Senior DIG Ravi Waidyalankara was suddenly sacked as Head of the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) today after a cabinet paper was presented at the weekly ministerial meeting by President Maithripala Sirisena recommending that his services be discontinued with immediate effect.
Waidyalankara was granted a service extension of eight months when he reached the age of 60 in May 2018. The extension was due to end on 23rd March 2019. The President’s cabinet paper drew wide support from among the UNP ministers Colombo Telegraph learns.
The Cabinet paper recommended that Waidyalankara’s services be discontinued with effect from 22nd February with nearly a month left of the cop’s extension to go.
DIG Ravi Waidyalankara
The shock sacking comes as allegations continue to swirl about the senior cop’s corruption and attempted sabotage of high profile investigations by the FCID into the dealings of top members of the Rajapaksa regime. The ex-FCID chief has brazenly maintained relationships with the very suspects his Division was supposed to be investigating, including former Secretary to the ministry of Defence Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
Recently Waidyalankara caused serious concern in law enforcement circles when he was seen to be copying highly sensitive files pertaining to the investigation of the purchase of MiG-27 aircraftfor the Sri Lanka Air Force in 2006 – a highly suspect procurement with Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his cousin Udayanga Weeratunga at the very center of the corruption scandal. SDIG Waidyalankara seemed to show special interest in the MiG files at FCID shortly before boarding a flight to Singapore, where he was due to travel for medical treatment. However FCID investigations into the controversial military purchase have revealed that several suspects in the MiG investigation reside in Singapore raising grave suspicion about Waidyalankara’s moves.
Weeks later a similar incident was reported with SDIG Waidyalanka attempting to move files related to the Krrish deal investigation. Namal Rajapaksa, Nalaka Godahewa and others are at the center of the Krrish corruption scandal.
Waidyalankara was also known to be hand in glove with Sri Lankan businessman Rienzie Edwardswho has been indicted in the United States for money laundering.
Colombo Telegraph can now reveal that an order by a US judge that local accounts linked to Edwards and his partners in Sri Lanka be frozen was referred to the FCID for action. However the accounts remained active and the funds were dispersed before the US Government could recover what was suspected to be funds defrauded in the US territory and channelled to Sri Lankan banks.
(Lanka e News - 25.Feb.2019, 8.45PM) Lawyers for Democracy (LfD) notes, with grave concern that President Maithripala Sirisena plans to execute at least 13 death row prisoners. By lifting a 43-year moratorium on the death penalty, the President will do great damage to Sri Lanka’s human rights leadership in the region, its compliance with its international obligations and reputation. This arbitrary and ill-advised move is both regressive and offers no guarantees of effectively tackling drug-related crimes, as he predicts.
There is no empirical evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. For example, studies demonstrate that the crime rates across States within the USA do not appear to be drastically different, or affected, based on the classification of such States as those that (1) do not impose the death penalty; (2) impose but do not execute; and (3) impose and execute.
More alarming still is that President Sirisena is unilaterally breaking with Sri Lanka’s consistent voting record in favor of a moratorium on the implementation of the death penalty at the United Nations General Assembly, as it voted in as recently as in December 2018. Sri Lanka’s international legal obligations must be given their due weight and not be subject to the whims of the Executive. Failure to do so will signal to the world that Sri Lanka does not take its commitments to uphold international human rights law seriously, discrediting the hard work of our foreign service.
A more constructive and effective exercise, would be for introspection of Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system. Beholden to power, mired in red tape and lopsided in its ability to dispense justice for the poor, it is critical that reform be prioritized. Strict law enforcement, rehabilitation and dismantling systems that enable drug smuggling will address the root causes of why its use and trade is so rampant. Long term solutions are the need of the hour, and, we urge President Sirisena not to give into the temptation of implement populist moves that in reality, achieve nothing.
Conveners,
Lal Wijenayaka
K.S. Ratnavale
J.C. Weliamuna
Sudath Neththasinghe
Lakshan Dias
Prabodha Rathanyaka
Harishke Samaranayaka
On behalf of
Lawyers for Democracy
--------------------------- by (2019-02-25 15:39:41)
In Anuruddha Jayasinghe’s Ginnen Upan Seethala, Kamal Addaraarachchi as Wijeweera gives life to a revolutionary on the run!
Ginnen Upan Seethala directed by Anuruddha Jayasinghe, now being screened in cinemas halls around the country tries to explore the background which pushed the founder of JVP Rohana Wijeweera to react - the way he did - to various changing situations that prevailed in the country from 1971 to 1989.
25 February 2019
On 5th April 1971, Rohana Wijeweera made the wrong call, when he ordered his faithful followers - mainly the youth of the country - to attack the Police stations around the country with hand bombs filled in empty condensed milk tins - and take control of villages and towns. Along with the mob attack on police stations, his plan was to take into custody, the then Premier Sirimavo Bandaranaike and to force her to make a statement abdicating her Premiership and hand over the reins of Government to JVP. His plan ended in a flop and over 10,000 youths lost their Jives in this lunatic exercise.
"The plan was to take into custody, Premier Sirimavo Bandaranaike and to force her to make a statement abdicating her Premiership and hand over the reins of the Government to JVP"
But the Director of the Film “Ginnen Upan Seethala” conveniently chooses to forget this initial setback in the career of a political cum revolutionary leader. thereby preventing the viewers from making a just and a fair assessment of his subsequent actions leading up to the uprising in 1988-1989 and prefers to commence the film with the pronouncement of Life Sentence on Wijeweera delivered by the Criminal Justice Commission - for waging war against a democratically elected government. In 1971 a strong left-of-centre government elected only a year before in 1970 was in power with the leaders of leftist parties N.M., Colvin, Leslie and Pieter holding Cabinet portfolios. In addition, youthful left leaders like Sarath Muttetuwegaama and Prins Gunasekera had also gained entry into the Parliament. The giants in trade union sector, D.G. William, M.G. Mendis and L.W. Pandith were in control of the public and private sector workforces.
"All that the country needs now is a really honest hundred per cent corruption-free, dedicated leader who has democratic principles - to pull this country out of the rut!"
In such a situation there was no way for Rohana Wijeweera to muster public support for an uprising - maybe he wanted to emulate Fidel Castro and his comrades in Cuba - but when Castro and his comrades stormed the Military Barracks in Havana, a ruthless dictator was in power. That situation never prevailed in Sri Lanka in 1971 and Wijeweera’s uprising was doomed to fail from the word go. The director should have devoted at least 10-15 minutes to highlight this debacle - consequently, the director of the film had made a false start!. JVP in the formative years exhibited a talent of designing handwritten propaganda posters in black and yellow which delivered a message in just three to four words - A talent which had not found a place in Anuruddha Jayasinghe’s film. It had been reported that JVP had the ability to paste thousands of posters within a certain time frame of a day in all Grama Niladari Divisions of the country at one and the same time.
In 1971, Wijeweera was the star speaker and the sole attraction at JVP meetings. Standing on makeshift platforms - sans a roof - the bespectacled bearded leader with long hair, dressed in a military-style shirt, sporting a Che-Guevara Cap - was the cynosure of all eyes - as he addressed the gatherings for hours at a stretch. It had been reported that no one who had come to listen to his 5 lessons, had left the gatherings without obtaining the membership of JVP. With more dedicated research, the gist and essence of the 5 Lessons should have been uncovered and included in the film. Instead, the film wastes much time showing the Central Committee members of JVP shifting a feeble looking leader from one location to the other. Actor, Singer and TV presenter Kamal Addaraarachchi, whom we encounter in romantic scenes in films and teledramas comes down to earth with a solid performance in the midst of restrictions imposed on him by the director. Credit should go to him in the first place for agreeing to portray the role of a besieged revolutionary - always on the run! Versatile actress Dilhani Ekanayake as the Doctor’s wife plays her role spot on.
When the JVP goes underground consequent to a ban imposed by J.R’s Govt. Wijeweera is portrayed in the film as a weak character, shivering with fever after being caught in heavy rain in a jungle hideout - while all others around him are shown hail and hearty!. Even at the purported Central Committee and Politbureau meetings, Wijeweera is portrayed as a leader who cannot take a prompt decision. He seems to rely too much on his comrades - this is contradictory to real life Wijeweera. Wijeweera is reported to have taken all the important decisions by himself without relying on others - and his word was the final word!. Maybe the director wanted to convey a message to the viewers, that Wijeweera alone was not responsible for the cruel decisions taken by the JVP. For a good part of the film, the scriptwriter and the director had taken pains to justify the actions taken by Wijeweera, in retaliation to the ban imposed on JVP and signing of the JR-Rajiv Gandhi Treaty.
Over 60,000 people including hundreds of university students perished when JVP went on a rampage to show their dissent to J.R. - Rajiv Gandhi Treaty. Police and Armed forces personnel were dragged from their homes and killed. Even the members of their families were not spared. CTB buses and depots were burnt to cinders. Hundreds of Agrarian Offices which served the rural farmers were burnt down, Intellectuals and film artistes too were not spared. While al1 these were happening around the country, Wijeweera was shown happily fathering six children, in whatever location he was shifted to by his comrades!. Wijeweera was even shown pacing up and down in a hospital corridor while his wife Chitranganie was experiencing labour pains in a hospital bed in a Govt. Hospital - A simple luxury he denied to thousands of expectant mothers - to deliver their babies in a peaceful environment - when his military wing under “Keerthi Wijayabahu” - as shown in the film is one of JVP Central Committee member’s pseudonym - forced all hospitals and nursing homes in the country to close down by delivering a handwritten sheet of paper. I was also a victim of this cruel act. At that, we were living in a coastal town 45 Km south of Colombo. My wife was expecting our third child in September 1989. We had made all arrangements to admit her to a private nursing home in the town, for her confinement on 4th September as advised by doctors.
But on 30th August all hospitals and nursing homes in the country were forced to close down. The doctors, nurses and supporting staff just abandoned the hospitals and ran for dear life. The members of our family, close relations as well as neighbours spent sleepless nights wondering what to do next. Even the neighbours were coming in and going out of our house making various suggestions. Some suggested that we should get down a midwife to stay 24 hours in our home. Time was ticking by. My wife kept her nerves and stayed unruffled in the face of unfolding uncertainties. Luckily, the unborn baby seemed to have relished the extended stay in the mother’s womb and may have waited for the opportune time to make a move.! - and that opportune time arrived when we got the news on 6th September that the Army had started clearing the Castle Street Hospital - removing the dead corpses on hospital beds, washing and disinfecting the wards and labour rooms. By noon the hospital started admitting patients. At this point, my brother-in-law who was a final year Medical Student at Colombo University came forward to help me out. He made arrangements to get my wife (his sister) admitted to Castle Street Hospital on 6th evening through the back door - since she had not attended any clinic in the hospital or consulted a specialist in the hospital, and we were blessed with a baby girl on 7th Sep. 1989 (Thank You, Malli! for coming forward to help me in the hour of my need).
"Ginnen Upan Seethala directed by Anuruddha Jayasinghe, now being screened in cinemas halls around the country tries to explore the background which pushed the founder of the JVP Rohana Wijeweera to react - the way he did - to various changing situations that prevailed in the country from 1971 to 1989"
How many expectant mothers lost their lives during this period? How many innocent infants were prevented from seeing the light of the day? The film maintains a deafening silence on all forms of cruelty imposed on the population of this country - in the name of ‘Liberation’! The estate Bungalow at St. Mary’s Estate Ulapane was not the ramshackle shed of a house as shown in the film. Maybe the director of the film wanted to convey to the viewers, that JVP as a fledgeling political party did not possess funds to provide their leader with a comfortable house. But he had been living in a spacious luxury estate bungalow - with all the conveniences - situated in around 10 acres of land. In the living room there had been a chest full of imported liquor and in the study room there had been a rack full of latest editions of the British Encyclopaedia - may be to protect his new identity as Attanayake and to detract anyone who steps into his bungalow. When Col. Janaka Perera arrived at the doorstep of the Bungalow on 11th November 1989 and confronted him, with his battalion positioned around the bungalow, the initial reaction of Wijeweera had been to insist that he was, in fact, Attanayake and not Wijeweera and did not remain silent as shown in the film. Here again, the director of the film seems to impress on the viewers that Wijeweera was a man of truth even in the face of death.
And in the final scene the film ends with the comic parting words uttered by Wijeweera to his wife - ‘ Daruwanta Hondin Uganwanda’ (Give a good education to the children) and here is the man, whose folly made the country to lose hundreds of university students - wishing his children to get the best education available come what may.How many parents lost their children in the prime of their lives? Even today university students are being used by certain political groups as Guinea pigs to further their own political ends and once a month they happily get a free Cannon shower from police vehicles on the centre of highways!. In his heydays Wijeweera’s, clarion call to the youth had been “Dhanin Weti Jeewathwanawata Wada, Depaying Sita Gena Miyayema Wati” (It’s better to die standing on one’s feet - rather than live begging on knees”) It was only two weeks back, when the 31-year-old Uvihdu Vidura Wijeweera, the eldest son of Rohana Wijeweera who is following a course in Political Science in a University in Russia, came on TV in a talk show telecast by a Private TV Channel, he stated that he was known and called “Uvindu Vidura” and does not use the surname “Wijeweera” as he wants to create an independent identity for himself to go forward in his life !.
It’s understandable - the young man knows very well that he will be at a disadvantage if he goes to the world as Wijeweera’s son - Rohana Wijeweera had earned a place in the history, as a revolutionary who led the youth of the country in the wrong path, twice within two decades and ended up destroying nearly 60,000 young lives. Let no one in the future lead our youth in the path of destruction. All that the country needs now is a really honest hundred per cent corruption-free, dedicated leader who has democratic principles-to pull this country out of the rut!
Usvatte's superbly composed paper published on Wednesday 20th February in the Island newspaper makes me happy about the level of academic and journalistic writing the Sri Lankan news media can reach. Usvatte was the head of economic analysis in the UN in NY, and before that he was in "perspective planning" in the Planning Ministry with Dr Gamini Corea. I was his batch mate in Peradeniya University in the 1950s, and I am happy to have been a friend of his then as well as now. So I write this short note with pleasure.
The presentation of evidence from international economic data and analysis, which would be accessible to him, together with references to concrete examples such as the Lotus tower in Colombo, the Mahakandarawa irrigation tank in the dry zone, the cricket ground in Hambantota and the Port City in Colombo, brings to life his general thesis that Sri Lanka has been engaged in infrastructure building as a political bait to the elector and a response to a foreign lender.
In the early days of foreign aid (1965 onwards) what was important was commodity aid, especially after the desperate lack of foreign exchange for imports of essential goods, caused by a shortage of foreign exchange. After 1965, when Dudley Senanayake became PM, World Bank missions arrived annually in Colombo, to assess annual requirements of foreign aid, which would supplement the projected earnings in the balance of payments. I was fortunate to be a participant in that process and thereby gained access to the large and exciting area of development economics as a "lay practitioner" and not a "high priest." But Usvatte went on to be a high dignitary, and one could see his paper as an absolutely authoritative statement of economic dogma, which none can gainsay. The beauty of it is how well he presents it!
While presenting the thesis which is summarized in the heading "Capital Cheap in Chong Guo and Expensive in Sri Lanka", he also raises the matter of "what did Rajapaksa get out it," -- of the ‘cricket ground in Hambantota or the port in Hambantota’ or words to that effect, since the potential was never realized. We are aware that Rajapaksa is a vainglorious man as seen in the pictures, some years back, of him dressed like a monarch on his throne and his concept of a royal family of Rajapaksas, and the extended family of relatives holding various important positions in the realm. But that is the way of all flesh. Megalomania afflicts people who have been either in power or trying to attain power all their lives, as many of the politicians in the limelight in our country display, in various proportions. The most extreme was JR, who in his old age wanted to be immortal since he was no longer capable of fighting elections. The prospect of death undermines the consciousness and makes people, especially old ones, to seek an escape in some way. All of the world’s literature is replete with it, and Shakespeare gives a poetically acceptable version of it in Prospero’s version of it in the Tempest. It is pretty obvious that Rajapaksa was not interested in calculations of cost and benefit.
But at the beginning Rajapaksa had to fight a war in which the integrity of the country itself was at stake, and for which he needed resources, which Sri Lanka could not pay for, at that moment. So, an ally who would support in whatever way was a Godsend. And China gave lots of money when Sri Lanka needed it most. The subsequent entanglements which China, created as a kind of payment for help when most needed, involve those infrastructure projects like the harbour and the airport, and the playground, which were probably part of China’s usual formula of tying up a debtor in continuous obligation for favours received. This is not an unprecedented event in our own history.
Bhuvenekhabahu King of Kotte, which was the kingdom of Lanka at that time (early decades of the 16th Century), was under attack by his younger brother Mayadunne, who was a much abler warrior at the same time that, in 1505, the Portuguese arrived in Colombo. The King signed a pact with the Portuguese, allowing the King of Portugal to have a claim and a right to a foothold in Kotte, in return for protecting the kingdom from Mayadunne. The Portuguese got a port in Colombo from Bhuvenekhabahu (see S.G.Perera - Ceylon Under the Portuguese) and the Chinese got a port in Colombo from Rajapaksa, for protecting the kingdom from the Tamils and the Indians. It took from the early years after 1500 to 1948 (five centuries) to recover the sovereign ownership of Colombo port by the people of Lanka.
But China, within a few decades after we had become a sovereign state, got a part of that sovereign territory for its own domain, when China took a part of Colombo port, and the government that succeeded Rajapaksa and is now in power could not get it back. On the contrary, the present rulers wanted to give another part of the port to India also! All this is the result of the disunity created by the Sinhala Only Act. Outsiders take full advantage when the household is divided. We saw (on TV) how fast the Chinese arrived on the scene when Rajapaksa appeared to have recovered power In November 2018. They are still there. And getting the Indians into it (a smart move? ha! ha!) will only make our country the cockpit of a war which will demolish us completely.
That is the bad side of it. Most probably there will be a silver lining or even a complete turnaround. Very rarely in recent world history has a sovereign nation lost its sovereignty due to being indebted. I remember a discussion in the late 1960s, about the level of indebtedness that India had reached, among members of a World Bank aid mission to Ceylon. I happened to be there as the Liaison Officer. Some held the view that the level of indebtedness had reached dangerous proportions, but an Indian economist, Arun Shouri, later the Editor of an important newspaper in Delhi said, "So what can they do? Will they invade India?" So now? Is there no danger to Sri Lanka in being so heavily indebted? Or can Sri Lanka borrow from Peter to pay Paul and survive?
27 February 2015 was a D-day for the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, with several unprecedented events taking place connected to the Treasury bond issue of Rs. 1 billion advertised by the bank. This episode has now gone down in the history of this country with full details available in the public domain. The matter remains in a questionably doubtful state regarding its impending outcome.
This is a recreation of the past events of the issue and with the advantage of hindsight a speculation of what we could possibly foresee in the context of what was mockingly obvious in hindsight.
We have seen the outcome of the special Committee of Inquiry appointed by the Prime Minister as well as the then Minister in charge of the CBSL, to investigate about the matter in the wake of the public hue and cry immediately after the bond issue on 27 February.
The composition of this Committee and its findings reported to Parliament are now known. The matter could not be put to rest because the report inter-alia stated that there should be an investigation into how Perpetual Treasuries secured 50% of the bids accepted at the TB auction held on 27 February.
On 20 May 2015, the Speaker of Parliament directed that the COPE should carry out a full investigation into the issuance of a 30-year bond taking into consideration the Motion earlier submitted to Parliament by several MPs and included in the Order Paper on 8 May 2015.
COPE accordingly appointed a special sub-committee of 13 members chaired by MP D.E.W. Gunasekara. Before COPE concluded its investigations several MPs requested that a report of the special COPE be submitted and in view of this the Speaker requested an Interim Report.
Gunasekara, the Chairman, insisted that further inquiries were necessary before a complete report could be prepared. But COPE was unable to prepare even this Interim Report due to disagreement among the members of the sub-committee. The seventh Parliament was dissolved on 26 July 2015.
Public outcry on the subject was so demanding that the new Parliament had to appoint a special COPE committee to investigate and report. From the information subsequently available it is evident that there were many quizzical things happening while the COPE inquiry was proceeding.
A list marked C352 prepared by AG’s Department officials using data extracted from the mobile phone used by Arjun Aloysius and publicly available information with regard to the telephone numbers used by the members of COPE submitted to the Presidential Commission of Inquiry revealed the following:
Members of the COPE of the eighth Parliament during the period from 6 May 2016 to 28 October 2016 (when the inquiry conducted by COPE was underway) have had communications with Arjun Aloysius, one of the suspects in the case.
i. Sujeewa Senasinghe MP (appoi-nted to the COPE on 7 July 2016)
Incoming telephone calls – 36
Outgoing telephone calls – 26
ii. Harshana Rajakaruna, MP
Incoming telephone calls – 13
Outgoing telephone calls – 10
iii. Hector Appuhamy, MP
Incoming telephone calls – 13
Outgoing telephone calls – 10
iv. Dayasiri Jayasekera, MP
Incoming telephone calls – 1
Outgoing telephone calls – 1
v. Ajith Perera, MP
Incoming telephone calls – 1
Outgoing telephone calls – 1
We recall the Footnotes to the COPE report made by some members of the COPE belonging to the UNP which created discussions in the media and elsewhere and became sensational news in the public domain. However in the final report there was agreement among all members of the COPE, viz.:
“According to evidence before COPE which are likely to cause reasonable suspicion that the former Governor of the Central Bank, Arjuna Mahendran, has made an intervention and influenced bond issue transactions on 27 February.”
“That Perpetual Treasuries out of the primary dealers has made enormous financial dividends through the bond transactions that have taken place during that period.”
The COPE report emphasised that Parliament should directly intervene to,
“The loss incurred by the Government should be recovered
from those persons or institutions and necessary legal action should be initiated against them.”
“Parliament should ensure that the recommended punishments and orders are implemented to the letter and do the necessary follow up.” This report unfortunately could not be discussed by the Parliament because of objections raised by MP Sumanthiran that there were no Sinhala and Tamil translations before the Parliament! To date the matter lies as it is and the noble recommendations of the COPE also remain jacketed in darkness!
The legal process, however, started its own unavoidable course, but now stands choked due to the principal actor absconding, now in ambush far away from the reach of anyone disappointing the COPE sub-committee which contemplated serious action.
Is this the end of the road for the bond scam? Many farcical events that we witnessed keep haunting our memories:
Statement of the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka made in Parliament on 17 March 2015, even before his hurriedly appointed three-man Committee of Inquiry;
The special ministerial meeting of two Cabinet ministers along with the advisor to the PM, Malik Samarawickrama, held at the CBSL premises with Governor Mahendran on the previous day of the bond auction to establish the need for Rs. 15 billion to pay contractors on account of road construction work done over and above the amount the Treasury requested from the CBSL to be raised;
The engagements and involvements of Governor Mahendran to foster and commit a bigger fraud on 29 and 31 March 2016 running to much bigger amounts while the investigations on the first scam were proceeding;
Efforts taken by persons in authority to reappoint Mahendran as the Governor at the end of his first term after all these incidents;
Continuing to nurse Mahendran in higher echelons of the Government as an advisor, plenipotentiary, emissary, etc. after he was unceremoniously dethroned from the CBSL;
People responsible for appointing him made no hum about the fugitive Mahendran keeping away from the arm of the law in callous disregard of the dignity becoming of a person who held such a high position in the country;
Attempts being made to change the laws that are applicable to impose punishment to such crimes overlooking the specific references made to the relevant sections in the Act by the COI.
It is also pertinent to review some of the theatrical occurrences during the period after the exposures related to the bond scam:
A member of the COPE published a book exonerating Mahendran;
The PM was given a questionnaire in advance to prepare his answers before his evidence at the Bond Commission – question No. 20: “During the course of your statement to Parliament on 17 March 2015, you have also stated that the allegation that Mr. Mahendran interfered in the decision of the Tender Board was factually incorrect.” The COI asked, what his source of information for him to make this statement? His reply was that it was based on the information provided by Governor Mahendran and chairman of the Tender Board Samarasiri! Doesn’t this remind us of the Sinhala idiom “horage ammagen pena ahanawa vagei?”;
Mahendran confirmed in his evidence that PM instructed him to stop the practice of accepting private placements of Treasury bonds on 24 February 2015. Eventually it is this instruction of PM that led the Governor to accept any and all offers irrespective of important monetary and fiscal considerations without even referring the policy change to the Monetary Board!;
Ravi Karunanayake as the Minister of Foreign Affairs stating as follows in his evidence before the COI: That he did not know who the owner of the apartment where he lived until he came to occupation! The owner in her evidence affirmed that the floor area was 4,000 Sq.Ft. But the Minister in his evidence said it was only 700 Sq.Ft.! A company called Walt and Row Associates was paying Rs. 1.4 million a month as the rental for this apartment at Monarch Residencies. But the Minister maintained that his family was reimbursing the amount to this company. Arjuna Mahendran, of Perpetual Treasuries Ltd., however, was a Director of Walt and Row Associates. When shown a text message from the inbox of Arjuna Aloysius’s mobile phone, which read as “Dear honourable Minister Ravi,” he said he does not understand this SMS. Hilarious indeed!
It is important to recapitulate some of the specific areas that the COI was required to investigate, inquire into and report on, in particular the following:
Whether there has been any malpractice or irregularity, or non-compliance with or disregard of the proper procedures applicable to, management, administration and conduct of affairs in relation to “decision making processes that preceded the issuance of such Treasury bonds…”
Whether proper procedures and adequate safeguards have been adopted to ensure that the issuance of Treasury bonds resulted in obtaining the optimum price or benefit for the Government
The big question before us is whether giving of a specific directive by a person in authority that yields to a calamity is not an offence? In both bond issues of February 2015 and March 2016 (yet to be deciphered), is not the directive given as an instruction by the PM to Governor Mahendran the root cause of this entire episode? Then who should be made culpable?
Finally let us go through some related instances to refresh our minds:
Yahapalana Government comes in on 8 January 2015
Ranil Wickremesinghe takes oaths as PM on 9 January 2015
CBSL is removed from the Finance Ministry portfolio and assigned to a ministry under the PM
Arjuna Aloysius resigns from the primary dealer company PTL on 16 January 2015
Arjuna Mahendran is appointed as the Governor CBSL, recommended by the PM on 20 January 2015
Treasury requested CBSL funding of Rs. 13.5 for the month of March on 20 February 2015
Monetary Board of the CBSL met on 23 January Jan 2015, chaired by the new Governor Mahendran. Among the decisions were three issues relevant to the subject matter, viz.:
i. The prevailing SDFR (bank interest rate) should remain unchanged till the next MB meeting
ii. A Treasury bond of 30-year tenure should be issued the next week
iii. Facilities provided to primary dealers by the bank to be reviewed for enhancement
On 24 February the PM instructs Governor Mahendran to stop private placements and confine to auction only process
Public Debt Department of CBSL announces a TB issue of one billion for 30 years on 25 February
On 26 February 2015, Ministers Ravi Karunanayake and Kabir Hashim meet with Governor Mahendran and UNP Chairman Malik Samarawickrama at the CBSL to discuss how to raise an urgent Rs. 15 billion funding requirement for payment to highway contractors
On 27 February 2015, Governor Mahendran joins the normal market operations meeting of the CBSL officials uninvited and directs the officials to increase the bank interest rates from 5% to 6.5% with immediate effect, contrary to the decision of the MB of 23 February
On 27 February 2017, the bond auction takes place as scheduled between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. Governor Mahendran walks into the Front Office where the auction process is taking place at 10:45 a.m. At about 10:48 a.m. the front office receives a request from BOC Treasury Department to extend the auction closing time by 10 minutes to accommodate certain special bids from customers. The auction closes at 11:04 a.m. and the Front Office prepares a schedule of the acceptable bond range to be submitted to the CBSL Tender Board. The amount so decided to be accepted as bids was Rs. 2.6 billion. At about 12:30 the same day Governor Mahendran walks in again to the Auction Room and make inquiries about the offers received. After learning that there were offers to the value of 20 billion, he instructs the Front Office to take all as there is an additional fund requirement (approximately 75% of these bids have come from PTL and BOC on their behalf at extremely high rates). CBSL officials resist this, stating reasons, but due to the insistence of Governor Mahendran decide to recommend Rs. 10 billion. Mrs. Seneviratne, Superintendent of the Department, makes a note in the documents stating ‘Governor instructed to raise Rs. 10 billion, taking into consideration additional fund requirements of the Government”. The Tender Board of the CBSL meeting the same afternoon decides to accept this recommendation after its Chairman obtained direct confirmation from Governor Mahendran which he informed to the members of the Treasury Board. The DDMC, Domestic Debt Management Committee of the CBSL has decided before that the bank should raise one billion and take the rest on the basis of the decided rate by direct placements.
The rest is history and in public domain. Whatever the findings are, people can surmise what has actually happened.
The repercussions of the attack are still felt keenly by Palestinians in Hebron, who have seen their rights eroded and their formerly bustling city centre turn into a ghost town
Izzat Karaki, centre, demonstrating with Youth Against Settlements for the reopening of Shuhada Street on 22 February 2019 (MEE/Megan Giovannetti)
Jamal Fakhoury, 40, struggles to find the right words to describe his hometown.
With a furrowed brow and damp eyes, he utters: “Every day it’s a difficult life for Hebron.”
Fakhoury is reflecting on the Ibrahimi mosque massacre - the 25th anniversary is on Monday - and its impact on the southern occupied West Bank city.
On 25 February 1994, a Jewish-American settler named Baruch Goldstein opened fire on Palestinian worshippers inside the Ibrahimi mosque - also known as the Tomb of the Patriarchs - in the centre of the Old City of Hebron.
We are not humans at all. We are numbers
- Izzat Karaki, activist with Youth Against Settlements
Goldstein killed 29 men in an instant, and injured well over 100 more. Six other Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces in the ensuing chaos.
Although it is the biggest city in the West Bank, Hebron’s residents are interconnected in almost every way through its cultural and family structures. Nearly every citizen has ties to the Ibrahimi mosque massacre through some relative, friend or neighbour.
“A settler from the US came and killed Palestinians,” Izzat Karaki, a 29-year-old activist with the Palestinian-led group Youth Against Settlements (YAS), said exasperatedly. “And after that they punish us, the victims.”
Beyond mourning for the lives lost, the attack has also affected the people of Hebron - and its generations to come - in a profound and structural way.
Full of life
“Before the massacre, I felt something like peace in the old city,” Fakhoury recalls.
He is from the Old City and still resides there, just around the corner from Shuhada Street and the mosque.
Along some two kilometres, Shuhada Street is tightly packed with shops sitting below several-storey high homes. The road leads directly to the Ibrahimi mosque and once stood as the heart of the Old City.
Munir, 65, owns a shop directly across from the mosque that remains open to this day. He likes to show laminated pictures to passing tourists of the bustling Shuhada Street back in its heyday, brimming with cars and people.
Munir shows a photo of Shuhada Street in the days before the massacre, back when the road was the bustling centre of Hebron (MEE/Megan Giovannetti)
He does point out that the First Intifada, which started in 1988, only ended in 1993, five months before the massacre. “The six years of the Intifada were really not a normal time,” he said, pointing out that the area around the mosque “was part of the ‘playground’ where the Intifada took place”.
But, he explains, “before, this area was full of life”.
“We used to have four people working in this place,” Munir continues, showing the shop where he is standing. “Today, it is me alone and I am also taking care of two stores which belong to my neighbours.”
Collective punishment
“After the massacre, the mosque was closed for six months, and they [Israeli forces] closed Shuhada Street,” Karaki tells MEE.
For nearly three months, Karaki said, Palestinian residents of Hebron lived under an Israeli-imposed curfew while military checkpoints were built in the Old City - checkpoints that are still present today.
The aftermath of the Ibrahimi mosque massacre Hebron on 25 February 1994 (AFP)
When the Tomb of the Patriarchs and the surrounding area was reopened to the public, the religious site had now been divided into two - a synagogue on one side, a mosque on the other.
Palestinians were no longer allowed to drive cars in the area, Munir says, and the number of Israeli soldiers and cameras around the Ibrahimi mosque dramatically increased.
The post-massacre changes made to the city were in a lot of ways a preface to the dramatic transformation that the Hebron Protocol was to create three years later.
The 1997 agreement between the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organisation divided the city into two areas: Palestinian Authority-controlled H1 and Israeli military-controlled H2.
In H2, making up nearly 20 percent of Hebron, some 40,000 Palestinians currently live under Israeli military law, while the 800 Israeli settlers in H2 are ruled by Israeli civil law.
“Animals here have rights more than us,” Karaki exclaims. “Any cat, any dog can go to Shuhada Street. But me? I cannot.”
“Why? What did I do? We are not human at all.”
In the wake of the Hebron Protocol, shops were permanently closed in H2, and many Palestinians were driven out of their homes, many of whom “by military order”, Karaki explains.
The harsh living conditions and restricted freedom of living and movement in H2 drove many Palestinians out - turning the bustling city centre into a ghost town.
“We are talking about 1,827 shops closed and 140 apartments empty,” Karaki adds.
There are currently 20 permanent checkpoints inside the city of Hebron, dominating Palestinians’ lives with curfews and indiscriminate closures.
It is now necessary to go through two separate checkpoints just to enter the Ibrahimi mosque.
“When I go to my home every day they check my ID,” Fakhoury says, “I wait 20 minutes behind the checkpoint near the mosque.”
“If you don’t have your ID you are not allowed to get in or to pass through the checkpoint,” Karaki concurs. “We are not humans at all. We are numbers.”
Monitoring group expelled
The massacre led to the creation of the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH), an international organisation meant to monitor the situation in the city and document violations of international law and human rights.
In its 22-year-long presence, TIPH filed more than 40,000 incident reports - many of which Karaki says the Palestinians Authority can take to the International Criminal Court.
Jamal Fakhoury waits in line at one of 20 Israeli army checkpoints in H2 (MEE/Megan Giovannetti)
Fakhoury, like many Palestinians in the Old City, enjoyed TIPH and felt safe with its monitors’ presence.
“I think it will be difficult now with no one watching the problems,” Fakhoury says. He fears things “will get worse, because the Israeli government doesn’t like to tell people what is happening here”.
There are currently four Israeli settlements inside the city of Hebron - Avraham Avino, Beit Romano, Tel Rumeida, Beit Hadassah - all established well before the 1994 massacre.
But since the expulsion of Palestinian from H2, it has become easier for Israelis to occupy Palestinians homes.
“Usually settlers focus on the empty houses,” Karaki explains. “Where there is an empty house, they occupy it and change it from a Palestinian (home) to a settlement.”
With TIPH gone, Palestinians fear that they will witness an increase in both settlement expansion and settler violence.
“When I go to my home I need to protect myself, protect my home,” Karaki says.
Citing the Fourth Geneva Convention as an example, he says: “On paper, soldiers are here to protect me like they protect settlers. But unfortunately, we see something different.”
Hope for the future?
YAS has stepped in recently to fill in the void left by TIPH. Its activists walk around the Old City most mornings, monitoring settler activity and protecting Palestinian children on their walk to school.
On Friday, YAS organised its 10th annual “Open Shuhada Street” demonstration to denounce the ongoing situation in Hebron - just like every year in the past quarter century. Israeli forces reportedly fired tear gas and rubber-coated steel bullets at demonstrators, injuring at least two Palestinians, including a 13-year-old boy.
“Here, nothing changes,” Munir says. “It’s the same year after year after year.”
But despite the grim circumstances, Karaki says it is important for him as an activist to keep fighting with a purpose.
“Often people are shocked when I say if there is a tomorrow, there is hope,” he says.
But his optimism is dampened by what he and all Palestinians in Hebron have witnessed for years.
“Usually when tomorrow comes, it only gets worse.”
Peter King (right), seen here with Ireland’s Prime Minister Leo Varadkar and US President Donald Trump, is trying to prevent the Dublin authorities from banning Israel’s settlement goods.
A grouping of US politicians has threatened Ireland with economic repercussions if it bans goods from Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank.
Both houses in the Irish parliament, the Oireachtas, have approved a bill to outlaw Israel’s settlement exports during the past few months. Ten US lawmakers have reacted to the moves by warning that a ban could have “potentially severe implications” for the country.
In a letter to Irish political leaders, the 10 members of Congress suggested that some corporations investing in Ireland would be violating US export regulations if the Dublin authorities enforced a ban on Israel’s settlement goods.
That appears to be a reference to rules introduced by the US during the 1970s in response to the Arab League boycott of Israel. Under these rules, US companies may not take part in boycott activities unless they have been approved by the federal government.
Claiming that the “stakes for Ireland are high,” the lawmakers note the importance of US investment for the country. They cite data suggesting that the US accounted for 67 percent of all foreign direct investment in Ireland during 2017.
Apple, they note, is the largest company active in Ireland, which also has attracted considerable investment from Google, Microsoft and Facebook.
Among the recipients of the letter were Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s taoiseach (prime minister) and Simon Coveney, the foreign minister. It was also sent to Micheál Martin, leader of the main opposition party Fianna Fáil.
Its 10 signatories included Peter King, a long-standing member of Congress for New York and Eliot Engel, who chairs the foreign affairs committee in the House of Representatives.
“Veiled threats”
Dated 30 January, the lobbying letter – published below – has not been reported on before now.
It is the latest known attempt by US lawmakers to influence the Irish debate on Israeli settlement goods. The tone of the letter is more aggressive than one sent by Peter King to the Fianna Fáil leadership last year.
Fianna Fáil has rejected King’s pleas and instead voted to support the Occupied Territories Bill – as the legislation proposing a ban on settlement goods is known – when it went before each house of the Oireachtas.
The bill would outlaw exports from Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, all of which are illegal under international law.
“People who are sitting on the boards of these giant tech companies know and understand the rule of international law,” said Niall Collins, Fianna Fáil’s spokesperson on foreign affairs. “Peter King doesn’t speak for corporate America and his veiled threats are not backed up by a mandate to speak for Google, Twitter or any of those companies.”
Although King has taken a strong interest in Irish affairs for many decades, Collins alleged that he was “out of touch.”
“Congressman King is entitled to his views as to why these companies locate in Ireland, but he doesn’t have an informed view,” Collins added. “There’s a whole range of reasons why these companies locate in Ireland, including taxation, labor supply, the presence of an educated, English-speaking workforce and the fact that we are in the EU.”
“Interference”
The Occupied Territories Bill still has a few stages to go through before it can be placed on the Irish statute books.
Yet despite winning majority support in the Oireachtas, it is opposed by Fine Gael, the party heading a minority government. Simon Coveney, the foreign minister and Fine Gael’s deputy leader, has argued that Ireland does not have the power to ban Israel’s settlement goods on its own as trade policy is a matter for the EU collectively.
Coveney did not respond to a request for comment.
Gerry Liston, a lawyer with Sadaka, a Dublin-based group campaigning for Palestinian rights, described the letter from the US lawmakers as “a brazen effort by a major power to interfere with the democratic process in Ireland, something which should be of great concern to every Irish politician.”
“There is no reason why our politicians should be any less outraged by this interference in our democratic process than US politicians would be if the situation were reversed,” said Liston. He urged Varadkar and Coveney “to take a stand against this interference in our democratic process for the sake of Irish democracy, if nothing else.”
Ciaran Tierney is a journalist based in Galway, Ireland. He won the Irish current affairs and politics blog of the year award at the Tramline, Dublin in 2018. Website: ciarantierney.com.
When the JVP goes underground consequent to a ban imposed by J.R’s Govt. Wijeweera is portrayed in the film as a weak character, shivering with fever after being caught in heavy rain in a jungle hideout - while all others around him are shown hail and hearty!. Even at the purported Central Committee and Politbureau meetings, Wijeweera is portrayed as a leader who cannot take a prompt decision. He seems to rely too much on his comrades - this is contradictory to real life Wijeweera. Wijeweera is reported to have taken all the important decisions by himself without relying on others - and his word was the final word!. Maybe the director wanted to convey a message to the viewers, that Wijeweera alone was not responsible for the cruel decisions taken by the JVP.
