It’s time to stop laughing at Nigerian scammers — because they’re stealing billions of dollars

(Bitstock photo)

 

By Cleve R. Wootson Jr.June 12 at 2:56 PM

By this point, savvy people know it’s a bad idea to trust an email from a Nigerian prince hoping to use their bank account to unload a dead relative’s vast wealth.

And they’re just as suspicious of the sudden Internet-based love interest with questionable grammar who needs a few thousand untraceable dollars to clear up a passport issue in time for a magical first date.

But in a sophisticated and terrifying evolution of the Nigerian 419 scam, web-savvy crime syndicates are figuring out ways to bilk U.S. citizens of billions.

On Monday, the FBI announced the arrest of 74 people across the world — including 29 people in Nigeria and 41 in the United States — who authorities say were part of complex international networks that combed filings by the Securities and Exchange Commission, spoofed CEO emails and successfully targeted even hardened employees whose jobs are to safeguard their companies from financial mismanagement.

The recent scams have the same DNA as the poorly worded emails that have been showing up in people’s inboxes since the 1990s. Instead of playing on hopes of finding love or lust for sudden wealth, they play on fears about missing a vital company payment or upsetting a boss’s boss.

“[Scammers] are doing their research … going onto company websites and looking for the right people,” FBI Assistant Director Scott Smith, who helped lead the investigation, told the Wall Street Journal. “They may even go as far as pulling annual reports and finding what companies they do business with and [impersonating] those accounts.”

Adeyemi Odufuye and his team, for example, sifted SEC records, company websites and other business documents, looking for the names and email addresses of chief executives, chief financial officers and controllers, court documents say.

Odufuye, who had a half dozen nicknames, including “Jefe,” the Spanish word for “chief” or “boss,” led a crew responsible for stealing $2.6 million, including $440,000 from one business in Connecticut, according to the Justice Department.

The schemes used a variety of tactics to gain people’s trust and steal their money, federal authorities say. They registered website domain names that were hard to distinguish from the companies they were targeting — impersonations meant to give emails an air of authenticity. Some of those emails arrived with malware attachments that would snap images of a victim’s desktop or transmit key log information — a hacker trick for nabbing someone’s password.

They even employed money mules whose sole purpose was to move the ill-gotten gains from account to account, authorities say, disguising the electronic paper trail from investigators.

Odufuye was extradited from Britain on Jan. 3. He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft.

The arrests highlighted just how many people are falling for the latest iterations of the Nigerian hustle, as well as the staggering losses American businesses are accruing. According to FBI figures obtained by the Journal, victims of such scams reported $275 million in losses in 2015. By 2017, reported losses had more than doubled, to $675 million. And in the first quarter of this year, more than 4,000 victims reported $685 million in losses. The bureau estimates American businesses have lost more than $3.7 billion as a result of the schemes.

[IRS: A new phone scam threatens college students]

Since January 2015, the FBI estimated last year, there has been a 1,300 percent increase in identified exposed losses from similar scams. On Monday, the FBI issued a public service announcement about the scams.

Last year, FBI Special Agent Martin Licciardo, an organized crime investigator, said such crimes are  “a serious threat on a global scale. The ability of these criminal groups to compromise legitimate business email accounts is staggering. … They are experts at deception.”

Scammers target businesses of all sizes, sometimes spending months studying a company’s organizational chart, the FBI said. They target people who frequently transfer large amounts of money and sensitive records in the course of business. They impersonate executives, human relations staff, law firms and trusted vendors. They usually insist that whatever bogus issue they’ve raised be cleared up as soon as possible, often by an immediate wire transfer. Discretion is often advised.

Another pair of alleged swindlers, Paul Wilson Aisosa and Gloria Okolie, went after a real estate closing attorney in Augusta, Ga. Such attorneys routinely keep large sums of money in a trust, often serving as a go-between for buyers and sellers. But Aisosa and Okolie convinced the unnamed attorney to send the proceeds from a recent sale — nearly $250,000 dollars — to Okolie’s account instead of to the seller, authorities said.

The pair is awaiting trial after being accused of laundering $665,000 in illicit funds, according to the Justice Department.

Before the attorney’s deposit, court documents say, the only cash in the account was the $100 required to start it.

Vietnam passes law requiring Google, Facebook to reveal user data

\

Police stand around a bus after they detained protesters during a demonstration against a draft law on the Special Economic Zone in Hanoi, Vietnam June 10, 2018. Source: Reuters

12th June 2018 

DESPITE privacy concerns, the Vietnamese government on Tuesday approved a cybersecurity law that tightens control of the internet and global tech companies operating in the Communist-led country.

The cyber law, approved by 91 percent of attending legislators, requires Facebook, Google and other global technology firms to store locally “important” personal data on users in Vietnam and open offices in the country. The law also raises fears of economic harm and a further crackdown on dissent.

The vote in the National Assembly came two days after legislators delayed a decision on another draft law that had sparked violent protests in some parts of the country.

SEE ALSO: Vietnam protests over feared 99-year leases for China  

Thousands of demonstrators in several cities and provinces denounced a plan to create new economic zones for foreign investment that has fuelled anti-Chinese sentiment. Some protesters had also derided the cybersecurity bill, which experts and activists say could cause economic harm and stifle online dissent.

“I love my country, and I have no reactionary motivations,” one protester, Bao Vinh said, as quoted by Radio Free Asia. “I only want to voice my concerns and express how upset I am.”

“I’m raising my voice for Vietnam. If we lose our country, we won’t be able to live in peace,” he said.

Tuesday’s vote was held amid tight security, with police manning barricades outside the legislature in the capital, Hanoi. It was not clear when the cyber law would take effect.

Protesters hold a banner which reads “No Leasing Land to China even for Anytime” during a demonstration against a draft law on the Special Economic Zone in Hanoi, Vietnam June 10, 2018. Source: Reuters

Human rights group Amnesty International said the law was a “devastating blow” for freedom of expression, allowing the state to force tech companies to hand over potentially vast amounts of data, including personal information, and censor users’ posts.

“With the sweeping powers it grants the government to monitor online activity, this vote means there is now no safe place left in Vietnam for people to speak freely,” Clare Algar, Amnesty’s director of global operations, said in a statement.

Under the law, social media companies in Vietnam are required to remove offending content from their platforms within one day of receiving a request from the authorities.

Vo Trong Viet, head of the defence and security committee that drafted the law, said the requirement to store data inside Vietnam was feasible, crucial to fighting cybercrime and in line with international rules.

SEE ALSO: Concerns as Vietnam ponders new cybersecurity law 

“Placing a data centre in Vietnam increases costs for businesses but is a necessary requirement to meet the cybersecurity need of the country,” he told legislators.

The United States and Canada had urged Vietnam to delay the vote and review the law to ensure it aligned with international standards and address concerns that it may hurt the growth of a digital economy in Vietnam, where its 94 million people are a target for global consumer brands.

About 55 million Vietnamese are regular social media users, according to a 2018 global digital report by the media consulting firm We Are Social, and Hootsuite, a social media management firm.

Vietnam ranked seventh among active Facebook-using countries, the report said, while its economic hub, Ho Chi Minh City, was number 10 among cities with active Facebook users.

Additional reporting by Reuters.

Revealed: Internal emails show council chaos in the wake of Grenfell disaster

8 Jun 2018

A cache of emails, obtained by Channel 4 News, reveals how Kensington and Chelsea council struggled to cope with the crisis in the days following Grenfell fire.

A cache of emails, obtained by Channel 4 News, reveals how Kensington and Chelsea council struggled to cope with the crisis in the days following Grenfell fire.

The leader of the council at the time, Nick Paget-Brown, complained about a “complete media s***storm” and condemned journalists for asking questions.

The emails also reveal that he received a series of nasty death threats from members of the public.
Nick Paget-Brown, who resigned in the wake of the fire, said the media “comprehensively trashed” the council’s efforts and reputation.

He wrote in one email: “There are some disgusting people around who are keen to politicise a tragedy. I am trying to avoid giving them satisfaction.”

Amidst the chaos, councillors were told that communication with survivors was failing, while one email was titled simply: “Who is in charge?”

The disclosure comes nearly a year after the tragedy, which killed 72 people.
The emails also reveal:

• How the Royal Family requested an urgent report on the disaster
• That there was “official concern” about safety “if the main tower falls”.
• The council leader claimed the government was “getting panicky” because of national housing policy
• How offers of help and support poured in from individuals and businesses
• How council bosses were inundated with a flurry of threats and hate mail

Four days after the fire, Nick Paget-Brown was sent advice from an individual reporting “on the ground” who warned the council that “communication is very poor”.

It said: “The expectation that they [“the community”] will know how to find help in comparison to the type of people we are trying to help is the real gulf. There are language problems, lack of education and understanding how anything works.”

The email added: “These are separate local communities… Rather like gangs, they don’t go into another territory, and we need to understand the makeup of the area.”

The council leader was also advised to “take the building down as soon as possible because otherwise it will just become a memorial, and with carnival this summer it does not bode well”.
Mr Paget-Brown forwarded the advice to the council’s then chief executive, in case there were “any useful ideas”.

The emails were released following a Freedom of Information request by Channel 4 News. But the council refused to name the person who wrote the advice.

In the weeks following the fire, the council came under heavy criticism as Ealing Council and the Red Cross were drafted in to help them deal with the crisis. Mr Paget-Brown resigned the following month.

But, before he left, he complained that there was “extreme media misrepresentation” about the council’s response. And, in emails to colleagues, he suggested that the council “develop some [media] lines and take advice”. Amongst those he criticised was Channel 4 News.

After a series of media interviews, the council leader explained: “I felt that the borough’s reputation had been so sufficiently trashed that I could do little further harm.”

“The media distortion of what the Council is doing is atrocious,” he said in another email.
Mr Paget-Brown also advised a colleague to avoid answering questions from Channel 4 News, after an interview with our presenter, Jon Snow.

“My advice would be not to attend,” Mr Paget-Brown wrote. “They will want answers that we cannot provide and which are properly a matter for the public enquiry. Jon Snow made the awful comment about social cleansing and said to me on air that now the Tower has gone will we be building housing for rich people?”

In other emails, the council leader expressed concern about his “exhausted staff”.

“Hard working officers from this Council and many others are doing their best to mitigate the consequences of this unparallelled tragedy,” he Mr Paget-Brown wrote. “Their contribution has been dismissed by the media and we are seeking to address this.”

The council leader was personally subjected to a stream of threatening messages from members of the public.

“Go to the top of Grenfell Tower and throw yourself off,” one person wrote to him. “I hope you get burnt to death by your social tenants…you and your council deserve it.”
Another email to the council leader called him an “oily little scumbag”, adding: “I wonder how you can sleep at night….?”

As the council tried to control the situation after the fire, emails reveal how they privately struggled to deal with the crisis – and issued briefings to the government and the Royal Family.

The Royal’s request for information came via Lady Elizabeth Arnold, their official representative for Kensington and Chelsea. In an email to council bosses, two days after the Queen met with survivors, the council was told: “The Palace would like a report in by first thing tomorrow morning.”

Another email, sent internally between councillors, was titled “Who is in charge?”. In it, Mr Paget-Brown reiterated that the council “would not be able to handle the scale of this tragedy alone”.

Two days later, he wrote: “We need help from other Boroughs which we are now receiving.”

He said: “Government getting panicky as housing policy is conflicted.”

In the heat of the crisis, offers of help came from all sections of the community. One property management company offered some temporary accommodation for the victims. Others offered kind words and advice.

But some offers fell on deaf ears. One email claimed that people “can’t find any one central person who is collating this info– Help please.”

Another offer – which was first made on the day of the fire, by a hostel run by nuns – was also slow to be responded to. Four days later, they emailed again saying: “Our offer still stands but we have been unable to contact anybody who can coordinate the matter.”

“We [have] not had any reply.”

Farmers sow unapproved Monsanto cotton seeds, risking arrest

Workers harvest cotton in a field on the outskirts of Ahmedabad, October 24, 2016. REUTERS/Amit Dave/Files

Rajendra Jadhav-JUNE 12, 2018

MUMBAI (Reuters) - Many Indian farmers are openly sowing an unapproved variety of genetically modified (GM) cotton seeds developed by Monsanto, as the government sits on the sidelines for fear of antagonising a big voting bloc ahead of an election next year.

India approved the first GM cotton seed trait in 2002 and an upgraded variety in 2006, helping transform the country into the world’s top producer and second-largest exporter of the fibre. But newer traits are not available after Monsanto in 2016 withdrew an application seeking approval for the latest variety due to a royalty dispute with the government.

The herbicide-tolerant variety, lab-altered to help farmers save costs on weed management, has, however, seeped into the country’s farms since then. Authorities say they are still investigating how that happened.

“I will only use these seeds or nothing at all,” said Rambhau Shinde, a farmer who has been cultivating cotton for nearly four decades in Maharashtra.

The union environment ministry said last year planting the seeds violated the Environment Protection Act, and farmers who did so were risking potential jail terms. But many farmers are desperate to boost their incomes after poor yields over the past few years and are willing to ignore the warnings.
A government official in New Delhi, who deals with matters related to GM crops, said it was difficult to keep farmers away from something that they saw benefit in.

“If you don’t allow them to plant legally, illegal planting will happen,” the official said, requesting anonymity, adding that Monsanto had yet to reapply for an approval to sell its latest variety of GM cotton in India.

A Monsanto India spokesman said the company was confident that the government would prosecute those involved in the illegal trade of the unapproved seeds.

“FIGHTING THE ENEMY”

Except for GM cotton, India has not approved any other transgenic crop on concerns over their safety, and large foreign companies have been increasingly unhappy at what they say is the infringement of their intellectual property by widespread planting of unapproved seeds.

Farmers say they prefer Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant Roundup Ready Flex (RRF) strain of cotton seeds as they can cut input costs by as much as 10,000 rupees ($150) an acre compared with other varieties.

Cotton growers are also getting support from farmers’ unions, who are already at loggerheads with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government amid a fall in prices of many agricultural commodities.
Without new varieties of seeds, they fear being outplayed by other major cotton producers and exporters such as the United States, Brazil and Australia, said Anil Ghanwat, the president of a farmers’ organisation in Maharashtra.

“The government is asking us to carry a sword to fight the enemy with AK-56 rifles,” said Ghanwat, who has urged farmers to sow the unapproved GM seed. “We will protect them if government authorities try to destroy the crop or harass them with legal cases.”

Last year, just before cotton harvesting, authorities found plantations of unapproved seeds in key producing states such as Maharashtra and Gujarat in the west and Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the south.

In February, authorities in Telangana told two local companies that cotton seeds they sold to farmers may have contained traces of Monsanto’s RRF strain, though the companies denied that.

This year various states have formed inspection teams to curb the sale of such seeds, though farmers have built a parallel network to distribute them without getting caught, said M.S. Gholap, director at Maharashtra’s agriculture department.

The seeds were being produced secretly, mainly in Gujarat and Telangana, and then smuggled to other states, Gholap said.

Maharashtra has seized unapproved seeds worth 12 million rupees ($178,000) in the past two months, enough to cultivate 10,000 hectares, said Gholap.

Farmers are paying as much as a 30 percent premium for the unapproved seeds in Maharashtra and Gujarat compared with seeds of older strains.

The proliferation of unapproved seeds could force the government to grant approval to the new seed technology, as happened in 2002 when New Delhi legalised planting of the Bt Cotton GM strain, said C D Mayee, head of South Asia Biotechnology Centre, a New Delhi-based non-profit organisation.
The strong demand for the illegal seeds has alarmed some federal government officials.

“Once farmers realise laws are toothless, then they could cultivate GM soybean, corn and other crops,” said one official, who asked not to be identified. “It would have serious impact on our biodiversity.” ($1 = 67.4400 Indian rupees)

Prostate cancer spit test is trialled

11 June 2018

A spit test to detect men at increased risk of prostate cancer has started early trials.

The new DNA test looks for high-risk genes that are thought to affect one in every 100 men.

Three hundred men are taking part in the trials, from three London GP surgeries.

Developing better diagnostic tests that could be used as part of a nationwide screening programme is a research priority for prostate cancer.

At present, there is no single, reliable test for prostate cancer. The PSA blood test, biopsies and physical examinations are all used.

But the PSA can give false positives and sometimes misses more aggressive cases.

The new DNA test was created by a group of international scientists based at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London.

They studied more than 140,000 men and identified 63 new genetic variations that can increase the risk of prostate cancer.

The DNA test combines those variants with more than 100 others previously linked to prostate cancer.

Ros Eeles, professor of oncogenetics at the ICR, said the study was "very significant".

"By looking at the DNA code of tens of thousands of men in more depth than ever before, we have uncovered vital new information about the genetic factors that can predispose someone to prostate cancer, and, crucially, we have shown that information from more than 150 genetic variants can now be combined to provide a readout of a man's inherited risk of prostate cancer."

GETTY IMAGES

Only those men found to be at higher risk of prostate cancer would then be scanned and have a prostate biopsy, so researchers hope it could prevent unnecessary procedures.

"It could have a substantial impact on how we actually manage those at increased risk because if you find the disease earlier it's much easier to treat it and much more easy to cure," says Prof Elees.

The trial will be expanded to 5,000 men next year.

Prof Paul Workman, chief executive of the Institute of Cancer Research, said the study also provided important information about the causes of prostate cancer and the potential role of the immune system "which could ultimately be employed in the design of new treatments".

The study is published in the journal Nature Genetics and was funded by the the National Cancer Institute in the US, with additional support from the European Research Council, Cancer Research UK and Prostate Cancer UK.

Dr Iain Frame, director of research at Prostate Cancer UK said: "This new research could help men to understand their individual genetic risk of prostate cancer, which could prompt them to speak to their GP about the disease.

"Given that one in eight men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetime, we urgently need more accurate diagnostic tests which are suitable for use in a nationwide screening programme."

Carl Alexander from Cancer Research UK, said the study was "an exciting example" of how research can find clues in our genes to help us uncover those more likely to develop the disease.

"The next steps should be to understand how this research can be developed into tests which could identify men who might be more likely to develop aggressive cancers, and how this could be rolled out to patients."

President Gamarala requests Britain to arrest or deport Lanka e News editor Sandaruwan Senadheera

(Lanka e News -10.June.2018, 11.00PM) President of Sri Lanka Pallewatte Gamaralalage Maithripala  Yapa Sirisena yesterday  (9 th) requested Britain to have London-based Lanka e News Editor Pradeep Sandaruwan Senadheera arrested or sent back to Sri Lanka, Sunday Times (10) reported  in its  front page.

He made the request during a 30-minute a meeting with British High Commissioner James Dauris whom he summoned to his Paget Road residence.

After summoning the British High Commissioner in SL James Dauris to his Paget Road residence specially , the president has made this request. President’s co ordinating secretary Shiral Lakthileke and defense ministry secretary Kapila Wiadyaratne  , lawyer were also present on the occasion , Sunday Times newspaper reported ( full text of report is appended).

Following  inquiries made by Lanka e News , it was learnt that the defense secretary was silent , while the president and Shiral Lakthileke were explaining  . The High Commissioner has not uttered a word , and has only recorded the statement .

 However it is not known on what grounds this request to arrest or deport Lanka e news editor was made.

It is worthy of note Pallewatte Gamarala never had summoned a foreign envoy and instructed to arrest or deport  the criminals Udayanga Weeratunge  or Jaliya Wickremesinghe who are grave facing criminal charges  and hence have fled the country, and in hiding  . Neither has the president taken any action to arrest or deport V. Rudrakumaran who has formed a Tamil Eelam Trans national government and outrageously proclaimed to the world he is  its prime minister .

The desperate victims of the recent floods who are in dire straits  must be questioning the president , Waidyaratne and Shiral , why wasn’t the British High Commissioner specially summoned  to ask for flood relief aid to alleviate their sufferings ?

Might we recall  it was only after Lanka e News exposed the sordid Russian warship deal of the president , Lanka e news was proscribed  in November last year within SL even without obtaining a court order.

---------------------------

by     (2018-06-10 18:20:25)

President requests Britain to arrest or deport editor of LankaeNews

Sunday, June 10, 2018

President Maithripala Sirisena yesterday requested Britain to have London-based LankaeNews Editor Pradeep Sandaruwan Senadheera arrested or sent back to Sri Lanka. He made the request during a 30-minute a meeting with British High Commissioner James Dauris whom he summoned to his Paget Road residence.

Among those present at the discussion were the President’s Coordinating Secretary Shiral Lakthilaka and Defence Secretary Kapila Waidyaratne . The website has been blocked since November last year by the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (TRCSL), headed by Presidential Secretary Austin Fernando. The ban was imposed after the website published articles critical of Mr Sirisena.

Information obtained under the Right to Information Act by the website Groundviews revealed that the President’s office issued a letter to the TRCSL Director General in November 2017 saying LankaeNews was publishing false articles about the President and his family members. Signed by Dharmasiri Bandara Ekanayake of the President’s Media unit, the letter said the site was run from outside Sri Lanka and that the office had tried to contact its editor via email and phone.

The President’s Office could not pursue legal action as the editor was based outside the country (Mr Senadheera fled to exile in London citing threats from the former Rajapaksa administration), it continued, before directing the TRCSL to take suitable action.

Crisis Of Parliamentary Democracy & Need For A Credible Reformist Movement

By Siri Gamage –JUNE 11, 2018

Dr. Siri Gamage

There are numerous media reports about the failure of good governance or Yahapalanaya since the new government came into power in early 2015. There seems to be not only a growing disenchantment with the existing system of governance and associated political culture but also a lack of choices to use by the public next time around. How did we come to this untenable situation and what should be the way forward?

Before the Presidential system of governance was introduced in 1978 and it started to corrode the parliamentary system of governance that people were familiar with, the voters who were not happy with one party opted for the other party at general elections. This was referred to as Tattumaruwa. Nonetheless, there was a choice then.  After the elections, one set of politicians took seats in the opposition and a new lot in the government benches. After the new system came into being, sometimes with a two thirds majority in the parliament, there was a trend for smaller parties to emerge.  Some of them were splinter groups from the mainstream parties. Examples such as Sri Lanka Mahajana Pakshaya, the party led by Lalith Athulatmudali come to mind. This trend continued during the war years.  Even the JVP was split and the party led by Wimal Weerawansa came into being. Today Gammanpila leads a party called Pivithuru Hela Urumaya distiniguishing itself from Hela Urumaya led by Patali Champika Ranawaka. Even in the case of Tamil and Muslim parties similar splinter groups and parties have emerged. Even the Ceylon Workers Congress led by Thondaman is no spared. This trend can be defined as a process of FRGMENTATION in the political party system in Sri Lanka. However, parallel to this process there is another process.  It can be defined as FUSION.

BY fusion I mean the forming of coalitions before the general and Presidential elections where smaller parties come together with a mainstream party such as the UNP or the SLFP.  Such coalitions issue election manifestos. Speakers on stages and in the TV discussions repeat the promises listed in such documents. However, once a government is formed at the initial stages,  some minor parties join the government even if they did not support the particular coalition before the election. In return their leaders get ministerial appointments. Such change of support for a different coalition can go against the principles, values and promises these leaders make before the elections.  Nonetheless, they rationalise such moves on the ground of pragmatism.  

During the war years, those belonging to UNP and other parties joined the Rajapaksa government. After the 2015 elections, a national government was formed by the UNP and SLFP together with smaller parties. JVP remains outside this arrangement. What this changing practice of coalition formation or fusion has done is to reduce the choices voters have ag election times.  They are no longer able to assume that their vote for the UNP, SLFP or indeed a minor party will mean the same after the elections in a political culture where members are able to cross over so easily or even those who lose elections can come to parliament on the National List. Voters are not able to elect someone who is not tarnished by charges of corruption, neglect, broken promises and so on. No wonder the people today have lost faith in the parliamentary cum Presidential systems. This situation reflects a crisis in the parliamentary system of governance as we have known it. People are at a loss to understand what to do next?

The irony of the matter is that those people including civil society leaders with a fair understanding of this situation are not thinking beyond the box. They ae only looking for alternatives (which are hard to find) within the existing parliamentary system and a multitude of parties however much discredited they are? They seem to look for a different alignment of major and minor parties at future elections as the solution when it is clearly not. They are not merging their criticisms and alternative ideas and possibilities with other likeminded forces, groups, and individuals to forge a grand alliance so that their reformist movement or collective becomes a force to be reckoned with.  Instead, they are using whatever the platforms available to advance isolated critique of the existing system by citing examples of failure and corruption etc.  How can one find a solution to a problem that has emerged due to corruption, broken promises etc. from the same process that led to such practices?

The answer lies, as in other cases of success elsewhere in the world, from articulating the challenges people face in clear language, identifying a strategy including a political one, forging alliances with likeminded groups and individuals, media etc., and pushing forward as a collective reformist movement. If necessary, a ten-point plan can be developed in order to bring a shared understanding of the goals and mission of such a movement. My view is that such a movement has to emerge from the civil society organisations acutely concerned with corruption, mal governance, foreign debt, elitism, effects of partisan politics, extravagance of politicians, and the lack of resources and programs for rural and poor upliftment, and heavy emphasis placed on imports in place of developing national economy (production, manufacturing and marketing).  If they can identify  established politicians with a clean record, their support should be obtained as is  the support of other leaders in the society such as religious leaders, academics, professionals, teachers, and journalists. 

Such a course of action is not without its difficulties. However, rather than focusing on the difficulties, what we need to focus on is the collective strength that can emerge from the engagement with various layers of society to seek support. In this instance, I note the campaign being conducted by Mr. Nagananda Kodituwakku. His main aim seems to be reforms in the legal sector. However, winning Presidential or general elections cannot be a reality unless he forges alliances with other civic organisations and leaders including trade unions that are interested in a reform agenda for the country. As politics has become a tradition or a cult among the masses who can be convinced to vote this or that way after intoxicating them with jargon full humour, humiliation, personal attacks etc, and showing only those in the opposition side are weak or cannot be relied, breaking into the mindset of the suffering masses to support an alternative vision is not an easy task for the newcomers. An effective communication strategy is a must to address this challenge.

Read More

For the ‘minority’, not of the ‘minorities’?

-

By N. Sathiya Moorthy-June 10, 2018, 12:00 pm 

It is the irony of Sri Lankan times that the 225-member Parliament will now have a Deputy Speaker with only 97 members voting him into position. There were 53 MPs voted against the winner. The second highest of numbers was those who ‘abstained’, a total of 74, leaving out Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, who did not cast his vote, as is the tradition. The list included former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was not present, and yes, TNA’s Leader of the Opposition, R Sampanthan, who actually led his MPs in a walk-out, alongside the JVP on the Sinhala-Buddhist side of the ‘ethnic divide’.

With this, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe may have won a second Pyrrhic victory after defeating the non-confidence motion (NCM) against his leadership, not too long ago. But the fact that his UNP candidate Ananda Kumarasiri polled less than the House majority of 113 did not seem to deter him or his party. Instead, they were happy – or, at least relieved – that President Maithripala Sirisena’s SLFP candidate, Dr Sudarshini Fernandopulle polled only 53 votes, giving them a 44-vote lead, including some from the SLPP-JO.

It was not a coincidence that JO’s ex-Minister, Vasudeva Nanayakara was on hand to ‘second’ Sudarshini’s candidacy. If someone thought that Mahinda R would be on hand to express solidarity with the medical doctor whom he had inducted into politics after the LTTE had killed her minister-husband, Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, in a suicide attack on Sinhala-Tamil New Year Day, 2008, it was not to be.

The fact that former Speaker and Mahinda’s elder brother Chamal Rajapaksa was present in the House when the vote was called and walked out with 10 other JO members showed that the former President’s absence was not an accident, but an incident. The fact that Sudarshini got more votes than the 16 ‘SLFP rebels’, now getting increasingly identified with President Maithripala Sirisena only shows that the latter’s group is becoming increasingly amorphous and that the SLPP-JO too is not as much of a monolith in parliamentary terms as is being made out to be.

TNA betrays Tamils?

Leading his TNA members in the walk-out ahead of the vote, Leader of the Opposition Sampanthan took a ‘principled stand’, if that could be called so, that by the (forgotten) agreement from the Government-formation days, the Deputy Speaker’s job should have gone to Sirisena’s SLFP as Speaker Jayasuriya was from the UNP partner in the ruling coalition. As the UNP had violated the principle, owing possibly to the higher numbers that they had in the coalition and also could muster for the vote, they were acting unilaterally, seemed to have been his contention.

Prime Minister Ranil would have none of it. Responding to Sampanthan, he said that the agreement was for the SLFP to field a Government member and not a ‘rebel’ in Dr Sudarshini. He conceded that the Sirisena camp did throw up some other names too but they too were not acceptable to them.

If Ranil was saying that Sudarshini did not represent the Sirisena camp, then he was telling the latter that they did not now have the 16 ‘rebel’ MPs who voted in favour of the NCM only weeks ago, and had weakened more than already. Alternatively, Ranil and the UNP were daring Sirisena to come out in the open and declare that Sudarshini was after all their candidate, too, and then face the consequences.

But the real let-down was the TNA, which gave upon the combine’s much-touted ‘Tamil cause’ one more time. Ahead of finalising Sudarshini, the SLFP had proposed the name of party’s Tamil MP from the North, Ankajan Ramanathan. The Tamil irony becomes worse if one recalled the fact that there was no other serious ‘Sinhala-Buddhist’ majority opposition to the candidacy, sans that of the TNA.

Short of a Tamil President, Tamil Prime Minister or a Tamil Speaker, this was the closest that the Sinhala-Buddhist parties were willing to accept for the Tamils just now.

But then the TNA’s ‘sole representative’ mentality would not let them accept any Tamil who was not TNA. Given the complexity of the Government combine politics, they could have also insisted that the UNP and/or the SLFP fielded a Tamil MP from their grouping(s) for the job. Again, they would have none of it, so the question was never flagged. So much for the TNA’s commitment to the larger ‘Tamil cause’!

Poaching still on

By proving a political point even outside of Parliament through the Deputy Speaker’s election, the UNP has thrown the gauntlet at the Sirisena camp after defeating the NCM. Their fast-tracking the Constitution-making process is also to try and keep the TNA on their side in case of a show-down, or even crash parliamentary polls, which under 19-A cannot happen any time before six months ahead of the end of the existing term, which is only in March 2020. Sirisena’s presidential term ends in early January 2020.

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has since reiterated his post-NCM declaration that the ‘unity Government’ (???) would stay on. If the President’s camp is so very disenchanted, disillusioned and distanced from the UNP leader of the coalition inside Parliament, which alone counts just now, then a stable government can become possible, if the former divests the latter of all ministerial responsibilities as a party, group or faction.

Clearly, this could well indicate that the UNP is ready to formally launch a poaching game for SLFP parliamentarians, including Ministers. The ball is in the UNP court, not because it has the single largest group of elected MPs on its side. It is more so because Wickremesinghe has more than once demonstrated through the past years in power that he runs a monolith and stable party, now, compared especially to Sirisena’s SLFP.

If SLFP Ministers/MPs were to formally join hands with the UNP, either by joining the party outright or are encouraged to form a second ‘rebel group’ that would align with the UNP-led UNF in Government, it would not be for stability or continuity, as some of them would come to parrot the tired, old lines from the JRJ, CBK and MR past. It would be for power and pelf, and whatever ministerial positions could offer each one of them.

At best, in terms of ‘principled politics’ (sic-k), they are convinced that they cannot win their parliamentary seats the next time round in Sirisena’s company and that MR would not want to have them, either. In between, the UNP is under compulsion of its own making for mustering the numbers if only to ensure that the Deputy Speaker of its choice has the support of the whole House when he comes to chair sessions in the absence of Speaker Karu J, who has demonstrated his authority in his own inimitable way, after all!

(The writer is Director, Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation, the multi-disciplinary Indian public-policy think-tank, headquartered in New Delhi. email: sathiyam54@nsathiyamoorty.com)

RANJAN RAMANAYKE CASE: JUSTICE MUST PREVAIL, EVEN ABOVE THE LAW

Image: Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake with Prof.Carlo Fonseka and Singer Sunil Perera outside the Supreme Court .

11/06/2018

(10 June, 2018) A two-judge bench has recommended to the Chief Justice that the Supreme Court should proceed with a case against Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake, accused of the crime of Contempt of Court over an alleged statement he made at a press conference. When the matter was taken up on June 4, the Attorney General’s Department told Court that at a glance, there was a prima facie case against Minister Ramanayake. The Court will consider the matter on June 18.

At best, the laws governing the crime of Contempt of Court in Sri Lanka are opaque. There is no Act of Parliament defining the crime, or ensuring that international standards are adhered to and a citizen’s right to free speech is not unduly curtailed in the guise of contempt. As per Article 105(3) of the Constitution “the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Sri Lanka shall each be a Superior Court of record and shall have all the powers of such Court, including the power to punish for Contempt of Court itself, whether committed in the Court itself or elsewhere, with imprisonment or fine, or both, as the Court may deem fit.”

It was solely based on this Article of the Constitution that then Opposition Member of Parliament, S.B Dissanayake was sentenced in 2004, to two years rigorous imprisonment for a ‘disrespectful statement’ he had made about the Supreme Court, at a Vap Magul ceremony held at Habaraduwa. In that ruling, the five-judge bench headed by former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva asserted that Article 105(3) places “no limitation on the punitive power of the court and a person found guilty of an offence of contempt would be liable to any term of imprisonment or fine as may be considered appropriate by Court.”

The law of contempt should essentially be concerned with interference with the administration of justice. Criminal contempt occurs when there is interference with or disruption of criminal or civil court proceedings, as witnessed recently when extremist monk Galagodaaththe Gnanasara stormed the Homagama Magistrate’s Court while proceedings were in progress – or when a person disobeys a court order and is subject to sanctions, such as, a fine or imprisonment. This is demonstrably different from the contempt action against the Deputy Minister for his critical remarks.

Sri Lanka is long overdue to pass laws on Contempt of Court. Criminal and Civil contempt in India is defined under the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 and in the UK through a namesake Act passed in 1981. In the United States, where the First Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of expression is sacrosanct, Contempt of Court laws have extremely limited application.

It is through creating such democratic spaces for dialogue and robust debate that a democratic society thrives. If one pillar of the State – the judiciary with unelected officials, is somehow buffered against criticism, there will be a lacuna in the whole democratic fabric of a society. In the case of Sri Lanka such criticism is not only desirable; but warranted in some instances.

Deputy Minister Ramanayake is being accused of contempt for questioning the integrity of judges and lawyers. In recent memory, a former Chief Justice apologised to the nation for a verdict which he himself later claimed was politically motivated in order to favour a political leader. Another Chief Justice, since erased from the annals of judicial history because his appointment was considered null and void, has a corruption case pending against him at present. The widely broadcast docudrama ‘Usawiya Nihandayi’ delves deep into the issue of corruption and abuse of power within the judiciary. There are other serious allegations, for instance, the case of a sitting Supreme Court Judge, who was indicted in 2015 for allegedly raping a domestic worker. Each of these examples is far more potently damaging to the integrity of the highest court of the land.

Back in 2004, former Supreme Court Justice Ranjith Dheeraratne told a newspaper how Contempt of Court was no longer what it used to be, and that under English Law, for instance, nobody had been prosecuted for Contempt of Court in over 70 years. “Courts are considered to be part of the democratic system of governance. Within this system courts and judges can be criticised as long as it does not interfere with judgments and cases”. As stated in Kopyto, “The courts are not fragile flowers that will wither in the heat of controversy,” said Justice Dheeraratne in the interview.

Yet here we are, 14 years later

In the fundamental rights case, Gotabaya Rajapaksa Vs. FCID, four Supreme Court judges have declined to hear the petition citing personal reasons. Three years since it was filed and a court order preventing his arrest by the FCID and the CID issued in May 2015, the case drags on. It must be acknowledged that it is the democratic right of the citizenry to call this into question and debate how the case is unfolding in the country’s Apex Court. Similarly, the Deputy Minister articulated sentiments with which many in this country would agree.

In that sense, this case if heard in the right spirit and in the context of how judiciaries have evolved in the modern world, the contempt of court case against Deputy Minister Ramanayake could be a landmark judgment with the potential to uphold fundamental rights in a truly democratic space for the people.

If there is a disparity between the law and justice, then surely justice must prevail. In 1930, when Mahatma Ghandi marched on a coastal village in Gujarat with thousands of his followers and began to make salt from seawater, it was an illegal act, since the British Raj had imposed a monopoly on the salt industry. In 1952, when Nelson Mandela burnt his passport, at a time when Black South Africans were forbidden to travel to another area of the country without it, he was breaking a law of the Apartheid regime. In 1955, when an African-American woman called Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in the ‘coloured section’ of a bus to a white passenger, she was breaking the State laws of a racially segregated United States. Yet, all these laws had to be broken, and the world is better for it, for though they were law, they were still unjust.

Ramanayake did not storm a court house or fail to comply with a judicial order. Hauling someone to court over an opinion he has expressed, however critical or insulting, may be lawful, but it is not necessarily just. For the sake of our democracy, justice must prevail, in this case, even above the law.

Editorial – Sunday Observer.