitutional expert, Shiva Pasupathy, has “rejected outright” Northern Province Chief Minister C V Wigneswaran’s invitation to join the Tamil Makkal Peravai (TMP) as his personal representative on the sub-committee on constitutional reform, sources close to Pasupathy told Express on Monday.

Australia-based Pasupathy, who had gone to Jaffna on a private visit last week, was contacted by Wigneswaran over the phone and requested to be his representative on the sub-committee. But Pasupathy told him bluntly that he did not think that forming a separate outfit like the TMP was “appropriate” at a time when serious attempts were being made to find a solution to the Tamil question within Lanka and Tamil unity was the need of the hour. Wigneswaran doggedly persisted, but Pasupathy was unyielding. Finally, Wigneswaran hung up in a huff, sources said.

The Northern Province Chief Minister was hoping to get Pasupathy to draft a radical set of proposals based on the Thimpu principles of 1985 with the Tamils’ right to full self determination as its core. The idea was to politically neutralize the moderate Tamil National Alliance (TNA) with which he has been at odds despite being its elected representative in the Northern Provincial Council.

On the face of it, Pasupathy had the right background to draw up radical proposals given the fact that he had drafted the October 2003 proposal for an Interim Self-Governing Authority (ISGA) which was submitted by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). If the Lankan government had accepted the ISGA, the Northern and Eastern Provinces would have been virtually independent of Colombo.

However, Wigneswaran found to his dismay, that Pasupathy had traveled a long way from the Eelamist position of 2003.

When Pasupathy planned his trip to Lanka three months ago, he had intended it to be a purely private and non-political visit, meant only to go down memory lane.

Raviraj killing: Navy intelligence officials involved alleges Crown Witness 

2016-01-04
While giving evidence relating to the inquiry on the killing of former TNA Jaffna District MP Nadaraja Raviraj led by the DSG, the crown witness of the inquiry, Sampath Prithiviraj, revealed that the alleged killing was planned by officials attached to the Navy intelligence office located in the Gangarama, Laundrywatta area at that time. 

The witness was earlier a suspect in the incident and later turned a witness to the case.

He stated that he had served as a motor bike rider for special operations in Batticaloa, where he started connections with the suspect Palana Sami Suresh. 

In 2006, after he had arrived in Colombo, he once again continued his relationship with ‘Sami’ and through him got to know Prasad Kumara, Charan, Wajira, Gamini Seneviratne, Fabian Royston Toussaint and other intelligence officials.

 He further stated that the suspect, Sami, had taken him to the Navy Intelligence Office in Gangarama and introduced him to other officials. 

On November 8, 2006, he was told by the suspect Sami that they had attempted to kill Mr. Raviraj but failed. 

Then in November 10, 2006, he was summoned by the same suspect to attack some LTTE cadres. 

The witness was asked to come to the Borella Cemetery junction in the morning in the motor bike which was provided by the suspects. 

Then Prasad, Seneviratne, Wajira and three others had come to the place in two three-wheelers, while Sami, Charan and Toussaint had arrived in another three-wheeler. 

He further stated in his statement that he was only asked to stay at the Martha Road junction and take the shooter and flee from the scene. 

He stated the suspect ‘Seneviratne’ was with a black bag and waited until the former MP’s vehicle arrived. 

Then the suspect Seneviratne came from the opposite side of Raviraj’s vehicle and shot Raviraj and his driver Lakshman and fled with the witness to the Navy Intelligence Office located in Laundrywatta on Gangarama road. 

The witness further declared that he was unaware with the incident fully as he didn’t know about the victim until they finished the operation and came to the navy Intelligence office in Laundrywatta. 

After the leading evidence in the non summary inquiry, the Deputy Solicitor General allowed for the cross examination. 

The defense counsel requested for another date to cross examine the witness as they needed to peruse the statements of the witness and get advice from their clients. 

Earlier, seven suspects, Palana Sami Suresh, Prasad Hettiarachchi, Gamini Seneviratne, Pradeep Chaminda, Sivakanth Vivekanandan, Fabian Royston Toussaint and Sampath Munasinghe were charged on five counts over the killing of Mr. Raviraj. 

The Court had also on the last occasion fixed to hear the case in the absentia of three suspects of Palana Sami Suresh, Sivakanth Vivekanandan and Fabian Royston Toussaint under clause 148 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Additional Magistrate Thilina Gamage put off further inquiry for January 13. (Shehan Chamika Silva)