Killing of children for ransom and Sri Lanka’s nightmares

• Sunday, September 02, 2018

The progress of ongoing criminal investigations into the grisly killing of several Tamil youths following a racket of abduction for ransom, spearheaded ‘allegedly’ (here, I use the term quite deliberately) by a Naval officer and others during 2008-2009 will be the crucible on which this Government and this Presidency’s commitment to promises made, will be tested most severely.

Fair differences between then and now

Unlike other instances of the killing of youths, such as what occurred in Trincomalee in 2006, ready excuses cannot be offered as to the chain of evidence becoming cold or pointing to key witnesses living overseas being reluctant to return to testify, as would be naturally the case given the trauma that they have had to undergo.

It must be fairly acknowledged that one distinguishing feature of the current ‘yahapalanaya’ administration is that the Navy suspect was arrested and produced before court which would have been out of the question if the Rajapaksas were still in power. Then again, the fact that the Court inquiring into the matter had proceeded to act according to law is also another demonstrable difference when compared to the past. These officers of the state must be commended to the highest extent possible for carrying out their functions with due diligence despite the enormous and impossible strains put on them by political forces.

However and despite these undoubtedly positive developments, the key question here is whether the chain of impunity at the highest levels will be broken and those responsible for enabling these acts to take place and persistently protecting the perpetrators will be held accountable to law. For ultimately, systemic impunity is the core issue, not really the arrest, questioning or even punishment of minions who will doubtless be replaced by other minions in the correct political circumstances, perpetuating these crimes from which we have suffered as a nation for decades. Indeed, the arrogance with which the suspect in this ongoing case smiled and strutted while in handcuffs testifies to this web of impunity.

Central issue of tackling the chain of command

Sri Lanka is no stranger to the killing of children. The periodic uncovering of graves with the skeletal remains of massacred children decades ago or nearer in time, is just one manifestation. From the killing of child monks in Aranthalawa in 1987 by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to the children caught up in reprisal attacks by armed forces stationed in the North and East at the height of the conflict and including the vast numbers of children killed in the South during the second insurrection of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, this earth should weep blood for the countless innocents mowed down in the course of grievous sins committed by ambitious men.

This week marks the International Day of Disappearances as the month comes to an end. These are reflections that are therefore opportune in this context. ‘Disappearances’ and extra-judicial killings mark the lowest ebb of a nation’s functioning. As long as these crimes remain unpunished, from the highest levels of those who ‘protected’ or enabled such atrocities whether in the military chain of command or in the state prosecutor’s office to those carrying out the acts, only nonsense can be spoken of reconciliation. Put simply, families of those who have had their members disappeared or killed, will not be satisfied by money payments handed out to them or by a state official blandly informing them that a crime has occurred. This, they already know. What they seek is formal state acknowledgement of these acts at the minimum and as a necessary corollary, the chain of impunity to be broken.

Our constitutional jurisprudence has consistently stressed the principle that superior officers exercising responsibility over subordinates who commit rights violations, will themselves be held responsible. There are, of course, some notable and puzzling exceptions to this rule as was evidenced in the Embilipitiya Case where the commanding officer of the camp where Sinhalese school children had been detained and ‘disappeared’ during the eighties in the deep South, due to a personal vendetta of individuals was not held liable in law.

In the Supreme Court, he was given the right to be promoted to the rank of Major General on the basis that he had been acquitted in the criminal courts on the basis that he could not directly be responsible for the enforced disappearance of the children at the army camp. The lenient position taken by the Supreme Court at the time belied constitutional considerations and the protection of rights Parents of the victims had, in fact, testified that they had brought their appeals to this commanding officer in order to find out what had happened to their children but that he had done nothing.

The law must take its course

Certainly these were not precedents that afforded reassurance that the Rule of Law was being upheld with fear and favour to none. Writing for the International Commission of Jurists in 2010, I pointed to the fact that the refusal on the part of Sri Lanka’s highest court even when the Bench was otherwise proactively responding to violations of fundamental rights, was a major failing (Still Seeking Justice, ICJ).

But despite some aberrant decisions in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, the Court has upheld the principle is that a superior officer protecting a subordinate who engages in atrocities or ‘acquiescing’ in that act, will be held responsible. As a matter of law therefore and applying these principles to the ongoing case of the Navy abductions, those who chirrup airily that officers implicated at the highest levels of Sri Lanka’s military hierarchy ‘only’ helped the suspect, must acquaint themselves with the fact that this, as assessed by authoritative local precedents and notably under international law, cannot absolve the individual of legal responsibility, under the criminal law  and certainly in terms of constitutional protections.

What remains is for the law to take its course. Political interference in that process will only be the last nail in the ‘yahapalanaya’ coffin. That much must be categorically said. These killings of children were at the heart of a ransom racket and had pure and common greed behind them. They speak to a particular horror that stands in a category all of its own.

It is a nightmarish and devilish blemish on this nation’s memory and must be exorcised with maximum force.

Is all history hissing about history?

The tragedy of all history and historians down the ages is that most histories of wars are written mostly by the winners. Churchill correctly said ‘history is written by winners’ and went on to write the history of a war, in which he was the chief dramatis personae.

by Gamini Weerakoon-Sep 2, 2018

( September 2, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Until the lions have their own historians, the tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunters — An African proverb. I was reminded of this quote while reading a Sunday Times political commentary about President Maithripala Sirisena’s attempt to get former top brass of our defence services to compile the history of the near-three-decade “War” against the terrorists.

Undoubtedly the retired service chiefs will have intimate knowledge of what went on during the three decades. But they are all honourable men who can’t let their own side down. ‘Simply not done old boy’, is the motto of the officer class. The esprit de corps prevails among our retired warriors like most of those in other countries who donned the military regalia, and it is quite unlikely that they will let their own side down. They need not, and perhaps will not, utter falsehoods. Like in most professions the military, too, has its ways of saying things in their gobbledygook — what George Orwell referred to as ‘double speak’. Sri Lanka, too, was developing its own strategic defence lingo in the closing stages of the conflict. Remember that classic: ‘Humanitarian War’?

As a journalist who has known both military top brass and historians, I have grave doubts about military men becoming historians in as much as professional historians closeted in academia turning out to be admirals or generals. Nonetheless, in these days, there is a substantial proportion of the populace that believes in military men being Supermen capable of any feat such as repeating Dutugemunu feats or beautifying Colombo-7 roads. Some generals have already dashed out lengthy ‘Rambo’ tracts on how the ‘War’ was won.

That, however, is not the main problem of our military historians. The history of the Sinhala Lions will demand on what the Tamil Tigers did for three decades. Despite the ghastly and reprehensible performances in many respects they did give the Lions a good 30-year run. Can our former top brass even under patronage of the President be able to present that aspect too?

President Sirisena’s proposal obviously demands an editor — preferably a historian — to collate the accounts of the former service commanders. But whether it will reveal what really happened during the period in question is anybody’s guess.

The tragedy of all history and historians down the ages is that most histories of wars are written mostly by the winners. Churchill correctly said ‘history is written by winners’ and went on to write the history of a war, in which he was the chief dramatis personae.

Winners write about the valour and heroism of their combatants on land, air and sea, brilliant strategies of the generals and admirals and flying chiefs: And, of course, of their commanders-in-chief — the war commissars. The losers don’t write the history of their battles; nor are they able to do so even after decades of the war ending. There are no Nazi historians and Japanese war lords as historians of note to speak about.

There are professional historians of note, particularly in academia meticulously trying to separate facts from fiction and propaganda but even these historians are at times accused of being biased. European (including English) historians by remarkable coincidence are unanimous on controversial issues particularly during World War 11. Has there been prosecution of war criminals of the Western Allied Forces in World War II?

Despite the notable and quotable treating history — their versions — as something sacred and sacrosanct, it is taken with a pinch of salt by a great many, including historians. Sri Lanka’s unique history as stated in the Mahavamsa has generated fume and fury to explosively high levels. The ‘War’ is over but not the furious arguments on reconstruction and deconstruction of history.

All history is about news of the past. So it is natural that just as much there is ‘Fake News’ and News, there will be ‘Fake History’ and History.
Bertrand Russell described the history of the British Conservatives (Tories) as – ‘Hiss Tory.

Is all history hissing about history?

Provincial buffoonery and Presidential anxieties

Rajan Philips-September 1, 2018, 6:10 pm 

Friday, August 24, marked a rare instance of parliamentary unanimity that is usually reserved for a vote of condolence following an MP’s passing. There was no death to bereave last week, but it was burial of a different kind - when the House unanimously voted down the Delimitation Committee report for demarcating electoral districts for Provincial elections. 139 MPs belonging to the governing UNP/SLFP and the opposition JO/TNA voted against adopting the report. The six or so JVP MPs apparently left the Chambers during the vote, while the rest of the lot simply did not show up. Absentee parliamentarians, like absentee landlords of old who Philip Gunawardena went after in his Paddy Lands Act, are a national disgrace but that is the least of the problems facing national politics.

The government is now in a quandary over the timing of the Provincial Council elections – three of which are now more than one year over due, three more will be due within a month, and the remaining three can wait till next year. And the way the government and parliament have handled the provincial delimitation matter is nothing less than political buffoonery. The companion to this buffoonery is the growing anxiety among prospective candidates for the next presidential election. The interesting, or pathetic, new development is that no potential candidate seems to be sure that he (there is no she at this time) would in fact become a candidate. The main challenge now is more about securing candidacy than about winning the election ultimately. That uncertainty applies across the board from Mahinda Rajapaksa (unless he has already told GL Peiris to shut up about his (MR’s) candidacy prospects under 19A) to Ranil Wickremesinghe and every potential candidate in between from either party (or alliance).

A manifestation of this uncertainty is the latest trial balloon floated by SB Dissanayake and Vasudeva Nanayakara, though not jointly, that would have Maithripala Sirisena run again as a common candidate but for a different opposition, i.e. SLFP/SLPP/JO (instead of the UNP/UNF/JVP/TNA that he was co-opted by in 2015). That would be quite a chameleon feat for changing political colours even for Sri Lankan politics. The balloon can easily be pricked, however, for everything depends on an agreement being reached between Mahinda Rajapaksa and Maithripala Sirisena for an electoral arrangement in which Sirisena will be the first violin and the Rajapaksas will have to be content playing second fiddle. There is also speculation about efforts to secure a second candidacy for Sirisena from the same 2015 UNP/UNF camp that he has been mostly running away from for the most part of this year. That speculation again shows the uncertainties surrounding the candidacy of Ranil Wickremesinghe. The names of Sajith Premadasa and MangalaSamaraweera are also purposefully kept afloat as potential candidates for UNP/UNF.

The upshot of the speculations involving the candidacy of Maithripala Sirisena is that if he were to be anointed as the candidate of either of the two common fronts, Mr. Sirisena could call the elections as early as January 2019. What would that do to the government’s current position (not a promise) that the six provincial council elections will be in January 2019? Will they all be postponed until an advanced presidential election is done and dusted? Or could they all be held together? In his famous April interview earlier this year (The Island, 25 April 2018), the swashbuckling National Election Commission (NEC) Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya was quite confident about the NEC’s capacity to hold the presidential election and six provincial elections at the same time if necessary. Perhaps the government and parliament could make it easy for the Election Commission so that NEC could hold them separately: the presidential election could be held at one time, and the provincial elections for all nine provinces (and not just six of them) could be held a few months before or after the presidential in 2019. For that, the government and the parliament must reach an agreement on the electoral system for provincial elections.

Provincial delimitation

The delimitation report that was buried last week was produced after four months (between October 2017 and February 2018) of intense labour by a committee of five appointed by the President, and comprising three eminent retirees (a Surveyor General, a Central Banker with expertise in Statistics, and an Assistant Commissioner of Elections) and two equally eminent academics. The committee composition with three minority representatives and two Sinhalese, and chaired by a Tamil, was even better than GG Ponnambalam’s much reviled 50-50 formula. Yet, their report was rejected mostly because its recommendations did not provide for sufficient minority representation, especially Muslim representation, in different provinces. The missing desideratum apparently is the absence of any provision for multi-member constituencies to enable minority members being elected to their respective Provincial Councils.

There have been different explanations for this lacuna, the apparent stalemate in the efforts to resolve this before the report was finalized, and the ultimate rejection of the final report by parliament. Prof. Shahul Hasbullah, the Geographer, a member of the Delimitation Committee who unfortunately passed away in Jaffna the day after Parliament rejected his Committee’s report, told the Sunday Times (4 March 2018) that the problem of Muslim representation arose from the geographical scattering of the Muslim population throughout the island. According to him, the Committee was constrained in addressing this issue, and the law in its current form is not helpful. Of the 222 electoral divisions in nine provinces recommended by the Committee, according to Prof. Hasbullah, 175 (78%) will likely have Sinhalese representation, 25 (11%) - Tamil representation, 13 (6%) - Muslim representation, and nine (5%) - Plantation Tamil representation. The 13 Muslim representatives will be in four Provinces and there will not be any Muslim representation in the other five Provinces.

According to the Committee Chairman, Dr. K. Thavalingam, a former Surveyor General, the Committee included in its report as recommendations, suggestions by Prof. Hasbullah to address the question of Muslim representation. On the other hand, Provincial Councils and Local Government Minister Faiszer Musthapha, who has been handling quite a few problem files from subsidiary (provincial/local) governments to managing cricket, has offered a different explanation (The Daily News, 29 August 2018) for the stalemate and the failure to address this practically in the report before the report was presented to parliament. Part of that explanation that the Committee did not give enough time to political parties to study the report and provide their input is simply untenable because the government had given the Committee only four months to complete the report and the Committee to its credit had met that deadline.

The Minister also raised another point that his suggestion to the Committee Chairman that the Committee should meet with political party representatives to listen to their concerns before finalizing the report was apparently turned down by the Chairman on the grounds that there was no provision in the law for such a consultation. We do not know what actually transpired between the Minister and the Chairman, but considering the turn of events and the wholesale rejection of the report by Parliament, it is possible to surmise that thoughtful steps may not have been taken to identify and address issues before presenting the report to parliament.

There is no doubt that the Committee has fulfilled what it was assigned to do in the time it was given, and has produced a report of 804 pages in four months after navigating through 678 written and oral representations by members of the public and stakeholders. The question is whether the Terms of Reference given to the Committee were adequate for the Committee to produce what the government may have expected to receive, and what the parliament thought it did not receive. It is truly unfortunate that intermediate steps were not taken to make sure that the Committee and the government were clear with one another about what was being expected and what was being produced. This is unfortunate for two reasons.

First, the political atmosphere is a breath of fresh air compared to the country’s acrimonious history in dealing with ethnic representation. At least, at the formal level there is no opposition by others to the Muslim concerns over representation. This is even sweeter considering the political targeting of the Muslims over the last few years by fringe groups who dominate politics between elections. So it is unfortunate that an amicable opportunity to resolve the issue of representation seems to have been wasted, hopefully, only temporarily. Second, at the more procedural or technical level, it is inexplicable that a way could not be found to have the Committee listen to the concerns of political parties and produce a report that would have deserved a better fate than wholesale rejection.

We do not have all the facts to say anything definitively, but it would seem that procedural rigidity on the part of the Committee and predictable sloppiness on the part of the government have combined to produce the vote of rejection in parliament. The redress now is apparently through a new committee appointed by the Speaker of Parliament to review the rejected report and make recommendations to hold provincial elections. The new committee will be chaired by the Prime Minister and will include the four individuals appointed by the Speaker, one from each of the four ethnic groups. All of this is apparently in accordance with the Provincial Councils (Amendment) Act of 2017, and it has also been asserted by both government and opposition parliamentarians that the recommendations of the PM and the four members of the committee will be final and will not require any approval by parliament.

Everything might be legal and procedurally proper, as it is being asserted, but it challenges commonsense that after parliament has rejected the report of one committee produced after four months of labour, another committee headed by the Prime Minister (who only recently survived a vicious no-confidence motion) can make new recommendations which will not require parliament’s approval for their implementation. A simple question is why the same process could not have been undertaken with the earlier committee. At the least, a mechanism could have been worked for some consultation before finalizing and presenting a report that parliament would summarily reject.

A woman and a leopard - EDITORIAL

 2018-09-03

ome days ago, journalist Uditha Devapriya posted on Facebook a thought-provoking post. It highlighted a disturbing realty in modern-day South Asia. His post highlighted the killing of a leopard by irate villagers in Killinochchi on 21 June, the rape of an 38-year-old woman also in Killinochchi earlier this year and the reaction which followed.  A source in the print media described the killing of that particular leopard as ‘Mob-style leopard killing and described it as ‘Lanka’s day of shame’. The visual media aired live recordings of the brutal killing and interviews with wildlife figures and the dangers posed to protected species were aired via audio media. This single killing of a three-year-old majestic beast not only raised a media storm but led to such a huge public outcry that within days, a number of persons accused of involvement in the killing were in police custody. Radio interviews followed...

A weekend paper called for a crackdown on the kethi-polu wielding offenders...Yet, police statistics reveal that that between 2011 to 2016, there have been 20,542 complaints from children on sexual offences committed against them, with rape and incest dominating. 
In 2011, 1,463 cases of rape and incest were reported, this figure rising to 1,904 cases in 2016.  Experts say these statistics show only the tip of the iceberg. Sri Lanka police statistics show that of the total number of 1,624 rapes on women recorded in 2009, 1,228 cases related to rape on underage girls. The 2011 figures show a sharp increase in rape of underage girls. Of the total number of 1,871 rape cases recorded in 2011, 1,463 related to rape of underage girls.

Statistics provided  in  the new police database on violence against women and children shows Incidences of rape and incest recorded by the police have increased by 40% in the last 10 years, from 1,463 cases in 2006 to 2,036 in 2016. It is suspected, cases reported to the police are likely very low compared to the real number of incidents that occur. 

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that one in every four women in Sri Lanka has been raped by the time she reaches 18.  The UN Multi-country Study on Men and Violence found that 14.5% of Sri Lankan men had perpetrated sexual abuse at some point in their lives. 4.9% had raped in the past year. 2.7% had raped another man. 1.6% had taken part in a gang rape. 96.5% of the men who had committed rape experienced no legal consequences. 65.8% didn’t feel worried or guilty afterwards. 64.9% of rapists had committed the crime more than once, and 11.1% had raped four or more girls or women - (L. P. Gordon , Violence against women)
The Sunday Times of February 25, 2018  reveals, one in four women is raped at home, while travelling or at work before they turn 18 years. Meanwhile, an Al Jazeera report quoting police statistics, show incidents of sex crimes have increased by nearly 20% in the past two years, with 4,393 cases registered during 2012-2014 as compared to 3,624 in 2010-2012.

More recently, a 38-year-old mother was raped and killed. The incident also occurred in Killinochchi. Except in the north where protests erupted, the brutal act received hardly any attention in the mainstream media... Why? Oh why the deafening silence? Have we like our counterparts in India lost all sense of values?  The killing of a beast raises a media storm, public outcry and a variety of experts and legal luminaries advising the public of the seriousness of the crime committed. But the rape and killing of a female human being passes largely unnoticed in mainstream Sri Lankan media bringing to mind the Shakespearean character Hamlet’s comment “...something is very wrong in the State of Denmark”  

Is it that the rape and killing of our mothers, daughters and sisters are so common and mundane they pass unnoticed and receive little or no attention?

IJHSS: A Journal As Knowledge & A Vehicle Of Academic Dialogue 

By Laksiri Fernando –AUGUST 30, 2018

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

It is a great pleasure to participate at the launch of the International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (IJHSS) by the Al-Mustapha International University (MIU), Sri Lanka Branch. Let me first congratulate the Chief Editor, Prof. Premakumara de Silva, and other editors, and also the Vice Chancellor/Director, Mr Ali Kazemi, and other staff of the MIU, for their painstaking work in bringing this first issue timely on the theme of ‘Interreligious Dialogue.’ 

I further wish them all insight, wisdom and determination in continuing this endeavour in the future, in better and higher forms. Because, all human efforts should evolve into improved and finer forms, especially in the sphere of knowledge. This means, the second issue of this journal should be better than the first; and the third better than the second. This is my wish and hope. 

My presentation is mainly on the theme of ‘a journal as knowledge and a vehicle of academic dialogue.’ In that context, I will also briefly review the present issue of the journal.  

Purpose of a Journal 

• An academic journal is about knowledge. A journal is a forum and a platform for academics, old and young, to equally contribute, bring their research and scientific findings into philosophical and practical use, and thereby contribute to the ‘public policy’ sphere, both nationally and internationally. 

• A journal is a vehicle for academics to communicate, dialogue and interact with each other, and also to communicate with a larger reader community, nationally and internationally. 

• A journal in humanities and social sciences is also a medium to critically evaluate the existing or old notions, bring new knowledge and values into focus, dispelling human prejudices and intolerance. 

Knowledge is the primary objective of any university, in this case the MIU. Therefore, I also have immense gratitude to the Al-Mustafa International University (MIU), here in Sri Lanka and in Iran, in supporting and encouraging this effort, the launching of the International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 

Historical Context   

It is believed that the first academic journal of the world was published in 1665 (353 years ago) by The Royal Society named ‘Philosophical Transactions’ in London. The name has some meaning for the present journal, and its first issue. Because this first issue of the present journal is about ‘Interreligious Dialogue.’ It is similar to ‘Philosophical Transactions.  

Those days, the journal ‘Philosophical Transactions’ was limited to the West, and more particularly to England. But this journal, IJHSS, intends to extend this dialogue, in a modest way though, into the international sphere, like many other contemporary journals in the world. More importantly, this is an initiative taken in the East – in Colombo, Teheran and Qom.  

There are over one million academic journals in the world today. In Sri Lanka, the number is understandably modest. I believe that is not more than 200 academic journals, both alive and dead or half dead. To my knowledge and experience, a major challenge for an academic journal in Sri Lanka, or in any other country for that matter, is its continuity and regularity. This would undoubtedly be a challenge for the IJHSS as well. 

Therefore, I wish that the MIU and the editorial board, make some special efforts to ensure its continuity and regularity. That is also the very reason why the broader academic community, today’s participants at this journal launch, should support and encourage this effort. 

A Noble Objective  

Read More

Colombo Defence Seminar 2018: Surprising appearance of Ukrinmash

Why UKRINMASH is getting a lot of bad press which ignored the gigantic service they have provided during the difficult times in Sri Lanka?  

by C. A. Chandraprema-Sep 2, 2018Sep 2, 2018

Views expressed in this article are author’s own

( September 2, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Even though it was the Prime Minister’s comments on the social media made during the keynote address of the Colombo Defence Seminar, that gained the most publicity, the important thing about this international seminar was that one of its co-sponsors was UKRINMASH the Ukrainian arms supplier. If Colombo Defence Seminar 2018 had been held under the Rajapaksa government, there would have been no issue at all in UKRINMASH co-sponsoring anything. However under the yahapalana government UKRINMASH has been one of the most maligned, vilified and investigated foreign companies and even at this moment it features prominently in the investigation into the 2006 MiG deal which was one of the first cases to be taken up by the FCID set up by the present government to probe the financial transactions of the previous government. Quite apart from UKRINMASH being implicated in one of the most high profile criminal investigations, it has also been at the centre of what is undoubtedly the longest standing unresolved corruption allegation in Sri Lanka’s history.

The 2006 purchase of four MiG-27 planes and the overhauling of four other MiG aircraft by UKRINMASH have been dogged by accusations of corruption from the very beginning and the controversy is now 12 years old. The present government has been investigating this transaction for more than three years and up to now, no wrongdoing in relation to the transaction has yet been established. The FCID has been hot on the heels of Udayanga Weeratunga, the former Sri Lankan Ambassador to Russia, who is alleged to have been involved in this transaction and there is a separate sideshow going on with regard to that, with a procession of high officials of the FCID and the Attorney General’s department going to Dubai to get Udayanga Weeratunga extradited but all that is for the purpose of the purported investigation – not because it has been conclusively established that Weeratunga was involved in any kind of wrongdoing with regard to the matter under investigation.

Even though UKRINMASH figures prominently in the police investigation of more than three years into the MiG transaction, it is certainly true that no wrongdoing has been established with regard to UKRINMASH either, and legally speaking, there is no bar to that company sponsoring any event in Sri Lanka or even maintaining a commercial presence here. However, it will certainly come as a surprise to many members of the public that this company which is routinely dragged through the mud by the present government, could be at the same time sponsoring events which has the participation of the Prime Minister and would have had the participation of the President as well if he had not been overseas. Quite apart from what the police have been reporting to courts for more than three years now, the press has been saying some pretty nasty things about UKRINMASH over the years.

For example one of the first newspaper reports to appear about UKRINMASH was in the Sunday Times of December, 2006, under the title “Big fraud and billion-rupee scandal in latest MiG deal”. Among the allegations made in this article were the following:

• The contract for the supply of four MiG-27s and the overhauling of four other MiG aircraft was touted as a government to government deal between the Sri Lanka Air Force and the Ukranian Government-owned firm Ukrinmarsh. However, the contract signed on July 26, 2006, identifies an offshore company, Bellimissa Holdings Limited registered in the United Kingdom, as the Designated Party to which the entire payment including the freight cost would go. (Since UKRINMASH was responsible for designating Belimissa Holdings as the party that was to receive the payment on its behalf, it is guilty of misleading everybody by touting this transaction as a government to government deal while it was actually being transacted through suspicious third parties. Only UKRINMASH could have directed that the payment due to them should be paid to a third party.)
• The MiG-27s in question were left over from a fleet from which the Sri Lanka Air Force carefully selected and purchased seven units in 2000. (Thus UKRINMASH was responsible for palming off leftovers even on a regular customer.)
• The first four MiG-27s bought in 2000 was for US $ 1.75 million each. The other two bought the same year were for US $1.6 million each. A MiG-23 UB trainer was also procured for US $ 900,000 in 2000. However the purchase price of each of the four MiG-27s bought in 2006 cost US$ 2,462,000 each. (Since only the seller can fix prices, UKRINMASH is responsible for unethically jacking up prices in a situation where the goods sold by them in 2006 were exactly the same as the goods sold in 2000.)
• “…the Ukranian Government was unable to come up with a finance package to sell their aircraft that have been lying on the ground for six years. Bellimissa Holdings Ltd., The Sunday Times learnt, is a private company where some Cabinet Ministers in Ukraine are known to have a stake.” (Thus UKRINMASH belongs to a country with a corrupt government.)
• Two of these aircraft were offered to the Air Force by D.S. Alliance Private Limited in May 2000 at a cost of US$ 1.75 million each. The Air Force did not deem it fit to obtain them. But they are now being purchased at a cost of US $ 2,462,000 or by paying a further US$ 712,000 according to documents in possession of The Sunday Times. (Thus UKRINMASH has the rapacious attitude of mind of a used car salesman.)
• The fee for the overhaul of the MiG-23 UB trainer, according to the contract, is US$ 1.1 million… the cost at which the Air Force purchased this trainer in October 2000 was only US$ 900,000. (Yet another instance where UKRINMASH has displayed a profiteering mentality – by charging more for the overhaul than for the original cost of the plane that they themselves supplied to Sri Lanka through their Singapore based agent D.S.Alliance in 2000.)

Selling MiG-27s to a husband and wife dealership

That was how the bad press about UKRINMASH started. (This is of course not to find fault with any newspaper that published such details. All newspapers can present to the public only the details it possesses. If the details in hand seem to point to something that does not look right, then the newspaper publishes it. Those who have details to disprove the newspaper story can then present whatever facts they have. But this process does tend to leave some bruised faces and black eyes around and UKRINMASH has two black eyes and bruises from head to foot as far as Sri Lanka is concerned.) Twelve long years later, there was still no improvement in the kind of press coverage that UKRINMASH was getting in Sri Lanka. For example, the Sunday Times in an article titled “Multimillion dollar MiG deal: Focus on fake contract but real story emerges” dated March 18, 2018 had the following to say about UKRINMASH:

“On a bitterly chilly wintry morning in the Ukranian capital of Kiev last year, an investigation team from the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) sat down to a conference with officials. Present were the country’s Prosecutor General and top officials of Ukrinmarsh, the state agency that exports military products and related equipment. The FCID team leader, Senior DIG Ravi Waidyalankara, who is the head of the FCID, asked a senior official of Ukrinmarsh about the sale to Sri Lanka of MiG 27 fighter jets and a trainer to the Sri Lanka Air Force. “What sale?” he asked and exhorted “there has been no sale of any MiG-27 aircraft to Sri Lanka from us. There never was.” …Not only did Ukrinmarsh deny selling any MiG 27s to the SLAF at anytime, but the FCID investigations have now revealed that they did so to Bellimissa Holdings Ltd.”

The implication of this is that if any country does business with UKRINMASH, years later, the Ukrainian government is likely to claim that there was never any contract between the two parties. When a government owned entity in one country transacts business with a government owned entity in a foreign country, there should be a cast iron guarantee that the latter country will acknowledge and stand by the contract. Is Ukraine a banana republic where even a government owned entity in that country can have bogus contracts with government owned entities in other sovereign states? Given the manner in which the Ukrainian authorities have reacted to the Sri Lankan investigation it will be extremely risky for any country to buy anything from any Ukrainian government owned entity because they can claim not to have sold anything to that party. The Sunday Times article of March 18, 2018 said that UKRINMASH had not sold any planes to the Sri Lanka Air Force in 2006 but had sold them instead to D.S.Alliance of Singapore. But D.S.Alliance does not use MiG-27s. When they sold the planes, to whom did UKRINMASH issue the End User Certificates for those planes? The Ukrainian authroties don’t seem to have said anything about that. So that makes UKRINMASH a company that should in reality be internationally blacklisted.

According to the police investigation in Sri Lanka, UKRINMASH had sold four MiG-27 planes to a husband and wife dealership in Singapore and they had fully overhauled four more MiG aircraft that had been sent to Ukraine by the same Singaporean husband and wife without knowing who owns those planes or where they were going to after the overhaul. If such was indeed the case, the American Embassy in Colombo should have informed Donald Trump about what UKRINMASH was up to. Any terrorist outfit or rogue state in the world can gain access to sophisticated military hardware from UKRINMASH through the Singaporean husband and wife dealership. If the Sri Lankan police investigation has got it right, then Ukraine should be under UN sanctions. Yet here UKRINMASH is, in Colombo co-sponsoring a Defence Seminar!

That is just a sample of the kind of press coverage that UKRINMASH has been getting in Sri Lanka over the past 12 years or more. The above are allegations that appeared only in one newspaper 12 years apart. The present writer does not agree with the allegations made and has published a contrary view in this newspaper. But that does not take away the fact that UKRINMASH has been getting a lot of bad press in Sri Lanka. In April this year, the ‘Police Correspondent’ of the Economynext website said in a post titled “Sri Lanka’s MiG probe extends to Singapore, Australia“, that the probe into the MiG deal in which UKRINMASH was implicated was to be extended to Singapore and Australia as police listed charges against four foreigners.

The four foreigners to be named as suspects in the case are D.A.Peregudov, the then Director (Chief Executive Officer) of UKRINMASH, M. I. Kuldyrkaev who had signed the contract on behalf of Bellimissa Holdings, the party designated by UKRINMASH to receive the payment, and T.S.Lee and his wife Ng Lay Khim, directors of D. S. Alliance, a regular agent of UKRINMASH who had sold the first seven MiG planes to Sri lanka in 2000. So anybody even remotely connected to UKRINMASH in the past are now to be considered ‘suspects’ in an ongoing police investigation in Sri Lanka. Yet UKRINMASH sponsors the Colombo Defence Seminar and the Prime Minister delivers the keynote speech at this seminar co-sponsored by a company that has figured prominently in an ongoing investigation initiated by his own government.

( C.A.Chandraprema is a political commentator writes for the Sunday Island, weekly newspaper based in Colombo, where a version of this piece first appeared)

Gnanassara’s appeal rejected with the contempt it deserved; Court is not a kasippu den of robed rowdies !

(Lanka e News -02.Sep.2018, 5.45 PM) The appeal made by most notorious robed rowdy rascally monk Galagodaathe Gnanassara who leaps before he thinks , a disgrace to his own religion and a menace to law abiding society , and who pled ‘ aney please do not put me in jail’ after committing all the criminal offences was rejected by the panel of two judges of the appeal court comprised of most intelligent and respectable justices Preethi Padman Surasena(president ) and Shiran Gunaratne thereby upholding the earlier verdict delivered by the appeal court against this ‘manimal’ who committed contempt of court.

It is now crystal clear Gnanassara made a sale of lofty Buddhist philosophy like selling cinnamon after picking and crushing its discarded barks , to degrade and disgrace his own religion.

The latest court verdict has stripped nude the Nayake leaders who preached that the court decision against Gnanassara earlier on was wrong despite being fully aware of the inhuman nature and inhumane activities of his . Incontrovertibly , this rowdy was indulging in all the villainies and stooping to all the lowliest , anti social and anti religious activities including amassing filthy lucre while wearing the sacred saffron robe unbecoming of a genuine Buddhist monk .

This decision must be an eye opener to the other robed rascals too who treat law disdainfully and the supreme independent judiciary as a kasippu den of theirs 

This must also open the eyes of the stupid clowns who are grinding their teeth and biding their time to perpetuate their presidential position and forgive these robed rascals who are enemies of the Buddha sasana , in order to grab votes even by selling the stinking underwear with the label ‘pardon’ .

At all events , with this court verdict on the 30 th , the fate of prisoner W 17640 Gnanassara was sealed. That is he will serve a sentence of 19 years in jail suspended to 6 years RI .

Gnanassara made an application to the appeal court challenging the earlier decision of the appeal court through his lawyer Rienzie Arasecularatne P.C. who made his submissions on the 30 th requesting court to grant permission to appeal to the supreme court (SC)

Arasecularatne argued that there were three flaws in the appeal court decision delivered earlier. Therefore he claimed that Gnanassara has the right to make an appeal to the SC.

The deputy solicitor General Rohana Abeysuriya who countered those stupid arguments requested court to refuse the permission sought by Arasecularatne on behalf of Gnanassara.

The judges of the appeal court after weighing the pros and cons of the arguments rejected the request made by Arasecularatne.

Though it is not known how a statement ( evidence) could be made again in an appeal and on what legal basis , yet the fact remains that it was allowed. This will go down in world history as the first time evidence was given in an appeal in courts .

No matter what, Gnanassara who did not appear in court to hear the verdict , got himself admitted to Jayawardenapura hospital the previous day. He was finally fetched as a convicted prisoner to jail from the hospital .

Though the prison chiefs said , Gnanassara was attired in the white loose prison garb , when Gnanassara was transferred from the hospital to the prison on the 30 th , he was not wearing the prison clothes. In addition Gnanassara was permitted by the prison officers ,while being a prisoner in the custody of the prison to address the media. Talatha as the minister in charge should hold herself responsible for the flagrant unlawful activities.

If the lawlessness in the country which is permitting every son of a bitch to be treated differently before the law cannot be halted , whether it is good governance , or goofs’ governance or goons’ governance, call it what you may that is in existence, it cannot maintain a successful administration . The inevitable outcome : the people will be taking the law into their hands every day as a matter of routine , and that will be inevitable. In that event the rising ‘demon ’ in the form of people will be unstoppable.

---------------------------
by     (2018-09-02 12:59:31)

Ex-CJ reported to Supreme Court over statute violation

September 1, 2018, 9:01 pm 

ECONOMYNEXT - Former Chief Justice Sarath Silva was reported the Supreme Court over his "wilful violation" of the constitution by acting as legal counsel to former president Mahinda Rajapaksa,  a deputy minister said yesterday.

Social Empowerment deputy minister Ranjan Ramanayake addressed a petition to Chief Justice Priyasath Dep drawing attention  to an August 17 incident at the official residence of the former president where Silva formed part of the former leader’s legal team.

Ramanayake said the action of the controversial former Chief Justice was in violation of Article 110 (3) of the constitution which stipulates that retired judges of the superior courts should not engage in the legal profession without written permission of the President.

The Deputy Minister said he was not aware of any special exception granted to Silva and wanted the incumbent Chief Justice to investigate the conduct of Silva and take appropriate action.

"The constitution does not provide for punitive action. That is why I have asked the Chief Justice to take any action he deems appropriate," Ramanayake said.

"I believe the conduct of the former Chief Justice in providing legal counsel to the former president would tarnish the image of the highest court of the land and give rise to suspicion about the independence of the judiciary in general and in particular the judgments pronounced by Mr. Sarath Silva at the time he occupied your chair."I earnestly appeal to you to cause an investigation into this matter and take any action you may consider appropriate," Ramanayake said.

 The former top judge had  once asked for forgiveness from the people for giving politically-motivated judgements when he was head of the judiciary. Ramanayake played a video clip of Silva’s apology before reporters on Friday.

When the former president was questioned in connection with the abduction and torture of journalist Keith Noyahr,  Rajapaksa had obtained legal advice from Ali Sabry, Jayantha Weerasinghe, P. Ganesh, G. L. Peiris and Sarath Silva, according to court records.

 The CID officers had reportedly stopped Professor Peiris intervening as he had no standing in the case. Although he is a professor of law, Peiris has not been admitted to the bar as an attorney-at-law. 

 In the case of Sarath Silva, out of respect for the previous office he held, the CID did not stop him, but reported the matter to the Mount Lavinia magistrate. Proceedings during the August 17 questioning were also tape recorded with permission from President Rajapaksa.

 During an otherwise cordial meeting, the former president was seen restraining Silva.