Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Sunday, March 10, 2019

Overstepping Authority: Rāghavan, Tennakoon, Gunaratne Bungle


President Maithripala Sirisena’s amateur Governor Appointees, ignorant of the terms and the boundaries of devolution of power are causing serious damage to governance.  
In a controversial bungle up, Governor of Southern Province Rajith Keerthi Tennakoon interfered with four coveted school admissions to Southlands Girl School, a National School under the purview of the line ministry of Education. He threatened the principal of the school and her husband regarding this matter and engaged in further abuse of power by deploying the police to the residence of the principal to intimidate her. Later, the principal of the school was reported to have requested the withdrawal of the investigation about Governor’s misconduct. Informed sources at the Ministry of Education revealed to Colombo Telegraph that the principal has made this request under intimidation by Tennakoon who’s abusive, terror inducing conduct has been raising concern among the government employees in the province. 
Rajith Keerthi Tennakoon
Tennakoon, the former CAFÉ chief, harping on impartiality and transparency raised eyebrows accepting the post of Governor from Sirisena. A brief time in to his office, Tennakoon, probably in a state of ignorance about his administrative boundaries, called for explanation from the authorities regarding an assault of prisoners within the Angunakolapelassa prison which does not fall within his purview. Facing social media backlash, Tennakoon was forced to promptly withdraw his letter via a letter of apology written to Minister of Justice Thalata Atukorale. 
Meanwhile, the amateur Governor of Central Province, Maithri Gunaratne, ignoring all administrative boundaries, single handedly diverted traffic of Kandy town. With little or no consultation with experts, police or other local government authorities he practically brought the busy tourist town to a near standstill.  Gunaratne, noted dissident and saboteur within the United National Party openly crossed loyalties to Sirisena after the constitutional coup of October 2018. In an attempt at off show –off politics Gooneratne ventured in to this abrupt change in Kandy traffic, pussy footing around the obvious solution of opening up the crucial roads surrounding the Dalada Maligawa (Temple of the tooth relic) to appease the Mahanayakas. 
In a recent development, yet another Governor took overstepping boundaries to the next level, potentially precipitating a diplomatic debacle. The amateur Governor of the Northern Province Suren Rāghavan is reported to have made an attempt at making an ‘official visit’ to India without revealing the mandate of his visit, nor the list of people he intends to carry out ‘government negotiations with’. 
Maithri Gunaratne
When contacted today by Colombo Telegraph, Governor Rāghavan confirmed that he has planned this ‘official visit’ to India to negotiate the return of 83 000 registered refuges and 20 000 unregistered refugees to Sri Lanka. When queried on what authority he, as a Governor of a province has in negotiating such resettlement which is a central government issue, Raghavan replied that”  as the custodian of the people of the North, in the absence of a functional provincial council, it is well within my responsibility to attend to the day to day grievances of the people. I’m going to India to get in touch with the refugees and related agencies. I want to find out if they are returning with their free will”. When asked who authorized this planned negotiation, Raghavan stated that “I have made an application for the authorization of this visit, and I’m awaiting the permission of the President”. 
Speaking to Colombo Telegraph on the condition of anonymity our Foreign Ministry source stated “it appears that Rāghavan, ignorant of the powers not vested in him has attempted to use his political shortcuts to undermine the authority not just of the central government, but that of His Excellency the President”. 
A source at the Presidential Secretariat confirmed this attempt by Rāghavan stating “Rāghavan kept the President in the dark when seeking permission that he was venturing in to a serious violation of the constitution. However the President’s Secretary Udaya Seneviratne has taken prompt measures to update the President to avert a serious debacle”. 
Strongly disputing Rāghavan’s claim our Foreign Ministry source stated “Governor Rāghavan is not awaiting President’s approval. That is a lie. The permission was granted by the President who was kept in the dark about Rāghavan’s actual intentions. Presidential Secretariat forwarded Rāghavan endorsed request to the Foreign Ministry which in turn was forwarded to the High Commission in India. Rāghavan is fully aware of this fact. We have also confirmed that Sri Lanka’s envoy to India, Ambassador Austin Fernando, a former Governor himself, has communicated his fact based, forth right observations on this matter in no uncertain terms, saving embarrassment to the President and the government”. 
Dr. Suren Rāghavan
When questioned by Colombo Telegraph whether venturing in to state negotiations is a power vested in a Governor of a province, Rāghavan stated that “it is, according to the constitution I know. When questioned if foreign policy and refugee issues fell under the concurrent list between the provincial government and the central government, Raghavan replied “I’m not sure, I have to refer to the constitution”. 
Under the 13th amendment, subjects falling separately under the provincial government and central government are spelt out whereas those subjects shared by the two entities are maintained in a concurrent list.

Read More

Northern Province’s Economic Development Framework

 11 March 2019
conomic Development Framework for a Northern Province Master Plan´, is a study commissioned by the Central Bank of Sri Lanka and carried out by a team of seven members with competence in relevant fields and knowledge of post-war conditions in the province. The study provides an opportunity for an open discussion on post-war development in the Northern Province. Apparently, the first post-war Provincial Council (October 2013 – September 2018) did not find it worth creating a development plan as a means of collective action to address the challenges of socio-economic advancement of the war-torn community that had elected it to office with great enthusiasm and expectations. Now, ten years after the end of the war and shortly after the end of the five-year term of the provincial council, we have a study, commissioned by a central government institution that provides an opening for discussion and debate on the development of the province. 

The study begins with an overview of the pre- and post- war economic and social conditions in the NP, and proceeds to present a framework for a provincial development plan. It highlights the destruction, displacement and depopulation caused by the protracted war and their consequences, and identifies some of the social and economic challenges of post-war development of the province. It makes the point that the official policy of post-war development had failed to yield satisfactory results because of the government´s failure to take these challenges into account. In the absence of a macroeconomic vision, the approach was reactive, piecemeal and project based. ´Soon after the war´, says the study, ´local production was subjected to a market shock as road connectivity resumed to the wider market with far more advanced production.´ This ´sudden reintegration with the market in the rest of the country´ along with credit expansion without due consideration for the vulnerabilities of war-affected households had contributed to ´widespread indebtedness and a rural economic crisis.´ There has been a growing financialisation of households. Indeed, for the poor in a neo-liberal world, debt is a dangerous substitute for safety net – dangerous as it leads the poor deeper into a debilitating debt trap, and even to suicide under extreme conditions! Investments expected from the diaspora did not arrive in spite of the tax incentives offered. Apparently, tax incentives alone were not sufficient to attract investments into a war-ravaged region. There was a lack of understanding of the institutional and capacity deficiencies – and, one may add, of the post-war political environment in the NP. 

Indeed, the government´s approach was top-down, militarised and bureaucratically centralised. Securitisation and road connectivity seemed to precede the priorities of resettlement and socio-economic advancement of the war-affected communities. Investment in road connectivity was almost entirely devoted to A9 and some other main roads while neglecting local infrastructure development. As observed by some critics, the government was continuing the war by other means. In this environment, the government tried to use ´development´ to evade the need for a political solution to the national question. Evidently, there was no ´enabling environment´.  
Given the themes addressed in the study, one would have expected to see a critical macroeconomic analysis of the larger national context. This is a significant shortcoming of the study. Its critique of post-war development remains incomplete, as a result. It is generally known that Sri Lanka´s rise to the status of a low middle-income country was accompanied not only by growing material inequality and loss of social welfare entitlements but also by policies and practices that suppressed democratic freedoms. The higher GDP growth rate in the immediate post-war years was infrastructure-led and it slowed down after 2013. The economy has been in trouble since then. The present government seems to be groping around   clutching at a neo-liberal agenda. The study´s silence on the current macroeconomic situation is rather intriguing.    

"For many years, the government has been actively promoting migration of labour to other countries, while failing to invest adequately in skill development"

Based on its unfinished critique of the post-war development trajectory and inspired by a vision of ´sustainable development´, the study offers a three-pillar-based conceptual framework for the economic development of the NP. In its present form, the framework incorporates several key areas under ´Social Foundations of Development´ and ´Enabling Environment´, the two pillars linked to the pillar of Production. The study highlights the need for a sustainable strategy for stable growth with distribution and resilience based on small producers and industries. A reasonable premise indeed for a normative approach to development. Growth is not an end but a means to sustainable human development and flourishing. The pace of development may be moderate but what is more important is to ensure that the process is on a trajectory that is inclusive and dynamic enough to progressively enhance the capabilities of the vulnerable. 
The real test, however, of the integration of the three pillars, lies in the application of the framework to policy making, planning and implementation. In the absence of independent and competent (visionary and capable) leadership and meaningful participation of the people, the framework may easily slip into a purely technocratic mode. If that happens, social and political issues would be reduced to technical issues in the name of economic efficiency by experts, especially those belonging to a neo-liberal epistemic persuasion. Of course, a lot will depend on changes in the national context and the ability of the provincial government to play a dynamic and proactive role in the interest of the people.   

Interesting points are raised regarding the character of the capital that was invested in the region, and regarding the role of banks. It may be worth examining how the existing ´savings surplus´ in the banks in the North can be mobilised for productive investment in the province. What are the barriers and how can they be overcome? What should be the role of the public banks in provincial development, especially in micro, small and medium enterprise development?  This is a policy question, of course. The idea of setting up a provincial development financing agency prioritising Micro, Small and medium Enterprise (MSME) development is worth pursuing. But it has to be seen in conjunction with the policy and institutional environment needed to ensure producers´ access to resources and opportunities for enterprise development and social mobility. The role of grants, loans and subsidies for livelihood revival and human development of vulnerable groups should have received consideration. This is also related to reparations as a part of transitional justice for war victims. 
MSMEs are invariably linked to buyer-driven commodity chains in an unequal relationship in which the buyers are able appropriate a major part of the value. MSMEs need policy backing to strengthen their organised bargaining positions through cooperatives to get better prices for their produce. Access to market on equitable terms is a necessary condition to promote the economic viability and development of MSMEs. One is thinking of MSMEs-based on agriculture, fisheries, crafts and manufacturing in the north.   

  • "Debt is a dangerous substitute, as it leads the poor deeper into a debilitating debt trap, and even to suicide"

  • "Govt´s approach was top-down, militarised and bureaucratically centralised"

  • "Social Foundations of Development´ and ´Enabling Environment´, the two pillars linked to the pillar of Production"


Regarding labour, the issues identified are important indeed. The points addressed under ´Social Foundations of Development´ cover the key concerns including problems that are specific to youth, female-headed households, ex-combatants and disabled persons. Each of these groups has its specific needs when it comes to assisting them to become employable and more self-reliant. This seems to be an area in which the central and the provincial governments must work together while drawing on resources from civil society and the diaspora. The study refers to ´the need to rebuild trade unions and other workers´ institutions to raise labour standards´. The majority of the workers in the province, like in the rest of the country, are engaged in the informal sector and most of them belong to what some writers call the ´precariat´, i.e., persons working and living under extreme conditions of social and economic insecurity. It is also known that the proportion of unionised workers has been declining in Sri Lanka. This issue needs to be addressed and taken up at policy levels.     

It is important to be cognizant of the continuing trend of out-migration. For various reasons, the Tamil community in the North displays a high propensity to migrate. Moreover, for many years, the government has been actively promoting migration of labour to other countries, while failing to invest adequately in skill development. On the other hand, skill development without creating satisfactory job opportunities will fuel out-migration. Sri Lanka´s economic growth in the past had failed to generate job opportunities on any significant scale. As shown by various studies, unemployment, underemployment, indebtedness, lack of access to resources are the main drivers of out-migration. In recent times, thousands of unemployed youths with employable skills have migrated to countries such as South Korea. This situation poses a challenge to a systematic labour-intensive approach to economic growth and development in the changing demographic context of the NP as well as the country. This is a matter for national policy. 

Regarding land and natural resources, the study has not addressed some issues which have serious consequences for the livelihood security and human development of farming and fishing communities in the province. There are issues concerning distribution and sustainable use of land and water in Vanni and Jaffna. Land grabbing (small and big), landlessness, unresolved land disputes, absentee landownership, state´s enclosure of land as protected or sacred areas - thereby depriving communities of their traditional access to forests and grazing lands, and the military´s occupation of considerable extents of private lands are among the widely known problems. In Jaffna, there has been an ongoing conversion of prime agricultural lands into residential properties. What has happened may not be reversible but steps should be taken to preserve the remaining high quality agricultural lands. Another serious problem is the depletion and degradation of the peninsula´s groundwater resources. 

"Fishermen in the north, who are engaged in small scale low technology fishing in the Palk Bay, find themselves caught in a trans-boundary conflict created by massive daily intrusion by high-powered Indian trawlers"


Fishermen in the north, who are engaged in small scale low technology fishing in the Palk Bay, find themselves caught in a trans-boundary conflict created by massive daily intrusion by high-powered Indian trawlers. The northern fishermen are perpetual losers in this highly unequal competition. According to one report, there are more than 2500 Indian trawlers operating in Sri Lankan waters. The Indians are known to use banned fishing equipment and methods. The risk of resource depletion and degradation is very high indeed. The problem is fairly well documented but no workable solution has been found. There are also conflicts between local and migratory fishermen from the south operating in areas like Mullaitheevu.  
These problems need to be addressed in order to find solutions that can help the affected groups to revive and develop their livelihoods in sustainable ways. They are also linked to land as a contentious issue in devolution and power sharing. The study focuses on some aspects of agricultural development such as household resilience and food security and sustainability in some detail. These are relevant and the ideas presented are sound indeed but the issues mentioned above cannot be avoided. Fisheries has not received the importance it deserves. 
It is important to take a more explicitly critical stand on the government´s policies on land and natural resources. Counting land (along with other natural resources) as nothing more than a factor of production which is not compatible with a serious vision of sustainable development. On the other hand, Land is the environment at large and, in that role, it is an indivisible public good. This contradiction is at the centre of private and social cost-benefit calculus. Of course, not all social costs and benefits can be quantified but a deeper understanding of this contradiction is basic to sustainable resource and environmental governance. Enclosing public lands as reserves and sacred areas by shutting local communities out is not a sound approach to sustainability. 

It is a recipe for eternal resource conflicts. The social and environmental costs of enclosure of beaches and coastal zones in different parts of the country by private investors (from the so called hospitality industry) remain to be addressed too. Advocates for sustainable development may consider an approach informed by coevolutionary thinking. 
This is a way to look at society-nature relations and processes such as building resilience and adaptation to climate change and natural disasters. Devolution and power-sharing should provide for the participation of communities as stakeholders in resource and environmental governance. 

I have raised some issues that remain to be addressed. There are other issues as well, I am sure. The framework may need further critical review in order to take it closer to the people, whose participation is an absolute prerequisite to move towards a provincial development plan. The question as to when the hosting of this process would be legitimately taken over by the provincial council is pertinent indeed. At this point in time, one can only hope that the next provincial council will have the vision and the will to do it. No less pertinent is the question as to whether the government is capable of providing an enabling environment and going beyond towards a political resolution of the national question. 


The Admiral and the case of 11 missing boys

11 boys abducted and killed in 2008; 14 naval officers implicated in the crimes, 13 of them arrested and produced before a magistrate. Last Thursday, the 14th suspect in the case, war time Commander Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda won reprieve from arrest in the country’s highest court – probably for the duration of his trial


For 10 long years, Sarojini Naganathan has gone from court house to court house, in a seemingly endless search for her only child, Rajiv.

HomeBY MANOJ COLAMBAGE-10 March, 2019

On Thursday, when former Navy Commander Wasantha Karannagoda’s fundamental rights petition seeking to block his arrest by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) was taken up by a three judge bench of the country’s apex court, there she was again, a sad-eyed woman of about 50 years, wearing a simple black sari, sitting erect and attentive through a marathon five hour hearing.

Already, the difference between how the justice system treated her and the former Navy Commander was striking. For years, various police stations and courts refused to even entertain a complaint from her about her son’s abduction and disappearance, even long after her family’s emissaries had negotiated with senior navy officers, including Karannagoda, to secure her son’s release. A Habeus Corpus Application filed by Naganathan in 2011 has yet to see a judgment.

But after a lengthy and meticulous CID investigation has finally led to the arrest of over a dozen Navy Officers, and the former Navy Commander himself was named the 14th Suspect by the CID, Naganathan had a glimmer of hope that justice would be done. In its B report of February 22, the CID named Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda as the 14th suspect in the murder of 11 young men abducted in Colombo in 2008. A decade long investigation has found that the kidnappings were part of an elaborate racket by Sri Lanka Navy men, to abduct the children of wealthy families and extort money from their parents.

Yet on the same day that the CID was to name Karannagoda as a suspect and seek his arrest, February 22, the former Navy Commander filed a Fundamental Rights petition in the Supreme Court seeking to block his arrest.

On February 28, when the Admiral’s fundamental rights petition was initially taken up, the Attorney General’s Department told court that indictments against the former Navy Chief were “framed and ready to go”. On that day, despite repeated entreaties from Counsel for Karannagoda, the AG told Court that the Department was unable to provide an undertaking that the CID would not arrest the suspect, who was at the time, a fugitive from justice.

Naganathan watched as one of the judges hearing the case first recused himself on the grounds that he had worked for Karannagoda as a private lawyer, and then repeatedly sought an undertaking from the Attorney-General’s Department to prevent the Admiral’s arrest on behalf of Karannagoda’s counsel. The long-suffering mother felt that she would have to intervene through her own counsel to see that justice was done.

Naganathan was familiar with the difficulty that the CID has faced in securing cooperating witnesses within the ranks of the Navy to tell the truth about what happened to her son and other victims, and to assemble a case against the abductors and murderers. Two cooperating witnesses within the Navy have reported being intimidated by Karannagoda himself. Another was assaulted with a firearm by senior naval officers.

More still have had their careers roadblocked as retaliation for their cooperating with the CID investigation. Naganathan feared that should the Supreme Court signal that the former Navy Commander was above the law despite the CID charging with complicity not in her son’s abduction, but in his murder, that more witnesses will be frightened to come forward.

Investigations by the CID, backed by reports from the Army, Navy and Air Force, have found no evidence to link any of the victims to the LTTE or suspected terrorist activity. Initially held at the naval prison in Colombo Fort, the boys were eventually transported to the Trincomalee naval base and detained in eerie subterranean prison cells. Bodies were never recovered, but investigators believe the boys were killed sometime in May 2009.

On Tuesday (5), Sarojini Naganathan filed a petition through her lawyers in the Supreme Court, seeking the court’s permission to intervene in the former Navy Chief’s case. Naganathan wanted to tell judges why it was important for families of the victims like her own, that the due process of law was applied to every suspect in the grisly abduction for ransom racket, allegedly perpetrated by naval forces personnel, to which her boy fell victim.

Her explosive petition detailed a sordid love triangle between the former Navy Commander’s wife and his personal security officer, which had led to Karannagoda’s decision to make a police complaint against his Aide De Camp Lt Commander Sampath Munasinghe. The complaint, written to DIG Colombo Crimes Division (CCD) Anura Senanayake on May 28, 2009 accuses Lt Commander Munasinghe of suspected LTTE links and dodgy financial transactions, but failed to mention the suspected abduction racket, even though by his own admission, Karannagoda knew of the allegations against men under his command as early as May 10, 2009.

It is Sarojini Naganathan’s assertion that Karannagoda made the complaint against Munasinghe not because of concern about the alleged abduction racket, but due to a personal animosity with his PSO resulting from an adulterous affair between Munasinghe and Karannagoda’s wife.

“The complaint made by Karannagoda was not in respect of the abduction of the children,” according to the nine-page petition filed before the Supreme Court by President’s Counsel J.C. Weliamuna for Sarojini Naganathan.

Subsequent investigations by the CID found that Munasinghe shared a cabin with the man suspected to be the ringleader of the abduction gang, Navy Sampath, or Lt. Commander Chandana Prasad Hettiarachchi. In May 2009, then Commander Karannagoda ordered the Naval Provost to search their cabin. The search turned up several NICs, passports and large amounts of cash. Yet in Karannagoda’s complaint to the CCD, he made no mention of Lt. Commander Hettiarachchi, who shared Munasinghe’s cabin, and is also allegedly complicit in the abductions.

Ironically, it was Karannagoda’s complaint to the CCD, devoid of any information about the alleged abduction racket reported to him by his own intelligence units, that his Counsel, led by President’s Counsel Romesh De Silva used to claim that the CID investigations were frivolous, politically motivated and filled with mala fide or bad intentions.

“Why go to the police,” De Silva PC thundered during his two-hour submissions that sent audible gasps around Court Room 502 from time to time. “Why go the police if the intention was to suppress information? This was May 2009. These were war heroes. They could have killed anyone and suppressed it.”

During his submissions on behalf of Karannagoda, which were allowed by the bench to proceed uninterrupted for over two hours, Romesh de Silva P.C. made several unsubstantiated and factually incorrect allegations against the Attorney-General as well as the CID officers involved in the case. Strikingly, counsel for the CID, Additional Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne, made no objection to these submissions.

Assault on AG

During his submissions, De Silva charged in open court that the Attorney-General and Solicitor General had met with the President to seek promotions to the Supreme Court, and that because of such behavior the credibility of the Attorney-General’s Department is no longer what it used to be. De Silva provided no evidence for this malicious allegation, which he made repeatedly, and he was not reprimanded by the bench for this unprecedented conduct.

De Silva PC told the three-judge bench that the former Navy Chief had been named belatedly as a suspect, “when the Geneva conference started and there was a perception that the petitioner was associated with the previous Government.”

“This is the man who won the war for us – we should be grateful to him. It is people who live on NGOs, who deal with NGOs who are trying to do this,” De Silva PC said in his shocking submissions.

Reiterating that there were no grounds to arrest the former Navy Commander, De Silva PC reminded court that this was charge under Section 296 of the Penal Code, where bail could not be granted. “He could remain in custody for several months,” Counsel for Karannagoda explained.

Karannagoda was being implicated just by two witness statements by retired naval officials who had provided evidence to the CID belatedly, De Silva falsely charged.

At least five witnesses, including former admirals and a former cabinet minister, have given statements to the CID implicating Karannagoda in the conspiracy to murder the abducted children.
De Silva PC referred to a statement by former Navy Chief Travis Sinnaiah, who gave evidence to the CID in 2017, claiming that when he headed the Navy’s Eastern Command, which included the Trincomalee Naval Base, told the CID that persons had been imprisoned in the ‘Gun Site’ compound of the Trincomalee base, but that Wasantha Karannagoda had directly forbidden him from interfering with these detentions or from causing the search of vehicles entering or leaving the ‘Gun Site’ premises.

Sinnaiah told the CID that only former Naval Spokesman D.K.P. Dassanayake and Trincomalee Base Commander Sumith Ranasinghe were authorized to administer these premises. Both Ranasinghe and Dassanayake are suspects in the case, currently enlarged on bail.

In keeping with the general theme of his submissions that the investigation into the abduction racket had been conducted at the behest of international actors, Karannagoda’s Counsel told court that Admiral Sinnaiah worked as a Security Advisor at the US Embassy in Colombo.

“He was second in command of the Navy, he makes this statement and then he is made Commander,” De Silva PC claimed.

The second statement implicating Karannagoda was made by Rear Admiral Shemal Fernando who served as Private Secretary to the former Navy Chief, De Silva PC told Court. Reading out text messages from Fernando to Karannagoda wishing the former Commander for Easter, offering blessings and invitations to a wedding. “After reading these I told myself never trust flatterers – months later he makes these allegations against Karannagoda,” he said.

De Silva PC also claimed, smirking, that Rear Admiral Fernando had been given an appointment at the Customs Department recently, adding that the decision had been reversed following an outcry.
Neither Admiral Sinnaiah or Rear Admiral Shemal Fernando had counsel present to defend them against the allegations by Karannagoda’s lawyers.

De Silva suppressed the facts, available in the B Reports filed by the CID before the Colombo Fort Magistrates Court, that Admiral J.J. Ranasinghe, Commodore Bandara, Admiral Guruge, Lieutenant Commander Welegedara and former Minister Felix Perera had all made damning statements implicating Admiral Karannagoda for allegedly abetting the murder of the youth held captive in Trincomalee by concealing information.

De Silva made reference to a 2015 visit by the United Nations Working Group on Enforced Disappearances to the ‘Gun Site’ facility to twist facts and allege to the court that the CID and IP Nishantha Silva had attempted to collude with the UN and unnamed “NGOs” to frame animal bones found at the facility as human remains in order to tarnish the reputation of the Navy. De Silva charged that this alleged scheme was only foiled by the Magistrate ordering that the bones be examined by the Government Analyst.

It was, in fact, the CID that reported the discovery of the bones to the Magistrates Court and sought an order to have the bones examined by the Government Analyst. This was one of a number of overt misrepresentations De Silva made in Court about the CID investigation that was never corrected for the record.

He also referred to CID Inspector Nishantha Silva as a politically appointed “hangman” and “villain of the piece” who was assigned to the Navy Case only in 2015, falsely implying that Silva was installed in the investigation by the post-Rajapaksa government that came to office in January of that year. In fact, Silva has been the inquiry officer for navy abductions investigation for over eight years.

Uncountered

ASG Viraj Dayaratne did not address the factual inaccuracies in Romesh De Silva’s submissions, nor directly rebuke him for the allegations he made against the senior officers of the department. The Additional Solicitor General told the court that all investigations in the abduction and murder case except for the recording of Karannagoda’s statement, were complete, and that the Attorney-General’s Department was not insisting on the arrest of Karannagoda.

However, Sunday Observer reliably learns from sources including B Reports that the CID investigations are still underway. Officers have at least 20 additional witnesses to question, and additional physical and electronic evidence to recover that is relevant to proving the circumstances surrounding the murder of the victims. These investigations would take at least another two months, giving lie to Dayaratne’s assertion to the Supreme Court that the investigations were almost complete.

Dayaratne also submitted that Karannagoda can be exonerated of any involvement in the actual abduction of the youth, which position has never been stated by the CID. Sleuths have yet to establish the extent of the Navy Commander’s involvement. Each of the main suspects in the abduction and murder racket, Commander Sampath Munasinghe, Commander Sumith Ranasinghe and Lt Commander Hettiarachchi, operated directly under Karannagoda’s control, although no evidence has yet surfaced to indicate that the former Navy Commander personally sanctioned the abduction for ransom racket allegedly run by his senior aides.

J.C. Weliamuna attempted to make his submission to intervene on behalf of Naganathan, but was shouted down by Romesh De Silva, who urged the bench to prevent Weliamuna from being allowed to make representations to the court on behalf of the victims. Weliamuna insisted that preventing Karannagoda’s arrest would have a chilling effect on witness testimony, as witnesses who would otherwise testify against him would now fear that he was above the law.

Weliamuna PC sought to explain that his client’s interest in the case was that if this one suspect was allowed to escape the criminal justice process and walk into trial court, it could result in an intimidation of witnesses in the case.

The Court sided with De Silva and prevented Weliamuna from making further submissions. When it became clear that Weliamuna would insist that Naganathan’s submissions be heard by the Court, De Silva immediately looked to ASG Dayaratne. The two counsel reached an understanding before the bench, with Dayaratne conceding that Karannagoda would not be arrested, and that in return, the proceedings in the case would be terminated.

Weliamuna tried to insist that such a deal would be based on factual inaccuracies that should be corrected for the record, but he did so in vain, as the bench refused to allow him to make submissions on behalf of the victims, before ruling in Karannagoda’s favour with the consent of ASG Dayaratne, who was ostensibly representing the CID, but did not have instructions from the CID to either assert that investigations were complete or that Karannagoda should not be arrested.

More equal

As De Silva began prompting to the bench portions of the order preventing Karannagoda’s arrest, insisting that the bench forbid his “arrest and/placing into custody”, Weliamuna quipped sarcastically that he may as well also dictate or draft the indictment against his client, drawing De Silva’s ire.
Senior lawyers told Sunday Observer that if the final order from the SC Bench prevents Karannagoda from being “placed into custody”, his Counsel could interpret this to mean for the duration of trial. The former Navy Chief could potentially face trial for aiding and abetting murder without ever being remanded even following indictment, a privilege few other accused in such grave criminal trials will ever enjoy.

When the Court asked De Silva whether Karannagoda, who has for two weeks been in hiding from the CID, would consent to appearing before the CID on Monday, March 11, to give a statement, under an assurance that he would not be arrested, De Silva turned to a lawyer behind him for a response.

The non-practicing attorney, who is also a businessman, media mogul and securities trader, affirmed to De Silva on behalf of Karannagoda that this date was acceptable to the former Navy Commander. Observers in the Court had earlier noted this businessman attorney’s mobile phone ringing continuously during the proceedings, and that he walked out of the court room with impunity without drawing a reprimand from the bench.

After yet another day in yet another Court that refused to give ear to her pleas on behalf of her son who has been missing for a decade, Naganathan returned home, with fresh reason to believe that the decorated “war hero” who had promised to secure her son’s release was more important in the eyes of the law and the courts than her own beloved Rajiv. Romesh De Silva made clear to the court that Karannagoda could have killed anyone with impunity in May 2008. Naganathan is left to wonder who else enjoyed this power, and whether they too, may be above the law in the eyes of the courts.

RTI Unearths 230 Complaints Against Quack ‘Islamic’ Judges

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has released data under the Right to Information Act indicating that an enormous number of 230 complaints have been filed against Quazi judges in Sri Lanka between the years 2012-2017.
Justice Minister with Muslim MPs | File photo
logoThe data was revealed in response to a directive of the Right to Information (RTI) Commission last month, Muslim activists told the Colombo Telegraph. The Commission comprises M Gammampila (Chair) & RTI Commissioners Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena, SG Punchihewa, Rohini Walgama and Chelvy Thiruchandran. The directive was issued following an RTI appeal filed at the Commission asking for the number and nature of complaints received against Quazi judges in the year 2016 and those ongoing as at November 2017. Also asked were certified copies of all decisions against Quazi judges in the period 2012 to 2016.
The requested information had been refused by the JSC saying that this would affect the authority and independence of the judiciary. The RTI Commission then issued an order stating that statistical data may be released under the RTI Act without prejudice being caused to the judicial institution. 
On the data now in the hands of Colombo Telegraph, the JSC has stated that, out of the 230 complaints received, 190 complaints have been ‘resolved’ by the JSC with 40 complaints ‘not resolved.’ Data as to the specific nature of the complaint and the decision taken was refused to be disclosed by the JSC. 
The functioning of Quazi courts in Sri Lanka has led to criticism by activist groups which say that a huge number of irregularities occur in the system, particularly where women are concerned. Women are traditionally not permitted to function as Quazi judges even though many writers have argued that this prohibition is against Islamic teaching.

Read More

GOTABHAYA RAJAPAKSA: IS THIS DISCIPLINED AND LAWFUL CONDUCT? – FRIDAY FORUM



Sri Lanka Brief10/03/2019

It is now three months since the interpretation of our constitution by the Supreme Court of the country was respected by the President and the relevant political leaders, and the constitutional crisis he created was resolved. Yet the country continues to be trapped in problems of critical concern for all of us.

The President

The Supreme Court decided that President Sirisena had acted in violation of the constitution and yet Parliament and the country have not questioned his right to hold this office. When national networks focused on the swearing in of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, we witnessed the supreme irony of these people taking an oath of office to act according to the constitution before the President who had violated it. These developments seem to have encouraged the President to continue to act in a manner that conflicts with his responsibilities, as well as the pledges that he made to the people when he was elected to office in 2015.

In public statements, most recently in parliament, the President has attacked the Constitutional Council and the Human Rights Commission, where neither of these institutions has representation and hence no right of reply, encouraging further attacks against them.

The President has questioned the credibility of the very institutions he contributed to establish through the 19th Amendment. This amendment reintroduced them with some modifications, after the concept of a Constitutional Council and Independent Commissions had been rejected in the 18th Amendment enacted during the Mahinda Rajapakse administration.

These institutions were brought back because it was recognized by Parliament that they were necessary to restrain abuse of executive power, and help ensure governance that is accountable to the people. The Constitutional Council and the Human Rights Commission are expected to function without political interference by the President. We understand from the Speaker’s statement that recent decisions of the Council were made by consensus, following guidelines adopted by the Council. The Human Rights Commission has received recognition for its good work both nationally and internationally. It is unacceptable that the President of the country sullies the reputation of these constitutionally mandated public institutions. Friday Forum calls upon the President to desist from making statements that undermine their authority.

In response to the critical drug problem this country is facing, the President has decided to sign death warrants for the execution of drug traffickers. There have been no judicial executions in Sri Lanka since 1976 and successive presidents have consciously refrained from implementing the death penalty. Sri Lanka has, as recently as December 2018, supported the UN resolution calling for a moratorium on executions, with a view to abolition of the death penalty worldwide. This selective approach to administration of criminal justice, with no effort to strengthen law enforcement and respond to corruption and violence, seriously undermines the rule of law. Friday Forum urges the President to desist from re-activating the death penalty.

 Failed Governance:The President and the UNF Government

We as citizens must also be critical of the manner in which promises of good governance made by both the President and the government are continuously and cynically disregarded. The President has openly attacked the UNF government, including inappropriately, at the Independence Day celebrations. He has made it clear to the nation that he is on a collision course.

Recent actions of the government such as interference with the appointment of a senior public servant, and back tracking because of trade union action, do not inspire public confidence.

Appointments of cabinet ministers, sullied with evidence of corruption instead of the new faces expected, have also contributed to frequent and further allegations of corruption and politicisation in financial administration and in tender procedures. There appear to be continued delays in prosecuting corruption cases. When major issues regarding the stability of the economy have been raised repeatedly, and the cost of living is getting higher by the day, how can the government justify the proposal to expand the cabinet as a National government? Citizens can rightly conclude that our parliamentarians and government leaders are only concerned with enjoying and sharing with each other more privileges of office, with total disregard for the cost to citizens who elected them to office.

The Opposition

Confrontational politics has been the bane of this country and has reached new levels. We see this in the approach to constitutional reform. Though public consultations were held and some good reports on different sectors have been produced, the final set of recommendations is embedded in controversy. The Prime Minister has failed to give the required leadership, while other members of the government and opposition are trading insults in the matter of constitutional reform. The Leader of the Opposition is swift to fault the government, on several matters, but has no credibility when his administration acted in similar or worse manner. He is currently holding meetings across the country, making misleading statements in regard to ‘separatist constitutional amendments’. Abolition of the Executive Presidency and provision for power sharing to resolve the national question seem to be of little importance for politicians and party leaders. This is creating once again ethnic tensions which this country can ill afford. Recent bill boards in Colombo declaring that the President is the “seba sinhaya” (the true lion) gives messages of ethnic bias and identity politics, when the critical need is for religious and racial harmony and understanding.

Elections

The failure to hold Provincial Council elections, despite the urgent need to do so, is another manifestation of dishonesty in politics. It is a priority that all parties must, in the interest of the country, agree to enact the necessary amendments to the law, to enable Provincial Council elections to be held without any further delays. It is the obligation of the UNF to give the required leadership and prepare the legislation.

The pledge to dismantle the Presidential system of governance even by an amendment must be fulfilled. We as citizens must ask ourselves whether we have an environment for a Presidential election that will once again place in office a person functioning in a system of government, the usefulness of which the majority in this country has questioned over the years. While the SLFP and the SLPP are engaged in political strategies to identify a common candidate, with the current President also a contender, a growing constituency in the UNP, and independent voters are calling for a change in leadership. One of the potential ‘new’ candidates for this office, Gotabaya Rajapakse, is coming on a national platform for a “disciplined society”. This is a person facing criminal prosecutions in courts for corruption and abuse of power during his tenure as Secretary of Defence in the Rajapakse government. He has made public statements that he has information on two persons who were responsible for the horrors of abduction and killing during that government, but has not gone to the relevant authorities with the information in his possession. Is this disciplined and lawful conduct?

However if there is no consensus in Parliament on abolishing the Executive Presidency by a constitutional amendment and a referendum, there should be an early Presidential election after the Provincial Councils take office. We can then seriously reflect on what type of Head of State we choose to place in office and the grave implications for the future of our country. Dissolution of Parliament by a two thirds majority and a general election must follow. We then have an important opportunity to also make a concerted demand through the exercise of our vote for governance that is not selfish and corrupt, and respects the sovereignty of the people. We must let our politicians know through our votes that, as Abraham Lincoln is reported to have said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
Prof. Savitri Goonesekere

Prof. Arjuna Aluwihare

On behalf of the Friday Forum:

Mr. Danesh Casie Chetty, Mr. Priyantha Gamage, Rev. Dr. Jayasiri Peiris, Mr. Sanjayan Rajasingham, Bishop Duleep de Chickera, Mr. Prashan de Visser, Mr. Chandra Jayaratne, Dr. A.C.Visvalingam, Ms. Manouri Muttetuwegama, Mr. Faiz-Ur Rahman, Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda, Prof. Camena Guneratne, Mr. Tissa Jayatilaka, Prof. Ranjini Obeyesekere & Prof. Gameela Samarasinghe.

The Friday Forum is an informal group of concerned citizens pledged to uphold norms of democracy, good governance, rule of law, human rights, media freedom and tolerance in our pluralist society.

President Sirisena yearns for a new government




GAGANI WEERAKOON -MAR 10 2019

He noted that the new government should be able to understand what happens in the country both politically and economically, adding that the party and the person in charge should not be key factors. President Sirisena explained that for this to happen everyone who wants a better tomorrow should come together and join hands.

He hinted at the possibility of a General Election being held before the Presidential Election this year at a meeting held with the heads of Media institutions earlier last week.

When repeatedly asked on what grounds he could predict an early General Election, as the Constitution prohibits the Parliament being dissolved before April 2020, he said, “I don’t confirm it, but there is a possibility given the fact that the Government has to continue to fight and look for various costly methods to maintain a majority in Parliament.
When  Parliament is not strong, you can’t continue for long,” he added.
According to the Constitution, the President shall dissolve Parliament only after a lapse of four-and-half-years. This means that the President could only do so in April 2020 as this Government was elected to power at the General Election held in August 2015 and the Parliament term started on 1 September 2015.

President Sirisena however, carefully dodged a question posed on the relationship between him and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe by querying “were there any reports of tensions in the Cabinet.”
His comment on a general election comes in the wake of UNP backbenchers threatening to vote against the President’s Head of Expenditure of Budget 2019.

MP Hesha Vithanage stated that UNP backbenchers informed party leader, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe of their decision to defeat President Sirisena’s expenditure heads of all ministries, with the exception of the Ministry of Defence.

In response the SLFP said if the President’s Heads of Expenditure is defeated in Parliament, then the President will not attend the Cabinet meeting and the Government will come to a standstill.

 “We got to know that certain backbenchers of the United National Party had plans to vote against this. They should realise who they’re dealing with. If the President’s Heads of Expenditure is defeated then he can’t work. That means he won’t be attending Cabinet meetings. This will lead to the Government coming to a standstill. Those who are going to vote against this should be prepared for the consequences,” SLFP General Secretary Dayasiri Jayasekara said.

Meanwhile, Jayasekara also said that as the SLFP was against the 2019 Budget, they intended to discuss this matter with the Joint Opposition (JO).

“We will most probably vote against this. But first we will discuss in this regard with the JO and come to a decision before 12 March,” he added.
Meanwhile, leader of the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna, Dinesh Gunawardena said that the Joint Opposition has already decided to vote against the Budget, but will not vote against the President’s expenditure heads.

Addressing the media, the MEP Leader said that the defeat of President’s expenditure heads will create a crisis situation in the country since there are very important expenses listed under that.

“But there is no other positive reason to vote in favour of the Budget.”
He further said that the UNP has no majority in the Parliament and they cannot defeat the President’s expenditure heads.  

UNHRC

In what appears to be a complete deviation from the Government’s earlier commitment, President Sirisena insisted that he would send ‘his own’ troika to Geneva, Switzerland, to appeal the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the international community not to re-open old wounds.

“It has been 10 years since the end of the war and we have established peace in this country. I want to tell them not to pressure us and allow us to solve our internal matters. Do not dig into the past and re-open old wounds. Let us forget the past and ensure peace,” he said.

He said this while addressing heads of Media institutions in Colombo last morning.

He said that his team, comprising Parliamentarians Dr. Sarath Amunugama and Mahinda Samarasinghe and Northern Province Governor Dr. Suren Ragavan, will formally request the UNHRC to reconsider the 2015 Resolution 30/1 which called for credible investigations into alleged atrocities committed by Government Forces.

When journalists queried as to what was the point in sending another team to Geneva, spending public money, when the Government, reportedly, had already been a signatory to a co-sponsored fresh  resolution, President Sirisena said that he will continue to fight in favour of the Security Forces members as he always maintained that they have not committed any war crimes.

“Decisions relating to the foreign policy and international affairs are taken by the President of the country. If someone has signed a Resolution, as claimed by reports, without my knowledge or letting the Government know, I will investigate and expose such offenders to the public,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Foreign Affairs Ministry, in a statement, has said that Sri Lanka will continue to demonstrate its commitment and determination towards a steady and long-lasting reconciliation process through a co-sponsored resolution, and will seek an extension of the timeline of the Resolution 30/1 of  1 October 2015, through a co-sponsored roll-over resolution at the ongoing 40th session of the UNHRC.

In a joint statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Department of Government Information it was further stated that “this initiative will further attest to Sri Lanka’s ownership of the implementation process and to its continued policy of constructive engagement and dialogue with the UN and bilateral partners.”

 Excerpts of the statement:


“At the 34th Session of the UNHRC held in February-March 2017, the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) closely liaised with the core group (the United States - US, the United Kingdom - UK, Macedonia and Montenegro) to have the timeline of the Resolution 30/1 of 1 October 2015 extended for a period of two years.
Accordingly, as per Resolution 34/1 of 23 March 2017, co-sponsored by Sri Lanka and adopted by consensus at the 34th Session, the High Commissioner for Human Rights is required to present a comprehensive report, followed by a discussion on the implementation of the Resolution 30/1 at the 40th session of the Council.
The action of the High Commissioner’s office on Sri Lanka is entirely based on this report which will be presented to the Council on 20 March 2019. A further extension of two years through a co-sponsored roll-over resolution accordingly needs to be viewed in this backdrop.’

 ‘’Sri Lanka reiterated its strongest commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, in keeping with international human rights standards and Sri Lanka’s international obligations. The Secretary General underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. The Government will take measures to address those grievances.”

“In the last few years, the GoSL has taken concrete steps such as the establishment of a Missing Persons’ Office and an Office for Reparations to establish long lasting peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka in addition to the establishment of Independent Commissions, enhanced by the enactment of a number of enabling laws, including for the Right to Information.
 This led to the people of Sri Lanka benefiting from economic dividends, including in particular, the European Union’s Generalised Scheme/System of Preferences Plus concessions. A few more laws will be introduced to strengthen the ongoing processes. The entire mechanism and process of reconciliation is under the control of the GoSL.”

“Those who shed crocodile tears on behalf of ‘War Heroes’ of Sri Lanka conveniently forget the fact that our brave soldiers are right now engaged in peacekeeping in Mali and in other places. This became possible due to our co-sponsoring of the Resolution.
 Further, military to military cooperation has expanded considerably, with more training opportunities for Sri Lankan soldiers. The pride of our war heroes has been protected and the confidence of the international community has been gained through the owning up of the UNHRC process. We were able to witness this during the funerals of our two Army peacekeeping soldiers recently.”

“The draft roll-over resolution recognises the strong role played by the democratic institutions in the peaceful resolution of the political situation that arose in Sri Lanka from October to December last year, which is a strong testimony to the independence, credibility and resilience of our national institutions.
The allegations made against the co-sponsoring of the roll-over resolution by the GoSL are part of the campaign to mislead the public and gain undue political advantage. However, the general public of this country is aware how the Government came to power in 2015, and helped to avert a looming international catastrophe by co-sponsoring the resolution at that time.
 The current initiative is nothing but seeking more time for the GoSL to address the issues of reconciliation, peace building and national integration. For instance, the GoSL was unable to finalise some of the required legislation due to the infamous Constitutional Coup of 26 October 2018. Those who try to seek cheap political advantages shamelessly of a situation in which the country needs to be salvaged are the real traitors of our Motherland.”

The UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture will visit Argentina, the State of Palestine, and Sri Lanka, in addition to its previously announced visits to Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Ghana, Senegal, and the United Kingdom in the coming months.

The visit to Sri Lanka will take place in early April, and a media advisory announcing the precise dates, as well as further information, will be issued ahead of the visit, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said.

The visits were decided during the Subcommittee’s confidential session held in Geneva from 18 to 22 February.

In other work during its session, the Subcommittee welcomed Panama’s recent establishment of a National Preventive Mechanism against torture, and removed the country from its list of States significantly overdue in establishing such a mechanism. The Subcommittee also adopted confidential reports on its visits to Belize, Morocco, and Kyrgyzstan, and sent the reports to the respective State authorities and as well as to the National Preventive Mechanism of Kyrgyzstan.

During its week-long session, the Subcommittee also discussed and adopted its 2018 Annual Report; during the course of last year, the Subcommittee visited, inter alia, 34 prisons, 53 police stations, 11 juvenile detention centres, eight psychiatric and health-care institutions, and three closed migrant centres. It also conducted over 1,000 individual or collective interviews, mainly with detainees but also with officials, law enforcement personnel, and medical staff.

To date, the Subcommittee has completed more than 65 visits. The Subcommittee has a mandate to visit States which have ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, and assist those States in preventing torture and other forms of ill-treatment.

The Subcommittee communicates its observations and recommendations to States through a confidential report, which it encourages countries to make them public.