The Gambia: troops deployed to streets as president rejects election defeat

Yahya Jammeh had conceded result to Adama Barrow but now claims ‘fresh and transparent elections’ are needed

 Members of Gambia’s army forces in Banjul last week. Photograph: Thierry Gouegnon/Reuters

Jason Burke Africa correspondent-Saturday 10 December 2016 

Troops have been deployed to the streets of Banjul, the capital of the Gambia, after the autocratic president, Yahya Jammeh, unexpectedly rejected his defeat in an election last week and called for a fresh vote.

Jammeh had initially accepted the result, ceding power after 22 years, to a coalition led by the opposition leader, Adama Barrow. But few observers expected Jammeh to give up control of the small west African country.

The election result – and Jammeh’s acceptance of defeat – was widely seen as a moment of democratic hope on the continent and prompted widespread celebration in the Gambia and elsewhere.

But in an announcement on state TV on Friday, Jammeh said he had changed his mind and wanted “fresh and transparent elections which will be officiated by a god-fearing and independent electoral commission”.

 Gambian president rejects election result in television address to the nation

“After a thorough investigation, I have decided to reject the outcome of the recent election. I lament serious and unacceptable abnormalities which have reportedly transpired during the electoral process,” Jammeh said.

There was immediate speculation that the autocratic leader’s defiant announcement had been prompted by the prospect of prosecution under the new government.

Human rights groups have accused Jammeh’s government of detaining, torturing and killing his opponents during his rule. Dozens of pro-democracy activists were arrested earlier this year and one well-known leader killed.

Last week the chair of the country’s new ruling coalition said Jammeh would be prosecuted for his crimes within a year of handing over the reins of government in January.

Jammeh’s earlier decision to resign was reportedly due to a lack of support from senior security officials.

However, the prospect of being held to to account for previous human rights abuses may have rallied the military and police behind the president. It is also possible Jammeh hopes to secure immunity from prosecution in return for withdrawing his rejection of the poll results.

Soldiers were seen placing sandbags in strategic locations across the capital, Banjul, a development that triggered widespread unease among the already spooked population, who had been panic-buying food before the vote due to fear of unrest.

The US embassy in Banjul urged the army to continue to show “respect for the rule of law and the outcome of the presidential election”. It added: “The Gambian people have made a clear choice for change and a new start.”

In Washington, the state department issued a statement calling Jammeh’s change of heart “a 

reprehensible and unacceptable breach of faith with the people of the Gambia and an egregious attempt to undermine a credible election process and remain in power illegitimately.”

The Gambian opposition spokeswoman Isatou Touray criticised the “violation of democracy” and called for people to “remain calm, lucid, vigilant and not retreat”.

Babatunde Olugboji, deputy programme director at the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said the organisation was “deeply concerned by reports of belated objections to the Gambian election results raised by President Jammeh”.

Olugboji called on “the international community, notably Ecowas [the Economic Community of West African States] and the African Union” to “loudly protest against any unlawful attempt to subvert the will of the Gambian people”.

Jammeh’s defeat and resignation led to euphoria in the Gambia last week. The country is suffering a severe economic crisis, triggering an exodus of young people across the Sahara in an attempt to reach Europe. It is increasingly isolated diplomatically.

 Gambians celebrate shock election result

Official election results from the electoral commission gave Barrow, a property developer who once worked as a security guard at Argos in London, 45.5% of the vote against Jammeh’s 36.7%.

Opposition figures had earlier said that although they expected some electoral fraud and rigging, they hoped to win by a sufficient margin to make their victory impossible to contest.

Barrow is set to take over in late January following a transition period, but Jammeh is likely to make strenuous efforts to ensure that does not happen. Though democracy has made progress in Africa in recent decades, the momentum has slowed in recent years.

India: Former head of Airmen Tyagi arrested Over Corruption

Dec 10, 2016

( December 10, 2016, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian): In a major breakthrough into the multi-crore AgustaWestland VVIP copters deal case, the CBI on Friday arrested former Indian Air Force chief S.P. Tyagi on charges of alleged corruption. Apart from Tyagi, the investigating agency also arrested his cousin Sanjiv alias Julie Tyagi and Delhi-based lawyer Gautam Khaitan.

The former IAF chief, Sanjiv Tyagi and Khaitan were called in for questioning at the CBI headquarters on Friday and were arrested when they failed to answer the questions that were put to them satisfactorily, say official sources, adding that they were giving conflicting versions during questioning. The arrested accused will be produced before a designated court on Wednesday. This is the first time a former IAF chief has been arrested by the central probe agency.

CBI had questioned Tyagi, who retired as the Air Force chief in 2007, extensively in the past for the alleged irregularities in the Rs 3,600 crore copter deal over allegations that kickbacks to the tune of Rs 423 crore were paid for finalising the deal. Earlier in January 2014, the government had cancelled the contract with Finmeccanica’s British subsidiary AgustaWestland for supplying 12 AW-101 VVIP copters to the Air Force over allegations of bribery. The CBI alleged that in a bid to facilitate the deal for AgustaWestland, Tyagi allegedly influenced the decision to reduce the minimum operational ceiling from from 6,000 to 4,500 metres.

Allegations into the case had first surfaced in 2011 when Italian prosecutors claimed that bribes were paid for procuring 12 high-end VVIP choppers to be used by President, vice-president, Prime Minister and others. In April this year, a Milan Courts of Appeals had indicted Tyagi for receiving kickbacks. Others charged by the Milan court included former CEO and chairman of Finmeccanica Giuseppe Orsi and former CEO of AgustaWestland Bruno Spagnolini.

The court verdict had led to a huge political uproar with the ruling BJP accusing the former Congress-led UPA government of indulging in corruption. The AgustaWestland copters were to replace the existing VIP copter squadron, which had been purchased from the erstwhile Soviet Union. Former defence minister A.K. Antony had ordered an inquiry into the entire deal following which the case was subsequently transferred to the CBI.

During the course of investigations, the CBI had sent judicial requests to eight countries — Italy, the United Kingdom, British Virgin Island, Tunisia, Switzerland, Singapore, the UAE and Mauritius to get details of money trail of the kickbacks, which landed on the Indian shores allegedly in the form of off-set contracts to IDS Infotech in Chandigarh.

CBI had questioned Tyagi for the alleged irregularities in the Rs 3,600 crore copter deal over allegations that kickbacks to the tune of Rs 423 crore were paid for finalising the deal

CBI said that Tyagi influenced the decision to reduce the minimum operational ceiling from from 6,000 to 4,500 metres which brought AgustaWestland into the running for the deal when its choppers were not even qualified for submission of bids

In April 2016, a Milan Courts of Appeals had indicted Tyagi for receiving kickbacks. Others charged were former CEO and chairman of Finmeccanica Giuseppe Orsi and former CEO of AgustaWestland Bruno Spagnolini.

[ Agencies]

How to Stand Up to China? Mongolia’s Got a Playbook

Ulaanbaatar just welcomed the Dalai Lama, despite warnings from Beijing.

BY SERGEY RADCHENKO-DECEMBER 5, 2016 

The day before the Dalai Lama’s November 18 trip to Mongolia, Beijing issued a “strong demand” to its neighbor to cancel the visit of the “anti-Chinese separatist” or face (unstated) consequences. The Dalai Lama would be making his ninth visit to the sparsely populated nation of 3 million people, just to China’s north. Previous visits triggered retaliation from China, including the temporary closure of parts of the Sino-Mongolian border.

Just like in the past, Ulaanbaatar ignored the warnings. Befitting a nation where a majority of the population practices a form of Buddhism derived from Tibet, Mongolian officials described the visit as purely religious in nature. The Dalai Lama attracted crowds of thousands during his four-day trip. He visited monasteries, preached to admiring worshippers at a gigantic sports facility (built with Chinese aid), and made a star appearance at an international conference on “Buddhist science.”

But in a press conference, the Dalai Lama slammed China for interfering with his travels. He also announced that the next spiritual leader of Mongolia, the Jebtsundamba Khutuktu, considered the third most important lama, after the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, has been born. That controversial move is likely to anger Beijing, which has long sparred with the Dalai Lama over the right to appoint Buddhist reincarnations. After the Dalai Lama left on Nov. 23, Beijing indefinitely postponed bilateral meetings between the two nations, casting doubts over Ulaanbaatar’s hopes to obtain badly needed soft loans and economic aid.

President Xi Jinping has repeatedly spoke about the win-win nature of China’s rise. China’s outreach to its neighbors through its massive One Belt, One Road initiative promises regional economic growth, peace, and stability. And Beijing advertises equality and non-interference as hallmarks of its foreign policy: different, it says, from foreign policies of the old great powers. But Beijing’s efforts — and embarrassing inability — to force Mongolia’s compliance with its political demands expose a more sinister face of China’s friendship.

The history of China’s relations with Mongolia shows that raw pressure and intimidation can backfire in unexpected ways. One particularly relevant example concerns Beijing’s efforts to sway Mongolia following the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict. In 1959, following the outbreak of an anti-Chinese rebellion in Tibet, the then 23-year-old Dalai Lama fled to India. Beijing never forgave him for leaving, nor forgave India for giving him refuge. Relations between Beijing and New Delhi, until then hailed as a shining example of peaceful coexistence, tanked. Border tensions escalated, and in October 1962, the two neighbors went to war in the Himalayas.

Although China won the battle, the real challenge was to persuade the world that the Indians were the bad guys — a matter complicated by the reality that Beijing attacked India, not the other way around. The task fell to the founding father of Chinese diplomacy, Zhou Enlai, who spent weeks explaining China’s take on the conflict to disconcerted regional players like Indonesia and Sri Lanka. In December 1962, Zhou attempted to convince the Mongolians to endorse the Chinese point of view. The records of his dramatic encounter with then Mongolian Prime Minister Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal have recently been declassified by the Mongolian Foreign Ministry, and are now accessible online. They make for sober reading.

Tsedenbal, who came to China to sign a border treaty and to ask for economic aid, seemed surprised when Zhou unexpectedly raised the subject of India. Zhou recounted the highlights of the Sino-Indian border confrontation, and condemned the Indians for selling out to U.S. imperialism and for pursuing anti-Chinese policies. Tsedenbal reacted by saying meekly that he was sorry that China and India had quarreled. “I don’t understand what you mean by being sorry about the Sino-Indian conflict,” Zhou pressed. It was a matter of black and white: China was right, India was wrong. There could not be neutrality in the question. But Tsedenbal would not budge, telling Zhou that quarreling with India over an uninhibited strip of land in the Himalayas would only force the Indians to turn to the West, and that would not help China’s cause. Zhou nearly lost it: his face “twisted in anger,” noted the record-taker.

After this inauspicious beginning, the talks rapidly went downhill. Tsedenbal asked Zhou to help resolve the problem of Chinese workers in Mongolia. These workers had become rebellious and were declaring strikes; would Beijing tell them to behave, and send more workers, which Mongolia badly needed? In response, Zhou connected the workers problem and Mongolia’s unwillingness to endorse China’s political positions.

The two continued to argue to the point that, according the Mongolian record, Zhou literally jumped from his chair in anger. “You don’t need to get angry,” Tsedenbal pleaded with Zhou, “just speak calmly.” Zhou accused the prime minister of trying to “lecture” him. The then Mongolian Ambassador to China, Dondogiin Tsevegmid, present at the meeting, recalled that the conversation became so heated that he thought the two men “would come to blows.”

After this unpleasant encounter — the last time the two men saw each other — relations between China and Mongolia worsened. China curbed economic aid, and by 1964 had pulled out its workers from the country. Mongolia turned to the Soviet Union for protection, and the Russians sent an army, which they did not completely withdraw until after the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. Tsedenbal remained one of the bitterest critics of China. It was on his watch that the Dalai Lama first visited Mongolia, in June 1979.

What was behind Zhou’s embarrassingly ineffective performance? Yes, the Chinese Premier, generally known for his refinement and tact, was under pressure at home to comply with Mao Zedong’s radical leftist agenda. But his brutal effort to impose the Chinese viewpoint on a visiting leader — in this case a leader of a neighboring country, which, he knew all too well, depended on China’s largesse — had the opposite effect from what he probably intended. In the early 1960s, some in the Mongolian leadership advocated a softer line on China. But Beijing’s pressure made it politically impossible to defend closer ties with China: anyone doing so risked alienation as a sell-out and as an agent of Chinese influence.

The problem was that the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party could not tolerate opposing opinions. Mao had brutally crushed domestic dissent. He applied the same yardstick internationally: one was either with him or against him; there was no middle ground to accommodate cautious neutrality like Tsedenbal’s. At the surface, it was all about equality and non-interference. But just below, there was the expectation that others would kowtow to your demands, and anger and retribution when they refused.

Today’s China is vastly more powerful than China of the 1960s. But it is hardly more cognizant that bullying others into submission is not a useful method for winning friends, especially among neighboring countries, which are often suspicious of Beijing’s intentions. The Dalai Lama’s recent visit prompted soul-searching among Mongolian politicians, as the Vice Chairman of the Mongolian Parliament Tsend Nyamdorj, among others, publicly questioned the wisdom of taunting the dragon. But, like in the 1960s, Beijing’s heavy-handed threats make it politically difficult to defend closer ties with Beijing.

If China is ever to gain regional trust, it must convince others that its words about equality are more than just words, that it respects others’ right to dissenting opinions, and that it will not issue “strong demands” or apply an economic lever in an angry effort to force compliance. Zhou has long been a role model for Chinese diplomats. But they could learn a valuable lesson from the Dalai Lama. “The true hero,” he once said, “is one who conquers his own anger and hatred.”

BYAMBASUREN BYAMBA-OCHIR/AFP/Getty Images

Nobel laureates, leaders gather to push child slavery onto the global agenda

By Nita BhallaKailash Satyarthi, 2014 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, takes part in a panel during the Clinton Global Initiative's annual meeting in New York, September 27, 2015. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson/Files

 By Nita Bhalla-Sat Dec 10, 2016

NEW DELHI (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Seven-year-old Siyam stands speechless when asked what he would like to do when he grows up. He stares blankly as if being asked the most ridiculous of questions.

The boy, dressed in a faded red t-shirt with a picture of a superhero and tattered blue shorts, has never been to school and cannot see a world beyond the narrow, filthy lanes of the slum settlement in New Delhi where he has lived in all his life.

For as long as he can remember, he has stayed at home to look after his four younger siblings while his mother cleans homes and his father works on building sites for a daily wage.

"I want to go to school like the other children," he says eventually, standing outside his one-room home in the south Delhi slum. "I want to wear that nice blue uniform and learn."

The chances are slim for Siam.

He is one of 260 million children and adolescents out of school globally - and at risk of being forced into child labor or even slavery unless governments take action, say Nobel laureates and global leaders meeting in Delhi over the weekend.

The summit - which brings together figures such as Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands - aims to push child rights onto the global agenda, said organizer and Nobel laureate Kailash Satyarthi.

"It is a paradox that on one hand the world is progressing so fast. Never before have we been so wealthy. But on the other hand, children are facing hardships never faced before," Satyarthi told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

"Children are being enslaved, trafficked, they are working as child laborers, they are being used for prostitution. In this situation, we want to create a strong moral platform to raise a voice which cannot be ignored by governments, inter-governmental agencies and society in general."

A FAILURE OF HUMANITY

There are 168 million child laborers across the world, with more than half involved in hazardous work in sectors such as agriculture, mining, construction, manufacturing and services, says the International Labour Organization (IL).

Despite the fact that many people believe slavery no longer exists, the IL estimates that 5.5 million of these children are enslaved -- born into servitude, trafficked for sex work, or trapped in debt bondage or forced labor.

Most work in the farming sector - toiling in cotton, sugarcane and rice paddy fields where they are often exposed to pesticides and risk injury from sharp tools and heavy equipment.

Other are employed in manufacturing - confined to poorly lit, barely ventilated rooms in slums, embroidering clothes, weaving carpets, making matchlocks or even fireworks.

Children also work in restaurants and hotels, washing dishes and chopping vegetables, or in middle-class homes, cleaning and scrubbing floors.

Jose Ramos Horta, former East Timor president and one of 14 Nobel Peace Prize winners attending the two-day summit, said he hoped to influence governments, companies, academics, judges and public opinion and mobilizes action to end the scourge.

"In the 21st century the notion of a child being enslaved or being forced to work is just morally unacceptable and is an indictment of us all, of all of humanity," Ramos Horta told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

"This failure to end child labor is a failure of everyone, including those in richer countries, but we see that if we can tackle the root causes such as poverty and invest in education, for example, we can make a difference."

Ramas Horta highlighted approaches in Brazil, where poor families are given money if they send their daughters to school, and in India, where a midday meal is given to children as an incentive to their poor families to keep them in class.

"CRISIS IN THE MAKING"

Experts say education is key to ending child labor and slavery, but budgets for education across most of the world are too meager to keep children in school, especially when poverty prevails and families need to send their children to work.

Research from the Education Commission, a global organization, says developing countries should increase expenditure on education to nearly 6 percent of their Gross Domestic Product by 2030.

It also shows that by 2030 there will be 1.6 billion young people globally, yet on current trends, half of them - 800 million - will not receive a secondary level education.

This could be a "crisis in the making", both for the child who misses out and for the global economy, say experts.

Julia Gillard, former Australian prime minister and chair of the Global Partnership for Education said education would be a key topic at the summit.

"There is a dynamic relationship between slavery and education. Children who are in school are likely to have some protective factors around them, which means it is least likely that they will be trafficked or drawn into slavery style situations," said Gillard.

"I hope this weekend mobilizes a whole network behind the kind of advocacy we need on education."

(Reporting by Nita Bhalla. Editing by Ros Russell; Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women's rights, trafficking, corruption and climate change. Visit news.trust.org)

Australian court approves intersex child's surgery

A five-year-old Australian child born genetically male will grow up as a sterilised female after a court agreed to her having surgery.

7 December 2016

The child, known only as Carla, identifies as a girl but has no female reproductive organs, Family Court documents show.

The court approved a request by Carla's parents to surgically remove male gonads inside her body.

People with a combination of sex characteristics are called intersex.

'Stereotypically female' behaviour

When Carla turned five, her parents wanted to clarify if they needed court permission for the complex and irreversible surgery.

The Family Court heard Carla was born with female-appearing genitalia and exhibited "stereotypically female" behaviour, which included never wanting to be referred to as a male and a preference for "female toys, clothes and activities".

Court documents seen by the BBC show medical experts testified that surgery would remove the risk of Carla developing tumours and that she had no certainty of future fertility. The surgery should happen before puberty, they said.

---

What is intersex?

If you are born with a mix of male and female sexual characteristics, this means you have a disorder or difference of sex development (DSD), also known as being intersex.

There are numerous different conditions which come under this umbrella term. Taken together, they are more common than you might think - experts say perhaps one in 2,000 babies are born with some kind of sex development difference.

These conditions occur when the reproductive organs and genitals do not develop as expected.

As a result, you might have female sex chromosomes but your reproductive organs and genitals are male - or the opposite way round. Or you may have a mixture of male and female organs and genitals, or some that are neither clearly male nor female.

This occurs because of how your particular genes respond to the sex hormones in your body.

DSDs can be treated with hormone therapy, psychological support and - sometimes - surgery.

'At 12 I grew a beard and had a period'

---

The court ruled the parents did not need permission to arrange surgery. The ruling was made in January but it was not immediately made available to the public, The Australian newspaper said.

"I consider the proposed medical treatment 'therapeutic' as being necessary to appropriately and proportionately treat a genetic bodily malfunction that, untreated, poses real and not insubstantial risks to the child's physical and emotional health," Family Court Judge Colin Forrest said in making his ruling.

Campaigners question surgery

Some intersex campaigners have challenged the ethical basis of irreversible surgery, arguing that gender identity is complex.

One advocate, Morgan Carpenter, told the BBC that children should decide their identity for themselves when they are older.

"Gender assignment is always appropriate," he said. "What is not appropriate is surgically enforced gender assignment."

Mr Carpenter said he believed medical and legal professionals often wrongly approached variations in sex development as disorders in need of correction.

"We need clinicians to consult the community to develop non-surgical options," he said.

---

Some terms used to discuss gender identity

• Intersex: Applies to a person with a combination of sex characteristics - chromosomes, genitals or reproductive organs - neither solely male nor female.
• Non-binary: Applies to a person who does not identify as "male" or "female".
• Genderqueer: Similar to non-binary, sometimes shortened to "queer", an ambiguous word that can also be used to describe a person's sexual orientation, eg lesbian, gay or bisexual.
• Transgender: Applies to a person whose gender is different from their "assigned" sex at birth, often shortened to "trans".

SRI LANKA: UNCAT Committee recommends the Government appoint independent investigating body to inquire into torture

By Basil Fernando-December 9, 2016

Share |

United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT Committee) has published its concluding observations after considering the 5^th Periodic Report of Sri Lanka. A high level delegation from Sri Lanka met the members of the CAT Committee on 15^th and 16^thNovember 2016. The most comprehensive set of recommendations made by the CAT Committee on Sri Lanka is contained in the present report. The Committee makes recommendations to the Government on almost all aspects of the system of administration of justice in Sri Lanka that the Committee finds to have serious defects.

The Committee had come to the conclusion that torture is “a common practice carried out in relation to regular criminal investigations in a large majority of cases by the Criminal Investigations Department of the police”, regardless of the nature of suspected offences.

The Committee has made the following recommendations regarding arrest and detention of suspects:

• “…Make the necessary legislative amendments requiring the police to
  obtain an arrest warrant issued by a judicial authority in order to conduct an arrest, except in cases of flagrante delicto;
• Ensure that detained persons are promptly brought before a judge
  within the time limit established by law, which should not go beyond 48 hours;
• Ensure that arresting officers register the exact date, time, ground for
  the detention and place of arrest of all detained persons. The State party should ensure that compliance with the detention registration system is closely monitored and penalize any officers who fail to adhere to it or to ensure that their subordinates do so;
• Establish effective prosecutorial oversight over the police' actions during
  investigation and improve criminal investigation methods to end practices whereby statements obtained during police interrogation are relied on as the central element of proof in criminal prosecutions;
• Remind judges of their duty, whenever they have a reason to believe that
  a person appearing before them may have been subjected to torture or duress, to actively ask the detainees about their treatment during detention and request a forensic examination. The competent authorities should hold responsible those persons whose duty is to apply the law, including judges who fail to respond appropriately to allegations of torture raised during judicial proceedings;
• Install video surveillance in all places of custody where detainees may be
  present, except in cases where detainees' right to privacy or to confidential communication with their lawyer or doctor may be violated. Such recordings should be kept in secure facilities and be made available to investigators, detainees and lawyers;
• Encourage the application of non-custodial measures as an alternative to
  pre-trial detention. …”

Effective investigation by independent body

The Committee has urged Sri Lanka to ensure that all allegations of unlawful detention, torture, and sexual violence by security officers are promptly, impartially, and effectively investigated by an independent body. The Committee urged Sri Lanka to publish a full list of all Gazetted Detention Centers, close down any unofficial ones still in existence, and ensure that no one is detained in unofficial detention facilities as this practice is per se a breach of convention.

This recommendation of the Committee, on establishment of an independent body to investigate allegations of unlawful detention, torture, and sexual violence, is of great importance in the context of Sri Lanka. The situation that prevails at the moment is that most of the complaints of such violations are not being investigated. Often, it is the Assistant Superintendents of the Police (ASPs) who receives the complaints because at the local police stations where such acts are committed, it is almost impossible to register a complaint. The Assistant Superintendents of Police, in most of the instances, attempt to bring about compromises with the final aim of exonerating the officers against whom such complaints are made. In the light of the CAT Act No. 22 of 1984, acts of torture constitute a grave offence in Sri Lanka. However, this grave offence is not investigated as a crime in most instances. The senior police officers treat allegations against their subordinates as a nuisance. The unwritten rule that is almost universally practiced in Sri Lanka is that no criminal investigation can be conducted without torture and ill-treatment.

Therefore, the ASPs, and even those who are of higher ranks, are fully aware that torture takes place routinely and they treat it most of the time as a necessary institutional practice. When the pressures are brought on such high-ranking police officers to investigate torture, what they often do is to create a show of taking some action by such acts as transfer of some policemen temporarily, but virtually transform the entire investigation into a farce. The problem that needs to be dealt with, in ensuring a proper investigation, is to take such investigations out of the hands of such high-ranking police officers. This could be done only if an independent investigating body is available. However, all the governments in the recent past, including the present government, have been determined not to allow the creation of an independent body for the investigation against the police or other security officers. Thus, there will be a great conflict between the Committee’s recommendation for the creation of an independent body for investigations and the government’s determination not to create such an independent body.

If the CAT Committee recommendations are to yield any positive result it will depend primarily on the appointment of an independent body to investigate torture and ill-treatment and also issues like unlawful detention and sexual abuse. On the other hand, this will most likely not happen. How are we to resolve this conflict between a dire need for investigations into illegal acts committed by the police and the non-availability of an independent and credible investigating authority to investigate such acts? This will mostly depend on how much effort can be generated by the civil society to pressurize the government to appoint such an independent investigative authority.

However, the problem is that even the civil society organizations have not yet taken the issue of prosecuting offences relating to torture and other abuses of human rights seriously. It is only a few organizations and individuals who have dedicated themselves earnestly to document the acts of torture and the failures of the State to prosecute such offences. If there is to be a successful outcome, all major civil society organizations, such as the Organization for a fair society - “Sadharana Samjayak Sandhaha Vyaparaya” and all other such organizations should begin to highlight the need for such an independent authority. Much will depend also on the kind of media interest that can be generated in pursuing the implementation of recommendations made by the CAT Committee.

Concerns on Sisira Mendis

The Committee has also made some serious observations on the participation of Mr. Sisira Mendis, the Deputy Inspector General of the Criminal Investigations Department, as a member of the Sri Lankan delegation that participated at the 5^th Session of the CAT Committee on Sri Lanka.

The Committee has observed as follows:

“… Bearing in mind the findings of the OISL that the Sri Lankan security forces committed widespread or systematic torture, enforced disappearances, and other serious human rights violations during and in the aftermath of the internal conflict, the Committee is seriously concerned at the failure of the State party to carry out an institutional reform of the security sector. In this regard, the Committee was alarmed by the presence of the Chief of National Intelligence, Sisira Mendis, as part of the Sri Lankan delegation, since he was the Deputy Inspector General of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) from March 2008 to June 2009. The Committee observed that Mr. Mendis is named in the OISL Report, which notes that the CID's "4^th Floor" facility at police headquarters in Colombo was known as a notorious site of torture. The OISL report also recounts allegations of widespread torture, including sexual violence, perpetrated against individuals detained at Manik Farm camp and elsewhere in the aftermath of the conflict by personnel of the CID and the Terrorism Investigation Department (TID) over which Mr. Mendis also allegedly exercised supervisory authority until June 2009. In this connection, the Committee deeply regrets that neither Mr. Mendis nor any other member of the delegation provided information in response to the many specific questions raised by the Committee on this subject during the dialogue with the State party and in its written additional information provided to the Committee….”

U.N. urges Sri Lanka to probe ongoing torture, war crimes

Dec 09, 2016

A U.N. rights watchdog called on Sri Lanka on Wednesday to investigate "routine torture" of detainees by security forces and rebuked its government for failing to prosecute war crimes committed during the country's 26-year civil war.

The Sri Lankan military finally vanquished the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelan guerrillas in 2009. The United Nations and rights activists have accused the military of killing thousands of civilians, mostly Tamils, during the final weeks of the war and have demanded reforms and redress.

In a report, the United Nations Committee against Torture cited continuing reports of abductions of people disappearing into "white vans", deaths in custody, poor conditions of detention and the use of forced confessions in court.

"We wanted to make it clear that the present is a problem as well (as the past)," committee member Felice Gaer told a news briefing in Geneva.

In Colombo, the government of President Maithripala Sirisena said it had a tough policy on banning any mistreatment.

"We have a zero tolerance policy for torture and any kind of human rights violations. That’s the new government policy and assurance that has been given to all Sri Lankans and international organizations," Ranga Kalansooriya, director general of the government information department, told Reuters.

"Government is taking every possible step to adhere to this policy and taking steps to adopting legal and policy measures,” Kalansooriya said.

But the panel of 10 independent experts voiced alarm that a member of the government delegation sent to Geneva was suspected of holding "command responsibility" over the most notorious Colombo center for abuse in the last two years of the conflict.

The recommendations cited "consistent reports" from national and U.N. sources that torture remains common in regular criminal investigations in the South Asian island country.

The panel urged Sri Lanka to identify and prosecute perpetrators of "emblematic cases" from the conflict, including the murders in 2006 of the "Trincomalee Five" students, all Tamils, on a beach and 17 local staff members - 16 of them Tamils - of the French charity Action Against Hunger.

Gaer, asked about those cases, said: "What we saw was that there had been promises but that there weren't investigations, that the investigations weren't moving forward.

"We didn't see evidence that the government is moving on the accountability issues either, the truth commission issues that it promised it would institute," she said.

The Tamil Tigers were also accused of widespread wartime abuses, such as using child soldiers and targeting civilians with suicide bombers.

- http://www.reuters.com-

Human Rights in 2016: Aspiring for more

HUMAN RIGHTS, ISSUES, POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE

RAISA WICKREMATUNGE on 12/09/2016

On January 8, 2015, President Maithripala Sirisena took office, making ambitious promises of good governance, transparency and openness.

It was hoped his surprise victory would change the way Sri Lanka tackled rights issues, particularly as the country began its transitional justice process.

Human Rights in 2016.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

SRI LANKA’S UNITY REGIME FACES RENEWED STRIFE

The difference, Cartoon by Namal Amarasingh.

09/12/2016

ECONOMYNEXT – Intellectuals who propelled President Maithripala Sirisena to power has stepped up a campaign against his “unity government” accusing it of going back on “good governance” pledges two years ago.

Professor Sarath Wijesuriya, a key figure behind Sirisena’s success at the January 2015 election, issued a charge sheet against his government and accused it of protecting corrupt politicians of the former regime.

Wijesuriya who heads a civil society organisation founded by the late monk Maduluwawe Sobitha, said it was clear to them that members of the current government were protecting politicians of the former regime.

He said the highly publicised telephone conversation between Law and Order Minister Sagala Ratnayaka and police chief Pujith Jayasundara recently demonstrated the extent to which the law was being subverted.

“It was revealed to the entire world that the government is undermining the criminal justice system. It is not enforcing the law fairly and it is protecting cronies. We condemn it.

“Minister Sagala Ratnayaka has seriously undermined the people’s faith in the rule of law. The president must take immediate action against this,” he said.

He also listed the failure of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to take action against those responsible for the massacre of 27 prisoners at the Welikada jail in November 2012 during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime.

It is understood that senior members of the police and the defence ministry are implicated in a cold blooded execution of prisoners, including three inmates who were key witnesses in a murder linked a theft of treasures from a temple.

By killing the three inmates, the eye witnesses to th case were eliminated and thereby clearing those who were behind a spate of robberies, including the theft of swords from the national museum.

While good governance activists step up pressure on President Sirisena, there was fireworks at Tuesday’s cabinet meeting, according to official sources.

Minister Sagala Ratnayaka was the subject of anger with at least two ministers using unprintable words to slam their cabinet colleague.

President Sirisena has been asked to take decisive action against Ratnayaka, but that would mean a head on confrontation with Prime Minister Wickremesinghe who is seen as the guardian angel of the Law and Order minister.

Wickremesinghe has already objected to the Constitutional Council examining the controversial telephone call between Ratnayaka and IGP Jayasundara.

Rethink your rep in parliament

2016-12-09

MPs are usually invited to weddings in their constituencies. They attend funerals as well. The proposed allowance is to be used for giving wedding gifts and making donations for funerals, Prime Minister told Parliament on Monday 28 November proposing an allowance of Rs.100,000 per month for Parliamentarians. 
He stressed that this allowance was not an increase on their take home pay. But this would help the people in their constituencies.

It is not only MPs who are invited to weddings and have to attend funerals in the area. Even Provincial Council Members and elected LG body representatives are invited for weddings and attend funerals. So do school principals and teachers. Even Divisional Secretaries and other provincial and local public officers go through the same cultural practices. On the same argument put forward by the PM, why not pay these public officials also the allowance of Rs.100,000? In fact their monthly income and privileges are far less than that of a MP and they deserve such “top ups” more.
That said, let me now clearly say, MPs are not elected for any of it. Nor are they elected to Parliament under coercion or threat by the people. They are elected only because they step forward voluntarily to “work for the good of the people and the country” as they keep saying. Over the past decades, they get elected on the millions they spend to convince the voter they are capable of representing the people best. Does such “volunteerism” require tax payers’ money to attend parliament? Their promise to attend Parliament on the strength of big money spent lavishly from where ever they get those bags full?

These MPs are not voted to Parliament to attend weddings and funerals. If they wish to attend weddings and funerals, that then is their private decision to do so, like all other citizens do. They are also not elected to declare open buildings, bridges and cemeteries. They are not elected to dole out jobs and contracts. Nor are they elected to supervise projects even if decided by a ministry and funded by the government. They are not elected to fund local projects with public money. These are all work outside the responsibility of an elected Member of Parliament. Or even that of the appointed PM and the elected President.

This society, especially the larger Sinhala component of this Sri Lankan society carries an awfully distorted image of elected representation as their “ideal” representatives. That miserably vulgarized and accepted role of a MP is what the voter seeks for in crossing their “preference” on the ballot paper. It leaves out politics and policy. It leaves out the necessity of a national development programme discussed at length. Instead it includes many other personal qualifications to be ticked off for suitability. Family connections that extend up to caste affiliations, religion, language, village and provincial proximity are common factors that decide “preference votes”. Thus all major political parties pick candidates to fit into all those common qualifications. That then brings in other competitive advantages of a candidate for “preference”. His or her money and his or her public relations, counted on the easy availability for personal and private events of the voter and easy accessibility to get personal and family wants attended to become important in deciding the preference vote.
That is why we see election hoardings and full page advertisements of candidates carrying children, smiling with the elderly and waving at voters. Why posters come up with crude slogans trying to tell the voter they stand with the people, respect people, serve people and the lot, that’s all rot. Most created through professional advertising experts who help sell consumer products.

All of it runs counter to what an MP is elected for. 
Elections in a democracy are not held to vote for elected representatives to waste money and time on individual voter needs. Elections are held to “elect representatives” of the people. Elect representatives as the whole citizenry in millions cannot sit as a Parliament for direct participation in governance as in ancient Athens.
That being the concept of democracy with elected representation, we keep forgetting our democratic governance structure is three tiered. Powers are adequately demarcated into parliament, provincial councils and LG bodies with representatives elected accordingly. 
For the provinces we elect Provincial Councils and for urban and rural areas we have local government bodies elected to take care of local issues. With the 13 Amendment, the responsibility of planning development for the provinces and their implementation was taken away from the elected Parliament and was given over to elected PCs. Parliament was left with everything national including security and all things related to foreign relations. 
Thus with 13A we should have reduced elected representation to Parliament by at least half. But we did not even discuss that necessity.
India has a similarly structured governance system. Thus in a State like Haryana with 21 districts and a population of 22 million that’s almost equal to Sri Lanka, the State assembly is made up of 90 elected MLAs. All provincial issues including development, law and order and local administration is the responsibility of the elected  Haryana State legislative assembly. People of Haryana therefore don’t need a large number of MPs in the Lok Sabha to take care of their national interests. The 22 million Haryana population elects only 10 MPs to the Lok Sabha that has 530 elected MPs out of 552 to represent a population of 1.3 billion. This in contrast to our 225 MPs for our population that is only 1.6% of the Indian polity.

Our Parliament thus suffers from “elephantitis”. We have given too much importance and too large prominence to MPs and allowed powers outside the mandate they are elected upon. Though the constitution retains overlapping powers, politically and ethically they don’t have a right to interfere in any of the responsibilities given over to the PCs and LG bodies. Once elected to parliament, the legislature, MPs are held responsible for governing the country and not run an electorate or a district. They should not be allowed to get involved in district and local development activities the PCs and LG bodies have to be held responsible for. The whole argument that MPs have to travel around to take regular stock of “development” is thus wholly illogical, unnecessary and unwanted too.
As such, it is time people start asking why they should fund MPs for responsibilities they are not voted in for. Today the public cost of maintaining an MP over a period of one month totals around Rs. 170,000 rupees at a minimum that includes a salary of 54,285, a peculiar duality of fuel and transport allowances, entertainment, mobile and fixed line phone allowances and an allowance of Rs.5,00 for Parliament sittings plus an allowance for select committee sittings as well. Added are other perks and privileges like heavily subsidised meals in parliament, a Rs.200,000 health insurance, a 05 member personal staff and office equipment funded by public money and a duty free vehicle, the permit of which is said to be over 20 million in the market as at present.

It is on top of all that the PM is promising another addition, a gift and donation allowance of Rs.100,000 and also to increase the allowance for parliamentary sitting to Rs.2,500. At a minimum the Parliament sits 08 days every month and this allowance would then total Rs.20,000 per month. This money the public pays becomes a horrendous total when there are 47 cabinet ministers, 20 State Ministers and 25 deputies out of 225 in parliament.
We do know the quality of these MPs when they participate in parliamentary debates and discussions. Of course it was we who elected them. It is far below what late Madam Bandaranaike said almost three decades ago in 1989 that MPs should remember schoolchildren too are in the public gallery, when they participate in debates. 
MPs have to be decent and honourable even if they are not intellectual debaters, is what she meant. The present intolerable was apart, how absurd it is to pay allowances for parliamentary sittings, when it is they who wanted to go to Parliament to represent the people? 

How ethical is it for MPs to keep increasing their allowances and perks for what they are not expected to get involved in? They never asked the people how much they would be paid, for the work they would have to attend to, when they canvassed for votes.
It is therefore time for voters to re define who their MPs should be. Understand as legislators MPs don’t have to be paid for what they should not get involved in. In short, those elected to Parliament should not be allowed to decide what they do and how much they should pay themselves. It is people who elect them and people whose money is spent on them, who should decide their worth.