Thursday, February 15, 2018

Rajapaksas’ Presidential hopeful is Gota

By Rasika Hemamali-2018-02-16

Head of the Department of History at the University of Colombo Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri says that Gotabaya Rajapaksa will be the next Presidential candidate as Mahinda Rajapaksa cannot, technically, contest the election, and Chamal is only a regional leader and Basil has several critics while Namal is not ready, yet.

Excerpts:

How do you read the Local Government election results?

A: The pattern of the election result is similar to what I expected. Prior to the release of results, after the polling ended; I posted my estimation on Facebook. However, I did not mention it during the period of the election, as I worked for the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna. My estimation was that the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna would gain 40 per cent; the United National Party 35 per cent and Maithripala Sirisena 10 per cent and the JVP would get 7 per cent. There are minor differences; however, when you consider the composition my estimation is not that different from the actual result. But, the surveys that were carried out portrayed the reverse. Apart from that, observations of those in the Mahinda faction too, were completely upside down.

What was the basis on which you did this estimation?

A: I presented my estimation, based on the general political trend. There are two ways in which you can view politics: short-term fluctuation is one; for example, the Treasury Bond incident and the incident of Brigadier Priyanka Fernando in London are short-term factors that have an impact on voter behaviour. The other one is the long-term trend. Voter behaviour can basically be understood by long-term trends. The most important trend was the collapse of the voter base of the UNP. It was in 1982 that the UNP reached its peak, since then it has been a systematic fall. As I said previously, there were occasions when there was a flux, and then they came into power thrice. However, the trend of drop in votes continued. Even short-term factors had a disadvantageous impact on them. The Treasury Bond incident, internal clashes within the Government, all of those had an impact.

What do you say about the performance of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna at the election?

A: The situation of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna, too, is very clear. We saw, on 8 January 2015, as soon as they were defeated that they would raise their heads again, in a short time. The main reason for their recovery is basically the Sinhalese Buddhist faction. The voter attraction for them among the non-Sinhala Buddhists is very much less. It is one block. These voters, during the past one and a half decades have shown quite a similar behaviour. During the 2005 Presidential Election, Mahinda won by a very small percentage. If the LTTE had not boycotted the elections it is possible that he may have been defeated. Even on that occasion, the percentage of the Sinhala Buddhist community votes, that he received were much higher than the percentages in other areas. There was some reduction at the Southern Provincial Council election. That was a very minor decrease. At the Presidential Election, it dropped drastically. Even at this election there is more of a decrease. That is what I call a satellite reduction. In relation to the collapse of the UNP, it is not a decrease even to be considered.

What happened to the Sri Lanka Freedom Party?

A: If you consider Maithripala Sirisena his voter base existed on three factors. Those were, mainly because he had State power and the official ownership of the SLFP, also there is the first and second level of the SLFP leadership around him. For these people, the behaviour of voters is one; the political leaders at regional level can control the behaviour of voters in these areas, through the political networks that exist. Maithripala Sirisena received those of that group. There was a large number of floating votes among those who voted for him at the 8 January 2015 election. Most of the voters in Sri Lanka are floating voters (not party affiliated) Most of the group of 6.2 million who voted against Mahinda Rajapaksa are those voters. It can be said that there was a trend of those who were disgusted with the UNP, those who were unwilling to go to Mahinda Rajapaksa's side and a group who was not yet ready to vote for the JVP.

Can you say that the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna has progressed?

A: When considering the long-term trend of the JVP, generally, it was at the Pradeshiya Sabha elections in 2006 that they received the highest voter percentage. At the 2002 General Election, they obtained nine percent. After they joined the SLFP in 2004 they obtained a very high percentage. At that time, they were of a nationalist view and were close to the Rajapaksa Plan too.

However, it is apparent, after that, how the JVP votes dropped rapidly. Generally, it was less than 5 per cent; it once dropped to about 2 per cent. This time it is close to 7 per cent; in my opinion, it is a considerable improvement. Such an alternative party cannot reach high percentages.

There is a factor, which a majority of Sri Lankan voters consider, when casting their vote, which has an impact, which is the ability of the Party to obtain State power. The trend, of voting for a party, which has a very slim chance of obtaining State power, is less. Within those circumstances 7 per cent is quite high.

With the Rajapaksa victory, will JVP victories become still more remote?

A: There is a possibility that it will improve to some extent. This is my opinion in favour of the Party; as I am also working towards it. There is a possibility for that, too, and due to a distinctive feature of this election.

When looking at politics in the South we can clearly see that there are only two forces with a permanent number of votes which can improve to a certain extent. They are the SLPP and the JVP.
President Maithripala Sirisena's voter base is not permanent. It will be completely determined by whether Mahinda Rajapaksa establishes a Government, now; then everyone will join Mahinda Rajapaksa, if that happens. Let us imagine that there was a Presidential Election or a General Election. If that happens, then it will be either to support Mahinda Rajapaksa or Gotabhaya Rajapaksa who will contest from that side. That is extremely clear.

There are reasons for the long-term collapse of the UNP. The other factor is the serious leadership crisis. At this time, that crisis is affecting the Party more than ever before.

The Rajapaksa camp represents a certain political viewpoint, a certain political attitude – Sinhala Buddhist nationalist attitude.

There are others with different political philosophies and ideologies in Sri Lanka. They cannot get everyone. Let us say they obtain a maximum of 60 per cent from the Sinhala Buddhist voter base, they cannot go beyond that. A Party that attracts the balance group is needed; now there is room for such a party to emerge. The JVP is the main group that can fill that void. If you set aside the fact of the JVP coming to power in 2020, there is room for this void to be filled.

I am proposing three slogans for the JVP.

Social Justice, it could happen soon, there is a great possibility of the Mahinda Rajapaksa faction coming to power, and they are going to do a lot of large scale constructions such as construction of expressways. Those will not provide an opportunity to address Social Justice. That problem will arise later in the future.

The second is the problem of Democracy. Under a Rajapaksa administration that problem too will definitely arise.

The third is co-existence among ethnicities and religions. That too is due to arise under a Rajapaksa administration.

A party that can address these three divisions is required.

You have said on certain occasions that Gotabhaya Rajapaksa will be the next leader of the SLPP?

A: What I am saying is that it is he who will come forward. Technically, Mahinda Rajapaksa cannot contest the next Presidential Election as the Constitution was changed. A charismatic person has to come forward for that post. We cannot think of anyone outside of the Rajapaksa family for that. Chamal Rajapaksa is only a regional leader. Many people criticize Basil Rajapaksa.

Therefore, it cannot be him. Namal Rajapaksa cannot contest as yet. Only Gotabhaya Rajapaksa is left. It is he who has the ability to win.

Sometime ago, I had a doubt whether he would be able to win as they had only a Sinhala-Buddhist voter base. As I see it now, it will be possible. Now they have a permanent voter base. The problem is to obtain the remaining. It can be obtained with ease. The rest of the SLFP too will join them. An Alliance can easily be set up with someone like Douglas Devananda. Ten per cent of Tamil Votes can be obtained through that. That would be more than enough. They can also collect votes from people such as Rishard Bathiudeen and Thondaman. If they can see victory they will join. Therefore victory is possible.

Can we expect a different behaviour from the Rajapaksas, to that which existed prior to 2015, on securing Government power?

A: That is their challenge. A factor that will not induce them to change is, that they know that, whatever they do, they will receive votes from the Sinhala-Buddhists. On Facebook, a young man had stated that they do not vote looking at the thefts or the murders; even if they steal or murder the vote is for the country to be protected. When there is such a mentality there will not be much motivation for them to change. Then there is a question, why should we change!

If a Rajapaksa type of administration is to be maintained, suppression too is required. Governance in the North is extremely vital.

The North cannot be allowed to do as they please. Rajapaksa coming to power means that there will be a big clash with the North.

If that clash grows, it will mean that they will be forced to suppress the North. At present, the people of the North have political freedom.

The Rajapaksas will not be able to allow that to continue, even as of now, the people of the North criticize Mahinda Rajapaksa, so they will most definitely have to do that.

Gone Are The Days Of Gentleman Politics

By Ishrath Zanoosey –February 15, 2018

Much water has flowed under the bridge, ever since, Sri Lanka gained independence from British Empire in 1948. Many political parties, from time to time, had contested at elections, as separate entities and some as coalitions. Winning party has had ruled the country as coalitions and also sometimes as a single party. Although, post independence Sri Lanka has made some astounding strides in certain sectors, overall progress and development of the country is at a low ebb. Compared to many other countries in the region, development has been lagging behind, due to a host of reasons.

Among other things, misuse of power, nepotism, embezzlement, bribery, corruption, infighting and the lack of any vision for the country are commonly seen at the centre stage of Sri Lankan politics. “Gone are the days of gentleman politics”. Sri Lankan politicians with vested interest, by hook or by crook try to come to power. Most of the time, these politicians, in the event they lose at elections, had been resorting to turncoat politics, and try in one way or another to cling on to power for their own vested interests. Many corrupt politicians, no sooner they clinch power, start exploring for opportunities to make a fast buck. Towards this end, they would keep no stone unturned to find ways and means to creep through any loophole they find in the rule of law.

During the past, intimidation and violence had been used in no smaller measure to avenge against political opponents, let alone abductions, disappearances and murdering of those holding alternative views. Above all, most of the power hungry politicians are hand in glove with notorious and infamous characters including drug kingpins. In most instances, they have had taken the law into their hands and had made money through shady deals. In the process, powers as an MP had been used to the maximum to cover up themselves from their past misconduct. They have plundered the country’s wealth by swindling money through misappropriation, soliciting commissions, bribes, and accepting kickbacks. In short for them, greed for money knows no bounds. If not for these corrupt practices, as a country, Sri Lanka would have reached the pinnacle of development in the region. Of late, this has been the bone of contention for the people of Sri Lanka. In this backdrop, day in and day out, fury of the masses has come to fore and is gaining momentum.This may sound somewhat weird but the fact remains, that this saga continues unabated in our country. This turn of events, seems to be the main impediment standing in the way of our country’s speedy development and happens to be the much talked about subject now in Sri Lanka.

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Having said that, naturally this is not always the case, as there had been many examples of patriotic and good visionary leaders of the past and even in the present. It is no secret that unlike in the present days, there had been very many good gentlemen politicians and philanthropists whose contributions towards the progress of our country had been steadfast and praiseworthy. Their kind of politics transcended party, ethnicity, religion, language, class or caste, up-country, low-country differences, or any of the many identities which divide our people. Yet, gentlemen of their caliber, now a days, are hard to come by. Of those who are corrupted, it is hard to distinguish whether the power corrupted the man or the men who were drawn to power were already corrupted.

On the other hand, majority of our voters, thus far are politically immature and live in their own dreamland of a fool’s paradise. By nature Sri Lankans like to be in comfort zone. Most of the poor daily wage earners, toil hard from morning till evening, to make ends meet for their living. But civically, they are short sighted and are likely to sway their opinion easily for various forms of bribes during election times. Average citizens are embroiled in their own household chores and don’t care two hoots about elections. In a way, our voters are to be blamed for the present political turbulence as the voters knowingly or unknowingly, have used their ballots to bring some political crooks to power time and again.

CB chief calls for political stability

Warns prolonged political stalemate could impact market sentiment
Insists there is no scope for loosening fiscal policy given serious debt repayments
Keeps rates unchanged but concedes sluggish growth and output gap makes case for loosening monetary policy
Cautions over increasing international interest rates and climbing oil prices
Deficit till November at 4.9% but awaits December number, growth for 2017 likely to be 3.8%
Broad money growth 16.7%, private sector credit to 14.7%, SOE borrowings rise

By Uditha Jayasinghe - Friday, 16 February 2018

Central Bank Governor Dr. Indrajit Coomaraswamy yesterday rang an alarm bell over Sri Lanka’s political leaders calling for a quick end to the political standoff triggered by the Local Government poll results before it affected growth, warning there was no scope for loosening fiscal policy.

The Central Bank on Thursday announced it had decided to keep policy rates unchanged despite sluggish growth and contraction of both broad money and private sector credit. But the imperative was counterbalanced by a pickup in international growth and possible oil price increases. The Governor also used the opportunity to express caution on allowing the political stalemate to continue as it could affect market sentiments and bottleneck investment.

“For the country to have a better outcome Sri Lanka needs political stability as quickly as possible. We have not really considered the political situation when making this decision on policy rates. How politics could affect is on sentiment, which leads to a reduction in investment and growth. Clearly one would need to loosen policy, then to support growth, but you also have to look at what happens to fiscal policy. If the political situation leads to a loosening of fiscal policy, the Central Bank would have to lean against that and tighten monetary policy,” he told reporters.
Political analysts have pointed out that since provincial council elections are likely in early 2019, the Government could be tempted to bump up its popularity by increasing its spending. Already in Cabinet this week approval was given to provide tabs for all schoolchildren, a Budget proposal announced by former Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayke that had since been put on hold. Other measures, including possible weather-related relief programs, could see an uptick in public expenditure.

Up to November the Government had recorded a fiscal deficit of 4.9%, slightly behind its Budget 2017 target of 4.6%. The latter part of the year also saw a sharp spike in borrowing by State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) mostly driven by the Road Development Authority (RDA), SriLankan Airlines and Water Board, Central Bank statistics showed.

The Central Bank’s tasks for 2018 were set out in its Road Map that was launched in January detailing efforts at inflation targeting, foreign exchange management and further strengthening the Government’s securities market, improving the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and ensuring banks are able to meet Basel III requirements in time among others, and it would be possible for the institution to continue unperturbed by parliamentary changes.

However, Dr. Coomaraswamy noted the greater economy would benefit significantly from political stability and would be able to build on the macro stabilisation that had emerged in the last few months of 2017. Political instability could also adversely impact the debt servicing dynamics given Sri Lanka will have to repay about $ 3.6 billion each year from 2019 to 2022.

“To be frank there is no scope at all for loosening fiscal policy. The fiscal consolidation trajectory that has been built into the Government’s medium-term three-year budgetary framework is needed. If we go beyond that framework it would be very challenging in terms of managing the debt dynamics, particularly at a time when the international dynamic is becoming more difficult as well.”

The potential growth rate for Sri Lanka as the Central Bank sees it is about 5% but as growth is likely to come at about 3.8% for last year there is clearly an output gap, which calls for policy easing, the Governor said. Side by side with the output gap, the Central Bank has also observed an easing of inflation, which is now within the target range. Underlying indicators such as board money growth, which has reduced to 16.7%, and private sector credit growth to 14.7% has created a case for easing policy, the Governor conceded.

“If you looked at all the indicators there is reason for cautious satisfaction that the economy is stabilising quite nicely.”

Yet these imperatives are counterbalanced by stronger growth in the US, Europe, Japan, China and India that is driving a normalisation of interest rates in the US and possibly in Europe. In such a context if Sri Lanka reduces interest rates then the difference between local and international rates would increase, which could lead to an outflow of funds, the Governor warned.

In addition, the increase of global oil prices, which have been tempered by record US output, have nonetheless raised the risk of higher costs that could put pressure on domestic prices. Sri Lanka spent $ 3.4 billion on fuel imports last year, a larger cost than in 2016, incurred because of a combination of higher volumes caused by power generation needs during drought periods and higher prices.

“We need to keep an eye on fiscal developments. In the first 11 months of 2017, despite weather issues, the fiscal performance was broadly satisfactory but at the end of every year there is extra expenditure that might come through and right now we don’t know how much that might be. We would like to wait and see what the actual fiscal outcome will be for 2017 before we think of loosening monetary policy.”

Dr. Coomaraswamy acknowledged that if fiscal slippage has taken place monetary policy could not be loosened at the same time. Nonetheless, despite disappointing growth, which is likely to end up at about 3.8% in the Governor’s view, outlook surveys carried out by the Central Bank have indicated that anticipated demand, sales, investment and consumer activity are picking up, expanding hope of Sri Lanka reaching the 5%-5.5% growth targeted by the Central Bank for 2018.

Can a Magistrate convict and jail AG, a Superior Court Judge or minister for expressing his opinion?

Section 70 of the Bribery Act needs to be reviewed

By M M Zuhair, PC-February 15, 2018, 12:00 pm

President’s Counsel Hemantha Warnakulasuriya has referred, in a commendable write-up published in The Island 8th February 2018, to the recently filed case alleging corruption under section 70 of the Bribery Act against the then Attorney-General, who later on became the country’s Chief Justice and the then Deputy Solicitor-General, who is presently a sitting Judge of the Court of Appeal.

Warnakulasuriya has rightly pointed out that the legal fraternity was aghast at the accusation of corruption. He quickly cautioned the reader against rushing to the conclusion that the then top legal officers of the state were involved in what is typically understood by the public as accepting a bribe or gratification. The accusation relates to a legal opinion given seven years ago to the government by the then DSG with the approval of the then Attorney-General. The charge under section 70 of the Bribery Act is that the opinion was given by the DSG and that the Attorney-General had ‘abetted’ the DSG in approving the opinion, both acting as ‘public servants’ with the intention or knowledge of granting ‘unlawfully’ a benefit/favour or advantage to a person named in the report against whom evidence of criminal misappropriation had been disclosed, it is now alleged.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has expressed grave concern over the initiation of these criminal proceedings. The BASL has, in a media statement, said that the concern does not stem from the stand point of the individuals concerned but as a matter ‘affecting the Bar, independence of the judiciary, rule of law and the interests of the public at large’, which the BASL statement should have explained further for the benefit of the public.

This article is intended to place before the public briefly the corrosive effect this case may have on the well-established legal system in the country vis-a-vis the judiciary, the Bar as well as the Executive headed by the President. No improper motives are being alleged or drawn against anyone responsible for the prosecution of this case. I will refer later on in this write-up to the consequences, proceedings of this nature could impact upon the Supreme Court down to the Magistrates Court, the Cabinet of Ministers down to the humblest public servant, if the views and opinions of these institutions are going to be questioned and reviewed by persons not specifically authorized to do so but doing so under allegations of violation of section 70.

It is not being argued that officials holding public office are beyond review. The conduct of the President of the Republic, for instance, can be reviewed and impeached by Parliament on grounds set out in the Constitution, which includes misconduct, corruption or the commission of an offence involving moral turpitude. The tenure of office and the independence of the Judges of the Superior Courts are constitutionally secured but the President upon a duly approved ‘address of Parliament’ can remove a Judge on the ground of ‘proved misbehaviour or incapacity’. The official conduct and the opinion expressed by the Attorney- General can be the subject of debate in Parliament and can also be reviewed and set aside by the Superior Courts in appropriate proceedings initiated by a party claiming for instance the violation of his fundamental rights. A wrong decision by a lower Court can be appealed to a higher Court.

In other words, the system has checks and balances, hierarchical in character, however imperfect they may be. Any of them can be prosecuted in the original courts of criminal jurisdiction for the alleged commission of any offence in his personal capacity, while holding public office. But, the question raised here is whether the Attorney-General, or for that matter a Judge, an Attorney at Law, a Minister or public servant can be prosecuted and jailed for expressing his opinion in his official capacity, even in a case where the opinion is wrong or erroneous?

This appears to be the first time that a Magistrate is being called upon to review the alleged ‘wrongfulness’ or the ‘unlawfulness’ if any, arising from a legal opinion expressed by the Hon. Attorney-General of Sri Lanka. The allegation placed before the Magistrate purportedly under section 70 of the Bribery Act requires the Magistrate to review the legal opinion given to the Government by the Attorney-General and substitute therefore the Magistrate’s opinion on the question, whether the Attorney-General’s legal opinion was given with the intention or knowledge of causing ‘wrongful’ or ‘unlawful’ benefit, favour or advantage to any person. In other words, the Magistrate is being asked by the prosecutors in the case to examine the intentions and/or knowledge of the Attorney-General when he gave his legal opinion. I do not think the legislature ever intended Section 70 to be used for such purposes, though section 70 (d) gives such an impression. According to section 70 (d), the offence is complete when a public servant under the circumstances referred to earlier ‘participates in the making of the decision’ which in this case was the ‘opinion’ expressed by the Attorney-General.

A notable feature in section 70 is that there is no need to prove, unlike in the case of the other offences in the Bribery Act, that the public servant benefitted from any form of ‘bribery’ or ‘gratification’. Section70 needs closer examination both by the legislature and the judiciary as it can become a serious threat and impediment on the right and indeed the duty of public servants to form opinions fearlessly, take clear decisions based on the opinion and to act thereon without being prosecuted years later and more so after a change of government. A corrosive effect of prosecuting over an ‘opinion’ or ‘decision’ without evidence of any ‘gratification’, could be the prosecutor of this case finding himself being prosecuted regrettably under section 70, for his decision to prosecute, probably after a change of government. Indeed, that could not be the purpose of section 70 intended by Parliament.

To get back to the point, the Attorney-General conveyed his advice in the form of an opinion. Excepting a superior Court, namely the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, how can it be alleged before a Magistrate or even a High Court that the opinion of the Attorney-General was ‘unlawful’ or had ‘conferred a benefit to someone by unlawful means’ or ‘any unlawful benefit was conferred to someone’ in as much as the Attorney-General was entitled in law to express his opinion, a lawful and privileged communication? Any Court, including a Magistrate Court, District Court or the High Court can certainly over-rule the opinion of the Attorney-General or his representative arising in a proceeding in Court. But to go further and prosecute and jail the Attorney for expressing a wrong opinion can never be what Parliament intended when enacting section 70 of the Act!

How did a ‘lawful’ and privileged communication, in this instance, become ‘unlawful’? The allegation is that two committees had found material disclosing criminal offences and that therefore the argument is that the Attorney-General had no alternative but to accept and act according to those two reports. Such an argument is ridiculous because it seeks to negate the right of the Attorney-General to express his independent opinion after a consideration of all the facts and circumstances. Furthermore the mere appearance of a possible criminal offence is insufficient to approve a prosecution. The Attorney-General must be satisfied that there is adequate evidence to prove the case ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’. There were times when prima facie evidence was considered sufficient to approve a charge. Such a minimal standard led to Courts being burdened with cases that ended up in acquittals. It benefitted lawyers but not litigants or the public whose taxes pay for the cost of the prosecution.

The better view is that there must be sufficient evidence to establish the case for the prosecution ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’ for approving the filing of charges. This is exactly what the country’s President said recently; there must be sufficient evidence to ensure the conviction of particularly politically involved persons. The opinion, in each case referred to the Attorney-General, is entirely for the Attorney-General to form.

Reference was made earlier to Magistrates being asked to review the opinion of the Attorney-General and substitute therefore the Magistrate’s opinion. Assuming for a moment that the purported accusation before the Magistrate is tenable within the interpretation of section 70 of the Bribery Act, but the Magistrate at some stage in the proceedings expresses his opinion and orders that the suspects must be discharged, as he is entitled to order and accordingly for reasons given discharges the suspects, it would be equally possible, for the same accusations alleged here, to accuse the Magistrate and prosecute him under section 70 of the Bribery Act for his opinion of discharging the suspects alleging"knowingly causing ‘wrongful’ or’ unlawful’ " (in the opinion of the prosecutor)"benefit, favour or advantage to the suspects".

If that be so, one need not go by appeal or revision to a higher court to review the order and opinion of the Magistrate but take the inexpensive and easier course of complaining of violation of section 70. A dissatisfied litigant can harass the Magistrate by alleging violation of section 70. It may be argued that the order of discharge by the Magistrate is not a ‘wrongful or unlawful’ benefit, favour or advantage to the suspects but a lawful one. So is the right of the Hon. Attorney-General to express his opinion, even in a matter where the AG had knowledge that some person may benefit from his opinion. Such an opinion cannot become or be alleged to be‘unlawful’ even where the AG had knowledge that someone will benefit from his opinion. The opinion of the Attorney-General or any public servant or any Attorney at Law can be the correct opinion or an incorrect or wrong(ful) opinion. It is human to err and that is why a review by way of appeal to a higher body is the correct, lawful and accepted procedure. Prosecuting and jailing the opinion maker, appears archaic and barbaric.

On this point, this is what Warnakulasuriya says: "The Legal Profession and the Bar Association are very concerned about the fact that the mere opinion of the Attorney-General, which may be wrong like the other opinion of the Attorney-General that the President had six years to conclude, could be the subject matter of an inquiry under section 70." Clearly, Parliament in enacting section 70 could not have intended this process.

What is arguably clear is that section 70 cannot be utilised, in effect,to challenge or review the opinion of the Attorney-General given to the government or to Parliament, which, as of right, he is entitled and bound to give or similarly a Minister’s recommendation placed before the Cabinet, the Magistrate’s opinion and verdict given in any proceedings before him or the legal opinion of an Attorney at Law given to his client. (Part II will appear tomorrow)

CA directs AG to file CID progress report on investigation

Lakmal Sooriyagod-Friday, February 16, 2018

The Court of Appeal yesterday directed the Attorney General to file the progress report of the CID investigation into the Welikada prison riot on the next date.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal fixed the writ petition for March 5 in order to file the progress of the CID investigation into Welikada prison riot in 2012.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General informed Court that the CID has commenced a broad investigation into the incident and the progress of the investigation into the Welikada prison riot has been reported to the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court through B reports.

The Attorney General made these observations pursuant to a writ petition which sought an order directing the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and Director of the CID to commence an investigation into the Welikada prison riot in 2012 resulting in the death of 27 prisoners.

Sudesh Nandimal Silva who was in remand custody at the time of the alleged incidents took place had filed this writ petition citing Commissioner General of Prisons, Director of CID, Inspector General of Police, Minister of Prison Reforms, Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Hindu Religious Affairs and the Attorney General as respondents.

The petitioner stated that he was wishing to bring to the attention of the Court what he saw and was within his personal knowledge of the said tragic incidents for the purpose of obtaining relief.

On November 9, 2012 at about 1.00 pm the petitioner and other prisoners atWelikada prison received information that personnel from the Army and STF were about to enter the prison to conduct a search operation.

The petitioner got to know that there was an argument between prison officials and a contingent TID, STF waiting at the gate of the prison on the procedure related to the search operation. The petitioner stated that the prison was in the control of the Army until 10 am on November 10, 2012. By that time 27 of the prison inmates had been killed by STF/Army/TID/Prison Intelligence.

The petitioner has made a complaint to the CID on February 2, 2015.

The petitioner stated that although four years has lapsed since the brutal killings of these prisoners no action has yet been taken by the police or the Attorney General to conduct the investigation and prosecute the offenders.

This petition was filed through Senior Counsel K.S. Ratnavale and counsel Senaka Perera. Senior State Counsel Madawa Tennakoon appeared for the Attorney General.

54 patients died waiting for Israel to let them out of Gaza

Cancer patients take part in a December 2016 protest in Gaza City demanding that they be allowed to travel for treatment. In 2017, 54 patients died in Gaza after Israel denied or delayed such permits, the majority of them cancer patients.Mohammed AsadAPA images

Ali Abunimah Rights and Accountability 14 February 2018

Fifty-four Palestinians died last year waiting for Israeli permits to leave the Gaza Strip for medical treatment.

One of them was Faten Ahmed, a 26-year-old with a rare form of cancer. She died in August while awaiting an Israeli permit to travel for chemotherapy and radiotherapy not available in Gaza.

She had previously missed eight hospital appointments after Israeli “security approval” was delayed or denied, according to the World Health Organization.

Ahmed was one of five women who died from cancer in that month alone waiting for Israeli permission that never came.

Overall, 46 of those who died last year waiting for permits were cancer patients.

Shocking number of deaths

This staggering toll highlights the lethal impact of Israel’s ever-tightening siege on the two million people who live in Gaza.

“We’re seeing Israel increasingly deny or delay access to potentially life-saving cancer and other treatment outside Gaza, with shockingly high numbers of Palestinian patients subsequently dying, while Gaza’s healthcare system – subjected to half a century of occupation and a decade of blockade – is decreasingly able to meet the needs of its population,” Aimee Shalan, CEO of Medical Aid for Palestinians, said on Tuesday.

Her charity, along with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights and Physicians for Human Rights Israel, has issued an urgent call on Israel to “lift the unlawful sweeping restrictions on the freedom of movement of people from Gaza, most critically those with significant health problems.”

In 2017 Israeli occupation authorities approved just 54 percent of applications for permits to leave Gaza for medical appointments, the lowest rate since the World Health Organization began collecting data in 2008.

Israel has dramatically tightened the deadly squeeze; its approval rate for permits fell from 92 percent in 2012 to 82 percent in 2014 and then 62 percent in 2016, before hitting its lowest point last year.

The health and human rights groups note that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross have declared Israel’s land, sea and air blockade on Gaza, preventing the movement of its population, to be “collective punishment” – a war crime.

“Palestinians from Gaza missed at least 11,000 scheduled medical appointments in 2017 after Israeli authorities denied or failed to respond in time to applications for permits,” the groups state.

Egypt and Palestinian Authority complicit

The groups also note that Egypt and the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority played a role in worsening the situation: “Egypt has kept the Rafah crossing mostly closed for the population in Gaza since 2013, which contributed to restricting access to health care.”

“As a state bordering a territory with a protracted humanitarian crisis, Egypt should facilitate humanitarian access for the population,” they state. “Nevertheless, ultimate responsibility remains with Israel, the occupying power.”

The Palestinian Authority also sharply reduced its financial approvals for medical treatment outside Gaza as part of its sanctions aimed at forcing Hamas to hand over control of the governance of Gaza.

These PA restrictions resulted in at least one death, according to the groups. But medical authorities in Gaza have said that more than a dozen people, including a 3-year-old girl with a heart condition, died waiting for payment approval from Ramallah.

All of this comes amid the protracted siege-induced crisis which has brought the collapse of key parts of the health system.

“Amid widespread poverty and unemployment, at least 10 percent of young children are stunted by chronic malnutrition, up to half of all medicines and medical items in Gaza are completely depleted or below one month’s supply, and chronic electricity shortages have caused officials to cut health and other essential services,” the human rights and medical groups state.

End the siege

Earlier this month, hospitals in Gaza began shutting down as emergency generators ran out of fuel, forcing the postponement of hundreds of operations.

On Wednesday, RT posted this report from Gaza about the plight of cancer patients. Correspondent Anya Parampil spoke to Zakia Tafish whose husband Jamil died after he was repeatedly blocked from traveling to Jerusalem for surgery.

The channel also aired a report about the worsening situation in the territory’s hospitals.

Following UN warnings of looming catastrophe, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates last week pledged $11 million in short-term funding to stave off an even worse catastrophe for another few months.

However, as the human rights groups note, there is no long-term solution but to end the siege.

“The Israeli government’s restrictions on movement are directly connected to patient deaths and compounded suffering as ill patients seek permits,” Al Mezan director Issam Younis said.

“These practices form part of the closure and permit regime that prevents patients from a life of dignity, and violates the right to life.”

The UK-based Medical Aid for Palestinians is calling on the public to contact lawmakers in the British parliament and “ask them to urge the UK government to take action and save lives in Gaza.”

Palestinian man left scarred by Israeli army dog attack in house raid

'I thought I was going to bleed to death on the floor,' Mabruk Jarrar tells MEE, describing attack witnessed by his wife and two young sons

Mabruk Jarrar shows injuries to his arm he says were caused by an Israeli army dog (MEE/Jihad Abu Raya)

Jihad Abu Raya-Lubna Masarwa-Thursday 15 February 2018

AFULA, Israel - A Palestinian man has described how he was attacked by an Israeli army dog in front of his wife and young children during a raid by soldiers on his home near the city of Jenin in the occupied West Bank.

Mabruk Jarrar, a 39-year-old from the village of Burqin, is still undergoing hospital treatment as a consequence of injuries sustained during the early morning raid on 3 February.

Jarrar and his family appear to have been caught up in raids carried out by the Israeli army in response to the killing of an Israeli settler in a drive-by shooting near Nablus last month.

One Palestinian teenager was also shot dead by Israeli soldiers on the same day as they searched the village for Ahmad Nasser Jarrar, the main suspect who was subsequently killed by Israeli soldiers in another raid on 6 February.

Mabruk Jarrar is not related to Ahmad Nasser Jarrar, who also came from Burqin and belongs to the same clan, but both he and his two brothers were detained during the raids.

Burqin and its residents are regularly targeted by Israeli forces, and Mabruk Jarrar was previously held in administrative detention by Israel – imprisonment without trial – between September 2016 and November 2017 without ever learning why he was arrested.

READ MORE ►

A Palestinian family mourns the death of their son after an Israeli raid

Last month, Middle East Eye also reported on how another member of the Jarrar clan, Ahmad Ismail Jarrar, was also killed in a raid in Burqin carried out by Israeli soldiers searching for Ahmad Nasser Jarrar.

Since his release, Jarrar, who is divorced, had remarried and his wife Enas Shteiwi was also in the house along with Jarrar’s two sons from his first marriage, Suhaib and Mahmud, aged nine and five, on the morning of the raid.

“It was almost six in the morning. Enas was still asleep and the boys were in bed in the next room. Suddenly a loud explosion shook the house and we ran to the boys next door to hug them and calm they down,” Jarrar told MEE, speaking from hospital in Afula in northern Israel earlier this week where the army had moved him for treatment.

'Israel soldiers had blown out the balcony doors to the first-floor floor room where the boys had been sleeping, Jarrar said. Then another explosion blew out the main entrance to the house.

“Immediately a huge dog came running up the stairs and started tearing at my hand in front of my wife and children. It was impossible to escape from its grip,” said Jarrar.

Enas, his wife, tried to shield the children by hiding them behind the bed before running outside to ask for help.

'Dozens of soldiers'

“I was confronted by dozens of soldiers. I started yelling, telling them there were children in the house and that the dog was about to kill my husband,” Enas told MEE.

Returning to the bedroom, she found Jarrar bleeding heavily and still struggling with the dog which had bitten him on his arms, legs and back. Unable to help him, she picked up Mahmud in his arms and asked the soldiers to show mercy.

“The dog was still attacking me when one of the soldiers came forward and asked me, ‘Where is Ahmad?’” said Jarrar.

“When I said I didn’t know he punched me in the face so hard that my nose started bleeding. The dog just kept biting me and it didn’t even respond when the soldiers told it to leave me alone.”

When the dog finally relented, the soldiers grabbed Jarrar, pinned his hands behind his back and dragged him out of the house before throwing him into the back of a military vehicle where his older brother, Mubarak had already been detained and blindfolded. Another younger brother, Mustafa, was also arrested, Jarrar later learnt.

Enas and the children meanwhile had been ordered to sit under a nearby olive tree. One of the soldiers, noticing that the children were trembling, brought Enas a quilt and told her to cover the boys. He also gave them some sweets which he had been eating.

“I thought it was a strange gesture after they had just watched their father being attacked by a dog,” said Enas.

Jarrar was taken to Salem prison, near Jenin, despite pleading with the soldiers to take him straight to hospital.

“I thought I was going to bleed to death on the floor,” he said.

There, he said, some Israeli soldiers had taunted him, taking photos of themselves smiling and laughing while standing in front of him.

Jarrar (R), with wife Enas Shteiwi, was taken to hospital in Israel for treatment (MEE/Jihad Abu Raya)

Eventually, after three hours, he was moved to the hospital in Afula for treatment.

Jarrar said he had been interrogated during his detention at the hospital, with his hands and legs cuffed. His detention ended with an Israeli court decision on Sunday, 11 of February.

Back at home, Enas was spending the day trying to reach her husband and draw attention to his case. She submitted an application to Israeli authorities to visit him in hospital but did not receive a response.

Not wanting to be left alone in the house, Jarrar’s 75-year-old mother, who uses walking sticks to move around, and his sister moved in to keep her company and neighbours helped her install new locks.

But on 8 February, Enas was woken by the sound of soldiers breaking the lock and entering the house.

“They asked us where Mabruk was hiding even though they had been the ones who had arrested him five days before,” she said.

'Humiliating and frightening'

The soldiers searched the house and then ordered Enas, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law to go into a bedroom and take off their clothes.

“I was terrified they were going to rape us and I refused,” said Enas. “So they brought in a woman soldier to carry out the inspection. It was humiliating and frightening to be searched naked while male soldiers were moving around the house.”

After the inspection was complete, the soldiers told Enas that a permit had been issued allowing her to visit her husband in hospital in Afula. This was the same soldier, she said, who minutes earlier, had asked here where Jarrar was.

A medical report issued by the hospital in Afula said that Jarrar had sustained dog bite injuries on his left arm and left leg and also had a suspected broken nose. But it said his injuries would not require cosmetic surgery.

But Enas questioned the accuracy of the report and said Jarrar, who was transferred on Tuesday to a hospital in Rafidia in the West Bank city of Nablus, was expected to undergo surgery and may require at least two operations, including a skin graft to his left arm.

The Israeli army told MEE that it followed “standard procedure” and sent in a search dog after failing to get a response from Jarrar to come out of the house.

Jarrar was given immediate medical treatment by army medics and then taken to a hospital, according to the army.

‘A day of mourning’: Florida school shooting suspect denied bond, charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder

Nikolas Cruz, 19, is the man suspected of fatally shooting at least 17 people at a South Florida high school on Feb. 14. Here's what you should know. (Amber Ferguson/The Washington Post)

By Lori Rozsa, Mark Berman and Devlin Barrett February 15 at 4:03 PM

PARKLAND, Fla. — Police on Thursday vowed to make sure that “justice is served” after a gunman wielding an assault-style rifle killed 17 people at a high school here, even as they sought to piece together what could have motivated one of the country’s deadliest school shootings.

A day after the shooting rampage, authorities had not publicly announced a motivation for the carnage, but they were digging into elements of the suspected gunman’s troubled past, including a pattern of disciplinary issues and unnerving behavior.

Also on Thursday, FBI investigators were pursuing information suggesting that Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old suspect charged with the shooting, might have been associated with a Florida-based white supremacist group. But agents were still trying to determine the extent of his involvement with the group, if any, according to a law enforcement official who asked not to be identified discussing an ongoing investigation.

It was not immediately clear what connection there may be between the shooting rampage and Cruz’s possible connections to the group.

The Anti-Defamation League reported Thursday that a spokesperson for the white supremacist group said that Cruz participated in some of their training exercises. The spokesperson told the ADL that the group did not order or want Cruz to carry out any attack like the school rampage. The Washington Post was not immediately able to reach several of the group’s members on Thursday.

[ Florida shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz: Guns, depression and a life in trouble]

This information came as police have sought to explain the massacre at a South Florida high school on Valentine’s Day. Authorities have described a chilling level of preparation, saying that the gunman wielded an assault-style weapon and carried extra ammunition when he sought to lure students into the hallways of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Wednesday.

What unfolded was another war zone erupting in a quiet suburban community, as a city known more for its sprawling homes and bucolic parks was transformed by a hail of bullets and a torrent of anguish.

In the aftermath, investigators have sifted through the background of Cruz, who had been expelled from the same school now turned into a crime scene. He had a history of disciplinary issues and a fascination with guns, people who knew him said.

Early Thursday, Cruz was booked on 17 counts of “murder premeditated.” He briefly appeared in court on Thursday and was ordered held without bond. Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel vowed that law enforcement officials would make sure Cruz was convicted on all charges.

“This community is hurting right now … Today’s a day of healing,” Israel said at a briefing Thursday morning. “Today’s a day of mourning.”

Israel said that police have identified all of the victims and planned to release their names later in the day. Some were students, but at least one staff member — a beloved football coach who had attended the school before returning to work there — was among the dead.

The coach, Aaron Feis, shot after throwing himself in front of students, the school’s football team said on Twitter, writing that he had “selflessly shielded students from the shooter” and “died a hero.”

In addition to the 17 killed in the school and outside, another 15 were wounded, authorities said. Three of those remained in critical condition Thursday, while some others were still hospitalized.
Israel said that it was “a pretty good assumption” that the shooter had unspecified mental-health issues.

During a news conference after Cruz’s court hearing, the public defender representing him described the 19-year-old as a “broken young man “ who is “ very saddened” by what happened. Cruz is on suicide watch, he added.

“This is an emotionally broken young man,” Gordon Weeks, the public defender, told reporters. “He has been through a lot of trauma. He has suffered significant mental illness, and significant mental trauma.”

Cruz’s attorneys did not say he had admitted to the shooting, nor did they explicitly deny his involvement.

But while school officials, students and others who knew him had sensed that something was off with Cruz before the attack, none of that was enough to stop the teenager from purchasing the gun officials said was used in the attack.

Cruz bought the AR-15 himself legally, and so far it is the only gun authorities have recovered as part of the investigation, said Peter J. Forcelli, special agent in charge of the Miami field division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Police arrested Nikolas Cruz, who is suspected of killing 17 people in a shooting rampage at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14. (Reuters)

In his social media postings, Cruz has been seen wielding other firearms, so officials continue looking for any additional weapons, but they have not found any so far, Forcelli said in an interview Thursday morning. Investigators are also reaching out to gun shops across the region to see if Cruz had attempted to buy other weapons.

Federal authorities were looking Thursday into whether Cruz had come up on their radar before. The FBI said that agents investigated a comment on YouTube last year that threatened a school shooting but were unable to identify the person who posted it.

“The comment simply said, ‘I’m going to be a professional school shooter,'” Robert F. Lasky, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Miami division, said at the news briefing Thursday. “No other information was included in that comment.”

[The legacy of Newtown: Lockdowns, active-shooter training and school security]

Lasky spoke after BuzzFeed News reported that a YouTube user had contacted the bureau after seeing someone with Cruz’s name post that same message. Lasky said that authorities, who investigated the comment last year and were looking at it again after the Parkland shooting, still do not know if the comment was posted by Cruz.

The tip to the FBI came in the fall of 2017, but when agents checked the name Nikolas Cruz against their internal databases, they could find no other derogatory information on him, according to a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation.

Without anything else to go on, officials felt there wasn’t enough of a legal justification to issue a subpoena to YouTube for the underlying information about that particular account-holder, the official said.

Since being taken into custody, Cruz has made statements to police, according to the official, who declined to elaborate.

[ No, there haven’t been 18 school shootings in 2018. That number is flat wrong. ]

Authorities said Cruz fired upon students outside and inside the school before escaping with those who were trying to elude his gunfire. Amid the chaos, he ditched his rifle, “blended in with fleeing students and was able to elude arriving officers,” prosecutors said in a court filing Thursday.

Israel said Thursday that there was an armed school resource officer on the Douglas campus when the shooting occurred, but “he never encountered Cruz.”

Cruz was taken into custody in nearby Coral Springs, not far from the school. A police officer from Coconut Creek, another nearby city, was driving down a residential street when he saw what looked like any other teenager walking down the road.

“He looked like a typical high school student,” Officer Michael Leonard told reporters Thursday. “And for a quick moment I thought, could this be the person, is this who I need to stop?”

The teenager was wearing clothes that matched the description broadcast over the police radio, Leonard said, so his training kicked in and he pulled over. Cruz complied with Leonard’s orders and was taken into custody without any problems, the officer said.

The bloodshed inside Douglas, which would remain closed at least through the rest of the week, was staggering even for veteran law enforcement professionals. Forcelli, a homicide detective in New York before he joined ATF, described what he saw as particularly horrifying.

“This is a bad crime scene,” said Forcelli, who was at the school for hours on Wednesday. “I’ve seen plenty of dead bodies. Seeing kids, defenseless kids, piled up, it weighs on you … I can’t imagine the pain the families have. There’s a lot of victims here.”

In televised remarks at the White House, President Trump pledged that his administration would help “tackle the difficult issue of mental health” and said the issue of improving safety in schools would be the top priority during a meeting later this month with governors and state attorneys general.

[ Student who survived Florida shooting pleads with Trump and Congress: ‘Please, take action’ ]

Even as the shooting was followed with questions about whether the country would revisit its gun control laws, Trump, much like Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) when he spoke earlier near the shooting scene, made no mention of that issue. Both officials instead stressed the importance of focusing on mental health in response to Florida’s third mass shooting in as many years.

Former president Barack Obama, who frequently had to address a nation rocked by mass violence during his time in office, wrote on Twitter that “we are not powerless” and called for “long overdue, common-sense gun safety laws.”

Analysis | More than 50 years of U.S. mass shootings: The victims, sites, killers and weapons VIEW GRAPHIC

Israel, the sheriff, said the shooting was “catastrophic.” He also warned of copycat threats made at other schools in the area. His officers responded to a report of a shooting at another school in the county, and while no threat was found, one of those deputies accidentally fired his own weapon and injured his leg.

The threat spoke to the tension still lingering across South Florida as it became the latest region to grapple with a seemingly endless procession of shooting rampages that have cut down Americans in their schools, churches, offices and movie theaters.

Possible red flags in the suspected shooter’s life began to emerge in the hours after he was identified. An Instagram account that appeared to belong to him showed several photos of guns. One appeared to show a gun’s holographic laser sight pointed at a neighborhood street. A second showed at least six rifles and handguns laid out on a bed with the caption “arsenal.” Other pictures showed a box of large-caliber rounds with the caption “cost me $30.” One of the most disturbing appeared to show a dead frog’s bloodied corpse.

Cruz and a half brother were adopted as babies by Lynda and Roger Cruz, according to a relative in New York. Roger died years ago and Lynda died last fall, the relative said. Around Thanksgiving, Nikolas Cruz moved in with the family of a friend from Stoneman Douglas High School, said Jim Lewis, an attorney representing the family.

[ The lives lost in the Parkland school shooting ]

Lewis said Cruz already owned the AR-15 rifle when he moved in with the family. “It was his gun. … It was secured in a gun cabinet in the house, but he had the key to it,” Lewis said.

Cruz was enrolled in a program to obtain a GED, Lewis said. But on Wednesday, he didn’t attend it, telling the family something to the effect of “I don’t go to school on Valentine’s Day,” Lewis said.

After the massacre, Ryan Gutierrez, 18, a senior, left Douglas and walked two miles to a 7-Eleven in Coral Springs — the nearest spot where his parents could meet him. Police cars blocked every other road leading to the school.
His parents had already been reunited with his sister, Nicole, a freshman at the school. As Gutierrez approached, his mom ran up, hugged him hard and started crying. Gutierrez held her tight, comforting her. His father came up and hugged them both.

“This has been so horrible, the most horrible day anyone can imagine,” Gutierrez’s mother, Diana Gutierrez, said, trying to stop her tears. “It’s unreal, just unreal. I still don’t believe it. You don’t think it will ever happen to you and your children.”

Balingit and Berman reported from Washington. David Nakamura, Brian Murphy, Moriah Balingit, Fred Barbash, William Wan, Jennifer Jenkins, Sarah Larimer and Julie Tate in Washington contributed to this report, which has been updated. David Weingrad reported from New York.