Public Criticism Of The AG’s Department Can Undermine Confidence In The Administration Of Justice

By Javid Yusuf –AUGUST 25, 2017

Javid Yusuf

The Attorney General’s Department  has increasingly come under the  spotlight in recent weeks particularly after the Commission to inquire into the controversial Central Bank Bond issues has started functioning. This is mainly due to the members of the AGs Department team succeeding in eliciting hitherto unknown aspects of the whole Bond exercise before the Commission whereas it is reported that in the case of investigation files numbering over 70 sent to the AG, no indictments have been filed despite nearly two years having elapsed since such investigations began.

The latter aspect has been troubling civil society activists and even some Ministers  who have been raising the issue for the past year without getting any answers giving rise to speculation about deals being struck and deliberate inaction on the part of the AGs Department.

However in the past few weeks many UNP Parliamentarians have begun publicly questioning the failure to file indictments in respect of the 70 plus investigation files in the custody of the AG. This cry has reached an increasing intensity after they have observed the AGs Department team before the Commission of Inquiry being able to lead startling evidence relating to the Bond issue as well as that relating to the Penthouse leased out by former Minister Ravi Karunanayake’s family.

Not surprisingly  UNP MPs have now begun to feel uncomfortable and  are questioning the actions of the AGs Department  before the Commission contrasting the perceived inaction of the Department in relation to the 70 plus files.

Such a comparison seems unfair by the AGs Department without knowledge of the full facts relating to the 70 plus files  being in the public domain. In contrast the AGs Department’s conduct before the Commission can be easily understood. The AGs team has been assigned to assist the Commission and such assistance is rendered under the supervision and direction of the Commission.

In fact before any witness is called Counsel has to satisfy the Commission with regard to the purpose and relevance of the evidence sought to be led and only if the Commission is so satisfied will it allow such evidence to be led. No Commission, Court or Tribunal allows evidence to be led at the whim and fancy of the AG or any other Counsel. As evidenced by what has transpired before the Commission it is manifestly clear that such is the case in this Commission too. The Commission can also on its own motion direct that particular witnesses can be called.

In the case of the 70 odd files the public has to grope in the dark without any information with regard to what has happened. Clearly the Attorney General cannot hold a Press Conference and explain what has or has not happened as investigation details and matters relating to such investigation can only be made public in the proper forum, namely the Courts, at the appropriate time. But what should have been done  is for the Minister in charge of the Attorney General’s Department  Mr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe to call for a progress report with regard to the action taken and report to Parliament.

This was necessary from two points of view. One is the right of the public to know and secondly to protect the Attorney General and his officials from unfair criticism.

The Justice Minister (now relieved of his portfolio ) has declared that he cannot direct the AG as to who should be prosecuted and not be prosecuted as it would  amount to exercising improper influence. One could not agree with him more. However he has to reconcile this with his statement made several months ago that he would not allow the former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksato be arrested. The currently agitated UNP Parliamentarians should have taken him to task at that time as that too would have amounted to undue interference.

It is an essential feature of the Rule of Law that the Attorney General  be allowed to function independently. His is a quasi judicial role and is different to that of other public officials in as much as his actions can eventually affect the rights of citizens. Any public criticism of him and his officials in the conduct of their duties must be avoided more so by Parliamentarians and Politicians in order to ensure public confidence in the independence of the administration of justice. There are many accepted practices by which any concerns can be raised such as making representations to the Attorney General or canvassing his decisions before an appropriate Court.

Read More

Disappeared people: For family members, every minute is a minute too long 

2017-08-25

On next Wednesday August 30, the United Nations will mark the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances. In a statement, the UN says, enforced disappearance has frequently been used as a strategy to spread terror within society.  The feeling of insecurity generated by this practice is not limited to the close relatives of the disappeared, but also affects their communities and society as a whole. Enforced disappearances have become a global crisis and are not restricted to a specific region of the world. Once largely the product of military dictatorships, enforced disappearances can nowadays be perpetrated in complex situations of internal conflict, especially as a means of political repression of opponents. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka also had to go through the terrible experience of enforced disappearances, especially during the ethnic conflict. 

The UN says of particular concern is the ongoing harassment of human rights defenders, relatives of victims, witnesses and lawyers dealing with cases of enforced disappearances. The UN says it is also concerned about the use by States of counter-terrorist activities as an excuse for breaching their obligations and the still widespread impunity for enforced disappearances. Special attention  also needs to be paid to specific groups of vulnerable people, like children and people with disabilities. On December 21, 2010, the UN General Assembly expressed its deep concern about the increase in enforced or involuntary disappearances in various regions, including arrest, detention and abduction, when these are part of or amount to enforced disappearances, and by the growing number of reports concerning harassment, ill-treatment and intimidation of witnesses of disappearances or relatives of persons who have disappeared. In Sri Lanka, this reminds us particularly of the enforced disappearance of veteran journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda and the harassment of his spouse Sandya Ekneligoda during the former regime. She recently won an international award for her courage.
Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) in a statement says two UN Experts’ Groups have called for measures to prevent and eradicate enforced disappearances, including short-term enforced disappearances, and to ensure that relatives of persons deprived of their liberty are informed accurately and promptly of their detention. The Committee on Enforced Disappearances and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances have also expressed their concern at allegations of intimidation and reprisals against victims of enforced disappearances and those who report their cases.   

There is no time limit, no matter how short, for an enforced disappearance to occur. Every minute counts when a person is put outside the protection of the law. And when a person is disappeared, every anguished minute spent by his or her relatives without news of that person is a minute too long.
Reports and complaints have been received of people being briefly detained by State authorities, who then refuse to acknowledge their detention, nor allow them to make contact with their family members or their lawyers, depriving them temporarily of any kind of legal protection.  

Under these circumstances, and whatever their duration, these detentions amount to enforced disappearances, for which the States concerned bear international responsibility.  

States have the obligation to disclose the whereabouts of persons who are deprived of their liberty; to hold them in officially recognized places of detention; and to promptly provide accurate information on their detention to their families, their lawyers, or other persons with a legitimate interest.  

The relatives of persons who have disappeared have the right to know the truth regarding the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones. Unfortunately, their claim for truth and justice often gives rise to intimidation and reprisals, the two groups say.  

In Sri Lanka last year, Parliament approved legislation for the setting up of a wide-powered Office of Missing Persons (OMP). But, reservations were expressed by several parties and amendments  were approved recently. Over the weekend, reports said the Constitutional Council was likely to make recommendations soon on appointments to the OMP. We hope, as the UN Committee says, it will bring relief to the disappeared persons’ family members for whom every anguished minute spent without news of their beloved ones is a minute too long.

To be or not to be

• The Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, PC saga – some questions of law following the 19th Amendment

Resignations, removals and collective responsibility

Friday, 25 August 2017

In the wake of “a resignation” from the office of the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, we saw what was termed “a removal” from office of another, the Minister of Justice and Buddha Sasana; over allegations reported as being the failure to abide by the Collective Responsibility of the Cabinet (over the Hambantota Port Agreement) and the failure to speed-up prosecutions of alleged mass-scale corruption and malpractices of the previous regime.

Emphasising that the idea of this dialogue is not to engage in any political discourse of what happened (or did not happen), having been involved with the formulation of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in the immediate aftermath of the 8 January “silent revolution” I thought it was pertinent to look at several questions of law that arise in this process; perhaps as a precursor to an intellectual dialogue of the Sri Lankan polity as to how we are meant to be governed as opposed to how in fact we are supposedly “governed” (or misgoverned)!

I suppose the best explanation of “collective responsibility” from the science of politics lies in the often quoted words (at times attributed to Churchill) that “whether we swim or drown, we must do it together”; which has been given legal recognition at Article 43 of the Constitution, requiring the Cabinet of Ministers charged with the direction and control of Government to be collectively responsible to Parliament, therefore by necessary implication, to us the People. The common concept is that should any member not wish to be so bound, he must then resign from such collective responsibility of the Cabinet; which admittedly Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe PC, MP did not do prior to his removal this afternoon.

Co-relation between Cabinet’s Duty and Directive Principles of State – Articles 43 & 27

The Cabinet is bound to be “guided” by the ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ set out in Article 27 when exercising its charge of the “direction and control of government” given under Article 43, the idea being that the President (head of the Cabinet), the Prime Minister and other ministers are also collectively bound by the Rule of Law specified in the Constitution in all their undertakings; they have not been given an open warrant or the commonly quoted freedom of a wild ass to govern as they please, as for instance, when dealing with public assets or the judicial process. Therefore whilst Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe PC, MP may have been charged (and may very well be guilty) with the breach of collective responsibility, one needs to also consider the following questions:

(1) Was the removal of Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe PC, MP legal/sustainable in law?

(2) Are the allegations against Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe PC, MP matters that a Cabinet of Ministers can insist upon in law?

(3) Do the provisions of the Constitution (following the 19th Amendment) permit Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe PC, MP to challenge this removal?

These ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ at Article 27(2), amongst other things, directs a Cabinet of Ministers to ensure:

•  full realisation of fundamental rights and freedoms (a)
•  justice to all people (b)
•  equitable distribution of our resources to best subserve the common good (e)
•  means of production, etc. are not concentrated on a privileged few but dispersed to all people (f)

Therefore it may be pertinent to ponder the question whether the fault or faults found in Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe PC, MP to remove him from Cabinet office (as appears from what is reported), such as the speaking out against the Hambantota port agreement or failure to speed-up prosecutions of earmarked cases can be justified as lawful demands of a Cabinet; the fact that he breached collective responsibility is an entirely separate issue which he may veryz well be guilty of.

The ‘Pleasure Principle’ – Appointment and removal

of a minister

Particularly in appointments in the public sector we speak someone serving at “the pleasure of the employer”, meaning that you hold office in so far as you satisfy the requirements of your appointing authority; which does not mean however, in today’s context and the wealth of interpreted law that you may be removed unlawfully and/or in violation of your rights.

The amended Article 33(1)(a) requires a President of this Republic to ”ensure that the Constitution is respected and upheld”, which therefore vests a right on any person whose constitutional rights have been infringed to have them vindicated as a necessary corollary thereof. In this light we also note that the replaced Article 35(1) removes the previous absolute immunity enjoyed by a President from legal suit, permitting any person aggrieved by an act of the President to challenge same under Article 126 before the Supreme Court.

A plain reading of the amended Article 43(1) and (3) following the 19th amendment provides for the complete discretion (subject to “consultation with the PM, if necessary”) to appoint a Minister of the Cabinet and allocate functions and at 46(3)(a) to remove someone so appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. Thus whilst the power clearly lies with President Sirisena, the legal question is was that power exercised within the parameters of the Rule of Law; this of course is a question of fact which, if referred for adjudication, will have to be determined by evaluating the evidence of the allegations, the charges, the inquiry into it and the ultimate removal.

Even if “Collective Responsibility” was breached – are the

allegations “legal”?

Thus if we were to break down the allegations (as reported) leading to the removal of Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe PC, MP from office –

(a) if the question is that Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe PC, MP spoke out against the collective decision of the Cabinet on the Hambantota port agreement, then:

i. whilst he may very well be guilty of breaching collective responsibility, was the Cabinet also not guilty of breaching the law in entering that agreement?

ii. If so should the Minister have been removed based on an illegality?

(b) if the question is that Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe PC, MP did not use his ministerial portfolio of Justice to speed up certain earmarked prosecutions:

i. whilst he may very well be answerable as to why he did not come up with a special mechanism sustainable in law to prosecute certain identified categories or classes of cases, can he be asked to interfere or intervene in a judicial process?

ii. If so was such a requirement, for instance to prosecute certain identified persons or cases giving priority over others a legal request?

These thoughts were gathered in somewhat of a rush, seeing the events that unfolded this afternoon, therefore my sincere apologies for the brevity and any corresponding absence of detailed explanations; which I am sure will follow during the course of the proceeding weeks. As that famous Chinese saying goes (no pun intended), “May we live in interesting times”!

Power to the people!

The Satanic Formula

By Ranil Senanayake –AUGUST 24, 2017

Dr Ranil Senanayake

Self-interest becomes a very strong force when your life is threatened. Collectively, we enforce laws that protect the lives of all members of a community, individually we act with defensive force to protect ones own life. But what happens when life itself is threatened? All of a sudden both the individual and society become disinterested observers. A lot of information is generated on how to perceive and understand the problem. Things like Sustainability, Biodiversity and Conservation have become the discussion topics around the signs that signal the threat to life, but there is no effort at maintaining the activity and sustainability of life, in fact much of modern human endeavor seems to be directed at extinguishing it!

Today we rapidly remove the conditions necessary for the continued existence of genetic, ecological and cultural information, as these are seen to be unimportant to the society of modern man. These losses have now reached critical proportions, the actions leading to such losses being vindicated by the human value system called “Consumerist, growth oriented society”. Using a theory called “Consumer sovereignty” where  “whatever contributes to the satisfaction of the individual is decreed good and whatever detracts from the individual satisfaction is decreed bad”; the salesmen of the world set about the activity of creating desire. So that, more and more resources were required to satisfy the individual preference, The individual preference being constantly redefined by the pecuniary actions of these same salesmen. The product of such actions has been to place an ever-increasing demand on all resources, be it renewable or non-renewable. As the values and ideals of the “Consumerist, growth oriented society extend to include more and more of humanity, there is a proportionate reduction in the ability of life to express itself on this planet.

Can we, modern humanity, be really accused of stifling the force of life? The answer is yes and lies in our wholehearted accepatance of the Satanic Formula as the basis of human development without understanding or appreciating what this acceptance means. The Satanic formula is derived from the generalized formula for extracting energy from fossil fuel, which reads.

CH4 + O2  ->  CO2 +  H2O + e

This states that burning Hydrocarbons (fossil Fuels) using Oxygen gives us Carbon Dioxide, water and energy. It is this process that the entire industrial revolution was based upon it is this process that propels all the transport and industry of the ‘modern’ era.

Hydrocarbons are made from the fossilization of organic compounds that once existed in the biosphere, it is made from living organisms that died and was buried underground where they are compressed into the rocks and reside for time periods measured in millions of years. This ‘fossil material has no contact with the living world.

Over geologic time vast quantities of carbon sequestered by living forms became fossilized in this manner and removed from the living world. With the fossil carbon there also resides fossil hydrogen. And it is the burning of these fossil components using biologically generated oxygen that is currently pushing the threat to life ever closer.  The reason why becomes clear when the generalized formula for Hydrocarbon combustion is looked at, in terms of its combustion products, armed with this knowledge, the threat to life becomes clearer.  Thus the Satanic Formula is stated as :

fCH4 + bO2 -> nCO2 + nH2O + e

Simply, it sates that burning fossil Hydrogen and fossil Carbon (Oil, Gas, Coal) using biologically created Oxygen, creates ‘new’ Carbon Dioxide and ‘new’ water vapor that never existed in the atmosphere before.  These ‘new’ gaseous inputs into the atmosphere accelerate the current trends of rampant   global warming and climate change. But there is another feature about this formula that really makes it sinister and that is the fact the global Oxygen concentration is falling and the only thing that keeps the global concentration levels up is photosynthesis by leaves and plankton.

The expansion of fossil based industry and farming at the expense of the forests and seas, not only destabilizes the atmosphere and accelerates global warming but it also removes the very basis for the expression of life by burning the biologically created Oxygen without paying for its replacement.

Normally, the Oxygen volume is about 21.9% globally, this level of concentration is critical to all of humanity and negative health effects begin to be felt if it drops below 19% when thinking and attention becomes impaired, as the levels drop to around 16 % there is reduced coordination, decreased ability for strenuous work, at 14% Poor judgment, faulty coordination, abnormal fatigue upon exertion, emotional upset cardiac stress. 10-12% Very poor judgment and coordination, impaired respiration heart damage, nausea, fainting, death.

The current global concentration is about 21.9%, however this figure often dips to 19% over impacted areas and is down to 12%-17%.  In cities with many trees such as in Alabama U.S.A it is 21.9% -19%. In cities with very low greenery and heavy urbanization such as Mexico City, it is 17% – 14%. As many will point out there is still a huge stock of Oxygen in the atmosphere. But the trends are disturbing. There has been a discernable drop in the Oxygen concentration following the Industrial revolution, this trend accelerating as the internal combustion engine competes with our lungs to access the global Oxygen stock.

Read More

Liberalism: The history of a paradox

2017-08-25

Its self-contradictory personality ailed it yesterday, does today and in all probability will ail tomorrow  

• The recent spate of riots and indiscriminate acts of violence in Charlottesville, Virginia has raised alarm everywhere. 
• What these riots suggest is that the alternative right has gained the upper hand, at least nominally, and that those in charge are reluctant to call a spade a spade. They are all copping out, so commentators point out. 
• Nazism has obviously held sway in parts of the West where white middle-class workers feel upended by immigrants and African-Americans who are considered to be either living off the welfare system or living on the government. Those who are calling them out, incidentally, are white middle class liberals.

The recent spate of riots and indiscriminate acts of violence in Charlottesville, Virginia has raised alarm everywhere. What these riots suggest is that the alternative right has gained the upper hand, at least nominally, and that those in charge are reluctant to call a spade a spade. They are all copping out, so commentators point out. 

Liberalism The history of a paradox.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

The good, the bad, and the ugly – and how it is harder to tell them apart now

Friday, 25 August 2017

As with many other champions of just causes, Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe may have gone from campaigning for justice to becoming just another crusader out to claim his own rights and privileges. But unlike many other pseudo-democrats who traverse the primrose path from paada yaathra to walking the national interest tightrope, WR may still stand tall – or find his way back into a Cabinet seat – if the pragmatic brand of politics practised by his parties and their leaders necessitates it. Once a Man for all Seasons – advocate for social issues, devil’s advocate on knotty political dilemmas, not so nice nationalist for personal power-oriented reasons, perhaps – the former justice minister is a case in point for the impermanence of all things political. There are no permanent friends in governance; but civics and/or chauvinism will redound to the increasing visibility of stellar bigots and star-crossed bureaucrats in civics and country matters
In-laws can be a source of mirth as much as the fountain of mercy. (I’m playing it safe here, folks.) After all, they bring us our spouses in the same breath as they bring us grief and grouses, but also offer common or garden goodness.

The good, the bad, and the ugly – and how it is harder to tell them apart now.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

SRI LANKA: Lawyers, prosecutors and judges should face the mirror

 

August 25, 2017

A Press Release issued by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka has threatened contempt of Court action being taken against a deputy minister who has made some serious criticisms against the Courts and the legal profession. While it is not our intention to defend the deputy minister, we are perturbed by such threats against anyone who is publicly airing criticisms - against any real or perceived problems relating to the judiciary and the legal profession - as the damage done by the curtailment of such criticisms will far exceed any damage that may be done by such criticisms. It is prudent and wise to recall the words of Lord Denning, on the issue of the use of contempt of court for the defence of judiciary;

“…(This) is a jurisdiction which undoubtedly belongs to us but which we will most sparingly exercise: more particularly as we ourselves have an interest in the matter. Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism not do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than the freedom of speech itself. 
It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice. They can say we are mistaken and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not. All we ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature or our office, we cannot reply to those criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy, still less political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its vindication.” 

Exposed as we are to the winds of criticism, nothing which is said by this person of that, will deter us from doing what we believe is right;…” Lord Denning, [In] Regina vs Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ex. parte Blackburn,2 W.L.R. 1204

What is even more disturbing about the statement of the Bar Association is the following statement.

“… The Bar Association of Sri Lanka notes with concern the undue and unwarranted attacks on the law enforcement authorities, the Attorney General’s Department and now the judiciary….”

What are these undue and unwarranted attacks? An association like the Bar Association should specify what it considers as the undue and unwarranted attacks on the law enforcement authorities, and the Attorney General’s Department. May we ask, as to whether is it undue and unwarranted to state that the law enforcement authorities, namely the police have failed in their primary function of enforcement of the law in Sri Lanka?

Is it an unwarranted criticism that as the prosecutor against crime the Attorney General has failed to impartially and competently to prosecute all the crimes that are taking place in Sri Lanka? Is it an undue and unwarranted criticism to say that the entire system of administration of justice is beset with undue and unwarranted delays and such delays have threatened the very prevalence of the rule of law in Sri Lanka?

None of these criticisms are new. One could refer to the most recent statement of the UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of judges and lawyers, to see a litany of a long list of the most fundamental defects of the system of administration of justice in Sri Lanka. One could also go through some of the previous statements of the Bar Association itself, which was honest enough to admit the fundamental problems existing within the system of administration of justice in Sri Lanka.

There are also nearly twenty (20) Communications to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), where the Committee has expressed its views stating large number of violations of civil and political rights committed by the Government of Sri Lanka on matters such as failures to investigate serious crimes such as murder, the Attorney General interfering to stop inquiries into murder by issuing letters to the inquiring Magistrates not to proceed with such inquiries, abuse of contempt of court proceedings violating the international norms relating to such matters, undue delay in conduct of trials, dismissal of judges without following the due process, and numerous instances where torture victims were denied redress. In the latest view expressed by the UNHRC - Amarasignhe Arachchige David Amarasignhe, Communication No. 2209/2012, where a man who was brutally tortured and massacred was denied of a proper inquiry into his death by the intervention of the Attorney General himself.

As for our part, the Asian Human Rights Commission in a recently published book titled “Torture as an Entrenched part of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Legal Systems” (300 pages), have narrated in detail the manner in which Sri Lanka’s system of administration of justice has fallen into a state, where fundamental flaws have emerged which obstructs the people from obtaining justice.

The Bar Association should be aware of the enormous obstacles faced by the lawyers throughout the country in the practice of their profession without fear or favour. It is well aware of the recent attack on a lawyer where he was abducted, severely beaten, threatened to be killed at gunpoint, threatened with sexual abuse, and robbed of his possessions; the lawyer later complained that the Ragama police had deliberately sabotaged the inquiry. The Bar Association itself not long ago, protested when an attempt was made by the Ministry of Justice through a Gazette Notification to limit the access for lawyers to their clients in custody, stipulating that they could have such access only after interrogations are done.

The Courts and the lawyers exist only for the purpose of ensuring that the people in the country - irrespective of their status, gender, race and language - could obtain justice. It is only the blind who could deny that the actual realisation of that basic aim is far from a reality in Sri Lanka.

When criticisms are made for whatever purpose they may be, the wise course of to follow is to listen carefully and utilise every opportunity to achieve radical reforms that are essential, if the rule of law and the recourse to justice is not to become an illusion for the people who seek such justice.

The legal profession is a noble profession to the extent that the lawyers are willing and capable of leading the fight for justice. If we lose a fighting Bar, we virtually lose the battle for justice.

It is far better to look in the mirror and recognise whatever that is ugly that may have begun to emerge in ones’ own appearance. Such honesty and frankness does no harm. However, to hypocritically evade criticism, is to let down the legal profession, the independence of the judiciary and the freedom for the people to live without fear and suspicion.

‘Dealdasa’ loses both portfolios due to his affinity for filthy lucre and fake astrologers! Radical Tide wants Rosie in ..

(Lanka-e-News - 24.Aug.2017, 11.45AM)  Rajadurage Wijedasa alias Rajapaksage Wijedasa alias Wijedasa Rajapakse alias Dealdasa who throughout the  two years he was with the government of good governance only  committed  the worst betrayals and indulged in throat cutting activities against the very government which granted him two ministerial posts was  dismissed from both posts by the president . The secretary to the president sent the official  letter of dismissal to Wijedasa , and  the president also signed the relevant gazette notification on yesterday(23)

It was the UNP which informed the president to strip Wijedasa of his ministerial  posts. The UNP cabinet spokesman Gayantha Karunatileke at yasterday’s (23) cabinet meeting revealed Wijedasa was expelled because he did not abide by the collective decisions of the government  , and did not discharge his collective responsibilities duly , and  went on to add , since acting in breach of the collective responsibilities can entail punishment , not only Wijedasa even he is liable to punishment if he commits the same wrong. What he implied was there are several in the SLFP who are liable to  such  punishment.

Wijedasa 22nd night made a request to the president to grant him an opportunity to resign . When president inquired about this request from the P.M., the latter told him , the grace period given to Wijedasa had  ended. In fact the letter from the P.M. requesting the president to sack Wijedasa was held back until 22nd evening because of the grace period , and until it was over . Wijedasa was granted that period to enable him to make his requests , but he did not  make use of that , P.M. explained  to the president .

Sadly Wijedasa Rajapakse lost both his ministerial portfolios not  only for  dilly dallying  with  the criminal cases after abjectly surrendering to  bribes from the culprits but also because he was misled by a foolish soothsayer (woman) who told him he has Raja yoga ( luck of Kings when she should have told him he has the luck of Ali baba the chieftain of crooks )  . Thereby he only  proved he is a confirmed imbecile and clown  who deserves only the title ‘ modern  moron cum  two legged mutt’ and not  ministerial portfolios. 

It is the view of UNP’s Radical Tide MPs , because Wijedasa has been unrelentingly attacking the party and always antagonistic , the punishment to him should not stop with only sacking him from the ministerial posts.  In addition he must also be made to face a disciplinary inquiry and stripped of his parliamentary seat. Rosie Senanayake who had always been loyal to the party and honest shall be brought back to parliament , they added. 

(Photo - Wijedasa packed his stuffs from the ministry -courtesy Lankadeepa)

---------------------------
by     (2017-08-24 06:17:33)

Prof. Samarasekera can be arrested: AG

Lakmal Sooriyagoda-Friday, August 25, 2017  

Loss of Thajudeen’s body parts:

Two suspects present in Courts:

The Attorney General yesterday informed the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court that there is a possibility of arresting former Colombo Chief Medical Officer Prof. Ananda Samarasekara over the alleged loss of body parts of rugby player Wasim Thajudeen.

Deputy Solicitor General Dilan Ratnayake appearing for the Attorney General made this observation when the magisterial inquiry into murder of Wasim Thajudeen was taken up before Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court. When case came up before Colombo Additional Magistrate Jeyram Trotsky, two suspects, former Western Province Senior DIG Anura Senanayake and former Narahenpita Crimes OIC Sumith Champika Perera were present in Courts. They were arrested over their alleged role in the cover up of evidence in the former rugby player Wasim Thajudeen murder and conspiring to commit the murder. They are currently out on bail.

On July 27, 2015 the CID submitted to Court that the death of Thajudeen was not an accident but a murder.

While delivering the verdict, former Colombo Additional Magistrate Nishantha Peiris on February 25, 2016 ruled that the death appeared to be a murder and ordered the CID Director to immediately arrest all suspects involved in the incident and produce them before Courts.

Thajudeen was killed, apparently, in a road accident in Colombo on May 17, 2012.

The CID had informed court that investigations conducted so far had revealed that Thajudeen’s teeth had been broken, the bones in the pelvic region also broken and his neck pierced with a sharp instrument prior to his death. The CID added that muscles in his legs had been cut with a piece of a broken class. Earlier, police maintained that Thajudeen was driving to the airport and had lost control of his car and crashed into the wall of Shalika Grounds at Park Road, Narahenpita, and that his vehicle had exploded within seconds of the crash.

Attack on two soldiers: Six suspects arrested

2017-08-25

Six people were arrested today in connection with Thursday's attack on two army soldiers at Uttrampulam in Kilinochchi.

Two soldiers attached to the Murugandi Army Camp in Kilinochchi were returning home when they were ambushed and later attacked with a sharp instrument near the Uttrampulam market on Thursday by a group of youngsters.

The two soldiers were admitted to the Kilinochchi hospital with stab injuries. (By Romesh Madushanka)

IGP is plotting to sabotage CID investigations

 

Aug 25, 2017

 

There are reasonable suspicions within the Police Department that IGP Pujith Jayasundara is working to sabotage activities of the CID. The most immediate reason is that he is trying to get a stooge of his appointed as its director.

 

CID director B.R.S.R. Nagasmulla has been promoted a DIG and will be given another positing. The director position goes to a SSP. The CID wants Shani Abeysekara appointed its director. However, Jayasundara is disregarding that request and is going to recommend Mevan Silva, who is in charge of the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) to the position.

 

The SIU is purely a unit that is bound to implement orders of the IGP. Its chief works in disregard of the law to fulfill needs of the police chief, and is a puppet in the hands of the IGP. 

 

Jayasundara believes that it was the CID that had given CCTV footage of his assault of the elevator operator to the media. The police lawyers association is investigating not the assault, but as to how the media got the video footage of the incident. In such a scenario, Jayasundara is clearly having ulterior motives to ignore an experienced investigator like Abeysekara and tries to get a stooge of his appointed as the CID director.

 

Mevan is a person who had exchanged blows with ASP Wimal Samarasekara around 10 years ago in a dispute over who should be deployed at airport duty. Those who are in the know, best know as to why policemen like to be on duty at the airport. Also, the only ability Mevan has is to satisfy the needs of his superiors. In that, the police ordinance, criminal procedure code, penal code or any other law is irrelevant to him.

 

Jayasundara too, never received commendations, but got punishment transfers only during his police career, because he played havoc anywhere he went. Now, he finds both the CID and the FCID a big headache for him, as both institutions do their jobs independently without giving into his wants. He is carrying tales against officers of these institutions to law and order minister Sagala Ratnayake and other ministers whom he meets. He tried to do likewise with the president and the prime minister, but both just ignored him. His predecessors would have been biased, but they had never fallen to the depth of Jayasundara, who only brings disrepute to his department.

 

What he is trying to do is to change the minds of the president and the PM in order to remain in his job. For that, he is getting the support of the JVP, reports say.

Shiranthi Squanders Rs. 25 Million In Five Days

• From tax payers’ hard-earned money…

by Nirmala Kannangara-Friday, 25 August 2017

A section of the Presidential Suite

Although the extravagant expenses made by the Rajapaksa family during their time was not a secret, it had now come to light how former First Lady Shiranthi Rajapaksa had spent a staggering amount of tax payers’ hard-earned money to stay in Paris for four nights just prior to her husband’s defeat at the 2015 presidential election.

Official documents this newspaper is now in possession shows how the former First Lady’s tour to Paris, to take part in the UNESCO Vesak Celebration in 2014, had resulted in public funds running into millions of rupees being used within five days. Mrs. Rajapaksa had accompanied her aunt – Daisy Forest alias Daisy Achchi – who shot to fame for receiving a gunny of gem stones from an unknown person, which was spent to purchase a property from Mt. Lavinia for her grand nephew, Yoshitha Rajapaksa, and a close associate.

The trio had checked in to one of the most luxurious hotels in Paris – Four Seasons Hotel George V and had wined and dined spending public money to the tune of a staggering Rs. 25 million. Although the accomplices had stayed in deluxe rooms, Shiranthi Rajapaksa had checked in to the Royal Suite, which is on the first floor of the hotel that has direct access to a private terrace overlooking the historic art deco fountain, the Three Grace. This suite features an oversize space for entertainment and relaxation with a marble fireplace and the master marble bathroom of redefined luxury with a steam room and a spacious walk-in dressing room fit for a king.

Shiranthi Rajapaksa and Daisy Achchi

The Royal Suite charge alone had cost the country Rs. 10.556 million (Euro 58,000) for her five-day stay in Paris for the UNESCO event. A staggering amount of Rs. 25.08 million had been spent on Mrs. Rajapaksa and her two accomplices – Daisy Forest and Peththawadu Lakeesha Nisansala de Silva for accommodation, food and mini bar, limousines, VIP and miscellaneous expenses together with domestic air fare to Lourdes, where the famous Catholic shrine is. Although the said cost had been borne by the then Ministry of External Affairs headed by Prof. G. L. Peiris, it is believed that the airfare from Colombo to Paris had been settled by the Presidential Secretariat.

According to a document dated May 4, 2017 attested by the Sri Lankan Ambassador to France, Thilak Ranaviraja, the cost breakdown with the invoices of the expenditure incurred for Shiranthi’s visit to Paris is 137,396 Euros (Sri Lankan Rs. 25.08 million). For the accommodation with incidental expenses Rs. 16.17 million (Euro 88,552), limousine hire charges were Rs. 7.59 million (Euro 41,650), Air tickets from Paris to Lourdes was Rs. 7.68 lakhs (Euro 42,000) and VIP and miscellaneous expenses Rs. 5.43 lakhs (Euro 2,994) which the total comes to Rs. 25.08 million (Euro 137,396).

Daisy Achchi’s hotel bill, Shiranthi’s hotel bill that shows how she has spent lavishy on spirits SPA products & meals, External Affairs Ministry fax to Sri Lanka Ambassador to Paris on fund allocation, The summary of the expenditure incurred and Limousine bills

In an urgent fax to the Sri Lankan Ambassador in Paris by the Chief Accountant, Ministry of External Affairs dated May 19, 2014, states that Rs. 25 million had been allocated for the First Lady’s visit to Paris.

The fax further states as thus, ‘File Ref: MEA/FIN/CU-06/001/2014. Allocation of funds for the First Lady’s visit to Paris. This refers to the letter No: FM/F1/157/2014(18) dated May 16, 2014 on the above.

‘Allocation of SL Rs. 25 million (Euro187,000) has been granted under the Vote No: 001-01-01-0-1102 to meet the above expenses.

‘Accordingly, you are kindly requested to make payments not exceeding the allocations granted and send debit intimations to the Presidential Secretariat with a copy to this Ministry along with Monthly Summery of Accounts’.

Although the trio had stayed at Four Seasons Hotel George V in Paris from May 20 to May 24 in the guise of the UNESCO event, they had also flown to Lourdes on a private religious tour on May 23 out of public funds. Suite charge alone for Shiranthi Rajapaksa was Rs. 2.639 million (Euro 14,500) per day and for her five-day stay, the tax payers had paid Rs. 10.556 million (Euro 58,000) and another Rs. 1.082 million (Euro 5,945.50) had been spent on food, spirits, laundry and spa products during her stay over there. Room charges for Daisy Forest, Lakeesha De Silva and for the Sri Lankan Embassy official who accompanied Shiranthi Rajapaksa were Rs. 245,700 (Euro 1,350) per day, per person and for the four nights it had cost the tax payer Rs. 982,800 (Euro 5,400) per person. For Daisy Achchi, Lakeesha de Silva and the Embassy officer the country had spent Rs. 2.948 million (Euro 16,200) and incidental expenses for Daisy Forest for four nights was Rs. 277,368 (Euro 1,524); for Lakeesha de Silva, Rs. 361,452 (Euro 1,986); and for the Embassy Official, Rs. 891,254 (Euro 4,897). The total cost for food and room charges were Rs.16.175 million (Euro 88,552.50).

Once the former Foreign Minister had told that although King George V of England had stayed at Four Seasons Hotel George V, Queen Elizabeth II does not wish to stay there due to its high rates, but for the ‘Sri Lankan Queen’ the high rates were not an issue as it was borne by the tax payers’ and not by the Rajapaksas.

The day Shiranthi Rajapaksa had checked in, according to the hotel bill (folio number 357270 dated May 24. 2014), she had spent Rs. 84,448 (Euro 464) for her dinner while on May 22 she had used Rs. 45,864 worth of sprits from the room mini bar and on May 24, she had obtained sprits once again from the mini bar worth of Rs. 40,222 (Euro 221) and on the same day another Rs. 67,522 (Euro 371) had been spent on sprits. Her telephone bill during the stay was Rs. 101,829 (Euro 559.5). The spa products she had obtained from the hotel on May 22 had cost yet another Rs. 23,660 (Euro 130).

Although Daisy Forest had not obtained sprits, according to hotel’s folio number 375209, she had continuously taken telephone calls worth Rs. 220,220 (Euro 1,210) from the day she checked in up to the time she checked out.

According to folio number 357208 dated May 24, 2014, Lakeesha de Silva had spent Rs. 372,372 (Euro 2,046) on food and sprits during her stay at the hotel.

Meanwhile, another Rs. 7.5 million had been spent to hire limousines during this period and according to official documents, the limousines had been hired from Royal Services Limousines and the breakdown is: For the Multivan that had been hired before and during Rajapaksa’s tour from May 18 to May 24 had cost Rs. 828,100 (Euro 4,550). The hiring charges for the Mercedes S600 was Rs. 1.646 million (Euro 9,045), for Mercedes S350 Rs. 806,988 (Euro 4,434), for Mercedes Viano Rs. 745,290 (Euro 4,095), another Mercedes Viano had been hired and its hiring cost was Rs. 804,440 (Euro 4,420), for Mercedes Class E Rs. 707,980 (Euro 3,890) and for the second Mercedes Class E, another Rs. 755,300 (Euro 4,150) had been paid. The total hiring charges with the applicable taxes were Rs. 7.553 million (Euro 41,500).

A highly reliable official at the External Affairs Ministry during the previous regime, on conditions of anonymity, said that although the tour was planned only for the then First Lady, when the other two names were sent from the Presidential Secretariat to be included, the ministry had no say but to allocate more funds for the additional party as well. “An official from the Sri Lankan Embassy in France was assigned to look into matters related to Shiranthi Rajapaksa’s visit. But when the two names were included the External Affairs Ministry had to bear the additional cost as well. The tour to Lourdes was not official but a private visit. We had to pay the airfare for that as well,” sources said.

When asked who chose the hotel for the visiting party, the sources said that although when the President travels officially, to maintain the standard the best hotel is booked as he has to meet foreign dignitaries, he was not aware whether Four Seasons Hotel George V was chosen by the then First Lady or the External Affairs Ministry officials. “I assume that this luxurious hotel may have been selected by Shiranthi Rajapaksa as I know for certain that the ministry officials would not have chosen such an expensive hotel and one of its finest suits for Mrs. Rajapaksa. When instructions were given, our officials do not have a say but to abide by the instructions. This is waste of money. During the first few months of the present regime, when I was still at the External Affairs Ministry, I have seen how easy for our officials to make arrangements for the President or Prime Minister’s official tours as pressure was not mounted on any official. That is the difference between the previous and present regimes,” sources added.

However when contacted Prof. G. L. Peiris, former Minister of External Affairs during Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, to find out as to why such a staggering amount of money was allocated for Shiranthi Rajapaksa’s tour, Prof. Peiris said that it is decided not by the subject minister but by the relevant officers in the Ministry. “Once the allocation is decided, it goes to the Ministry Secretary who is the Chief Accounting Officer for his approval. Without his approval, the Ministry cannot release the funds for any purpose,” Prof. Peiris said.

With regard to the accommodations provided for the former First Lady at the luxurious Four Seasons Hotel George V, Prof. Peiris said the hotels for accommodation are not selected by the visiting delegation but by the protocol division of the Ministry. “If a President is touring a foreign country, he has to meet his counterparts and other high-level delegations. So he has to stay in a suite in one of the best hotels. This does not apply for the delegation members. They can stay in other hotels. In regard to the former First Lady’s tour also, the protocol division of the External Affairs Ministry should have arranged the accommodation, the vehicles to be used and even the domestic flights. Once the details of her visit are informed to the Ministry, everything is looked after by these officials but not on the directives of Mrs. Rajapaksa,” Prof. Peiris claimed.

When asked as to why the External Affairs Ministry spent for the domestic air tickets from Paris to Lourdes, which was not official but merely a religious tour, Prof. Peiris said that it was a minor matter comparing to the frauds that are taking place now under the good governance administration. “Spending a few Euros comparing to the millions of rupee frauds that are now taking place, is a minor matter,” Prof. Peiris added.

Prof. Peiris further said that taking one or two trustworthy friends or close family members with the First Lady is nothing new as all First Ladies in other countries too travel with their trusted ones rather than going all alone.

When asked whether it was Presidential Secretariat or the External Affairs Ministry that paid the air fare from Colombo to Paris for the entourage, Prof Peiris said it does not matter who paid for the tickets as it is passed from the parliament. “Once the vote is passed in the parliament for these expenses, it does not matter from which institution it goes as this is government funds,” he said.