மன்னார் முசலி பிரதேச செயலாளர் பிரிவுக்குட்பட்ட அரிப்பு கிராமத்தில் சற்று முன்னர் கடற்படையினருக்கும், பொது மக்களுக்கும் இடையில் முறுகல் நிலை ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது.
இந்நிலையில், கடற்படையினர் பொது மக்களை நோக்கி துப்பாக்கி பிரயோகம் மேற்கொண்டுள்ளதாக அப்பகுதி மக்கள் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர்.
அரிப்பு கிராமத்தில் கடந்த சில தினங்களாக கொள்ளைச் சம்பவங்கள் இடம் பெற்று வந்த நிலையில் இன்று இரவு 9.30 மணியளவில் குறித்த கிராமத்தில் உள்ள வீடு ஒன்றினுள் நபர் ஒருவர் செல்ல முற்பட்டடுள்ளார்.
எனினும், வீட்டில் உள்ளவர்கள் அவரை கண்டு சத்தமிட்டுள்ளனர். இதன் போது குறித்த நபர் உடனடியாக அருகில் உள்ள பற்றைக்காட்டினுள் மறைந்திருந்த நிலையில் கிராம மக்கள் ஒன்றிணைந்து குறித்த நபரை பிடித்துள்ளனர்.
எனினும், குறித்த நபரை காப்பாற்றும் முயற்சியில் கடற்படையினர் ஈடுபட்டுள்ள நிலையில், கிராம மக்களுக்கும் கடற்படையினருக்கும் இடையில் முறுகல் நிலை ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது.
இந்நிலையில் கடற்படையினர் மக்களை நோக்கி துப்பாக்கி பிரயோகம் மேற்கொண்டுள்ளதாக அந்த பகுதி மக்கள் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர். பிடிக்கப்பட்ட குறித்த நபர் கடற்படையினை சேர்ந்த ஒருவராக இருக்கலாம் என பொது மக்கள் சந்தேகம் வெளியிட்டுள்ளனர்.
குறித்த நபரை தடுத்து வைத்துள்ளனர். தற்போது பொலிஸார் அங்கு விரைந்து சென்றுள்ளனர். எனினும் குறித்த நபரை பொலிஸாரிடம் ஒப்படைக்க முடியாது எனவும், மன்னார் நீதவானிடம் நேரடியாக ஒப்படைக்க வேண்டும் எனவும் மக்கள் கோரிக்கை விடுத்துள்ளனர்.
இந்நிலையில் பாராளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர் சார்ள்ஸ் நிர்மலநாதன் மற்றும் வடமாகாண சபை உறுப்பினர் சட்டத்தரணி எஸ்.பிரிமூஸ் சிறாய்வா ஆகியோர் சம்பவ இடத்திற்கு விரைந்துள்ளதாக தெரிவிக்கப்படுகின்றது.
இதனையடுத்து, சிலாபத்துறை பொலிஸார் மற்றும் பொலிஸ் உயர் அதிகாரிகளும் அங்கு விரைந்து சென்றனர். நீண்ட நேரம் மக்கள் மத்தியில் பதற்ற நிலை ஏற்பட்டிருந்தது.
இந்த நிலையில் மக்களுடன் மேற்கொள்ளப்பட்ட பேச்சு வார்த்தையின் பலனாக மக்களினால் சிறை பிடிக்கப்பட்ட சந்தேகநபர், சிலாபத்துறை பொலிஸாரிடம் ஒப்படைக்கப்படதாக வடமாகாண சபை உறுப்பினர் சட்டத்தரனி எஸ்.பிரிமூஸ் சிறாய்வா தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.
அதனைத்தொடர்ந்து அங்கு அமைதி நிலை ஏற்பட்டதாகவும் அவர் தெரிவித்தார். இதேவேளை, கடந்த சில தினங்களுக்கு முன்னர் குறித்த பகுதியில் உள்ள வீடு ஒன்றில் திருட்டுச்சம்பவம் இடம் பெற்றது.
வீட்டினுள் வந்த மர்ம நபரை துரத்திய போது சந்தேகநபர் கொண்டு வந்த பாரிய கத்தியினால் வெட்டிய போது அந்த பகுதியை சேர்ந்த ஒருவர் கடுமையான காயங்களுக்கு உள்ளாகியிருந்தமை குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.
Just as pathetic as the recent repugnant public criticism of the Bribery Commission, CID and FCID by the President, is the stupidity of some Ministers who have been trying to vainly put a good face on a bad speech, as if the people of this country are fools who can’t understand spoken Sinhala and will believe anything they are told. Where millions have heard and watched the widely circulated video recordings of the President’s speech for themselves, the people are not deceived. People know exactly what he said and meant notwithstanding the distortions of politicians who would pull wool over their eyes. Indeed if nothing else the resignation of the Director General of the Bribery Commission is final proof that the President’s remarks were deeply offensive to such agencies.
There is of course nothing new in the tendency of Ministers to embellish the truth for the sake of damage control and tell us that everything is hunky-dory. One example from history is that of a current Minister who speaking at a public function two days ago is reported to have said that “the President had not found fault with the Commissions . . . had not included any remarks intended to weaken the functions of the independent commissions . . . but had only emphasised the importance of protecting the dignity of war heroes who saved the country from the clutches of terrorism”. So I suppose we are being asked to believe that the President was only being kind to the Commissions ! Interestingly in clause 397 (P.83 ) of the Human Rights Council OHCHR Report on Sri Lanka as an example of the previous regime repeatedly denying any responsibility for enforced disappearances, the report specifically mentions the name of this Minister who when he was a Minister in that regime had in 2007 (quote) “ claimed that the reports about people who disappeared were the result of the “propaganda strategy” by “a ruthless terrorist organization” which tried to ‘paint a bleak picture internationally to bring pressure on the government so that our resolve will be weakened’”. So much for his credibility today.
The reality is that the President’s ill conceived criticisms were a sad betrayal of the many good people who trusted him to uphold the rule of law and relentlessly bring criminals to justice without fear or favour whoever they might be. On the contrary the threatening tone, strong language, and content of his emotional speech reflected an abuse of power in seeking to demean, demoralise and put political pressure on these valued independent agencies investigating corruption and crime. Indeed his outburst was reminiscent of the arrogant contempt for independent bodies we had come to expect from the previous Rajapaksa regime in which ( lest we forget ) this President sat as a Minister for about 9 long years during its worst excesses.
Legal action can be taken against all members of the cabinet, if senior politician A.H.M. Fowzie with nearly 50 years of experience is taken before courts over a minor offence, president Maithripala Sirisena told the cabinet at its meeting today (18).
“Minister Fowzie is more senior than us and made a big commitment for politics. If such a person is summoned to the bribery commission, he should be given due respect. It is bad to exhibit him, bring around 20 traineers and do insane things. We should understand his mentality. Minister Fowzie is a person who has served the country, SLFP. He is not a training dummy.”
The cabinet unanimously agreed with him.
Decision on Dilrukshi after PM returns
The president also told the ministers that the decision to accept the resignation, or not, of director general of the Bribery Commission, lawyer Dilrukshi Dias Wickremasinghe, should be taken after discussion once the prime minister returns home from his overseas visit.
The president said further that it was evident to the entire country about the bankrupt politics of the pro-Rajapaksa media by the manner in which they said her resignation would lead to the collapse of the government within days.
(Lanka-e-News -18.Oct.2016, 8.20PM) The Commission GM of the Commission investigating allegations of Bribery and Corruption, Ms. Dilrukshi Dias Wickremesinghe handed over her letter of resignation relinquishing her duties to president Maithripala Sirisena.
The summoning of Gotabaya , and the three ex Navy commanders of the forces to court against which the president expressed his displeasure via his recent ‘cyanide’ speech ,was a sequel to the action taken by Dilrukshi as the Commissioner of the Commission investigating Bribery and corruption .
The president in his speech naively said, he should be informed of the investigations conducted by the investigating Institutions including the Bribery Commission. Truly , if that is to be so , those Institutions cannot be independent.
The president who is sometimes prone to puerile drives had forgotten that fact in his aberration. It is the consensus of many that the resignation of Dilrukshi was the outcome of president’s odious speech , although some others don’t view it that way.
If she had truly decided to resign because of the odious speech of the president which was also antagonistic to good governance , then it could reflect poorly on the president , and her action can set a bad precedent for the other independent investigating Institutions .
At all events the actions taken by Dilrukshi was a pain in the neck and a torment not to the president alone.
Lanka e news published a report on 2016-08-28 for the first time under the caption ‘Bribery Commission 'Dil' turns Nil (nought) - Stormy but empty ! In that report we emphasized, our aim was to put Dil on the right track, and not to chase her away.
The main accusation leveled in that report was , budget allocations made towards the Commission for the whole year had been used up by August , and not a single case had been filed.
Dilrukshi who was provoked over this news report was galvanized into action and filed 2 cases within two weeks.
Another accusation we leveled in that report was , she does not seek the advice of the Attorney General (AG) duly. In her haste to file the two aforementioned cases she did not secure AG’s advice duly.
As these two cases are now before courts , we shall speak no further on that subject. Yet , a submission made by her before the judge in one of the cases deserves mention here . Pointing a finger at one accused, she said “ he is the one who is attacking me through Lanka e news which is reporting that my head is small though my physique is enormous . Hence do not grant him bail.” By this statement she only betrayed what a Lilliputian she is despite being the Director General of the Commission.
In that report, the charges we leveled were ….
1.The arbitrary and domineering attitude while pretending she is the be all and end all of administration. 2.She had experience in civil laws , but on the criminal law sphere chaos prevailed by her not taking advice from the AG’s department . 3.By her not liaising with the AG’s department , the same inquiry was conducted by several Institutions. 4.By not heeding the advice of those responsible for the Institution’s financial administration , the annual allocation was used up in 8 months. 5.Double standards practiced when implementing the laws in respect of Namal Rajapakse and Rajitha Senaratne.
Lanka e News did not expose her domineering stubborn conduct within the Commission with examples because she could take revenge on those who were victimized by her. Now that she is no longer there , we wish to reveal one example to illustrate what a ruthless administrator she was :
A member of the staff was suffering from cancer , and was under threat of imminent death .He had to attend clinic on specific dates, yet Dilrukshi did not approve his leave to attend the clinic. However he pleaded she did not grant him even short leave . That was her brutal nature. How inhuman?
A number of staff members asked for transfers and went to other stations owing to her cruel and recalcitrant ways. Some others in order to take revenge on her fed secret information of the investigations to the Rajapakse culprits.
Consequently , the Rajapakse culprits were well and thoroughly informed of what was going on within the Commission . Of course when it came to her own tasks she was attentive.. Yet , she was not productive – it was all flatulence and no substance finally. The main reason for that dismal failure was her self conceit and overriding arrogance.
In any case , there was perhaps a reason for the president to make the allegation that this Commission is serving political agendas ….
Namal Rajapakse was summoned to the Commission , and on two occasions when he did not appear , a case was filed against him. However , when Rajitha Senarathne did not turn up even after he was summoned by the Commission about 10 times , he was not hauled up in courts. If the president is accusing this was according to a political agenda , there is some truth
No matter what blunders are committed by whom , it is imperative that the independent Commissions shall forge ahead with greater vim , vigor and vitality without being weakened. It is our duty to strengthen these commissions rather than add fuel to aberrant and abhorrent speeches made without looking far and thinking sanely.
The Director-General of the Bribery Commission, Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe, resigned yesterday. Her resignation was a response to President Sirisena’s comments accusing the Commission of politically motivated investigations.
In a system where the diverse branches of the political system check and balance each other, it is within the President’s rights to use his bully pulpit to criticize the functioning of independent commissions. However, his failure to offer evidence for his allegations, combined with his failure to trigger formal accountability mechanisms – such as a Parliamentary Select Committee or a Commission of Inquiry – makes his accusations appear more political than principled. At this nascent stage in our constitutional history, the President’s alacrity to find fault is troubling. As the new constitution is still teething, the independence of the new commissions is still fragile. This means that Mr. Sirisena’s criticism could have the chilling effect of a veiled threat.
Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe
However, Mrs. Dias Wickramasinghe’s resignation may also precipitate a constitutional crisis. If the Bribery Commission is truly independent as those of us who voted for Good Governance and by extension the 19th Amendment envisioned, then there appears to be no constitutional requirement or convention for Mrs. Dias Wickramasinghe to resign. I would argue that eliciting the executive’s ire, in the form of the President’s comments, is a sign that an independent commission is performing its constitutional function of holding the executive to account. In fact, provoking the executive’s wrath is the inevitable corollary of a well functioning independent commission’s task.
This is why the independent commissions are effectivelyappointed by by the Constitutional Council[1] and ultimately answerable to the legislature, i.e. parliament, and not the executive. The 19th Amendment clearly states that:
“All the Commissions referred to in the Schedule to this Article, other than the Election Commission, shall be responsible and answerable to Parliament.”[2]
The President’s formal appointment is precisely that, a formality, they do not report to him nor can he sack them. They are responsible and accountable to the Republic through Parliament, the Constitutional Council.[3]
In the case of Mrs. Dias Wickramasinghe, matters are a little murkier. According to the statute governing the Bribery Commission, the Director-General is appointed by the President in consultation with the members of the Bribery Commission.[4] However, note that the same section empowers the Commission to:
“delegate to the Director-General or any other officer appointed to assist the Commission any of its powers (other than the powers, referred to in paragraphs (i), (j), (k) and (l) of subsection (1) of section 5, section 11 and this section) and the person to whom such powers are delegated may exercise those powers subject to the direction of the Commission.”
It is clear that Parliament’s intent was that the Director-General would be answerable, above all, to the Commission. Therefore, it appears that convention, in light of this section, dictates that the Director-General should resign only when she or he loses the confidence of the Bribery Commissioners. Maintaining the President’s confidence is secondary at best, tangential at worst.
This interpretation is made all the stronger by virtue of the 19th Amendment. The act creating the Bribery Commission was promulgated in 1994. However, one of the main intentions of the 19th Amendment was to strengthen the independence of independent commissions. This is why the 19th Amendment envisions a new, more independent, legal framework for the Bribery Commission that places.[5] Therefore, we must now interpret existing provisions in light of the new constitutional regime which would strengthen the argument that the Director-General serves at the Commission’s pleasure rather than the President’s.
This makes sense. After all why should the Bribery Commission require the President or the executive’s confidence. The Commission could well be investigating members of the President’s family, his political associates or friends, creating clear conflicts of interest. It is proper and fitting that they are answerable to the Constitutional Council and Parliament.
Although she did not give a reason for her resignation, it appeared that the move was a reaction to Sirisena’s comments.
“There was an objective in setting up these independent commissions. Members of these commissions should know their limits. They must know the scope of their work,” he said while threatening to take “decisive action against those conspiring in corners.”
“In all these commissions, the secretaries and director-generals have been appointed by me. They have a duty to keep the chief executive (President) informed.”
News of her resignation was met with almost widespread condemnation, given that Sirisena was elected on a platform of good governance and transparency.
Executive Director of Transparency International, Sri Lanka, Asoka Obeyesekere speaking toGroundviews said three questions needed to be answered. The first, was whether the President needed to be informed of the investigations of independent commissions – as his comments suggested that he did.
“In light of the secrecy provisions of such investigations, the idea of the President being informed, or giving an informed opinion to base his criticism on is questionable.” Obeyesekere added that he had made an attempt to establish his standing for making such comments on the arrests of military personnel, for instance, as a former Defense Minister. “By that logic, the Health Minister would argue he had standing to interfere in any case involving a doctor, the Education Minister could argue standing in a case involving a teacher, and so on. So the premise that the President needs to be informed is fundamentally flawed” Obeyesekere said.
Commenting on the President’s threat to take action, he said “The only action he could take is set in motion the removal of a Commissioner. This could be construed as a veiled threat at best. If he doesn’t end up taking action, it is implicit that he can’t substantiate the claims he has made.”
Although the President also made some interesting arguments on equality before the law, which could be seen as an inherent good, such public utterances could be seen as a warning of some form of interference, and a gray area in terms of how independent commissions could operate and communicate. “When you start trying to frame arguments of independent commissions having to follow some ideas of protocol – you end up conflating issues in the political sphere, and imposing those protocols and hierarchies on independent commissions as well. Independent commissions shouldn’t be shackled by matters of protocol,” Obeyesekere said.
He further added that the President himself was recently implicated in a bribery scandal himself.
The Sydney Morning Heraldreported company emails which showed Sirisena and his adviser demanding a political donation to be paid by the iconic Snowy Mountains Engineering Company (SMEC) when Sirisena was a Cabinet Minister.
In light of this, and the lack of response by Sirisena himself, these utterances should not be taken lightly, Obeyesekere said.
The only way in which integrity would be maintained, is if the Director General’s resignation was rejected, he added. “In these situations, there is a tendency to assume that everything is bad. Yet, there are opportunities that can stem from the fact that when there is friction, independent commissions can consolidate and strengthen themselves”.
If Wickramasinghe’s resignation was not accepted, it would go a long way towards establishing President Sirisena’s integrity – even if it meant that, by implication, the allegations he made earlier were unsubstantiated, Obeyesekere said.
Writer and columnist Nalaka Gunawardene said that the resignation was yet another indication that the promise of yahapaalanaya was going seriously awry. Speaking further, Gunawardene said it seemed the DG had “little choice” but to step down after the completely unwarranted remarks Sirisena made last week.
“With such public outbursts, President Sirisena is not only betraying everyone who voted for him, but worse, he is discrediting the very idea of a society where rule of law prevails, and every official is held accountable. All I can say, in dismay, is: Et tu, Maithri?” Gunawardene said.
“The investigation of those who held high positions in the former and present government is bound to be controversial. Choices have to be made in terms of which case to take up first and which to take up later.
We may prefer some cases to be taken up before others. The choices made can be seen by those who are at the receiving end to be politically motivated. Anyone in the position of investigator would come under criticism for taking up one case rather than another. This is a difficult job,” Perera said commenting on Sirisena’s comments that some of the probes were “politically motivated.”
“Wickramasinghe was doing a difficult job better than anyone in recent history who has held that post. I hope her resignation is not accepted and she continues in her post. I am hopeful that the political authorities will withdraw from their retrograde stands. I think that the independence of the Commissions appointed under the 19th Amendment will become stronger as a result of the public attention that has been drawn to this matter,” Perera said.
Political analyst from Verite Research, Janeen Fernando said the impact of the resignation was particularly harmful for developing anti corruption institutions that are not just effective and independent, but also perceived as such by the public. “The Bribery Commission, unlike other special bodies such as the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) and the Presidential Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into Serious Acts of Fraud, Corruption and Abuse of Power, State Resources and Privileges (PRECIFAC), is the only key permanent anti-corruption institution. If the Government fails to support the commission in becoming effective and independent, it is unlikely that the country will see a break in established patterns of corruption and public confidence in the government’s ability to deliver on the mandate of good governance will also suffer,” Fernando said.
As the news spread, political factions began to weigh in. A carefully worded statement purporting to be from Speaker Karu Jayasuriya‘s office said there would be “no room” given by the Speaker or Prime Minister for political interference into the work of independent commissions. Responding to reports that Sirisena’s statements highlighted a split within the Government, the statement added that there was no such division of thinking between the President or Prime Minister. JHU National Organiser Nishantha Sri Warnasinghe for instance, charged that Wickremasinghe had resigned to avoid the fallout from investigating the Central Bank bond scam, particularly as explosive documents leaked last week (which the Central Bank conceded were accurate) pointed to members of the Monetary Board and senior officials of Public Debt at the Central Bank. SLFP’s Dilan Perera meanwhile said it looked like “the hat fit” although the President didn’t specifically single out the Director General in his speech.
Former secretary to the Ministry of Mass Media, Charitha Herath said he felt the Director General of CIABOC’s resignation was incomprehensible and said there should have been consultation with the President before making such a move. “Of course an officer can’t make a reply to a public meeting, but political leaders should be dealt with in a consultative manner,” Herath said. He further said the President had the people’s mandate, and so should have been consulted. “Those governing represent the people, and have their mandate. Now, civil society organizations are criticizing and think they are equal to the elected leaders” Herath said.
Herath’s comments echo what many of the political parties said in the wake of Wickremasinghe’s resignation – but many do not feel the same way.
Groundviews has compiled some of the immediate reactions and coverage on Twitter, usingBundlr, which can be viewed here, or below:
The reactions range from applauding her courage to expressing increased disillusionment with the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government.
Initial news reports noted that the President’s Secretary P B Abeykoon had accepted the Director General’s resignation but uncertainty continues to prevail, as the President returned from the BRICS summit in India last evening. It has been reported that his final decision will be made today (October 18).
It is ironic, however, that it was President Sirisena who enacted the legislation allowing for the function of independent commissions such as the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption, the Police Commission, and others, through the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution. While he pointed out during his fiery speech that he did in fact appoint many of the heads of the Independent Commissions, it is pertinent to note that nowhere in the amendment is it specified that he should be consulted in any way in their operations. His comments with regards to this, therefore are not just surprising but also worrying.
The Police Special Investigation Unit (SIU) yesterday morning descended on a 250-acre estate belonging to MP Kumara Welgama (UPFA, Kalutara District) at Horawala, Matugama, claiming they had information that two bullet proof cars were hidden there. They left-empty handed after an exhaustive search.
The team carried out the search for about two hours. A senior police officer told The Island that a team headed by an ASP had carried out the search operation on a court order obtained from Fort Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne.
The police team comprising about 50 officers and men entered MP Welgama’s property at 9.45 am, causing quite a stir in the area.
Police headquarters sources said the SIU had carried out the search operation on information made available by state intelligence services.
MP Welgama accused the government of trying to tarnish his image by conducing such search operations. He said such intimidatory tactics were being employed in a bid frighten the critics of the government into submission.
"I have been an SLFP organiser for Agalawatte for 35 years and represented parliament continuously for 23 years."
Alleging that the government and the police had caused immense damage to his reputation, Welgama said that he would take action against them for causing an afront to his dignity as a people’s representative. He said he would take up the matter with the Speaker of Parliament.
The Kalutara District MP said that he had never misused government owned vehicles as he and his family had never been short of their own vehicles as was known to one and all in the Kalutara District. He said the government was mistaken if it thought it would be able to make him buckle under pressure.
(Lanka-e-News -18.Oct.2016, 9.00PM) Following the incident in which an Army sergeant major Edirisinghe Jayamanne , a 51 years old father of three children residing at Dehipitiya Road , Karandupana , Kegalle hanged himself after allegedly leaving a note ‘I killed Lasantha’ , fresh suspicions have been aroused against the Rajapakse murder squads that assassinated Lasantha.
In order to carry out their murders most secretly , the Rajapakses have been making their trustworthy murderers in the army to go on retirement , and have been paying them out of the slush fund of the Intelligence division after enrolling them under spurious names. These murderers while collecting their pensions from the army in their actual names , had been paid extra fees out of the slush fund for the contract murders on behalf of Rajapakses , this has come to light ,after the CID that is conducting investigations into Lasantha’s murder undertook the probe into Edirisinghe’s death.
The Kegalle court judicial officer Ramesh Agiyawanna who conducted the autopsy on Edirisinghe’s death confirmed that the death has been due to asphyxiation after hanging using a ‘tangoose’ thread . Since this death is surrounded by suspicion , the remains is to be buried without cremation .Accordingly the body was buried on 16th.
One of the sons of the deceased told the police the handwriting in the letter purportedly written by Edirisinghe is like his father’s but not without doubt.
Edirisinghe Jayamanne has smoked 2 1/ 2 ganja ‘bundles’
Edirisinghe has been living alone in the house while his wife is employed abroad in a Middle Eastern country. His eldest son is following a course in a private Institution in Kadawatha. The second son has gone to India to participate in a sports tournament , and the third son is pursuing his studies while staying in a relative’s house.
Based on reports reaching Lanka e news inside information division , Edirisinghe was acutely addicted to ganja (cannabis) , and he had two close friends. One of them was a three wheeler driver , and the other was a strong ganja addict like himself.
On the night previous to his death , Edirisinghe along with his friend had been smoking ganja until dawn , and Edirisinghe alone has finished two and half ‘bundles’ of ganja. It is learnt Ediriinghe has then told his bosom ganja pal that ‘it is now very close for the noose to fall around his neck.’
Jayamanne who went to his home at dawn had told his three wheeler friend by phone to come home and meet him. The three wheeler driver who went to Jayamanne’s house half an hour later , according to his narration , found Jayamanne’s body hanging from the beam of the Jayamanne’s kitchen roof.
During the whole of last week Jayamanne has been visiting army camps
On the previous day , that is the day before his death Jayammanne has gone to several army camps. Who did he meet there ? What did he tell? Though Lanka e news inside information division is aware of these details , we shall not reveal them right now , for those details can assist and benefit Udalagamas, and other murderers who carried out the murders with Jayamannes.
Jayamanne retired from the army in 2007. Lasantha was murdered in January 2009. Media reported that the face based on the description furnished by eye witnesses at the scene of murder , is somewhat similar to that of Jayamanne. Yet ,the murderers in the murder squad of Rajapakses too had similar ‘cut’ (faces). However , they differed based on their heights , it has come to light.
Truths that gushed out following the letter ‘I killed Lasantha’
The attention of the investigators has been drawn most seriously to the letter ’I killied Lasantha’ of Jayamanne because there is a huge disparity between this letter written before his alleged suicide and that written by him earlier on.
In the previous letter there was nothing mentioned regarding his potential suicide or he is in a state of mental depression. Besides , though Jayamanne was trying to save his close friend by committing suicide , strangely he did not know the correct name of his close crony. In that letter instead of the true name ‘Premananda Udalagama’ , the name mentioned was Malinda Udalagama. There is an intriguing side to this : Udalagama was granted bail on the previous day in the case in which he was charged with assaulting the editor of Rivira. If Jayamanne was a true friend of Udalagama , after the latter was granted bail , Jayamanne ‘s hopes should have got inflated rather than deflated . In other words he ought not commit suicide.
What is most noteworthy is , the bloke who commits suicide for and on behalf of his friend , has not thought of the future of his children which would be blasted , and who would have to invariably admit ’ our father killed Lasantha.’ Can that happen?
No matter what , the alleged suicide of Jayamanne has shed new light on Lasantha’s murder . That is ,it has exposed that the Rajapakses in order to carry out their killings most confidentially , have sent their trustworthy murderers in the army on retirement , and then absorbed them following retirement to the Intelligence division under fake names most secretly , and paid them out of the slush fund of the Intelligence division after hiring them to commit contract murders. These payments are in addition to the pension they were entitled to from the army.
150 LTTE cadres had been kept hidden while painting the picture they were killed…..
In addition , about 150 LTTE cadres who came and joined the Rajapakses to save their lives during the war , were given different names , and while portraying they died during the war were held secretly in security stations . This group had been utilized to commit most gruesome murders , and later those crimes were blamed on the LTTE by the Rajapakses .
Even when the good governance government came into power there were 110 such cadres , and they were detained in secret stations. Even now these groups are being paid out of the slush fund of the intelligence division. The inability of the Auditor General to audit these accounts is taken advantage by the conspirators.This is absolutely illegal ,and from these discoveries and detections , it is crystal clear what amount of organized murders have been committed by the Rajapakses through these groups . During a war many such things happen which are treated as war secrets , and all those are committed with the knowledge of the army commander and on the order of the armed forces.
However, after the war is concluded , even without the knowledge of the army commander , only with the knowledge of one or two members of the lawless Rajapakse family , and about two henchmen of theirs of the intelligence division , had got together with hired assassins to commit murders is never heard of in any Democratic country in the world ! Such criminalities and ruthless murders are carried out only by despots like Bokasa, Idi Amin , Saddam Hussain , Mugabe , and of course locally as well as internationally depraved , discarded and despised Rajapakse murderers .
By a special correspondent of Lanka e news inside information division Translated by Jeff
In an interesting turn of events, Dilrukshi Dias Wickremasinghe, the dynamic Director General of the Bribery Commissioner, tendered her resignation on Monday morning, without citing any reason.
The nearest reason for the Bribery Commission Director General’s resignation was the controversial speech made by President Maithripala Sirisena, addressing a military welfare event in Colombo, last week.
In his speech, the President criticised the conduct of the Police Financial Crimes Investigations Division (FCID), the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) and the Bribery Commission saying they followed a ‘Political agenda’ when they took legal action against former heads of security forces. The President’s remark, without doubt, created a major controversy in the political sphere as some analysts described it as a veiled attack on the UNP.
Shortly after the President’s speech, it was rumoured that the Bribery Commission Director General was preparing to step down from her position. However, the situation seemed under control when a group of ministers, led by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, met the President for a special meeting, on Thursday night. Following the positive outcome of the meeting, many believed that Wckremasinghe would not resign from the position and the independent bodies, appointed under the 19th Amendment, would function as usual.
Summons and charge sheets were served in Court last Friday to Hambantota District Parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa for the alleged offence of contempt of the Bribery Commission.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice K. Sripavan and Justices Priyasath Dep and Buwaneka Aluvihara, fixed the matter for 30 November for Rajapaksa to consider whether to plead guilty to the charges.
The Supreme Court on 15 September directed the Bribery Commission to file a charge sheet against Rajapaksa over the alleged offence on or before 3 October. The Court rejected preliminary objections raised by Rajapaksa over the commencement of contempt proceedings.
The Court on 3 August directed the Bribery Commission and Rajapaksa’s Counsel to submit written submissions on the alleged offences on or before 29 August.
The Bribery Commission complained to the Supreme Court that Rajapaksa had allegedly disrespected the authority by failing to appear before the Commission on 26 May.
Director General Dilrukshi Dias Wickremasinghe PC sought to initiate contempt proceedings against Rajapaksa saying that he had failed to appear before the Commission without a justifiable reason and had not produced an affidavit in connection with investigations into his assets. The Commission stated that it had commenced an investigation of Rajapaksa’s assets and that the probe had revealed evidence to substantiate an offence of bribery.
Apart from routine investigations, the Parliamentarian was requested through a notice dated 14 December 2015 to produce an affidavit on 20 January 2016, the Commission stated.
Rajapaksa, through a letter dated 19 January 2016, had requested for further time to send the affidavit and the Commission had granted him this concession, pushing the date to 15 March. However, on that date he had requested a copy of the complaint from the Commission.
The Commission wrote to him saying that it could not provide him with a copy as he was not entitled to it and further requested that he submit an affidavit before 17 April. This request had not been complied with. But the content of the letter was disputed by Jayantha Weerasinghe PC on behalf of Rajapaksa and through a letter dated 25 May he had replied to the summons and objected to its legality. Gamini Marapana PC with Shavindra Fernando PC and Navin Marapana appeared for Rajapaksa.
Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Rajaratnam with Deputy Solicitor General Nerin Pulle appeared as Amicus Curiae (Friend of Court – one as an individual or organisation that is not a party to a particular lawsuit but is allowed to advise the court regarding a point of law or fact directly concerning the lawsuit).
