That powerful reconciliation strategy which Sri Lanka missed

Sunday, June 10, 2018

In retrospect, one of the greatest missed opportunities of the now doomed Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Unity Government was its failure to grab Sri Lanka’s legal system by its ears (metaphorically speaking), cleanse the Bench of corrupt and politically compromised judges against whom files were stacked up aplenty and demonstrate the power of criminal justice reforms for human rights abuses and corruption to all citizens alike through the length and breadth of the country.

A wretched reflection in uncertain times

If conceptualized properly and implemented vigorously with the full might of a political leadership in which the people had placed enormous trust in 2015, this could have formed the lynch pin of a powerful reconciliation strategy, uniting Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim and other communities. In this, it cannot even be said that we tried and failed. Instead, it is manifest that we never tried at all. That is a wretched reflection indeed as we head into menacingly uncertain times.

If that strategy had been employed, it would have deprived diaspora propagandists hankering for Eelam while living in comfort in Western climes of much of their hysteria while having an equally neutralizing impact on their Sinhalese counterparts spewing hate in the country, some of them disguised as monks in what must surely be the greatest insult to the Gautama Buddha. By using the law as an instrument for communities across the ethnic line, it would have taken away a major rallying call for the Rajapaksa rump at the time.

Most importantly, Sri Lanka’s poor, marginalized and conflict-affected would have witnessed the fact that long decades of the law being employed as an instrument of oppression were being changed. On its part, the judiciary would also have had to acknowledge key systemic failings which have now led to a bitter national debate on the nature of the judicial institution. In its present form, that debate is cantankerous and disjointed, endlessly revolving around the ridiculous flapping of hands by the Bar over contempt charges leveled against politicians and lawyers who critique judges. Sri Lanka still lacks a Contempt of Court law allowing judges to do what they want, as was best illustrated during the time of ex-Chief Justice Sarath Silva when contempt was wielded against all and sundry and an English teacher was sent to jail for one year for ‘daring to’ speak loudly in the Supreme Court.

Paucity of the national debate on the judiciary

But all this is quite mundane and very different to the searchingly pointed questions that are currently galvanizing India’s legal community, also confronted by a crisis of public confidence in its judiciary. Across the Palk Strait, Indian advocates and judges are looking inwards and embarking on rigorous self-examination with unprecedented happenings such as Supreme Court judges giving press conferences on the political manipulation of the judicial institution. These are familiar issues to us, increasingly so since 1999 when the Office of the Chief Justice during the Kumaratunge Presidency, faced similar allegations.

If Sri Lanka’s Bar Association has spearheaded a similarly effective critique of the country’s legal system without being a stamp for the National Unity Government to the extent that it loudly justified the removal of a Chief Justice through the hazardous tactic of a Presidential letter, the perils that we face now may have been lessened. And the ‘capturing’ of the Bar by a Rajapaksa-friendly faction (as is alleged) in later years may well have been avoided. Apart from being blind and deaf to cleansing the judicial process by taking action against politically compromised and corrupt judges using prescribed constitutional measures, even those emblematic cases of conflict related human rights abuses were left to wilt by the wayside.

Looking into two of those cases, namely the killing of seventeen Muslim and Tamil humanitarian aid workers in Mutur and the killing of five youth in Trincomalee both in 2006, the Udalagama Commission of Inquiry categorized the investigations conducted by the local police as well as the Criminal Investigation Department as being ‘incomplete and superficial’. In the report tabled in Parliament by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in 2015, it is pointed out that where the Trincomalee killings were concerned, ‘there are strong grounds to surmise the involvement of uniformed personnel in the commission of this crime.’

Difficult questions and impossible answers

But instead of closure in such cases, we had to endure the superficialities of a four pronged transitional justice ‘package’ presented with a flourish to a deeply gullible international community. The ‘doable’ components of that package, namely the search for missing persons and reparations are at last, under way. But even with all good intentions, to what extent is the political environment conducive to an actual change in a way that addresses needs of the victims? After all, we have had inquiries into missing persons and reparations under different names before.  This is a difficult question no doubt.

Meanwhile the anti-corruption struggle ran quickly aground on the treacherous shoals of both leaders of the Unity Government putting their party political priorities over the national interest. Three years later the implosion within the National Unity Government has resulted in some sins coming to light, albeit hesitatingly. Parliamentary approval earlier this month for an amendment to the Judicature Act established a Permanent High Court at Bar comprising three Judges sitting together nominated by the Chief Justice from among the Judges of the High Court.

Under its provisions, the Attorney General or the Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption may refer information relating to the offences to the Chief Justice for a direction whether criminal proceedings shall be instituted in the Permanent High Court at Bar. Relevant factors taken into account include the nature and circumstances, the gravity, the complexity, the impact on the victim and the impact on the State. Will this mechanism address the timorously tiptoeing around crucial issues of State accountability where bribery and corruption are concerned which is more a question of political chicanery than the law itself? We need to wait and see.

Entertainment galore for Sri Lankans

But for the moment, we have President Maithripala Sirisena firing from all cylinders on national platforms as to how he was betrayed by his coalition partner while Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s stoic silence in response fails to cover a multitude of sins committed by the party under his leadership, first among which is the Central Bank Treasury bond fiasco. As politicians parade before the public, some swearing by their mothers that they did not get money from ‘Aloysius’, nonsensical excuses by those caught out in being funded by ‘Aloysius’ confound the imagination, so to speak.

At least, there is entertainment galore even if nothing else. Perhaps that may be cheer enough as the country flounders in a right royal mess, not of the people’s making.

Some Thoughts On 2020

By S. I. Keethaponcalan –JUNE 10, 2018

Dr. S. I. Keethaponcalan

Last week, attending the late Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera’s 76th birth anniversary at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, President Sirisena warned the country not to think too much about the upcoming presidential election in 2020. According to the Sunday Times (June 03, 2018) the president has claimed that “there is lots of talk about presidential candidates. That is a crime as the elections are due only at the end of next year. Already presidential candidates are being named. This will lead to instability in the country. By creating an election interest, one and a half years before the elections, the state officials will stop their work.” It is true that when changes are expected after major elections, attitude of the public-sector employees also change. This is an unavoidable side-effect of national elections in Sri Lanka. Did Sirisena unconsciously admit that he has no chance of winning the presidential election in 2020? This is an interesting question, but it is not the focus of this essay.

There has been a degree of hypocrisy in the appeal that it is too early to think about the impending big election. When President Sirisena asked the Supreme Court whether he can serve as president for six years instead of the five-year period stipulated by the 19th Amendment, he was thinking about the election. Unfortunately for Sirisena, the Supreme Court said no. Moreover, almost all major parties have started contemplating and some have already started preparing for the presidential election. Hence, it is not completely inappropriate to think about the election on our part, the ones who will be at the receiving end of any outcome of the election.

A couple of weeks back, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) presented its proposal for the 20th Amendment to the constitution. The proposal seeks to transform the existing executive presidential system into a cabinet form of government. It seems that the JVP is the only party that sincerely believes in abolishing the executive presidential system. All others who support the idea, seem not too serious about the change. They like it. Obviously, as a small party, the JVP can play a major role in governance under a cabinet system. Hence, the persistence of the JVP on this issue has not been a surprise.

Nonetheless, I expected the Joint Opposition or the Sri Lanka Pudujana Peramuna (SLPP) to support the JVP proposal. Under the existing constitutional arrangements, Mahinda Rajapaksa cannot come back to power as president. The 19th Amendment reintroduced the two-term limit. Hence, under a Westminster model of government, Rajapaksa would have no problem winning the general election and come back to power as prime minister. The abolition of the executive presidential system will resolve Rajapaksa’s two term problem. The party however decided not to support the JVP proposal. What does the decision suggest about the SLPP’s strategic calculations?

For me, it indicates that the party has been extremely confident about the likelyhood of winning the upcoming presidential election. The confidence most likely stems from the recent local government election results. The SLPP secured about 45 percent of the votes in this election. Will the same votes be recast for the SLPP candidate in the presidential election? Most likely, yes.

One, bulk of the SLPP votes in the local government election came from the Sinhala heartland, which consistently votes for Rajapaksa. Even in the 2015 presidential election, votes in the Sinhala heartland went to Rajapaksa; not Sirisena. Two, one of the main reasons which stirred a lot of dissatisfaction towards the ruling coalition in this election was the high (or in the words of some people, unmanageable) cost of living. Postelection, the government has hardly done anything to lower cost of living. Instead, as far as I know, cost of living has been increasing steadily. Hence, there is no evidence to suggest that Sinhala votes could be redirected towards the UNP or the SLFP in the near future.

If this is the case, the SLPP needs only about six percent more votes to win the presidential election. This six percent could come from two sources: (1) about 14 percent votes the SLFP/UPFA gained in the local elections or the Muslim votes. In order to tap into the SLFP/UPFA votes, the SLPP needs to either appease and start collaborating with Sirisena or undertake a concerted scheme to prevent him from contesting the presidential election. Given the animosity between the Rajapaksa faction and Sirisena, incorporating the president into the SLPP headed coalition seems unlikely. If the SLPP succeeds in convincing Sirisena not to contest, the party candidate will most probably win the election.

Another promising source is the Muslim votes. Antagonizing the Muslims through the actions of Bodu Bala Sena and other militant Buddhist entities negatively affected the Rajapaksa coalition in the last election. There have already been moves to entice the Muslims. For example, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the presumed SLPP candidate, recently stated that “Muslims are ready to work hand-in-hand with the Rajapaksas to form a government under the leadership of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa.” (Daily Mirror, May 29, 2018). He has already been attending Muslim religious ceremonies. Can the Muslims be convinced to vote again for Rajapaksas? Of course. The continuing attacks on the Muslims during the tenure of the unity government may influence at least a segment of the Muslim voters to support one of the Rajapaksas in this election. Hence, the prospect of the SLPP candidate in the presidential election looks very bright.

Read More

Sri Lanka: SLAF Controversial Multi-Billion Defence Deal and Service Extension

PM challenges MR: Tell me how to repay loans while reducing taxes

  

Sirisena has extended the term of Sri Lanka Air Force Commander Kapila Jayampathy, who was in Italy recently

---

( June 10, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) has ambitious plans to purchase helicopters of different makes and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) at a staggering cost of more than Rs 64.8 billion, according to the report published by the Sunday Times, Colombo. The Defence Ministry is expected to appoint a Technical Evaluation Committee for this purpose. An earlier committee ceased to function after a senior officer of the rank of Air Vice Marshal retired.

Meanwhile, President Maithripala Sirisena has extended the term of Sri Lanka Air Force Commander Kapila Jayampathy, who was in Italy recently to observe the possibilities of the defence deal between two countries.

Jayampathy, a close associate of Dudely Sirisena, one of the brothers of the President Sirisena,  was to have retired on May 25 this year. As a result, Air Marshal Jayampathy will remain in office until the same period next year. President Sirisena made the decision in his capacity as Minister of Defence in whose purview the armed forces come under.

However, the major portion of the planned procurement is ten Mi 171 SH Russian-built transport-cum-combat helicopters. For this purpose, a partly used US$ 300 million credit line, which lapsed in 2015 and has been renewed by Russia to allow Sri Lanka to purchase a Gepard 5.1 Offshore Patrol Vessel OPV), is to be utilised. This makes clear that the Government will not go ahead with the controversial OPV deal. It has been enormously costly compared to OPVs provided by India.

The SLAF also wants to purchase four more Mi 17 helicopters at a cost of more than Rs 14.3 billion for use in United Nations assignments as peace keepers. It is mandatory in terms of UN rules that forces joining UN peace keeping missions in trouble spots around the world undertake assignments with their own equipment. Such investment takes long years to recover. In the case of a Sri Lanka Army deployment, it was originally estimated it would be five years but it continued thereafter. This as well as the ten helicopters for SLAF use will come from the original manufacturers, Ulan Ude plant in Russia.

The other purchases cover:

Four Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for reconnaissance and surveillance purposes. This is at a cost of Rs 6.2 billion.

The purchase of six trainer helicopters at a cost of more than Rs 4.87 billion.

The purchase of two Bell 414 helicopters for VVIP use at a cost of More than Rs 11.48 billion.

In addition, the purchase of two used Bell 206 B Bell Jet Ranger helicopters has also been planned. The entire Bell helicopter deal is to be financed through an intermediary in Singapore. He is said to arrange for foreign loans but the identity of the party is still not known. If the deal works out, this would be a rare occasion when the SLAF will procure used helicopters or for that matter even Bell 414s for VVIP transport since they are relatively small. Among the varied arguments used is the reluctance of western VIPs to fly in Russian made helicopters. Yet, the Mi 17 transport-cum-combat helicopters are among those in the United Nations inventory.

An expenditure of more than Rs 64.8 billion, only for the Air Force, does raise some questions. Firstly there is no war and more importantly such massive purchases have not taken place at that time. An argument in favour of the move, however, is that the equipment used by the tri services would have to be updated and modernised.

However, with a badly deteriorating economy, questions are being raised on the wisdom of ploughing vast amounts of tax payers’ money into military procurements. This is even without identifying the major threat perceptions. Moreover, this is at a time when some western governments too have begun to demand downsizing the military for continued assistance in some sectors of the economy.

One aspect which has not been adequately addressed is the troop strength and equipment requirements after the Tiger guerrillas were militarily defeated in 2009. The fact that different helicopter manufacturers are being considered underscores the absence of any standardisation and continuing ad hoc approach. The fact that what is procured on credit has to be repaid for generations to come is lost.

Sri Lanka Guardian input with the report originally published by the Sunday Times, Colombo 

PM challenges MR: Tell me how to repay loans while reducing taxes

Sri Lanka: SLAF Controversial Multi-Billion Defence Deal and Service Extension

2018-06-10

Responding to a claim by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa that he would reduce taxes by 20 percent after regaining power, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe challenged him on Saturday to reveal the country how the latter is going to repay the huge amount of loans the country owes to the other countries after reducing taxes.

Speaking at a function that was organised to declare open the iron bridge that has been constructed over the Kelani River connecting Siyane Korale and Hapitigama Korale at Ranwala, Dompe, the Prime Minister stated that he wanted to know how Mr. Rajapaksa is going to reduce taxes while at the same time repaying the foreign debt with interest.

The Prime Minister was referring to a statement made by the former President during an interview with a Sinhala newspaper days ago.

Claiming that his government had to pay the loans including one amounting around Rs. 21,000 million obtained by the previous regime for acquiring lands from all over the country, Mr. Wickremesinghe said that his government was paying for the sins of Mr. Rajapaksa.

The Prime Minister referred to the proverb "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" when he recalled how the government of former President who accuses the incumbent government now that it sells national assets to foreigners, sold 50 acres from the Port City outright to China and the land where the Army Headquarters was situated to a Chinese hotel.

He said that the country had to face several natural disasters such as floods, drought and the collapse of Meetotamulla garbage dump, yet the government has embarked on development projects such as the construction of Ranwala and Milleniya bridges. (Upali Ranaweera)

The relevance of India’s anti-crossover provision for SL

Abolishing the executive presidency:

By C .A. Chandraprema-June 10, 2018, 10:02 pm 

Whenever any discussion about the abolition of the executive presidential system comes up, one of the main points raised by those who argue in favour of retaining the executive presidential system is that once this system is abolished and power passes on to a parliamentary executive, any interested party, including foreign parties will be able to get anything they want done by simply bribing MPs. They fear that governments will be formed and fall entirely on the basis of MPs being bought off. This is a justifiable fear given the things that have happened in this country. Even though many people think that bribing MPs is a phenomenon that appeared only after the introduction of the open economy, there have been plenty of instances when MPs and ministers faced accusations of corruption even in the 40s, 50s and 60s.

The crossover of 1965 which brought down the first Sirima Bandaranaike government is also attributed to bribery. India passed its anti-crossover law in 1985 under the Rajiv Gandhi government in the form of the 52nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution. The statement of objects and reasons of the amending Act stated among other things; "The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles which sustain it."

The 52nd Amendment added the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution which provided as follows:

A member of either house of the Indian Parliament will be disqualified from being an MP if he has voluntarily given up membership of the political party through which he was elected or nominated to Parliament, or if he votes or abstains from voting in Parliament contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs.

2. An independent candidate who wins an election shall be disqualified from being an MP if he joins any political party after such election.

Disqualification on grounds of defection will not apply in case of a split. If a split takes place in a political party and more than one third of the MPs belonging to that political party join the dissident group, it will be recognized as a separate group in Parliament. In such an event, disqualification on the grounds that he has voluntarily given up his membership of his original political party; or that he has voted or abstained from voting contrary to the directions of his party will not apply. From the time of the split, the faction to which he belongs will be deemed to be the political party to which the MP belongs for the purposes of the provisions of this law.

A member of a House shall not be disqualified under this law if his original political party merges with another political party. The merger of the original political party with another political party will be deemed to have taken place only if not less than two-thirds of the MPs in the party concerned have agreed to such merger.

5. The Speaker or the Deputy Speaker will not be disqualified under this law if he by reason of his election to such office, voluntarily gives up membership of the political party to which he belonged.

6. On the question whether an MP has become subject to disqualification under this law, the Speaker’s decision shall be final. No court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter connected with the disqualification of am MP under this law. The Speaker may maintain registers or other records of the political parties to which MPs belong.

According to the way the Indian courts have interpreted this law, if an MP publicly opposes his party or states his support for another party, that could constitute ‘voluntarily resigning’ from a party. One of the major criticisms of this law is the Speaker’s absolute power in deciding on disqualification of MPs. However, the general consensus in India appears to be that this law has succeeded to a reasonable extent in establishing party stability. In 2001, the National Commission to review the working of the Constitution headed by a former Chief Justice of India M. N. Venkatachalliah made some recommendations to further strengthen this anti crossover law among which were the following:

1. All defecting MPs whether individually or in groups be made to resign their seats forthwith and face by-elections.

Such defectors must be debarred from holding public office as a minister or any other remunerative political post for the duration of the remaining term of the existing legislature.

3. The vote cast by a defector to topple a government should be treated as invalid.

4. The power to decide on questions of disqualification on grounds of defection should vest in the Election Commission instead of in the Speaker.

In the event that Sri Lanka abolishes the executive presidency after electoral reform to ensure stable governments, India’s experience with the anti-crossover provision can be drawn on to ensure the stability of governments and the political party system.

FR PETITIONS AGAINST BOOZE BAN FOR WOMEN TAKEN UP TOMORROW

10 June, 2018

Two Fundamental Rights Petitions filed by women activists and Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr P. Saravanamuttu, on the basis of public interest will be taken up tomorrow.

The position of both Petitions is that regardless of whether a woman actually engages in these activities, her constitutional right to make that choice for herself should be respected to the same extent as that of a man. Two cases- SC Ref 33/2018 and SC Ref 34/2018- challenges the validity of Excise Notification No 4/2018 of the Gazette Extraordinary No. 2054-42 issued by Minister of Finance and Media on January 18 this year.

The reintroduction of the Excise Notification No 4/2018 will result in the prohibition of women above the age of 18 to manufacture, collect, bottle, sell or transport liquor and being employed for manufacturing, collecting, bottling, sale or transport of liquor and the prohibition on “giving” liquor to “a woman within the premises of a tavern”.

The five petitioners assert that Excise Notification No 4/2018 is a violation of their rights guaranteed under Article 10 [freedom of thought], Article 12(1) [equal protection of the law], Article 12(2) [non discrimination] and Article 14(1)(g) [freedom to engage in a lawful occupation, profession].
In addition to the infringement of fundamental rights it is claimed that such a reversal of the law amounts to falling short on the international and domestic commitments that the country has entered into.

This prohibition is contrary to a range of commitments made by the Government of Sri Lanka including at a minimum the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Two key recommendations made in the CEDAW Committee’s 2017 report to Sri Lanka were to ensure the de facto prohibition of discrimination against women, and to review all legislation for conformity with CEDAW. It was also recommended that the state accord statutory recognition to the right to equality and non-discrimination, and ensure that all CEDAW provisions are enforceable.
Furthermore, in May 2017, Sri Lanka regained inclusion into the European Union’s (EU) Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP+). The scheme vastly reduces duties on exports to the EU on the condition of improving compliance with 27 international conventions, including CEDAW.

Finally, Sri Lanka also adopted the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in September 2015. In particular, Goal 5 seeks to “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”. This includes commitments to end all forms of discrimination.

Government has highlighted its commitment to the goals in a range of domestic processes, including the NHRAP and government policy, and will be subject to international follow-up and review of the SDG commitments in coming years.

The first Petition was filed by five women on their own behalf and in the public interest. They are Bhavani Fonseka, Sumika Perera, Anusha Coomaraswamy, Shreen Saroor and Minoli de Zoysa. Viran Corea, Sarita de Fonseka, Luwie Ganeshathasan, Krijah Sivakumar and Inshira Faliq appeared for the Petitioners and were instructed by Sinnadurai Sundaralingam and Balendra Associates.

Women’s Representation and Participation in Formal Politics

Featured image by Sri Lanka Brief

DAISY PERRY-06/10/2018

Despite the drive for gender equality promoted at the Beijing UN World Conference on Women in 1995, the Sri Lankan state appears to have taken little responsibility for narrowing the gender gap in political representation. Savitri Goonesekere explains this as a “non-recognition of the problem” while Kumari Jayawardena has observed that Sri Lanka has produced a female prime minister and president without confronting the patriarchy that exists across society. While these are credible explanations, the lack of progress in female representation is also part of a pattern of patriarchal  State dominance and its power to render feminist discourses silent.One result of this subordination is that there are currently only 13 female Members of Parliament out of 225.

Women’s Representation and Participation in Formal Politics.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Two underworld figures killed in shootout with STF

Asela KURULUWANSA-Monday, June 11, 2018

Two underworld gang members were killed in a shootout with the Police Special Task Force (STF) in Madawala, Katugastota in Kandy on Saturday.

According to the Police, they were close associates of two wanted underworld gang leaders’, Madush and Angoda Lokka, who are said to be residing abroad.

The two gang members are said to have carried out many criminal acts acting on the instructions of Madush and Angoda Lokka.

The suspects who were killed during the shootout have been identified as 30-year old Rumalsha Iresh Madushanka alias “Baila” and Polwattage Upali alias “Jana” according to the Police.

The Police were on the alert about the suspects after coming to know that the duo were coordinating criminal activities from a hideout in the Kandy area.

The Police Special Task Force had placed road blocks in the Madawala area after coming to know that the duo were travelling in a vehicle from Katugastota towards Madawala.

When the Police stopped a vehicle for inspection, the duo who were inside had opened fire at the Police officers and a shootout had ensued with the Police retaliating.

According to the Police, the gang members who were killed during the shootout are suspects in several ongoing court cases related to murder, ransom, drug trafficking and assault.

The Police had seized two firearms which were in the possession of the suspects.

The magisterial inquiry into the deaths was conducted by the Teldeniya Magistrate and the post mortem inquiry was to be conducted by the Judicial Medical Officer at Kandy Hospital. 

Sujeewa’s hangover after gulping 3m tots from Arjun’s arrack cask

THE EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF TWO ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW PROFESSING IGNORANCE AS THEIR DEFENCE - Sloshed excuse: Doesn’t even know who gave him the tipple to make heady his election slush fund

Sunday, June 10, 2018

If SLFP MP and former Sports Minister Dayasiri Jayasekera found himself in the public dock three weeks ago for accepting a million bucks from Bond Scam Godfather Arjun Aloysius, it was the UNP State Minister of International Trade Sujeewa Senasinghe’s turn this Thursday to make his less than grand entrance to the same public dock of shame and share it with his SLFP counterpart, Dayasiri.

As was the case with Dayasiri three weeks ago when police filed a B report at a magisterial court in connection with the bond scam which claimed he had received a million rupee cheque from Aloysius, the police filed in court this Thursday a further B report which alleged that Sujeewa Senasinghe had received not one million but three million bucks in three cheques from Aloysius liquor company, W. M. Mendis Ltd., the famous arrack distillers.

On Wednesday, State Minister Sujeewa landed at the Karunayake airport to a storm of questioning from the media over the rumour ignited by Dayasiri that there were 118 MPs who had received money from Aloysius. He was asked whether it was true that he had received money from Aloysius.

Sujeewa’s answer was that his election campaign fund was handled by his friends and that he would have to peruse the relevant documents to see whether he had. He was further asked whether he should not have known whether such money had been received. His reply to that was” No, it doesn’t happen that way when you are contesting for an election. I get up at six in the morning and I am constantly on the run till six in the evening. And remember Aloysius is not Prabhakaran.”

No one bothered to ask him what he does after 6pm. Whether he doesn’t consult his election team and inquire as to the state of his finances that keeps his motor running during the day?

The following day, on Thursday, the news broke. The Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda informed the Colombo Fort Magistrate that a state minister of the government had received three cheques worth Rs.3 million in 2015 and 2016 from W.M. Mendis & Company Ltd owned by Arjun Aloysius. The report stated that a former Sub Inspector, who was a member of the state minister’s security detail, had cashed one of the three cheques received in 2015 at a bank in Slave Island. The other two cheques received in 2015 and 2016 were cashed by two other police officers attached to the state minister’s security detail.

Once it came to light in court that Sujeewa Senasinghe had indeed received three cheques from Aloysius’s liquor company – the third accused in the treasury bond case – amounting to three million rupees, Sujeewa’s response to it, accosted as he was by the same irrefutable evidence as Dayasiri had been accosted with three weeks ago, was as ingenious as Dayasiri’s response had been ingenious: He simply did not know.

Speaking to the Daily Mirror on Thursday evening, Sujeewa Senasinghe said he was unaware that his campaign team had received cheques worth Rs.3 million from W.M. Mendis & Company Limited. He said he had five teams handling various aspects of his campaign at the 2015 parliamentary elections.

He said: “These committees collected donations from well-wishers for campaign financing. Every financial activity was handled by a man named Amal. The campaign teams are unaware of a nexus with W.M. Mendis & Company. Had I known, I would not have allowed them to accept anything.”

So, okay. First of all he puts Aloysius, the epicentre of the bond scam as a mere well wisher. He tells us – and expects us to believe in fairy tales – that his close friend Amal, who was in charge of his election campaign fund had received three cheques from Aloysius owned W. M. Mendis and Company Ltd. for a million each towards his 2015 election campaign and never thought of breathing a word about it to him; and thus he did not know.

A mushroom bunch of questions suddenly sprouts in the dirt and needs to be asked here.
n The first one is who gave instructions to the three police constables in the State Minister Sujeewa’s security detail to go to the bank and cash million buck cheques, using their own IDs and risk being questioned by the Inland Revenue at a future date as to how and from whom they received such monies?

n Was it Sujeewa’s close friend Amal, the front desk receptionist at Sujeewa’s election office given carte blanche power by Sujeewa to accept all comers who carry multimillion cheques merely to cast their blessings upon their chosen stallion? With no questions asked? With no strings attached?

n Was this collector totally clueless as to the nexus between Aloysius and the company W. M. Mendis which he owned? What sort of nincompoop was this Amal, tasked as he was as Treasurer of the Sujeewa Senasinghe 2015 election campaign fund, and what sort of simpleton was he, Sujeewa, to give his right hand Man Friday to collect money for his 2015 election campaign and not keep him in the know? Cash cheques can be cashed over the counter and deposited in one’s own pocket without the beneficiary even knowing about it? Didn’t Sujeewa ever wonder that temptation can lead to embezzlement?

n And what right did this Amal have to order constables of the nation’s police force to run errands on the side cashing cheques on the state minister’s behalf? Did Sujeewa, as a state minister, authorise his constables of his security detail to run these dubious errands of cashing cheques from Aloysius in their own names? And were they in turn paid some santhosams for doing so? Why didn’t Sujeewa’s trusted Amal go to the bank instead and cash it in his name and write on the back of the cheque his name, address and ID number but instead made an officer of the State, attached to the Defence Ministry to provide security for the State Minister, to do this dirty work of cashing cheques in his own name? Not once, not twice but thrice? And all million buck cheques, mind you?

And one final question. The most important one.

Sujeewa Senasinghe said that these three cheques had been received from Aloysius’s W. M. Mendis Company as contributions to his election campaign fund handled by his friend Amal.

• But the first cheque for a million bucks had been cashed by his police bodyguard on August 24th 2015, a week after the 2015 general elections were held which was on the 17th of August 2015.
• The second cheque for another Rs one million had been received by Sujeewa on the 12th of November 2015. That’s three months after the elections.
• The third cheque for another one million rupees had been received on the 31st March 2016. That’s seven months after the event.

All cheques received courtesy of Aloysius and cashed after election day of 17th August 2015. Perhaps Sujeewa has a whole load of explaining to do which he claimed this Wednesday and stated again on Thursday, it was money to finance his election campaign from ‘a well wisher’, whose identify he did not know.

Now would he have the temerity to say and dare test the credulity of the public even further and take it to its limits by saying he was not referring to the 2015 elections but that his campaign to collect money from whatever source possible had already begun by his forward looking, forward planning friend Amal, focusing on amassing from day one a huge slush fund to meet the expenses of the 2020 hustings?

From well wishers — even rogues like Aloysius — who place their millions in Sujeewa’s pin katay or till with no strings attached? Merely out of supreme altruism? Who expect nothing in return for their discreet charity, their only joy and reward to see the recipient occupying a ministerial chair, ensconced in a position of power and influence to do their bidding when they ring the bell?

And what a coincidence, is it not, that both he and Dayasiri, though on opposite camps, shared such common ground and did not know they were grazing on Aloysius’s tainted turf?

Both Jayasiri and Sujeewa are educated men. Both are attorneys-at–Law, officials of the Supreme Court of Lanka, whose primary duty is to the court and only thereafter to the client. Both are in their forties. Sujeewa will turn 47 this December and Dayasiri will turn 49 this coming Tuesday. Both are much-talking politicians with a high profile. Dayasiri came second in Kurunegala on the SLFP ticket at the 2015 general elections whilst Sujeewa came second in Colombo on the UNP ticket. Both are blessed with the gift of the gab. And both are now accursed for having received Arjun Aloysius’s dirty money. And both damned with memory loss.

Both have been vociferous over the Bond scam and both have raised hue and cry over it. But somehow both had maintained a discreet silence, nay, a complete blanket of silence, over the munificence dealt out to them personally by cheque for millions from the bond scam kitty until the scandal broke out in court and they were forced to admit receipt of cheques from Godfather Arjun Aloysius. For the evidence contained in the Police B report was overwhelming.

But even then, both still shared one thing in common. The explanation. The justification. The method of operation. And the ignorance. Both held that it had been to finance their respective election campaigns in the general elections held on August 2015. Dayasiri cashed his cheque one month before polls. Sujeewa cashed his first million cheque from Arjun’s distillery one week after the elections and the other two many moons after.

Dayasiri used a police bodyguard in his security detail to go to the bank and cash it for him: And perhaps taking a cue from Dayasiri, Sujeewa enriched his election fund by three million bucks when – as he now says – his friend, some Amal, got Sujeewa’s police constables serving in the State Minister Sujeewa’s security detail to go to the bank and cash the cheques on three separate occasions, long after the elections had been held and the results announced with the last cheques cashed on March 31st 2016, the last date of the financial year for the Aloysius owned W. M. Mendis Company Ltd.

Both had received money from Aloysius. Both had remained silent of this manna from Arjun Aloysius’s bond scam. Both had served on the COPE committee inquiring into the bond scam but still hadn’t deemed it fit to bring it to the notice of the COPE chairman that they had received such santhosams from Arjun’s loving heart. Both had kept it secret from the public eye until revelations in court brought their secret to light. Both had used the same modus operandi to get their Aloysius issued cheques cashed at the banks by using police constables attached to their security detail as fronts.

And both had the same lame excuse when it came to explaining away their bonanzas dropped into their respective piggy banks by the Godfather: “It was for our election campaign and we were not aware who the fairy godfather was”, has been their constant refrain. The new ‘I don’t know’ political culture of this country. Neither did they care to exercise due diligence worthy of their legal profession to find out. And, of course, both said that had they but known it was from Aloysius they would not have touched it with a barge pole. But they did, didn’t they?

Both were Siamese twins inseparable from the umbilical cord stemming from Aloysius’s hip pocket. Sujeewa, unlike Dayasiri, had walked the extra mile. He had gone to the District Court of Colombo in 2015 seeking to prevent the release of the document UNP members of COPE claimed was merely a summary of evidence gathered by the COPE subcommittee during their investigation. He had even gone to the extent of writing a book on the subject titled ‘MAHA BENKUWEA BENDUMKARA NIKUTHUWA – ETTHA -NETTHA’: Central Bank’s Bond Issue: True or False?

Not forgetting, of course, the many calls he had made to and received from Arjun Aloysius whilst serving as a member of COPE probing the bond scam: calls he never revealed to the COPE or to the public until the CID revealed the call log to the Bond Commission last year in November: 227 calls to and from Arjun Aloysius, 63 during his tenure as a member of the COPE committee probing Aloysius.

Immersed though he was in the whole long-drawn saga of the Central Bank bond scam issue, Sujeewa’s statement to the media on arrival at the Karunayake airport from Thailand on Wednesday seems not to have satisfied his conscience; and on Thursday evening he revisited the subject when he told the Daily Mirror, “These committees collected donations from well-wishers for campaign financing. Every financial activity was handled by a man named Amal. The campaign teams are unaware of a nexus with W.M. Mendis & Company. Had I known, I would not have allowed them to accept anything.” But on Friday, that, too was not good enough and he felt a compelling need to return to the controversial topic again and proceeded to hold a news conference at his Kollupitiya residence whereat he stated that:

“The money was given in the form of three cash cheques. They were given to a group of my friends who were running my election campaign. I did not personally get them. I did not ask for the money. They gave it voluntarily. There is an ethical issue now that these companies have been found to be involved in an illegal activity. I am willing to resign from my post as an MP if the President or PM or a senior member of the Buddhist clergy asks me to do so. Now only Dayasiri and I are named, what about the others who do business with Mendis and Co and also may have received funding from them?”

Normally politicians step down from their positions of power and responsibility when their conscience urges them to do so. They don’t wait to receive marching orders from the President or the Prime Minister or imploring from some Buddhist monk to do so. But still, its notable that Sujeewa acknowledged that there is sufficient reason for him to resign, if given the nod and the push and the shove from those in the political sphere and in the religious realm. After all money today can buy anything. If it taints your attire, you can use money to buy a clean suit. At least, Ravi Karunanayake didn’t wait to be told. He resigned when he realised his position had become untenable.

But one thing in Sujeewa’s political get-up stands out and needs to be corrected, his Peter Pan attitude when he says well wishers came and gave him money to finance his election campaign long after the election had been over and even after three years of receiving their largesse he is still unaware as to who these philanthropists are. Who mysteriously came and left their million buck cheques under the Christmas tree hidden amidst the mistletoe.

But Santa Clause is for children. And comes only on Christmas Eve and leaves his present without leaving his calling card. Not before or after elections. But unlike him, the tooth fairy visits a child’s bed at night and steals away unnoticed but not before, in this instance, placing a cheque under the pillow in return for the child’s fallen tooth. Even in fairy tales, there is hardly anything given even to kids for nothing.

In other words, Mr. State Minister: Go tell your story to the birds.

PS: Sujeewa said on Friday eve that he now wishes to donate the three million he received from Aloysius’s company to a charity and awaits either the Speaker or a Buddhist monk to name a charity. But why do charity with other people’s money? Why not return to sender and let Aloysius do the charity, if he so wishes?

PTL funds for MPs: decision on CIABOC investigations soon

Complaint lodged against Dayasiri to be taken up

By Shamindra Ferdinando-June 11, 2018, 12:39 pm 

Member of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIAOBOC) C. Neville Guruge yesterday said the commission would soon examine a complaint that MP Dayasiri Jayasekera had received Rs. 1 mn from Walt and Row Associates in the run-up to August 2015 parliamentary polls.

Retired SSP Guruge said so when The Island asked him whether the CIABOC had received a complaint from a person, named D.D.W. Chandradewa, that Jayasekera had received campaign funds from Walt and Row Associates, affiliated to the currently suspended primary dealer, Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL).

Guruge said that the CIABOC had to find out whether the complaint against a lawmaker receiving campaign funds came under its purview

When The Island pointed out the MP himself had admitted in Parliament that he had received Rs 1 mn from a group of companies under investigation over treasury bond scams perpetrated in 2015 and 2016, Guruge insisted the Commissioners needed time to decide on the matter.

The CIABOC comprises Justice T. B. Weerasuriya (Chairman), Justice W. Lal Ranjith Silva and C. Neville Guruge. Additional Solicitor General Sarath Jayamanne, PC, functions as the Director General of the Commission.

Asked why he had denied receiving a complaint about members of parliament receiving money from PTL and various companies affiliated to it when the issue was raised by the media at an event organised by the CIABOC in Ratnapura last Friday (June 8), Guruge said that a section of the media had misinterpreted his response. He said that he had been asked about receiving a complaint about 118 members of parliament receiving money.

"We haven’t received a complaint regarding 118 law makers so far though a complaint was made against MP Jayasekera," Guruge said, adding that the CIABOC was in the process of formulating new action plan to address the issue.

Chandradeva told Derana TV that he had lodged a complaint on May 28 in the wake of MP Jayasekera, claiming in Parliament that he was not the only lawmaker to have received money from PTL.

Guruge admitted that he had not so far seen Jayadeva’s complaint received two weeks back.

The Criminal Investigation Department has informed the Fort Magistrate’s court that State Minister Sujeewa Senasinghe received Rs. 3 mn in three installments between August 2015 to March 2016.

At that time Jayasekera received Rs. 1 mn he was not a member of the parliament though Senasinghe accepted Rs. 3 mn after being re-elected member of the current parliament. Jayasekera successfully contested August 2015 parliamentary polls.

The first treasury bond scam was carried out on Feb. 27, 2015 and the second one in late March 2016.

Guruge said the CIABOC investigated all complaints which came under its purview.

The CID also reported to courts that former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran, too, had received Rs 3.2 mn from W.M.Mendis & Company.

CID under pressure to not reveal politicians involved in Bonds scam

By Gagani Weerakoon-JUN 10 2018

Arbitrary decision by the authorities to confiscated equipment belonging to the Polgahawela radio transmission centre of the Teleshan Network (Private) Limited (TNL) claiming that it had not renewed the licence for transmission created quite a spark in the country. A Spokesperson for the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (TRCSL) said the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had conducted the raid and had taken the equipment into custody. TNL Television (TV), in its Facebook page, however, claimed that the TRCSL officials had sealed the transmission centre despite their making the necessary payments for the renewal of the transmission licence. The TNL Spokesperson said the TRC did not have the mandate to conduct raids. However, the Spokesperson clarified that it would only affect transmission from the Polgahawela transmission unit.
According to sources, a complaint had been filed by the TRCSL, with the Polgahawela Police on 4 June, stating that the transmission unit was functioning without a valid licence. Sources said the raid was carried out following a Court Order.

Officials at the TNL, when contacted said that they were yet to take a decision on their future steps pertaining to this issue.

Meanwhile, Minister of Mass Media Mangala Samaraweera in Parliament noted that the closing down of any media institution by the Government is unethical and undemocratic.

The Minister, responding to Joint Opposition (JO) Parliamentarian Wimal Weerawansa, who queried in Parliament whether the incident is a result of a political tug-of-war between the Prime Minister and the President, said that he came to know of the incident about an hour back. “I am trying to obtain a report from the TRCSL right now. Once I receive the report I would inform the House as to what had happened in reality,” Samaraweera said.

 “We do not agree with the political views of the TNL which is owned by the brother of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. The channel has slung mud at us many times. But we do not approve of the sealing of that institution. It is undemocratic. This Government came to power promising five-star media freedom. Therefore, the Minister should let us know as to what had happened,” Weerawansa said.

“I agree with Weerawansa. Closing down a media institution is not democratic. There are many TV stations which sling mud at us, but we do not have anything against them. In fact, I am a friend of the owners of those media stations and it would not be changed. We should be able to keep our politics in one box and our friendships in another box as professional politicians. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it,” Minister Samaraweera added.

State Minister of National Policies and Economic Affairs Dr. Harsha de Silva also said that he too agreed with Weerawansa.

“Although we have so many disagreements with Weerawansa, what he is saying here is correct. We cannot agree with this incident. This has been done by the TRCSL which is headed by the Secretary to the President. We came to power with the promise of upholding democratic rights and improving media freedom in this country. Therefore, sealing a transmission tower of a TV station cannot be approved by any means,” he added.

While authorities claimed the taking into custody was done according to legal procedure, many speculated a scathing attack on President Maithripala Sirisena aired by TNL was the closest reason behind it.

Marriage over

Meanwhile, the political marriage maintained by the Unity Government since January 2015 suffered a major setback last week at the election of the Deputy Speaker.
By fielding a candidate against the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) candidate for the post of Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe-led United National Party has clearly disregarded the MoU between the two Parties signed when forming the Unity Government, the SLFP alleged.

Proposing Dr. Sudarshani Fernandopulle’s name for the post of Deputy Speaker, which fell vacant with the resignation of Thilanga Sumathipala, UPFA MP and the recently appointed Treasurer of the SLFP, S.B. Dissanayake said the position of the Deputy Speaker was allocated for the SLFP. “Therefore, an SLFP MP should be appointed as the Deputy Speaker. Therefore, I propose the name of Dr. Fernandopulle for the post,” he said.
UPFA MP Vasudeva Nanayakkara, who represents the Joint Opposition, seconded Dr. Fernandopulle’s name. However, the UNP fielded its Moneragala District MP Ananda Kumarasiri, as the candidate for the same post.

“The entire episode has clearly shown that there is no agreement anymore. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has basically opened the gate for the remaining SLFP members to leave the Government. Now, those in the Government should finally get the message, understand the pulse of the people, which they showed through Local Government Election results and more than anything take to heart what President Maithripala Sirisena said the other day, at the SLFP Central Committee meeting, about leaving the Government soon for Party’s benefit and leave the so called Unity Government,” former Minister Chandima Weerakkody told Ceylon Today.

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe said the Government had to propose a United National Party (UNP) MP for the vacant post of the Deputy Speaker because there was no the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) backbencher to be nominated for the post, despite the agreement within the Consensual Government that the Deputy Speaker post should go to a Sri Lanka Freedom Party Government rank MP.

Wickremesinghe made this remark after Speaker Karu Jayasuriya announced that a secret vote should be held to select a new Deputy Speaker because two names from the UNP and the SLFP had been proposed.
UNP’s Kumarasiri and the SLFP’s Dr. Fernadopulle were proposed for the post of Deputy Speaker.

When Kumarasiri’s name was proposed, the Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan said, when the Yahapalana Government was formed, there was an agreement with regard to the posts of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chairman of Committees.
Since a name from the SLFP had been proposed, the House can go ahead according to the said agreement. I also favour the name of Dr. Fernandopulle for the Deputy Speaker post, Sampanthan said. The SLFP had earlier proposed MP Angajan Ramanathan’s name for the post but later withdrew his name and agreed to field Dr. Fernandupulle. Reason to withdraw Angajan Ramanathan’s name was the opposition expressed by Opposition Leader Sampanthan led TNA.

Responding to Sampanthan, the Prime Minister said that the agreement the latter mentioned was to have a UNP MP as the Speaker and an SLFP MP of the Government, as the Deputy Speaker.

“The agreement says that the post of Deputy Chairman of Committees should be given to the Opposition. We acted according to that agreement. When the SLFP proposed a name for the post earlier some parties objected to that name. There were no SLFP backbencher- MPs in the Government, to be proposed for this post. We do not have any problem with giving the post to an SLFP MP. However, giving that post to an SLFP MP in the Opposition would violate the agreement. Both, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker belong to the Government. Therefore, a proposal had been made from the UNP to appoint a Government rank backbencher to the post. I think the Opposition Leader would help us to go ahead with it,” Wickremesinghe stated.

After the secret vote to select the Deputy Speaker was commenced, Sampanthan and the rest of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MPs walked away from the Chamber. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) also followed them. Eleven MPs from the Joint Opposition also abstained from voting.

The sources said that they were in the canteen when the voting was in progress. The 11 MPs were Shehan Semasinghe, Kanaka Herath, Mohan P. Silva, Ramesh Pathirana, Kanchana Wijesekera, D.V. Chanaka, Piyal Nishantha, Kumara Welgama, Rohitha Abeygunawardena, Tharaka Balasuriya and Chamal Rajapaksa.
However, several other JO members, including the Parliamentary Group leader Dinesh Gunawardena were seen casting their votes.

JO split

The Joint Opposition appeared to be split in Parliament as 18 of their Parliamentarians did not come to vote for the Sri Lanka Freedom Party candidate, for the post of the Deputy Speaker, Dr. Sudarshini Fernandopulle, choosing instead to stay in the Parliament canteen.

MP Dinesh Gunawardena told our sister paper, the Mawbima, that at the customary Group meeting presided over by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa the JO MPs had taken an unanimous decision to vote for Dr. Fernandopulle to defeat the United National Party candidate.

 However, when the vote by secret ballot did take place, 18 MPs from the JO did not attend. The JO has a total of 54 MPs, out of whom three are overseas and four did not come to Parliament yesterday.

Informed sources said that MP Prasanna Ranatunge had led the group that stayed in the canteen.
Gunawardena added that he would be speaking to Rajapaksa about the absence of the MPs from the voting. “It is not right for them to not heed our leader’s request,” he said.

CID under pressure

In the backdrop of top political names being revealed in connection with the Central Bank Treasury Bonds scam, Ceylon Today reliably learns that the investigating officers are under severe pressure to not reveal or publicize names.
Director Criminal Investigations Department (CID) SSP Shani Abeysekera and IGP Pujith Jayasundara were summoned by a top political authority last Thursday night and were ordered not to include politicians’ names when filing ‘B’ reports with regard to the case against Perpetual Treasuries Owner Arjun Aloysius. Currently, two names, those of former Minister Dayasiri Jayasekara and State Minister Sujeewa Senasinghe have been revealed, in ‘B’ report filings, as those who received funds from either PTL or other companies belonging to Aloysius. Speculation is rife that politicians belonging to many political parties have received funds as campaign money from Aloysius during and after the last General Election held in August 2015.

According to reliable sources, the CID has finalized investigations in connection with another woman politician, who allegedly received funds from Aloysius. While, personal bodyguards and campaign managers were involved in the transactions that took place between Aloysius and Jayasekara and Senasinghe, the CID officials have questioned the son of the woman politician who was involved in the deal.

Meanwhile, both investigators as well as legal officials, involved in the case, have vowed to not give in to political pressure. Legal officials were of the opinion that the investigators (CID) are bound to go ahead with their investigations impartially, comprehensively and consistently as per the directives of the Judiciary.

They also maintained that while they are aware that extremely sensitive political issues may occur as the investigations are going ahead, both parties are not in a position to stop the ongoing investigations.

According to a top official of the CID, approximately 44,000 transactions have taken place between Aloysius and various other parties and they have only completed investigating only around 150 transactions.