Tamil MP’s family awaits justice but hopes fad

Five people accused of killing Nadaraja Raviraj were cleared of the charges late last year; family to file appeal on Tuesday

Meera Srinivasan

-JANUARY 10, 2017

 

It was the Christmas weekend last year. Praviinaa Raviraj woke up and looked at the newspapers. ‘All accused released’, the front-page headlines screamed.

Beneath was a photograph of her father Nadarajah Raviraj — a Tamil legislator killed in 2006 — alongside that of three naval intelligence officers, celebrating with their families, following their acquittal in the case. “It just didn’t feel right,” the 25-year old said.

The day before, a Sri Lankan court had cleared five men, including the three Navy officers, who were accused of assassinating Nadaraja Raviraj and his bodyguard on a busy thoroughfare in Colombo in November 2006. An all-Sinhalese jury said eyewitness testimony identifying the suspects was “insufficient”.

Fear and distrust

For ten years, not once did Raviraj’s family think about pursuing legal action against those who killed him. “What we had was fear, and what we did not have was trust,” his wife Sasikala Raviraj said. The country’s long civil war was fast approaching its final and most brutal phase. Away from the battlefields, another dirty war was being waged by elements of the state using surveillance, ‘white van’ abductions and targeted killings.

“I saw no point in raising the issue. I preferred to lead a quiet life,” Ms. Raviraj said. A mathematics teacher at a leading Colombo school, she focussed on the education of her children. While Praviinaa studied law, her brother chose medicine. Ms. Raviraj decided not to move out of their home, less than 200 m from where her husband was gunned down.

First media interview

Well-nourished creepers adorned the short passage to their apartment. Seated in her living room, mildly lit and cosy, Ms. Raviraj spoke to The Hindu at length, her first media interview in the 10 years since her husband’s death. “Hope you don’t mind the smell of fried fish,” she thoughtfully said, settling down. At one corner was a picture of Raviraj, a bearded man with a beaming smile.

It was not an easy shift for the family — from quietly trying to come to terms with their tragedy, to encountering a sudden promise of justice, nearly a decade later.

After defecting from the Rajapaksa government, Maithripala Sirisena and his backers campaigned hard on a platform of good governance to win the January 2015 polls. They promised to reopen long-pending cases and ensure justice is served. “I trusted him... [and] voted for him,” Ms. Raviraj said.

When the poll results were out, Praviinaa Raviraj made a collage with photos of her father, well known editor Lasantha Wickrematunge and rugby star Wasim Thajudeen, who were all murdered between 2006 and 2012, when Mr. Rajapaksa was in power. “I felt there was finally some hope for justice in all these cases. But now after the judgment, when I see people believed to be involved in my father’s death walking freely, I feel back-stabbed.”

Few have doubts about who killed Mr. Raviraj. “You just walk down the road and ask common people, they will tell you,” said his wife, in a matter-of-fact way. During investigation, Sri Lanka’s CID and Attorney-General’s Department gave evidence citing the State Intelligence Service’s involvement in the murder. A former police constable who turned state witness claimed that former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa paid renegade LTTE commander Karuna Amman — who was later Minister in Rajapaksa’s government — a substantial sum for the murder.

Raviraj’s murder was not totally unexpected. Following his legal practice and through his years as a Tamil National Alliance (TNA) parliamentarian, Mr. Raviraj’s “peace politics”, which engaged the majority Sinhalese on the Tamils’ perspective, made those in power uneasy. He would take to national television, speaking in broken Sinhala with little inhibition and reaching out to the majority community in their own language, winning admirers among them. “He did not know fear,” his daughter recalls. He was used to frequent telephone threats, she says.

A week before the murder, Ms. Raviraj received a call. She vividly remembers the voice at the other end asking: “Are you ready to wear a white sari? Warn your husband.” She immediately called her children to her room, showed them a diary with some phone numbers and said: “If anything happens to appa [father] or me, reach out to these people.”

On the morning of November 10, 2006, Praviinaa was sitting in her grade ten classroom when the physical education teacher walked in and asked the class teacher that she be excused. Praviinaa was taken to the principal’s room. “I saw the principal standing near the phone, her palm covering her mouth. I knew something was terribly wrong.”

In the 10 years that followed, Praviinaa spoke to few friends about her father. “I did not want anyone’s sympathy. Even during the funeral, I saw my mother cry just once; she was so strong. I suppose I drew from her strength,” she said. Breaking into a chuckle, Praviinaa said: “We don’t talk like this in this house,” turning to her mother who looked surprised. Her younger brother seldom speaks of what happened.

After returning to Sri Lanka from the U.K. as a law graduate, Praviinaa has been reluctant to take up legal practice. “I don’t want to be someone practising black letter law without any ethics,” she says. The political environment gave her little confidence in the legal system, prompting her to take up marketing.

Deep disappointment

On Tuesday (January 10), Ms. Raviraj’s lawyer will appeal against the Colombo High Court’s order. “Not because I have high expectations of my husband’s murderers being brought to justice. But it is to express our deep disappointment at the judgment,” Ms. Raviraj said, adding that the government need not have opened the case if it was not committed to a just outcome. “Why did they?” she asked, raising her voice.

Echoing her disillusionment and anger, Praviinaa said: “If you do take it up, do something right about it... not having him around to see me graduate, or to pick me up late from a party all these years... it feels terrible.”

DRONE JOURNALISM IN SRI LANKA: ETHICS, REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES

10/01/2017

The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) more commonly referred to as drones for commercial and private use has grown exponentially recently, and especially as restrictions around airspace have been relaxed after the end of the war. The Ministry is aware of footage taken by drones, by citizens as well as tourists visiting Sri Lanka, widely available across social media as online video platforms. We recognise that many events today in their promotional material or live coverage feature the use of drones, and we also note their use in health applications,precision agriculture practices (smart farming), the coverage of public rallies, the aftermath of natural disasters, around disaster risk reduction, sporting events and private functions like weddings and parties.

Given the increasing availability of high-end consumer drones in Sri Lanka, the manufacture of sophisticated drones within the countryand with their purchase price dropping, the Media Ministry expects their use in commercial and recreational purposes, including in the field of journalism,to keepgrow rapidly.Accordingly, the Media Ministry fully supports the use of drones by journalists and media personnel in pursuit of their professional news gathering operations and coverage of events, places and processes. However, given a rapidincrease in usage and the evolving nature of drone technology, the Ministry’s primary responsibility is to ensure usage of drones for journalism is in compliance with existing rules and regulations, as well as conducted in a manner that is, above all else, safe, ethical and respects the privacy of citizens.

In this respect, media reports over recent months, from coverage around the exhumation of slain journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge’s body in Colombo to the coverage of the unrest in Hambantota recently, have focussed on the use of drones by media organisations and raised questions around regulations, ethics and professionalism.

The Media Ministry seeks to stress that the use of drones for journalism in Sri Lanka must be, at all times, in compliance with the regulations issued by the Civil Aviation Authority of Sri Lanka (CAASL) in February 2016, CA-IS-2016-GEN-001 titled ‘Requirements for Operation of Pilotless Aircraft (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles/Remotely Piloted Aircraft)’, available freely on its website. Those who fly drones for purposes of journalism need to read these regulations in full and abide by them.

Key points include,

•    A pilotless aircraft of gross mass of more than 25 kg shall not be operated unless explicit approval from Director General of Civil Aviation has been obtained.
•    A pilotless aircraft with a gross mass of between 1 kg and 25 kg may be operated under the authority of the Director General of Civil Aviation, an approved person or approved organization.
•    A pilotless aircraft with a gross mass of less than 1 kg may be operated without approval from the Director General of Civil Aviation if it is operated for leisure or education purposes at a private premise with the consent of the property owner or at public places which are clearly identified for the purpose, with due regard to safety of persons and property.
•    An identification stamp on a pilotless aircraft shall indicate its identification number, owner’s national identity card number and his/her contact details.
•    Pilotless aircraft of any weight category shall not be operated for hire or reward, unless special approval is obtained from the Director General of Civil Aviation in writing after payment of the specified fee on case by case basis.
•    A pilotless aircraft of any weight category shall not be operated unless its method of propulsion, source of power and means of controls are checked and verified for normal operations prior to flight ensuring safe operations without endangering persons or property.
•    A pilotless aircraft shall not be operated by any person if he or she;
1.    is not familiar with operations and manoeuvring of the aircraft safely.
2.    is not in good physical and mental health condition; and,
3.    is under the influence of alcohol or psychoactive substance; and,
4.    does not have sound sense of social responsibility.
•    A pilotless aircraft shall not be operated on or within 5 miles of boundary of an airport and must not be operated at a height of more than 400 feet above ground level unless otherwise approved by Director General of Civil Aviation
•    Unless otherwise authorized by the Director General of Civil Aviation in writing, a pilotless aircraft shall not be operated in any part of Sri Lanka;
a.    on or over any movement area of an active aerodrome; or on or over any active runway strip area; or
b.    over assembly of persons or public gatherings; or
c.    over congested areas; or
d.    along or over roadway or railway; or
e.    below or above open electricity power lines; or
f.    within proximity to communication towers;
g.    national park, protected areas or security establishments without approval
•    A pilotless aircraft must not be operated;
a.    above any property unless explicit prior consent has been obtained from persons occupying that property or the property owner; and
b.    causing safety or security hazard to third person or property
•    Nothing shall be dropped nor shall any banner be displayed in a pilotless aircraft in flight without approval from the Director General of Civil Aviation.
•    A person who operates a pilotless aircraft must at all times, a. maintain visual line of sight with the aircraft; and b. be able to see the surrounding airspace in which the aircraft is operating; and c. maintain the aircraft below the cloud base.
•    Pilotless aircraft shall not be operated in a race or competition of any form, without special approval from Director General of Civil Aviation.
•    A pilotless of aircraft shall not be operated from dusk to dawn (night)

In particular, the CAASL’s point about keeping a drone within the pilot’s line of sight is important to underscore, with media reports around the incident in Hambantota involving the drone by a private TV station clearly flagging the distance between pilot and drone to be well beyond human vision.

The Media Ministry is keen to work with the Civil Aviation Authority and other relevant bodies in the near future to streamline these regulations and make it easier for accredited media organisations to obtain permission to fly drones. We will also work with the larger media community, including those who not formally part of any media institution and are keen to use drones for journalistic purposes in order to facilitate approval. We recognise that existing processes in place for the approval of drones can be cumbersome and will work with the CAASL to bothsimplify and hasten submission and approval procedures. The Media Ministry also intends to raise awareness of existing rules and regulations through material released to the public domain and also through workshops, presentations and structured interactions with relevant authorities, importers and manufacturers of drones, commercial industry and the media community.

In addition to existing CAASL regulations, the Media Ministry stresses the need to keep in mind existing ethical and professional guidelines. Overarching ethical guidelines flagged by the Editors Guild and in the Colombo Declaration on Media Freedom and Social Responsibility, amongst other industry guidelines, remain deeply relevant and applicable for drone journalism. In addition, the Ministry will work with relevant government authorities as well as key journalists and drone journalismexperts to formulate guidelines in line with international standards and norms applicable to Sri Lanka.

We request all those who fly drones to do so with the awareness that while they may be seen as toys, in their actual use and operation, they can lead to hurt, harm and litigation if inappropriately deployed. Respecting ethics, privacy and being mindful of the safety of those under and around the theatre of flight operations must be paramount.

We again remind all media personnel to read and comply with CAASL regulations noted in this press release and any associated material published on their website around the use of drones. Please get in touch with us for clarifications and also with any assistance you require in approaching the CAASL for drone operations in the pursuit of a professional media culture in Sri Lanka.
A.Hilmy Mohamed, Director Information,

For Director General of Government Information

Adventures in Print Journalism

Photo by REUTERS/Philip Brown

KADAPATHA on 01/10/2017

2016 was, among other things, a year conspicuous for illustrating the successes of several years of political rebranding, at least in the West. Over the past few years, Marine Le Pen, head of France’s right-wing National Front, ditched the neo-Nazi and homophobic rhetoric that her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, made famous, and is now a serious contender for the French Presidency.

She has rebranded her party by replacing the old symbols of skinhead hatred with a consistent ideology that draws from much of the language and many of the causes of her left-leaning opponents. Le Pen has managed to portray herself as a defender of rights for women and gays while painting Muslim immigrants as threats to these groups.

Presenting herself and her party as the protectors of Western freedoms, she makes it very clear that these liberties will be pulverized by the inflowing Muslim masses. Indeed, Le Pen stumps for increased welfare, but only for the “truly” French, and certainly not for freeloading immigrants. Political parties in the Netherlands and Denmark have followed her lead.

In the United States, white racism, older than the country itself, remade itself as the “Alt-Right,” whereby those who would be known as white supremacists and members of the Ku Klux Klan took off their hoods in favor of suits and ties. Followers of the Alt-Right aren’t racists but “race realists,” their speech not full of hatred but “common sense.”

The Alt-Right isn’t a new phenomenon, yet it has branded itself as one, and many Americans conceive of it as something slightly different from the nation’s centuries-old meat and potatoes racist movements.

The central lesson of rebranding is that, if one rewrites the terms and language associated with institutions, ideas, and even people, these rebranded subjects can seem new even if they are the same old organizations, philosophies, and dopes that behave in the same manner they always did. We, as citizens of the world, should be wary of any form of rebranding, be it political, economic, or social, as it has a startling propensity for trickery.

The Sri Lankan government has, for the past two years, undertaken its own rebranding campaign. Sirisena and Wickremesinghe have, they say, instituted good governance, helped spread racial, ethnic, and religious tolerance and acceptance, and made the government more transparent and open to the media.

The rhetoric, at least, is at first convincing: the post-Rajapakse years have seen a reduction in violence against journalists and the gradual opening of the press. The implementation of the Right to Information Act, the argument goes, will inaugurate a new era of political transparency, from which juicy drops of information will trickle down to a heretofore dehydrated media. The media, they say, will have the power to criticize the government’s corruption and incompetence, thus allowing the common citizen to glean a greater understanding of the machinations and bureaucracies of the political process.

What this argument fails to account for, however, is that there are few mainstream independent English media outlets in Sri Lanka that could fully capitalize on the relaxation of political censorship and increasing governmental transparency. The government owns several media institutions, while powerful political families control many of the ostensibly “independent” media outlets. This lack of a truly independent mainstream media means that, while explicit censorship is less prevalent, self-censorship remains rampant, making the conventional English media free in name only.

Editors, acting to maintain their positions, bar reporters from chasing controversial stories and outlaw the negative coverage of prominent politicians and business leaders. While I was doing research for a story on illegal logging in the highlands, a well-placed source revealed that much of the criminal activity could be traced to a wealthy Colombo businessman. This detail, however, was erased from the version that was published. Those who would reveal valuable information or voice criticisms of politicians and government decisions are thereby silenced, whether they are journalists or private citizens, as newspapers will not publish their views.

The effects of self-censorship are highly damaging and lead journalists to depend on those within the political apparatus for information, lest their stories be disallowed due to the inclusion of unacceptable sources. Meanwhile, depending on politicians for information is a dangerous game. Since when do they give unbiased assessments of their policies or actions? I recently sat down with a prominent Member of Parliament for a discussion on several policy initiatives he is undertaking, and, after giving the party line for half an hour, he requested that we speak off the record. He then proceeded to tell me that the programs he had spent the last thirty minutes praising were severely flawed and finally not implementable. What the public would read in the press, however, was his exhortation that the nation implement these important policies. The implementation of the Right to Information Act will hopefully lead to a more honest political class, but the extant culture of secrecy would have to be undone.

While some politicians will discuss their policies, giving only the positive side, almost every single parliamentarian I’ve spoken with refuses to disclose information that they think could be damaging.

I say this not to impugn the political class as a whole but to point to the fact politicians are effectively in the business of public relations. Admitting their own errors, incompetence, and corruption is antithetical to their prime job of maintaining a support base for reelection. You cannot get unbiased information from politicians.

That is why it is concerning that so many stories quoting only politicians or their spokespeople appear without input from those outside of government. The dependence on government officials for information allows politicians to dictate terms and control the public political discourse, while also making the media completely dependent on the government for information, which, as I’ve mentioned, is a loser’s game. The media are rendered impotent in this setup and become propagators of propaganda rather than watchdogs who hold the state to account.

This is not to say that there is nobody doing investigative journalism in Sri Lanka, but that too much of the media’s energy is concentrated in reporting on events and happenings without properly analyzing them. If you flip through the English-language papers, there are myriad reports of the latest auto accident or natural disaster. The stories are all the same: location, action, and number of dead and injured. While such reports do present news, they are mostly left unanalyzed. Instead of asking why there are so many motorbike and three-wheeler crashes, journalists simply report the events without digging below their surface.

This lack of analysis is not just a problem in Sri Lanka, as there is a global trend toward shorter articles with less analysis. We live in a Twitter-infested and attention-deficit-disorder afflicted world. There is less demand for long form, investigative pieces that truly educate and inform the public, rather than short pieces that concentrate on atomized happenings without weaving them into a broader narrative.

There’s also a high prevalence of stories consisting of political “he said, she saids,” whereby gossip and personal grudges eclipse important events and thereby become the news. Making politics into theater is never good and almost always favors the demagogues, as the Rajapakses and Trumps of the world know only too well.

That accidents and other instances of human suffering constitute news is understandable, however, as there is demand for stories about terrible occurrences. Just look at local and global media outlets after a terror attack or massive storm or earthquake. Horror sells papers. But the coverage of political gossip and infighting, I think, results both from the public’s demand and from the media’s relative inability to fully report on pressing, controversial issues. When you cannot truly report on ethnic tensions, the slow demilitarization of the north, and the reasons behind BIA’s runway closing, you are liable to write on less politically charged topics. Also, of course, gossip sells papers, further contributing to its inclusion.

The most successful rebrandings, as opposed to those mentioned above, create a new category that, though ancestrally related to the prior brand, is markedly different. So far, the government has failed in its mainstream media rebranding, as the same old patterns are cropping up, albeit without the constant threats and white vans.

Extremism on the rise: CBK

National Unity and Reconciliation Bureau Chairperson and former president Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga (centre) gestures at a media briefing yesterday flanked by National Unity and Reconciliation Bureau Director General M.S. Jayasinghe (left) and University Grants Commission Chairman Mohan De Silva - Pic by Upul Abayasekara

• ​Political interests 
• prevented new onstitution being adopted 
• Extremism growing 
• in the country 
• MR key figure in 
• spreading extremism 
• Justice Minister had 
• “no right” to reject task force report  

By Chathuri Dissanayake-Wednesday, 11 January 2017

The political interests of opposing parties prevented the country from adopting a new Constitution, former president Chandrika Kumaratunga said, claiming that previous attempts were botched by the United National Party for political gain.

“What Ranil Wickremesinghe rejected then is what he is trying to bring about now. He opposed the constitutional changes then as he was afraid that our party would come to power again,” claimed Kumaratunga, who is the Chairperson of the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR).

Drawing on her experience in attempting to introduce constitutional reforms during her time as President, she said it was political interests that caused the then Opposition of the United National Party led by Ranil Wickremesinghe to reject the proposed changes.

“Finally I took the lead in bringing them to power, making him Prime Minister. I made another person the President. They, including the leadership, now say that they should have supported the move then.”

Kumaratunga was also critical of the growing extremism in the country despite efforts to bring about reconciliation among communities. ONUR launched a number of activities to facilitate understanding among communities during Reconciliation Week, which is being held during the second week of January 2017 and was declared by the Government for the first time in the country’s history. Despite these efforts Kumaratunga said that extremism had once again arisen.

“Politicians are the ones who have given rise to racism throughout the country’s history for political gains. However, now even Buddhist monks are engaged in it. But it’s mostly used as a mechanism by politicians to gain votes,” she said.

Taking direct aim at her successor Mahinda Rajapaksa, she said that in the current political climate there was a former president engaged in spreading extremism. However, she praised President Maithripala Sirisena for never using racism for political gain.

Kumaratunga was also critical of the Justice Minister’s comments over the report by the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms. A recommendation to establish hybrid courts with the participation of foreign parties in addressing war crimes was made by the Consultation Task Force, which presented their report last week. The recommendation was met with much criticism from different quarters. The Justice Minister rejected the recommendations made saying that there was no need for such a mechanism.

She claimed that “he had no right to make such a statement” as Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe was part of the Cabinet which appointed the group.

“He was in that Cabinet, so if he didn’t agree he should have told them. So obviously he doesn’t believe in freedom. Civil society was given the task of consulting the public and telling the Government freely what they said,” Kumaratunga stated.

Kumaratunga was quick to establish the credibility of the task force which has come under scrutiny since the presentation of their report, highlighting that the group was made up of “representatives of some of the strongest Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) and professionals in the country.”

She explained that the consultation task force was appointed by the Cabinet to obtain the opinion of the public on several issues including constitutional changes, how the Government should deal with war crimes and missing persons.

However, she said the task force did not have the mandate to give recommendations.

“What was required from them was to obtain the opinion of the people on the nature of the solutions demanded by the public. They were not mandated with analysing the opinions and giving recommendations or solutions.”

Despite the technicality, the Government will consider the recommendations given “but are not bound to implement those recommendations” Kumaratunga pointed out.

“The Government will take the recommendations into consideration and implement those that can be implemented, and the others will be disregarded,” she said.

The Government will consider the stand of civil society, “have extensive discussions” and decide on a suitable system to address the issues at hand.

If a special court is appointed regarding war crimes, these opinions can be considered, she explained, adding that there was also a suggestion to bring in foreign observers. 

ONUR and UGC partner to promote reconciliation in universities

The Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) and the University Grants Commission (UGC) announced the commencement of a joint program focusing on promoting national unity and reconciliation through higher education, at a press conference held in Colombo yesterday with the patronage of Chairperson former president Chandrika Kumaratunga.

The program, which was launched to coincide with the first National Reconciliation Week, will cover selected state universities and established higher educational institutes across the country where a pilot program will be carried out for a period of one year to promote events and activities within the universities with the participation of academic, support staff and students to appreciate, respect and celebrate the diverse society that is Sri Lanka.

A course module will also be introduced through the University Grants Commission into the university system, which will cover thematic areas related to Reconciliation, Peace Building and Conflict Transformation.

SRI LANKA: The job of a judge is to do justice, regardless of nationality

by Basil Fernando-January 6, 2017

Concerns have been raised about the preliminary report of the Consultation Task Force (CTF), particularly about hybrid courts and foreign judges.

It should be remembered that this report and its recommendations have not been finalized. Additionally, at the very beginning of the report, the CTF write that they are not making extensive recommendations themselves, but that this is merely a collection of ideas from various people to whom they have listened.

This whole discussion that has created some controversies about hybrid courts should, I think, require a little bit of thinking.

First and foremost, this issue must be looked at from the point of view of law and justice. After all, the idea of the court is to mete out justice at the end. If it fails, then all this talk is worth nothing. A court can deliver justice only if its judges meet the requirements in terms of their experience, education and, above all, their integrity and their being commitment to justice and not to anything else. The motto should be: let the heavens fall, but justice will prevail.

If we can find such judges in Sri Lanka, let’s find them. There is no special requirement to bring anybody from outside. But if we can’t find them, or we can’t find enough of them here, then we should either bring them from somewhere else or we should not engage in the exercise at all, because there are only two types of courts: courts of justice, or kangaroo courts.

What we don’t want to have are kangaroo courts. That is what we have to avoid. In order to do that, we need to advertise the required qualities and get people from wherever. This is not about genes. This is not about colour or about what country you come from. A judge, acting in their professional capacity, has no nationality. A judge has nothing else but justice. That is why Lady Justice is blindfolded. Once you sit as a judge, you don’t belong to normal categories. It doesn’t matter whether you are Indian, Sri Lankan or from elsewhere. There are many courts all over the world where there are mixture of people. For example, in Hong Kong, as a matter of practice, you always have judges from developed jurisdictions working with Hong Kong judges in the Court of Final Appeal. The goal is to maintain quality.

What we should have is justice of a quality that no one can challenge it. It will not listen to governments, it will not fear any repercussions; it will just be justice. If justice cannot be done, the judges would say that they cannot do justice here, and that they cannot do something false.

We can again reach global standards. This is happening in many other fields. See how many engineers are in this country who are foreigners. Suppose you say that no engineers should come from abroad: what would happen to all their enterprises? See medical teams. This is happening all the time in every field.

Suppose we one day say that all foreigners are banned from participating in anything at all. What would become of us? In the world today, it is not like that anywhere. There is some absurdity in this whole discussion.

The second thing is that nothing is of greater value by being called ‘hybrid’. The mere fact that you add a foreign judge to a team of others does not make it a good court. The best example is where I used to work, in Cambodia, where there was an experiment with a so-called hybrid court. It was a complete failure.

The issue is the ensure quality. If the quality can be ensured by the talent we have, so much the better. 

Otherwise, open it up like any other employment opportunity and ensure that those people abide by quality.

If there is a fear that some foreigner may try to bring an agenda into this, it should be remembered that judges do no have agendas: judges do not have nationalities.

Many courts in the world have foreign judges. Many developing countries have in the past deliberately brought them in so as to raise their quality. Some of our judges, people from our system, are in other courts, such as in Fiji. There are so many of our judges there, including sitting judges. We have also sent prosecutors and judges to the International Court of Justice.

Sri Lankans have played their parts in other courts, and other people can also do the same thing here. The idea that any foreigner would be someone who is biased is, I think, a very false notion.

Of course, on the one hand there is the substantial issue, and on the other there is the political issue. Politically, the opposition tries to say that foreign judges will try to put our national heroes into jail, and other such allegations.

The government is then put in an embarrassing position, so they say they won’t have the judges. That’s a political debate, but these are not issues that politicians can decide purely on political terms. The judiciary is not something that should be decided on political terms.

The independence of the judiciary does not require that only local judges can sit at a court. Local and international does not apply. The reason for the blindfolded image is that they simply don’t have nationalities, their genes don’t matter, they go by certain qualities. This is the only profession of that type, where we don’t give any priority to anything but justice. Let the heavens fall, but justice must be done. They cannot say that they think in a particular way, that their ancestry guides them, or astrology or anything else.

In terms of the CTF objectives, it is essential to start with the issue of investigations. We cannot find the truth without investigations. Before we talk about judges, we should emphasize the need for proper and impartial investigations because, whenever a crime is reported, it is an absolute obligation to begin investigations immediately. The crimes reported include one of the most heinous crimes: enforced disappearances. People have already complained. The obligation of the government is to begin investigations. If the investigations bring out the truth, whether in favour or against the complaint, that determines what happens next. We should therefore concentrate all our efforts into that first step, which we simply cannot avoid: the issue of investigations.

This issue must be addressed step-by-step. Our experts, even those involved in transitional justice, look at books, but they don’t look at the contextual issue. What is missing here in this country? What is wrong? Not only regarding crimes related to the civil war, but in normal crimes? Our investigative system is in a serious crisis. In a normal murder or rape case, making a complaint doesn’t mean that there will be an investigation. Sometimes there are. In many cases, it doesn’t happen. There is something wrong in our basic criminal justice system. Making use of this larger issue, we should deal with our basic system. Correcting this is in everybody’s interest. If something happens to me today, it is in my interest that there is a system where a complaint can be made and where complaints will be investigated.

This is not a matter for speculation. We don’t speculate about crimes. We investigate crimes. It is a serious art and science.

Rather than borrowing some terms from elsewhere and putting it into a report, we should look at the local situation and see what is wrong with it. A critique should be made of the local situation. If someone is not happy with the local judiciary being able to do this job, make a proper critique of that and explain why.

Politicians may raise obstacles to foreign judges, but no question is being asked about what the people want. Would the people want justice or a farce? Some kind of bluff, followed by conviction or acquittal? We don’t want courts that are committed to convicting or acquitting people without due process. It should be according to justice. So do you want a court of justice, or some kind of bluff? This is a matter for the people, primarily, and if the people begin to demand this, all these parties will have to listen. Political parties should listen to the people. Here we have it the other way: we borrow our ideas from political parties. The whole nature of democracy is to get the people to say what they want to the political parties. That should not be turned the other way.

In the Sri Lankan mentality there is almost an inability to go beyond surface politics and into the realities of how things happen. Everything is just for the newspaper or the media, for talk, and not about how to get things done. Justice is done by people involved in justice. That is, investigators, prosecutors, judges; these people do justice. Politicians don’t do justice. In fact, fighting against injustices done by politicians was how the justice project came about. In England, you had to fight against the King, to the point that one of first heads of states to be killed was in England, in search of justice. Justice will never come from the hands of politicians alone.

If the whole country can only be run by politicians, then we don’t need any other kind of professions. We wouldn’t need accountants or doctors, only politicians.

People must be able to rely on justice institutions. That brings out the real question: Do we want anarchy to prevail in this country? Lawlessness? Or do we want the rule of law back? That is kind of issue that should be central issue in these reports. The core question should be: what is happening to the rule of law? Will this court, whichever court it is, be respected within the framework of the rule of law? Will they help to stabilize this country? Will they make it a country that is safe for everybody, where it is safe for people speak out and participate? Will that happen or will it just be people living in fear?

The greatest assault on the dignity of a victim or their family is to deny the truth of what happened to the victim. We can’t resolve that by any other means, including giving facilities, though that is indeed necessary. Nobody disagrees on the fact that infrastructure and other necessities should be provided. But that does not restore dignity to a person. If my brother was killed and I don’t know what happened, if he was arrested and then disappeared, I would suffer all my life with that idea, asking what happened. That would go to the very depth of my dignity.

Justice is more important to a nation than anything else, and that is what we are rapidly forgetting. We had that idea up until the 1978 Constitution. We believed that justice was fundamental. Without justice, we will not have a sense of dignity at all. Today, the whole nation suffers from the fact that we are unable to have a system of justice that we can look at and say: even if everything fails, if politicians fail, at least in the sacred vicinity of a court of justice, we get justice.

Is The Bar Responsible For Perpetuating Laws Delays?

By Hemantha Warnakulasuriya –January 10, 2017

Hemantha Warnakulasuriya PC

When I was invited by the OPA to deliver a lecture on “Laws Delays”, emphasizing on the Criminal Law, I reluctantly agreed as I felt that the seminars of symposiums have no effect in Sri Lanka except to make some noise and eat some refreshments and if it is a five star hotel, participate at the cocktails. Laws Delays and remedies if any, are forgotten or thrown into the dustbin. This happens in every sphere where seminars and symposiums are held for the edification of those who lecture so that in their resume they could include this. When you think of the history of the Bar Association, where I was involved from its inception how many seminars had been held on many important aspects and recommendations made I believe, you could fill a small room with the papers written by various experts. But nothing happens, nothing changes and we become active participants of Laws Delays which I now think is an utterly criminal act.

At this seminar, though I was requested by the convener of Committee to seriously address the issues concerning the Delays in the Criminal Law, I was determined to commit penance for the sins I committed in defeating the most progressive and precautious legislation which we knew as the Administrative Justice of Law which we all opposed. We were jubilant that we were able to defeat not only the Felix Dias’s Law and Felix Dias himself. Now I know, and am convinced that even if the Government of the day due to reasons other than the plight of the poor litigant, the Bar would oppose any such progressive legislation. I as one time Secretary and its Deputy President of the Bar Association are equally guilty of this crime. That is why the Judicial Services Commission by Circular to impose day-to-day proceedings in cases which have been postponed for a long period of time. Of course, this will not help the cause of Justice or the cause of the poor litigants but, the JSC, was I am told overwhelmed by the number of petitions they received from the public complaining of long delays.

At the seminar other speakers were former Supreme Court Judge Mr. Saleem Marsoof and Mr. Nihal Jayamanne PC. Mr. Jayamanne was one time President of the Bar Association. When Justice Marsoof was addressing the seminar, Mr. Jayamanne whispered to me and said that Mr. Marsoof is spreading on to the path where he has chosen about the delays in civil litigation. When Mr. Nihal Jayamanne spoke, I had nothing to add as all three of us agreed on many points and wanted radical changes in the law, if one is seriously interested in curbing the Laws Delays.

Mr. Nihal Jayamanne former President of the Bar Association and former Chairman of the Law Commission said that, legislations which will expedite the procedure and reduce the technicalities will always be opposed by the Bar. He told me as the Chairman of the Law Commission, they recommended far reaching amendments for the procedure which were never even discussed by the politicians, far from being implemented. So it is necessary for us to reflect back on the one man who seriously thought of bringing sweeping changes to the Civil and Criminal Procedure.

At that time Felix Dias Bandaranaike was the Minister of Justice. He was one of the most powerful Ministers in the Sirimavo Bandaranaike Cabinet and was hated by a certain section of the Legal Fraternity because they felt that he interfered with their  profession and was trying to introduce barefoot lawyers and control the fees of lawyers.  Dr.  Jayawardena said, “Where we think that any proposed action of any Government is against the democratic rights of the people, or it is prejudicial to our profession, the Bar will not hesitate not only to express its views promptly but, to take action which it may consider proper to oppose any undemocratic move or one detrimental to the interest of the profession”.

This has been the motto of our association since then.

I would like to ask the reader and litigants “What position should the Bar take when the Government in power takes action in the interest of the public and in the interest of litigants, to lessen their burden but, this action is detrimental to our profession?”  Sadly if the proposed legislation affects the profession and helps the litigants, the Bar would vehemently oppose it. Therefore, Felix Dias Bandaranaike, whom  in hindsight I consider  as one of the most intelligent, precocious , Ministers of Justice we had, who was ahead of his times, was painted as the devil that ought to be exorcised. He and his team comprising Dr. Nihal Jayawickrema, one of the most efficient and powerful Secretaries the Ministry of Justice ever had, were not only driven from political power, but were possibly punished by the political circus called the ‘Presidential Commission’.

What had he done to earn the wrath of the Bar? He, as the Minister of Justice, and a politician from the rural Dompe, had an obligation to the people who voted him to power. As the Minister of Justice he had to ease the burden of litigation and laws delays and he wanted to tackle the back log of cases. Most common men think that the administration of justice only serves the rich, and not the poor.

The SLFP vote base, the rural masses, genuinely complained about the Laws Delays. This was not something new. Sir John Kotelawala, felt that there was an urgent need for legal reform, for the laws of the country to suite the local situation, which was quite different to what we inherited from our colonial masters. He appointed two Commissions, Justice Nagalingam to inquire into delays in the Civil Court and Justice Gratian to discuss the delays in Criminal Courts. It was Justice Gratian who was the first to recommend the abolition of the non-summary proceedings. That was his main recommendation.

Similarly, Justice Nagalingam made far reaching recommendations for radical reforms of the Civil Procedure Code. This Commission collected material from the entire island and was a compendium of the Reasons for Delays, and in fact I am told that the Nagalingam Commission had even drafted the Civil Procedure Code to be introduced in place of the present Civil Procedure Code.

What happened then? There was no Bar Association then. The Advocates had their separate organization called the ‘Bar Council’, and the Proctors had the ‘Law Society’. I was also told that when it came to adoption of these reports, the Bar Council, headed by the Wickremanayake’s totally opposed the recommendations of the Nagalingam Commission. The Wickremanayake’s together with the Bar Council, opposed the recommendations and a similar fate fell upon Justice Gratian’s Criminal Procedure Reforms Commission.

Read More

Govt’s proposed counter-terrorism policy faces storm of criticism 

Journalist J. S Tissanayagam was detained by the TID, indicted on charges of inciting communal disharmony and convicted and sentenced to 20 years RI, all under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He was subsequently granted a presidential pardon

On 7 March 2008, when journalist J. S. Tissanayagam walked into the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) office in Colombo to 

  

 By Dharisha Bastians -Friday, 11 November 2016

inquire about an arrested colleague, he was detained for six months without charge, indicted on ‘inciting communal disharmony’ for writing articles alleging that the armed forces had committed war crimes, and convicted by the Colombo High Court and sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment.

Govt s proposed counter-terrorism policy faces storm of criticism.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Tribute to Justice Weeramantry: A world free of war, hate and prejudice

Featured image courtesy Justitia

LUKMAN HAREES on 01/10/2017

The sad demise of Sri Lankabhimanya Justice C. G. Weeramantry, one of the world’s eminent jurists and a legal scholar par excellence at the age of 90 on January 5 leaves a void in the legal fraternity that is difficult to fill. He left behind a legacy with a distinct mark of identity which was his own. An internationalist in the true sense of the word,  Justice Weeramantry made a lasting contribution in the field of international judicial creativity. As a  Judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and later as its Vice-President, he stood out as the conscience of the Court. Going further, as the President of the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms, an author, an eminent legal scholar in international law and as an academic including being an Emeritus Professor at Monash University and a visiting Professor at Harvard University, his services rose above the institution he was associated with.

In this context, although history will record Justice Weeramantry’s  contribution to legal literature, domestic as well as international, as both legendary and phenomenal, it will however be unjust to his larger-than-life personality, to reduce his contributions only to his legal scholarship and jurisprudence. In fact, he was a great thinker and visionary too who dreamed, envisioned and toiled tirelessly to create a world free of war, nuclear disasters, hate and bigotry. At a time when the world is grappling with the enormous challenge of surmounting the twin evils of war and hate, and is in dire need of larger- than-life personalities of his calibre, Justice Weeramantry’s loss will undoubtedly be felt more than ever.

Justice  Weeramantry played a crucial role in strengthening and expanding the rule of international law and also became prominent in helping to unravel international disputes, notably as chair of the Nauru Commission of Inquiry from 1987-88. He was the recipient of the Right Livelihood Award in Stockholm in 2007, for his lifetime of ground-breaking work to strengthen and expand the rule of international law. 

His many monumental works demonstrated how international law can be used to address current global challenges such as the continued threat of nuclear weapons, the protection of human rights and the protection of the environment. Those who knew him will testify that he wasn’t fettered – rather, he was independent to the core. Unlike many others, when on the bench, he was a judge firmly convinced about the values and principles he held to. He was assertive in his articulation, elegant in his presentation, yet simple and clear in a way that is not easy to comprehend or even imitate.

As a world-renowned legal scholar and leading international jurist, his tireless global juristic efforts to hold nuclear powers to account under the remit of international law  with regard to their use of nuclear weapons were legendary. Further, another area of jurisprudence where he left his indelible mark was his monumental work in showcasing and highlighting Islamic International law and Jurisprudence when there were obtrusive efforts to deny its’ due place, both at the local as well as global plane, either through malice or ignorance.

When the UN General Assembly requested the ICJ for an Opinion on the Legality of the Use or threat of use of Nuclear Weapons, Justice Weeramantry did not mince his words about the dangers of States using such  weapons. His opinion is regarded as a leading exposition nuclear weapons’ illegality, and its resultant environmental damage to current and future generations for thousands of years to come. It is his authority which is most often cited when the illegality and environmental damage caused by nuclear weapons comes up for discussion. When his fellow judges of the ICJ ruled in favour of the legality of using nuclear weapons in self-defence, when the survival of the state was at stake, he clearly differed. When asked at a press interview, he opined:

“..Any use of a nuclear weapon in any circumstance whatsoever violates every rule of humanitarian law that has been evolved, after centuries of warfare and the sacrifice of millions of lives. No argument whatsoever could justify the indiscriminate killing of vast numbers of the population including women and children and the aged and infirm, the elimination of all historical and archaeological treasures, the pollution of earth, air and water for tens of thousands of years and the elimination of all forms of life in the area affected. 

The use of nuclear weapons offends all the fundamental principles of humanitarian law. The self-defence argument, which may be valid in a court considering the conduct of an individual, does not hold where the act of self defence causes death and destruction to third parties, kills vast numbers of innocent bystanders, damages generations yet unborn, and causes irreversible environmental devastation. It would be criminal also in the sense that it would be a crime against future generations.

International law can be the strongest weapon for the establishment of the International Rule of Law, if only the nations of the world, especially the most powerful nations, give it due recognition. What is lacking is a general awareness on the part of the people of the world of the importance and potential of international law as this is a grossly neglected subject in all educational curricula. This is what I am striving to remedy, because a citizenry who are aware of the importance of international law will not allow their leaders to flaunt it as they currently do.

A clearly noticeable  theme in his judicial methodology was his inclination to look beyond ‘Eurocentric’ perspectives in legal reasoning and embrace ideas from distinct cultures, worldviews and philosophies which accord greater wholesomeness to judicial opinions. Justice Weeramantry therefore strongly lobbied in the ICJ circles, to consider various religious traditions in law and cross cultural perspectives in understanding international law. His position was that ‘International law was not a modern construct and nor was it the product of any one civilisation. Ever since civilisation began, it has been the subject of thought by the great thinkers of each age and from at least four or five thousand years ago they have visualised a world community of nations living under an overarching system of law to which all states and rules were expected to conform’. He extensively quoted from religious scriptures and once supported his argument of illegality of nuclear wars by drawing upon the teaching of Hindu law over four thousand years ago and the advice given to the Indian prince Rama, by his generals.

This legal luminary of global repute did a monumental service to Islamic Jurisprudence as well when he authored many books and research articles to highlight that in the world of Islam too, there was much thought and writing about what we would today call international law – the treatment of prisoners of war, conduct on the battlefield, the sanctity of treaties, the privileged position of diplomats and the likes. He said that ‘All of these were elaborately discussed on the basis of the Holy Qu’ran and the numerous traditions of the Prophet Mohamed known as the Hadiths, dealing with these matters. These were assembled in treatises on international law by writers like Al Shaibani which appeared around eight centuries before the work of Hugo Grotius, the celebrated Dutch Jurist whose great work on War and Peace in 1625 is often considered to be the point of commencement of modern international law’

His well-presented  book, ‘Islamic Jurisprudence: An International Perspective’, was a treat to read, providing many perspectives  on this area of law which was deemed ‘novel’ to many, stating,  ‘Islamic jurisprudence is a much misunderstood system. The misunderstanding is due to lack of information and to centuries of prejudice’.  This work has also been translated to Sinhala as well. Herein, he tried to raise awareness among international lawyers about the sophistication of the Islamic legal tradition and about the ways in which a study of Islamic law might help enrich the body of international law. He argued that greater attention to Islamic legal norms was long overdue on the part of international lawyers and had “potential for assisting towards a juster world in the future.

In his book, Professor Weeramantry suggested that, if international lawyers took the time to understand the Islamic legal tradition, they would be surprised by the degree of intercommunication between Islamic and European legal cultures over the years and by their mutual influence on each other and by the congruence of the two Legal cultures on important principles of international law. By demonstrating that Islamic law was consistent in many respects with international law, international lawyers familiar with the Islamic legal tradition would be able to promote compliance with international law by Islamic states. He also argued that a study of the Islamic legal tradition helps to substantiate the claims of human rights theorists (claims with which he was deeply sympathetic) and thus would help legitimise a more aggressive use of human rights in international jurisprudence.

Weeramantry’s conviction that international lawyers should recognise the importance, sophistication, and legitimacy of Islamic law seems to be rooted in large part in his belief that the Islamic legal tradition provides crucial support for the thesis that there are universal human rights norms that are accepted in all civilisations. “In the contemporary world, when the Islamic influence is so powerful, there is a danger that if sufficient heed be not paid to Islamic attitudes and modes of thought, the UDHR doctrine in general may run into rough weather”. When Justice Weeramantry came to the ICJ bench, he predictably began to write opinions that mention Islamic law, when he found “the recent jurisprudence of the Court suggested that little effort has been made to draw upon the legal traditions and systems of non-Western peoples in the administration of international justice”.

His involvement in issues relating to local politico legal reforms in recent times were noteworthy too.  The submissions he made to the Presidential Commission on LLRC  in 2010 was very relevant in order to create an inclusive Sri Lankan Nation. He stressed ‘ In order to promote unity and reconciliation, two areas urgently needing attention are institutional and administrative measures relating to peace education and legislative measures essential for building confidence and trust. He submitted :

‘I believe it is essential in schools that in addition to being taught their religion, all children should be given at least some exposure to the basic teachings of the other religions. We are singularly fortunate in Sri Lanka to have the benefit of our of the world’s great religions in our midst and we are utterly neglecting one of our richest resources if we deny students the benefits of some understanding of  their basic teachings. Going back to my schooldays. I remember that the Principal would in the assembly read short passages from the scriptures of the-religions with an extract from the scriptures of one religion each morning. Even at very young age we thus knew something of  the teachings of other religions and were able to see how they all teach the same fundamentals in regard to the basic rules of human conduct.’

Further, he stressed that Sri Lankan judges unlike Western Judges have the added benefit of cross-cultural perspectives. ‘A Western judge tends largely to grow up in a mono-cultural setting and does not in general have this diversity of background. When it comes to administering the law this diversity of background gives the Sri Lankan judge the advantage of a great deal of tradition and cross-cultural perspectives. To my way of thinking the law can be greatly advanced especially to suit the needs of the 21st century, when we are moving in the direction of being global citizens with common problems such as the environment, common aspirations for a peaceful world and a set of universally shared values. This diversity of background can assist greatly in enriching the law’.

The Sri Lankan Nation in particular and the world in general has thus lost a great son ,an eminent jurist and a visionary for peace and it will be a great tribute to his memory if  people can make his dream come true- to create a world and a nation free of war, bigotry and hate. May his soul rest in peace.

If you enjoyed this article, you might find “Remembering, celebrating and missing Sunila Abeysekara” and “Dismal failure of judiciary leads to demands for hybrid justice mechanism” enjoyable reads. 

Uncle extends support to select lands for US $ 50 million investment Hambantota project whereas ‘son’ pelts stones against it ! -Will rescue the collapsing Port and country thereby–P.M. (video )

(Lanka-e-News -08.Jan.2017,11.55PM)  While Namal Rajapakse M.P.( against whom many criminal cases are pending in courts) and son of ex president of the country Mahinda Rajapakse was pelting stones opposing the proposed southern development program of the government , Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe today on the other hand at the launching of the Sri Lanka-China Industrial and  mind development zone revealed  ,how Namal’s uncle (father’s brother) , Chamal Rajapakse co operated to select lands for the development of the South  .The P.M.  also  explained ,how  the crumbling and collapsing Port was propped and resuscitated , and how through that the whole country is going to be rescued. He also revealed why in the SL –China agreement  an 80 % had to be granted to China, while amplifying how via this project the country is going to be rescued .

These comments were made by the P.M. when he attended the inauguration of the Mirijjawala , Hambantota investment promotion zone . This project will be completed in two years , and initially right now 50 Chinese companies will be starting their Industries. The investment is as high as 5 billion US dollars , and 200, 000  job opportunities will be  generated .

The speech of P.M. is hereunder 

---------------------------
by     (2017-01-09 05:44:04)

The Art Of Lying – Ask Gammanpila

By Shyamon Jayasinghe –January 10, 2017 

Shyamon Jayasinghe

Of course, Parliamentarian Udaya Gammanpila is the founder President of ‘Pivithuru Hela Urumaya.” (PHU). Mind you, it is simply ‘pivithuru,’ or pure. The party he was in before was The Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU). He, it can be logically inferred, left the JHU to form the PHU because the JHU wasn’t the pure form of the Platonic Universal which lies somewhere in transcendent realty. In other words, the JHU was a poor shadow of the Sinhala Buddhist nationalism that exists as a universal somewhere in a reality beyond the reality that one can empirically feel and touch and see. On the other hand, in the case of Gammanpila he has been able to download the very Platonic Universal itself.

That is for a bit of philosophy. What we remember is how exactly Gammanpila left the JHU in the dark secret night having sworn to the hierarchy the evening before that he will never even think of deserting the party that had delivered a Parliamentary seat to him. And that wasn’t even after eating hoppers. Gammanpila simply swore without the hoppers. He retired home and announced the following day he is forming the pure thing. He is always pure-appearing in pure white clothes taken from a wardrobe full of pure whites.

When his former colleagues of the JHU including, his bosom pal Patali Champika Ranawaka, expressed shock at Gammanpila’s turnaround like a trapeze artist, our friend PHU didn’t bat an eye lid. He walked with his head high and shoulders erect as though nothing in the world had happened. Here is the key to Gammanpila’s deceitful conduct: An air of supreme confidence. The Chinese Philosopher G. Chan once said that an air of confidence helps a liar to get away with his lying. Gammanpila has mastered that art. You cannot catch him looking guilty.

PHU leader Gammanpila’s latest pivithuru act was at the Hambantota protest. I spotted him in video, that is now going around, crying in high octave:” This yahapalanaya government has sold our valuable land to the Chinese. Won’t be long before they sell the Anuradhapura Sri Maha Bodhi and the Dalada Maligawa. We must stop them on track now or never!”

Now, Gammanpila knows he was lying, again. This so-called sale of land to foreign investors was done prominently and sans immunity by the former regime in which he was Minister. Valuable blocks of land in Galle Face, Colombo Port and even in the jungles in the sacred Somawati precincts had been “sold,” like this by that government. Gammanpila said nothing in protest because he knew this is really not the sell-out that he talks of now. Governments giving blocks of land to foreign investors on a 99-year lease is a well-worn economic strategy. “99-year,”is a technical arrangement to entice the foreign investor to dump his investment with confidence. The Chinese Government would not take over a large block of land in Hambantota or anywhere for a short period. The “ninety nine years” has become a standard period for acceptance all over the world. Of course government can take back the lease before that on condition of paying compensation. Hence, this kind of arrangement isn’t anything like selling Sri Lanka. As a matter of fact, two years ago the Australian Federal Government gave a ninety-nine year lease of land in Darwin to a Chinese Company for investment.

If anybody were to protest over issues of this kind it certainly cannot be a Minister of the Rajapaksa Regime. To find Mahinda Rajapaksa hiding and planning the invasion of protestors isn’t surprising since Mahinda is a moral sceptic and Machiavellan. He at no stage ever appeared as a statesman. He cannot.

Read More