Former Harrow mayor brought council into disrepute, formally censured over Sri Lanka military photos

The former mayor of Harrow, a London borough which is home to the largest population of Tamils in the UK, has been formally censured after she was found to have brought the council into disrepute by posing for photographs with senior Sri Lankan military officials.

14 June 2019

Former mayor Kareema Marikar, a Labour councillor of Sri Lankan Muslim origin angered the local community last year when she posted photographs of herself wearing the mayoral chain, alongside senior military officials with captions praising Sri Lanka’s military forces. Particularly contentious was Marikar’s photos with Brigadier Priyanka Fernando (pictured above), the former Sri Lankan defence attaché in London who was recalled after gesturing death threats to Tamil protestors.

Following complaints, a petition and a protest against the mayor, the council’s Standards Working Group decided that Marikar had breached the councillors’ code of conduct and brought the council into disrepute.

The full decision, which was placed in the local newspaper the Harrow Times, stated:

The Standards Working Group considered a complaint and the Mayor Councillor Marikar’s written response to it, they unanimously recommended to the Monitoring Officer the following:

That the Mayor Councillor Marikar had breached paragraph 5 of the Code of Conduct for Councillors and Members. She conducted herself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing the Council and her office as Councillor into disrepute by uploading photographs of herself and a member of the Sri Lankan military onto Facebook causing distress to the local community.

They recommended that she should be censured, that a notice should be placed on the Council’s website and in a local newspaper, and that the guidance on mayoral visits should be updated.

The Monitoring Officer concurred with their recommendations.

See more from the Harrow Times.

Related Articles: 

28 February 2019 : Harrow Tamils protest demanding mayor's resignation

26 February 2019 : Resignations calls continue as Harrow Mayor forced to apologise over Brigadier photos

STF seizes over 178 kg of tea leaves mixed with chemicals

 JUN 13 2019

The Police has announced that over 178 kg of tea leaves that were suspected to be mixed with some chemicals have been taken into custody by the Police Special Task Force (STF) from a factory in Bulathsinhala.

A sample of the tea leaves has been sent to the Sri Lanka Tea Board for further investigations.

Further investigations are conducted by the Bulathsinhala Police as well. 

Candidates on racial platforms would never bring sanity

 14 June 2019

ast Tuesday, the Cabinet of Ministers did not meet for their weekly sessions. Reason being the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) constituted to investigate Easter Sunday attacks. The President wants the PSC to stop its proceedings forthwith on grounds that such investigations by a PSC would hinder “national security”. 
Parliament is a legislative body elected by the people and has every right to investigate a  national tragedy on behalf of the people, who elected them. 
The people have the Right to know the reasons for the tragedy they were pushed into. 
But how the whole process is carried through with publicity and not convincingly serious, makes the PSC look like a political tool of the UNP Government now in conflict with the President. 

Nevertheless, Hemasiri Fernando’s testimony proves the post of Secretary, MoD had always been used in a way it should not have been.
“But Sir, when you speak about the Secretary Ministry of Defence, there is a big difference between me and Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was the unofficial Minister. Me, I was a helpless Secretary, who could not even speak to the Minister once in a week……” Fernando told the PSC. 
Gotabhaya had played the role of the Minister when he should have been only the Secretary to the MoD, while Fernando had been happy carrying files when he had to be the Secretary of the MoD. Fernando also told the PSC how Ministry Secretaries, especially those politically appointed, acted as ‘Ministers’ overstepping their boundaries and mandate. 
“Since you mentioned about me as the Secretary of Ministry of Postal Services, I should say, I was there as Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was here. Because the Minister did not come to the Ministry.” Fernando told the PSC. 

Fernando’s near six-month stay as Secretary of MoD according to him, did not have serious and productive discussions at the National Security Council (NSC) that had not been meeting regularly.
“I don’t know if I should say this. But what was discussed as important and serious security issues in the past during NSC meetings, was not discussed that way in these NSC meetings.” 
Fernando told the PSC-
 “Madush was the main topic discussed” he said. When Minister Rajitha Senaratne pointedly told Fernando, “What you basically say is, these officials highlight issues that the President is fond of”, Fernando remained noncommittal with a sarcastic smile. 
Two or three members of the PSC were heard asking Fernando “No comments?” 

Also, Pujith Jayasundera, the IGP on compulsory leave filing an FR Petition in the Supreme Court, with many serious official documents produced in support of his petition, should provide more than enough material to gauge the frighteningly chaotic situation in the law enforcement establishment and in the “Intelligence” apparatus. 
Whatever the SC ruling could be on infringement(s) on Fundamental Rights of the petitioner, the exposure the FR petition provides for political reading proves the “State” needs serious and far-reaching reforms. The 19 Amendment had instead taken care of this UNP government to hold it in power for a full term. 
The fact that this UNP government has not come up with any serious remedies to any issue, denies them the right to lay blame on President Sirisena for obstructing them. The UNP leadership backed out on the whole UNHRC Resolution it co-sponsored with the US in September 2015. 

It went silent on “war crimes probes” Reduced investigations on involuntary disappearances to the mere recording of statements by the OMP to wash their hands off with “compensation” offered. “Reconciliation” was made a joke with hundreds and thousands of affected men and women in North and Vanni going on agitations for months and years demanding their land occupied by State security forces and reasonable answers for the disappeared. 
Although the Justice Minister had always been from the UNP, the issue of releasing Tamil detainees without any charges filed but held for many long years had been laid aside with the present Minister Athukorala refusing to accept them as “political detainees”. 
The economy has no clear direction to answer rural poverty with wealth and income sharing disparity fast increasing in favour of the “filthy rich”. 

Corruption promised to be completely swept away, is far more politically organised and widespread with leading UNP ministers accused of mega corruption. 
Education from Grade I to University Graduation is Colombo based in a heavily competitive market. Health is far worse as a very exploitative sector and a medical mafia dictating terms. Public transport and road traffic are one huge chaos. There is no debate or discussion necessary to prove this UNP government is a total failure. 
Within that failure Easter Sunday attacks go far beyond the question “who is responsible for not having acted on time to prevent the tragedy?” and instead expose how racially biased, inefficient and politicised the “State” is. These issues not given due importance by the Government, twisted and ignored by the media and forgotten by those who have often in the past taken to the streets to “save democracy” and demanding “justice for all” prove them all. 

01. The HRC of SL wrote a letter on “Communal Violence in the NW Province, Chilaw district and Minuwangoda Town” to the Acting IGP on 23 May (2019) – The letter notes “The mobs appear to have had a free hand to engage in the destruction of the Mosques in Hettipola, Wattakali, Thummodara, Maikulam, Bandara Koswatte, Kotampitiya, Minuwangoda and Nikaweratiya and also homes, vehicles and other properties of villagers in the aforementioned villages as well as in Kottaramulla.” It also says, “Many villagers reported they had phoned 119, 118, the DIG’s office and the Hettipola, Koswatte, Kuliyapitiya and Nikaweratiya police stations a few hours prior to the incidents seeking protection, despite which no preventive measures were taken.” 

Under the signature of Chairperson HRC Dr. Deepika Udagama, the letter says, “As we know, causing incitement to racial and religious violence is prohibited by the ICCPR Act No.56 of 2007 (Section 3) and bail to suspects can be granted only by the High Court, that also in exceptional circumstances (Section 3 (4)” Despite that law, in Bingiriya, arrested suspects had been released “on police bail for mischief”. Four persons arrested in relation to attacks in Kottaramulla had been released by Koswatte police, and the reason given was, “The OIC Reported that he had done so due to orders from the Actg. IGP.” 
02. While racist mobs had the privilege of being released on Police Bail and on requests made by the Actg. IGP as quoted above, an innocent Muslim woman, M.R. Mazhima who came to the Hasalaka town in a dress that had a “ship’s navigating wheel” printed, was arrested and booked under the ICCPR Act No.56 of 2007, on charges of insulting the “Dharma Chakra” that symbolised Buddhist teaching. 

• "PSC look like a political tool of the UNP Govt now in conflict with the President
• No need to prove UNP Govt. is a total failure
• Economy has no clear direction"

Arrested on 18 May, she was remanded till 27 May and was further remanded till June 03. Remanded under the ICCPR Act, she can be granted bail only by the High Court, that also in exceptional circumstances (Section 3 (4). 
03. Arrest and detention of medical doctor Mohammed Shafi is another blatant violation of the law. 
He was arrested “on charges of earning assets in a suspicious manner,” said Police Spokesman Ruwan Gunasekara on 25 May. That was only on information received. In a dramatic turn of events, following day, a public call was made to lodge complaints against Dr. Shafi on “forced sterilisations”. 
No investigations have commenced on complaints collected through this public call and with much lobbying by Sinhala extremist activists. 

What is most disturbing is that the Sinhala newspaper that triggered this whole Kurunegala forced-sterilisation episode, is not held responsible. No media, or any civil society organisation took up the issue. An academic at the Rajarata Medical Faculty, Channa Jayasumana who implicated Dr Shafi as the surgeon who may have conducted forced sterilisation on Sinhala mothers through his FB posts and later removed them, is not being challenged
All these racial lapses go along with what former MoD Secretary told the PSC. They prove, top officials play along with politicians for their own petty interests and the whole State machinery, State institutions and most Sinhala professionals are biased against minorities. 
It is a sad fact, in most instances, the law is not equally and efficiently applied when the suspect is not Sinhala Buddhist. 
The presidential pardon granted to Gnanasara Thera crowns it all, with no protests by civil society activists who were braving the weather to “save democracy” during the Sri Lankan “October Revolution” last year. 

Nor were there any protests by the ruling UNP government as well. 
In this racially fired political context the next election, whether parliament or presidential, will be a battle for the larger share of the Sinhala Buddhist votes ignoring Tamil and Muslim votes, violently polarising the country. There is no presidential candidate in the horizon with serious reforms to this racially polarised chaos. 
In fact, the political narrative is being reduced to a “benevolent Sinhala Buddhist dictator” with extremist monks dictating terms. No Sinhala Buddhist benevolence would lead to a stable future. What Sri Lanka needs right now is a serious “Reform Agenda” for sanity in society before “candidates” are discussed. 

JVP against the selling of national assets

Amali Mallawaarachchi-Thursday, June 13, 2019 

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna leadership at the protest rally opposite the Fort Railway Station yesterday. Picture by Shan Rambukwella

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) yesterday held a demonstration against the government for selling national assets to foreign countries. The JVP also demanded the government to step down as it has not fulfilled the mandate it was granted with by the people.

The protest held opposite the Fort Railway Station yesterday caused a severe traffic congestion in Pettah.

JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake said that “The government has failed in all aspects during its four and a half year rule. Therefore, it is high time that the government resigns in order to let the people decide on a new government. What responsibilities have Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe fulfilled in their capacities?” Dissanayake queried.

Dissanayake observed that the government has failed to fulfill its economic responsibilities to the people,including labourers, entrepreneurs, farmers and businessmen.

Dissanayake accused of the government of selling off the country’s national assets.

Dissanayake also held the government responsible for the Easter Sunday terror attacks. “One party who is responsible for this tragedy is the terrorist organization that carried out the attacks. The other party that is responsible for this carnage is the government”. JVP MPs Bimal Rathnayake, Nalinda Jayatissa, Sunil Handunnetti, Nihal Galappatti, JVP Propaganda Secretary Tilwin Silva and National Trade Union Center Chairman K.D. Lal Kantha also participated in the demonstration.

Silver lining in cloudy storms

Sri Lanka marks milestone in national-level reconciliation efforts

Thursday, 13 June 2019

 Lankans, last week, saw a different side to Parliament - of what it is capable of doing, and meant to do, apart from providing the public with endless entertainment with chili powder and butter knives. Rather than getting at each other’s throats, the ruling party and the Opposition came to a consensus - that it is time to set aside differences, political, racial, religious or otherwise, and journey hand in hand to achieve a better future for Sri Lanka.
At a special meeting of the Select Committee of Parliament to Study and Report to Parliament its Recommendations to Ensure Communal and Religious Harmony in Sri Lanka, comprising 24 Members of Parliament and chaired by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, the two sides agreed to a common consensus in formulating policies of national importance to bring about sustainable peace, social cohesion, and reconciliation. This was indeed a unique milestone for Parliament, and for Sri Lanka, in our journey towards that elusive reconciled society.

Making it even more special, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa were seen comfortably seated side by side, actively contributing and nodding enthusiastically to the recommendations of the Select Committee, read out by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, on bringing about sustainable peace in the country. There was a general feeling among participants on the urgency with which the Select Committee recommendations need to be implemented.

Moreover, it was a milestone achievement for the Select Committee that day, when ruling and Opposition leaders, as well as the line Ministers and Committee members, re-endorsed the Diyawanna Declaration launched after the 21 April Easter Sunday attacks. This is a set of recommendations on the role of political leadership in the roadmap to sustainable peace. One would have thought that this would leave some faces blushing, but the enthusiasm flowed throughout the meeting. If the recommendations are implemented without a hitch, more Sri Lankans can abandon their ambitions to search for greener pastures overseas. That responsibility now lies with the line Ministries, on how well-coordinated the implementation plan is, and how efficient and skilled the implementing officers would be. The Select Committee recommendations were not something that came out of thin air overnight. It included careful planning, months of deliberations, and incorporating public views through the meetings and Regional Conferences of the Select Committee in Kandy, Ampara and Galle. The next Regional Conference is in Kurunegala on 17 June, and in Vavuniya in July. The Committee was appointed on 7 September 2018, in the backdrop of ethnic violence in Ampara and Kandy in 2018, Galle in 2017, and Kalutara in 2014, as well as other racially-motivated incidents, taking into cognizance the full-scale destruction such violence engenders. As such, the recommendations were homegrown and extracted from the people in the affected areas, in keeping with the Committee’s principle to consult directly with communities.

The Committee has also recognised that incidents of racial violence have often gone beyond redemption because prompt action had not been taken by the law enforcement machinery. Thus, amendments to Police Ordinance and Penal Code on hate speech, and the setting up of a special unit in this regard was also discussed. Coincidentally, Cabinet approval was granted on the same day of the Committee meeting to make amendments to the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, enabling to impose a fine or imprisonment to those guilty.

Sri Lankans have witnessed many national level policies come and go, along with changes to the country’s political landscape. Therefore, doubts about the life of this Select Committee and its implementation plan could certainly arise. However, since the Select Committee is established under a Gazette in Parliament, this Committee would continue regardless of political changes. In addition, if consensus is received for this Committee to become a Sectoral Committee, proper checks and balances would be in place, making the process transparent, productive and democratic.

The participants acknowledged the implementation plan to be viable, as it engaged with experiences and adjusted to the Sri Lankan context. For example, considering the opposition on the earlier proposal to admit children of other religions to leading schools, the Committee recognised possible backlashes, and agreed to implement the trilingual amity schools concept, and to regulate admissions only in newly established State schools, to reflect a percentage of up to 20% of students from other religions.
The Education Ministry, especially, has a great responsibility in the implementation plan, as the Committee rightfully identified that the best place to foster communal harmony is the school. The recommendations heavily weighed on reforms in the education sector, insisting that ideas of peace and reconciliation be instilled in schoolchildren island-wide. For this, schoolchildren are encouraged in comparative learning, and celebrating cultural diversity together. The Ministry of Education is tasked with drafting a policy to ensure that schools in cosmopolitan urban areas are not limited to a single language or religion. On a point raised by Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) leader and MP Douglas Devananda, Education Minister Akila Viraj Kariyawasam confirmed that changes to the Tamil history syllabus with accurate information is at the printing stage, and that the new syllabus will be out in January 2020 - a sign that the education sector is on the right path in this regard.

Of course, the Ministry of National Integration, Official Languages, Social Progress and Hindu Religious Affairs has an equal weight in the implementation process, as it needs to coordinate between ministries. Minister Mano Ganesan highlighted that the two-way language learning of Sinhala and Tamil would be increased with the support of the Education Ministry, and steps would be taken to strengthen the programs already in schools. However, the lack of language teachers in schools is a hindrance, as over 6,000 vacancies exist countrywide. The Education Minister said that at present, training is ongoing for 1,300 teachers of Sinhala, Tamil and English, which is hardly sufficient. The importance of learning the Arabic language was also raised. As such, it is clear that the implementation of the Committee recommendations would not be a quick fix but a long-term process, which needs the commitment of Government officials even after possible changes in the country’s political landscape.

The Ministry of National Integration has already established Coexistence Societies (CES) at Grama Niladhari division level, to promote reconciliation and coexistence at community level and to address inter- and intra-ethnic tensions. This enables multi-ethnic communities to engage constructively in the reconciliation process, and strengthens community-driven initiatives and networks to promote social cohesion. However, the capacities of some CES officers are questionable, and authorities must think of innovative ways for the CESs to engage and deliver expected outcomes.

Ruling and Opposition leaders, as well as the line Ministers and Committee members, re-endorsed the Diyawanna Declaration launched after the 21 April Easter Sunday attacks. This is a set of recommendations on the role of political leadership in the roadmap to sustainable peace. One would have thought that this would leave some faces blushing, but the enthusiasm flowed throughout the meeting. If the recommendations are implemented without a hitch, more Sri Lankans can abandon their ambitions to search for greener pastures overseas. That responsibility now lies with the line Ministries, on how well-coordinated the implementation plan is, and how efficient and skilled the implementing officers would be.

The Education Ministry, especially, has a great responsibility in the implementation plan, as the Committee rightfully identified that the best place to foster communal harmony is the school. The recommendations heavily weighed on reforms in the education sector, insisting that ideas of peace and reconciliation be instilled in schoolchildren island-wide. For this, schoolchildren are encouraged in comparative learning, and celebrating cultural diversity together. The Ministry of Education is tasked with drafting a policy to ensure that schools in cosmopolitan urban areas are not limited to a single language or religion.

The Committee has also recognised that incidents of racial violence have often gone beyond redemption because prompt action had not been taken by the law enforcement machinery. Thus, amendments to Police Ordinance and Penal Code on hate speech, and the setting up of a special unit in this regard was also discussed. Coincidentally, Cabinet approval was granted on the same day of the Committee meeting to make amendments to the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, enabling to impose a fine or imprisonment to those guilty. The urgency of this is clear, seeing public behaviour and the way most social media users are being bombarded with messages of hate. However, the dangers associated with criminalising hate speech need to be considered, as this could easily lead to political games.
On another positive note, none of the diverse participants opposed the sensitive issue of regulating the construction of religious structures, statues and places of worship, as recommended by the committee. Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa added that in doing so, the size of the population of sectors within religions must be taken into account. Also, consensus was received on recruiting those of other ethnicities into the Police force to ensure better access. The recommendations included the establishing of a Race Relations Board, with funds and authority to look into problems that affect religious harmony, or alternatively, a sub-Committee under the Human Rights Commission to deal exclusively with complaints of communal incitement and violence, which will allow for investigations to be carried out within the ambit of the law, initiating criminal proceedings. The Ministry of Law and Order has to ensure that laws are enforced uniformly with no reference to ethnic or religious identity.

It was also encouraging when Acting Inspector General of Police C. D. Wickramaratne assured that a special unit trained to handle racial tensions would be set up immediately under the Special Task Force, as per the Committee recommendation. This will have an equivalent number of members from different ethnic and religious groups, and be the first to be called in an event of communal tensions. Contingents would be stationed in identified ‘hot spots’ with a history of communal antagonism, but will perform general Police duties during normal times. With this, it is hoped that issues would be addressed immediately before causing national level tensions.

The participants also discussed the issue of personal laws vis-à-vis the country’s general laws. TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran rightfully pointed out that if personal laws are allowed to be practiced, such laws should subject to rules of law on equality and democracy, thus ensuring uniformity.

Sri Lankans have witnessed many national level policies come and go, along with changes to the country’s political landscape. Therefore, doubts about the life of this Select Committee and its implementation plan could certainly arise.

However, since the Select Committee is established under a Gazette in Parliament, this Committee would continue regardless of political changes. In addition, if consensus is received for this Committee to become a Sectoral Committee, proper checks and balances would be in place, making the process transparent, productive and democratic.
The writer is an independent journalist working in the area of social cohesion and reconciliation. She has a Master’s degree in International Relations from Deakin University, Australia. 

How We Came To This Pass: Rise Of Militant Islam

By Sachithanandam Sathananthan –JUNE 12, 2019

Dr. Sachithanandam Sathananthan

April 21

It is now customary to find Sinhalese, Tamil and (a few) Muslim co-Liberals perched around watering holes in Colombo and Kandy, with head in hand, drowning their sorrows while mumbling, How Did We Come To This Pass? They wonder, whatever happened to the glorious Peace Dividend politicians promised us, and we believed? And didn’t we lustily cheer LTTE’s slaughter, fantasising that after the organisation’s demise Sinhalese chauvinism will run out of excuses for dodging “peace”?

A professor (ethnically Sinhalese) at a Lankan university captured the angst of Liberals in two key questions: “How did we end up here? How do we find a way out?”[1]

Several political tributaries merged over the past many decades and swelled into the roaring torrent in which Lankans are floundering. We begin with the most recent one – the emergence and explosive arrival of Militant Islam.

The 21 April 2019 Easter Sunday’s well-coordinated bombings on the western and eastern flanks of the island shook the nation. Within about 48 hours officialdom, security forces and the press almost unanimously concluded that (a) radical Islamists carried out the attacks, (b) the attacks are suicide operations, (c) the Islamists are members of NTJ (National Thowheed Jamath) or its offshoot and an alleged ally, Jamathei Millath Ibrahim (JMI) and (d) that the Sunni IS (Islamic State) remote-controlled the attack using local NTJ/JMI proxies.

Of course there is more to life than what meets the eye or, rather, what is allowed to meet the eye!

Early news reports peddled hackneyed Islamaphobia. The report filed by three journalists – including a Sinhalese – inaleading U.S. newspaper on 23 April sweepingly alleged the NTJ, led by Mohammed Zahran, and JMI together carried out the attacks, although the organizations are not on record claiming responsibility.But the reporters contradicted themselves almost in the next breath. “Many counterterrorism experts”, the report sheepishly admitted, “found it hard to believe that Mr. Zaharan’s [sic] group carried out a half-dozen coordinated bombings with such deadly precision.[2]

That’s not surprising. The virtually unknown NTJ is less than ten years old and it has no track record of armed actions – assassinations, bombings, etc. The JMI was reportedly formed barely a year ago. So, their cadres are still wet behind the ears; the organisations simply cannot have acquired the skill and experience to single-handedly launch the countrywide synchronized attacks on eight locations within a short time between8.30 and 9.45 in the morning.

In fact, the LTTE even at the height of its power never achieved anything comparable!

One of two alleged attackers who booked into the Shangri-La Hotel is reported [3]to have helpfully recorded his true address, which security forces claim led them to his residence in Dematagoda, northern Colombo.

Further evidence of their clumsiness was laid bare in Sainthamaruthu on 26 April. If news reports are accurate, NTJ’s cadres ineptly attracted attention to their “safe house” by rudely shooing away inquisitive villagers. When “the villagers went back to the house a second time…with a government official,” instead of politely inviting them to tea and biscuits and then waving them goodbye, “the suspects opened fire.”[4]

The NTJ cadres in effect gratuitously invited their own destruction.

The subsequent gun battle with the armed forces sealed their fate and the government predictably banned both organisations.

It beggars belief that these rank amateurs could have on their own meticulously planned in secret and almost flawlessly executed the April 21 precisionbombings.

The IS factor

Other observers too came to the same conclusion, that the “theory” NTJ and JMI’s masterminded April 21 is leaking like a sieve. So, the IS (Islamic State) bogey was trotted out. That too fell flat.

The same U.S. newspaper report cheerfully asserted IS “claimed responsibility” but diluted to IS “boasting of the suicide attacks” and fizzled out to there is “no proof that the extremist group did more than provide encouragement”. All this within the space of three paragraphs; President Trump would in all probability have raised a glass to this Fake News!

Undeterred by the paucity of evidence, a former Sri Lankan journalist, now ensconced in Canada, joined the chorus linking NTJ to the IS.[5]

“After its…military reversals” in Iraq and Syria, he argued, “the IS began to intensify and accelerate terrorist attacks elsewhere” in order “to demonstrate that the movement…possessed a lethal, global reach…by outsourcing deadly missions of violence” to Islamic militant organisations in other countries. And he asserted: “This is what seems to have happened in the case of Sri Lanka too.”

That may be interesting as far as it goes. But why didn’t the IS demonstrate its “global reach” by outsourcing to its South Asian allies – tried and tested, and far more lethal – in Pakistan and Bangladesh? Why speculate it “seems to have happened”in Sri Lanka?

To buttress his claim the journalist rolled out further speculations without a shred of evidence: “the blueprint for the well-coordinated attacks…seems to have been devised by IS strategic planners too. It is believed that Zahran Hashim was the linchpin.”

Those dodgy words, “seems” and “believed”!

The so-called link between the IS and NTJ frayed further. An 18-minute clip with audio and videosurfaced on 24 April. It featured the IS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi “speaking about…Baghouz, Syria, while praising terrorist bombings in Sri Lanka.” It was repeatedly held out as proof of IS’s involvement. But – and this is crucial – “the statement about Sri Lanka appeared in an audio portion of the video that did not show Baghdadi.” The clip was obviously doctored; for the audio portion “may have been tacked on after he was filmed following the fall of Baghouz.”[6]

While various “theories” of IS – NTJ links were bandied about, the Cabinet Spokesmanand Health Minister, in a 30 April press conference, dropped a bombshell. “Quoting from a confidential intelligence report, Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne said that both Islamist and Buddhist extremist groups were initially bankrolled by the former government led by Mahinda Rajapaksa” and that “”Thowheed Jamath Secretary Abdul Razik Rafiqudeen was an army intelligence member”.[7]

He added: “26 National Thowheed Jamath Members Were on Defence Ministry Payroll”.[8]

Clearly the Health Minister’s allegation must be investigated as a matter of urgency. But so far the government has maintained a stony silence!

If the Minister is correct, the hapless NTJ was well and truly penetrated by Sri Lankan intelligence!

The suspended IGP (Inspector General of Police, ethnically Sinhalese) added fuel to the NTJ fire.[9]In a 20-page Fundamental Rights petition he submitted to Supreme Court last week, he stated “by letter dated 08th April 2018, the State Intelligence Service [which reports directly to the President] expressly requested the Petitioner to instruct the DIG, Terrorism Investigation Department to suspend all investigations into extremist Muslim factions associated with known international terrorist organizations operating within the country since such investigations caused prejudice to the secret investigations that were being carried out by the State Intelligence Service” (Clause 48).[10]

If the IGP is to be believed, who then are the actual handlers of NTJ’s alleged suicide bombers? Does this point to April 21 possibly being a “false flag” operation?

If the supposed IS – NTJ link is dubious at best, why have so many reporters bent over backwards to impute credibility to the “theory”? One reason could be their universal predilection to sensationalism, promote moral panic and to boost their flagging reputation.

But there could be a more insidious tendency that resembles Bangladesh’s recent experience. Following the 2016 siege of the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka, western powers through their mercenary media hacks whipped up a so-called “link” between the local attackers and the IS.

Read More

In pursuit of a perceived enemy

 14 June 2019

iven the questions posed by almost all non-Muslims, except for a few on the mass resignation by the Muslim Ministers, State Ministers and a Deputy Minister on June 3 in the wake of Parliamentarian Athureliye Rathana Thera’s fast unto death, it is clear that they are not in a position to put themselves in the shoes of the Muslims.   They ask why all Muslim Ministers should resign when the fasting monk’s demand was the resignation of three Muslim politicians.   
Some interpret the mass resignation by three Muslim Cabinet Ministers (Except for Rishad Bathiudeen), three State ministers and a Deputy Minister as a racialist approach to protect some of the members of their community accused of espousing terrorism.   
Some others view it as a show of unity by the Muslims at a time some of them were in hot water. Another interpretation of the mass resignation by the Muslim Ministers is that it is an acknowledgement by them that they too have skeletons in their cupboards. Simply, all these are negative views.
Anybody could arrive at such a conclusion only after proving the allegations against former provincial governors Azath Salley and M.L.A.M. Hizbullah and former minister Rishad Bathiudeen who were accused of being supporters of terrorism.   

However, prior to Rathana Thera’s fast in the vicinity of the Sri Dalada Maligawa in Kandy between May 31 and June 3, nobody had complained to the police, the CID or the Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) armed with tangible evidence against the above-mentioned three Muslim politicians.   
On June 3, the day that the Muslim ministers resigned en-masse, Minister Mano Ganesan had inquired from the CID whether it had received any complaints against the trio. Mr. Ganesan had told the media the next day that CID Chief, Senior DIG Ravi Seneviratne and CID Director Shani Abeysekara had informed him that they had received some complaints but they were so flimsy sans any evidence while some were based on hearsay that it was not worth questioning the politicians, leave alone arresting them.   
Ven. Rathana Thera stopped his fast after Central Province Governor Maithri Gunaratne showed him the copies of the resignation letters of the two Governors who were in the midst of the controversy, but before any word reached the monk about the resignation of Mr. Bathiudeen, against whom there were the most number of allegations.   

After the fast ended the government appointed a three-member committee comprising senior police officers to entertain complaints against the three politicians. It was reported the by Wednesday, the last day to receive complaints, the committee had received 21 complaints, of which 11 were against Mr. Bathiudeen. Many of the complaints were not related to terrorism, but to financial irregularities. Interestingly, Ven. Rathana Thera, who risked his life demanding that they should resign, was not among the complainants.   
Nevertheless, nobody can give an assurance that any person had or has links with the terrorists who without any compunction killed more than 250 Christian worshippers and hotel guests including children on Easter Sunday, the holiest day for Christians the world over. Yet, nobody should be accused of having terrorist links without tangible evidence because it would endanger his or her life.   

• They ask why all Muslim Ministers should resign when the fasting monk’s demand was the resignation of three Muslim politicians
• The investigations into the past and im The investigations into the past and immediate causes of the April 21 attacks on churches and five-star hotels seems to have been seriously politicized
• After the fast ended the government appointed a three-member committee comprising senior police officers to entertain complaints against the three politicians

This was the stand taken by the Muslim leaders and also the Muslims community with regard to the allegations against the three politicians whom many are still gunning for. They were of the opinion that the allegations were a part of the anti-Muslim campaign started by certain Opposition parties and their media supporters.   
The mass resignation of Muslim ministers cannot be understood by removing it from the larger context -- the widespread anti-Muslim campaign and the resultant fear psychosis among Muslims. The decision was taken at a time when the countrywide anti-Muslim riot was about to break out following the demonisation and vilification by the media and the members or the Opposition of Muslims and Islam which reached a climax with the fast by the Ven. Rathana Thera and the ultimatum thrown out to the government by the Ven. Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thera.   

Had the media and the Opposition parties not pursued the ordinary Muslims in this manner, the main focus of the country by now would have been on identifying the remnants and the ideology of the terrorists and on the culprits who had allowed the heinous crimes against the innocent Christians on the Easter Sunday. Now, hardly anybody could be found in the country who is genuinely interested in identifying the remnants of the terrorists or containing their ideology or finding those who allowed the crime to happen, despite intelligence reports with specific details of the Easter Sunday attacks having been received.   
Muslims now seem to be not much concerned about the extremists among them as the concern over their safety and the dignity of their faith have taken precedence.   
The investigations into the past and immediate causes of the April 21 attacks on churches and five-star hotels seems to have been seriously politicized with President Maithripala Sirisena appointing a  committee headed by Justice Vijith Malalgoda, a sitting Supreme Court Judge, while Speaker Karu  Jayasuriya appointed a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC), an idea mooted by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, to look into the matter.   

"Ven. Rathana Thera stopped his fast after Central Province Governor Maithri Gunaratne showed him the copies of the resignation letters of the two Governors who were in the midst of the controversy, but before any word reached the monk about the resignation of Mr. Bathiudeen, against whom there were the most number of allegations"

The committee appointed by the President handed over its report to him on Monday, but he is yet to act upon it or at least present it to Parliament or make it public. The PSC has created a crisis situation where the country is heading towards an administrative impasse, a situation worse than the one created on October 26 last year when former President Mahinda Rajapaksa was appointed Prime Minister. The President is threatening not to convene the Cabinet unless the proceedings of the PSC are stopped while the Speaker and the UNP are adamantly arguing that the Executive cannot dictate terms to the Legislature.   
The evidence given before the PSC by IGP Pujith Jayasundera, who is currently on compulsory leave, Hemasiri Fernando, who resigned as the Defence Secretary over the developments after the Easter Sunday attacks and National Intelligence Chief DIG Sisira Mendis were startling. They point to the irresponsible and childish attitude on the part of the political leadership and the bureaucracy of the country that is responsible for national security. One would wonder why the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and the joint opposition leaders are making a big fuss against the PSC instead of being concerned over these blunders which had led to the catastrophe.   

The bureaucracy responsible for national security seems to be attempting to absolve themselves by betraying the political leadership of the country. They attempt to drive home that their responsibility ends where they had shared the information of the impending attacks on churches with some of the other relevant officials. However, it is now clear they too did not take action to mobilize the defence mechanism under them to prevent the attack or minimize the damage, for which they need no political sanction.   
There are so many such unanswered questions raised even by the laymen. They have to be answered and the only forum at hand for the purpose is the PSC. The argument that the PSC might expose the intelligence officials is not so strong, as the top officials of the defence establishment know their limitations. They are even known to attend overseas seminars and meetings.   
However, the whole country led by Opposition and certain media are in pursuit of a perceived enemy. Since the motive is political the situation might last at least until the end of the presidential election.  

Averting a Second Coup Attempt?: The Constitutional Principles Governing the Relationship Between The President and the Cabinet

Featured image courtesy Dhaka Tribune

ASANGA WELIKALA-06/12/2019

President Sirisena is evidently unhappy that a Select Committee of Parliament has been appointed to investigate the circumstances that led to the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks. UPFA MPs have not joined the Select Committee, and live coverage of the initial hearings was halted on state media. According to a press release from the Office of the Speaker on 8 June, the President had assumed that he can ‘order’ (niyoga) Parliament to cease the Select Committee proceedings, on the basis of the Attorney General’s advice that the parliamentary process may prejudice live or impending judicial proceedings. That the President has no right whatsoever to interfere in parliamentary proceedings in this way goes without saying, and the Speaker was right to ignore the presidential intervention on the basis of the established principles of parliamentary democracy stated in his press release. Then the President also summoned an emergency Cabinet on 7 June, in which he had demanded the discontinuation of the Select Committee and threatened non-cooperation with the government unless his demand was met. The Cabinet quite rightly has not acceded to this threat.

The main constitutional issue that arises in this context can be put in the following terms: a President in a cohabitation arrangement does not like something the Prime Minister and Cabinet are doing; in this case he wants a particular parliamentary select committee to stop its proceedings. He threatens non-cooperation with the rest of the government unless his demand is met. One of the principal ways in which he can stop cooperating is by not summoning Cabinet meetings. Can he do this?

In answering this question consistently with the laws and norms of the Sri Lankan constitution, starting consideration must be given to the following constitutional provisions:

Article 4(b): the executive power of the people is exercised by the President.

Article 30(1): the President is the Head of the State, the Head of the Executive, and of the Government.

Article 42(3): the President is a member of the Cabinet and the Head of the Cabinet.

These provisions together seem to point to the conclusion that the President is unquestionably the chief executive of the state. If so, then the summoning of the Cabinet for regular or ad hocmeetings as the case may be, or indeed not summoning it at all, lies solely within the President’s discretion. It is true that, unlike, for example, the summoning of Parliament, Article 30, which restates the duties, powers, and functions of the President, does not expressly mention the summoning of Cabinet. But given the presiding function of the President over the executive, the drafters may well have thought it superfluous to mention that specific right. There thus seems to be no leeway, for example, for the Prime Minister to formally summon the Cabinet where the President fails or refuses to do so, because it is the President and not the Prime Minister that is the Head of the Cabinet. At any rate, while the Cabinet may meet informally without the President or his summons (as it often has in the past when the President was overseas), on this reading of  the Constitution, this would not seem possible when the President actively does not wish it to meet.

But this formalistic understanding of presidential powers is too narrow a basis with which to fully account for the way in which executive powers are designed in the 1978 Constitution, because it says much more than this about the political executive: there is, of course, also the Prime Minister and Cabinet which share executive power with the President. Consider, then, the following provisions concerning the executive (with emphasis added in italics):

Article 42 (1): There shall be a Cabinet of Ministers charged with the direction and control of the Government of the Republic.

Article 42 (2): The Cabinet of Ministers shall be collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament.

Article 42 (4): The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament.

Article 33A: The President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any written law, including the law for the time being relating to public security.

Thus, we see that the political executive as an institution is composed not only of the President but also of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the non-political executive includes the Public Service, and at one remove, the Constitutional Council). While the President enjoys the numerous official adornments of being the Commander-in-Chief, the Head of State, the Head of the Government, the Head of the Executive, and the Head of the Cabinet, the Constitution is explicit on the point that it is the collective Cabinet of Ministers that is charged with the direction and control of the government of the republic. Moreover, not only are both President (personally) and Cabinet (collectively)
responsible to Parliament, but the second most important actor in the executive, the Prime Minister, is someone who must explicitly enjoy the confidence of Parliament in order to hold that office. As was amply demonstrated during the coup crisis of October-December 2018, it is Parliament and not the President that decides which one of its Members commands its confidence to hold the office of Prime Minister. In other words, until and unless we see the executive branch crucially in the context of its relationship of accountability to the legislature, we do not really understand how executive power is cast in the Constitution.

So much for the institutional form of the executive, but the same constitutional objectives are apparent when we look at the functions of the executive. What these provisions tell us is that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are not mere assistants of the President – although, clearly, they are also there to implement a programme of government policy together with the President – but that the Constitution contemplates a democratically accountable executive. The Cabinet’s collective responsibility to Parliament is the primary means (other than elections) by which executive accountability is achieved. If that was not the case, our executive would not be democratic but absolutist, with the only departure from monarchism being that the President is elected every five years.

What is the relevance of this understanding of executive power to the current issue? It is that the President is obliged to act consistently with democratic norms expressly and impliedly recognised by the Constitution, and in particular the duty of responsibility to Parliament. The President remains a powerful and dominant figure in the architecture of the 1978 Constitution even after the reduction of presidential powers under the Nineteenth Amendment, but the Constitution does not in any way grant the President the powers of an autocrat (except for the period 2010-2015 when the Eighteenth Amendment was in force). This is clear from the provisions which state that the President is personally responsible to Parliament, and that the Cabinet, of which the President is both a member and the Head, is collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament.

Consequently, the President is not entitled to effectively shut down the Cabinet by refusing to summon it. His personal views or feelings about the Prime Minister and/or any other Minister of the Cabinet, however strongly held, are not a relevant consideration in determining the legality and legitimacy of how he exercises the public power given to him by the Constitution. If the President is allowed to exercise his powers without the involvement of Cabinet, or establish a centre of power independent of the Cabinet, then it is to allow him to act beyond the oversight of Parliament. That, to put it simply, is not allowed by the Constitution.

There is clear authority from the Supreme Court for this proposition. In his notable dissent in the In Re the Thirteenth Amendment case ([1987] 2 SLR 312 at 341), Justice Wanasundera stated:

It is quite clear from the above provisions that the Cabinet of Ministers of which the President is a component is an integral part of the mechanism of government and the distribution of the Executive power and any attempt to by-pass it and exercise Executive powers without the valve and conduit of the Cabinet would be contrary to the fundamental mechanism and design of the Constitution. It could even be said that the exercise of Executive power by the President is subject to this condition. The People have also decreed in the Constitution that the Executive power can be distributed to the other public officers only via the medium and mechanism of the Cabinet system. This follows from the pattern of our Constitution modelled on the previous Constitution, which is a Parliamentary democracy with a Cabinet system. The provisions of the Constitution amply indicate that there cannot be a government without a Cabinet. The Cabinet continues to function even during the interregnum after Parliament is dissolved, until a new Parliament is summoned. To take any other view is to sanction the possibility of establishing a dictatorship in our country, with a one-man rule.

It is important to note that this authoritative judicial view about the nature of executive power under the 1978 Constitution was expressed long before the Nineteenth Amendment imposed limitations on unilateral presidential powers, by strengthening the position of the Cabinet within the executive, and by strengthening the control by Parliament of the executive as a whole. Justice Wanasundera’s dicta therefore apply with even greater force today than they did in 1987.

All that being said, the practical problem we face today is that the person who currently occupies the office of President seems oblivious to these constitutional requirements governing the exercise of presidential power, and certainly to the deeper normative requirements of constitutional democracy – through ignorance, obduracy, cupidity, or some other incapacity. So, as Sri Lankans are wont to say in these situations, what to do? When democracies are faced with democratically elected actors who seek to undermine the core values of democracy itself, it is now well-established that constitutional democracies are not defenceless. No longer can despotic Presidents seek refuge in legal formalism in the process of trampling upon the deeper democratic norms of the constitutional order. In philosophical terms, perhaps John Rawls best articulated this principle of democratic constitutionalism when he said, “[j]ustice does not require that men must stand idly by while others destroy the basis of their existence” (A Theory of Justice (1971), p.218).

What practical actions are to be derived from this philosophical principle? Applied to our present circumstances, this demands a resolute defence of the postulates of the Constitution against the depredations of a President who is out of control, at first instance, by the political institutions for checking presidential power in our system, namely, the Cabinet within the executive and Parliament outwith it. Both Speaker and Cabinet were right to repel the President’s first volley last week; but this week he has upped the ante with the refusal hold the regular Tuesday Cabinet on 11 June. Any escalation of the constitutional stakes by the President must be met within the bounds of constitutional propriety of course, but with a level of resolution and plausible force that can ensure his retreat. Any response that seeks to sidestep rather than confront the President’s illegitimate behaviour will only embolden him – as the example of permitting him to escape accountability for the coup crisis has vividly shown. If this requires the regular meeting of Cabinet without the President’s sanction or presence, then there is sufficient authority that can be derived from a purposive reading of Article 42 for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to do so. The latter would be acting in furtherance of constitutional values, in opposition to a President acting in violation of them. Such bold leadership will galvanise a public demoralised by recent failures of governance and encourage equivocal public servants to conform to the Constitution rather than presidential whims.

This is neither a radical nor a disproportionate way of responding to the present problem. We have a President who only last year attempted an abortive autogolpe in naked violation of the Constitution, but evaded accountability for this otherwise impeachable offence. Today he is trying to contra-constitutionally shut down a parliamentary process of accountability, because the acts and omissions that are under investigation may ultimately point to his personal culpability for failing to prevent one of the country’s worst terrorist outrages. This is a President who has not only shamelessly betrayed his historic mandate for democratisation, but who has repeatedly demonstrated his unfitness for high office by publicly displaying his low intellectual capacity and even lower moral character. Given this alarming recent record, the only surprise is the continuing complacency and insouciance of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and the UNP in the face of ominous presidential behaviour.