Defeat the enemies of the nation

by Hemantha KUDABANDARA

Blatant lies, misinterpretations, gross inaccuracies, concocted hearsay and misleading bits and pieces collected from interested parties and bankrupt political leaders on the imprisonment imposed on the former Army Commander by a Military Court appear to be trying hard to deviate public focus from real and factual core issues. The intention seems to be to mislead the public, as evident in some national and international media.

A case in point was how The Sunday Times in its October 3 issue, through the editorial opinion page and the guest column, took pains to paint a different picture and twist the whole Fonseka episode to the advantage of bankrupt political agendas. Apparently, the same columnist, during the final few years of LTTE terrorism, went out of his way to glorify those most-dreaded butchers as undefeatable rebels or guerillas and their superiority.

Regrettably, those independent media pundits with varying agendas in hand consistently berated and belittled our Armed Forces right-throughout, and published diabolical lies, in relation to some military operations and LTTE attacks on our economic targets. Sympathetic to the LTTE machinations, such media exposures invited the international community to halt those military offensives, as close fighting was escalating after the Mavil Aru episode.

They seem to have undertaken one more contract (perhaps more than one ?), again back on track, this time with a vendetta in a disguised form.

Every military organisation in the world has its own structured litigation mechanism, through which a deterrent has been projected to maintain the highest degree of discipline and good order among servicemen, regardless of anyone’s rank, seniority or other affiliations. This priority for discipline is where an Army differs from an ordinary civil establishment.

The jurisdiction of a military Court Martial therefore applies to all service personnel, in relation to charges on indiscipline in general. What is defined under conduct prejudicial to Military discipline and good order has been elaborated in the Army Act under no uncertain terms. In this respect, the Commander of the Army as the convening authority of the respective service has powers of appointing such Courts Martial as necessary where any member serving or retired could be tried in a Court Marshal, comprising at least three or more judges.

The former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka was found guilty of a traitorous act by participating in political work whilst on active service and disgraceful conduct over military procurements in two separate Courts Martial. None of those verdicts were arbitrary as alleged in some media. Nor had the accused been deprived of any defence counsel during proceedings. All that was done in accordance with the provisions enshrined in the Army Act. Finally, he was sent to jail by the second Court Martial for violating Section 109 (e) of the Army Act on charges of committing ‘fraudulent acts’. Needless to say, this is not the first Court Martial that passed sentence on errant officers in this manner, nor will it be the last Court Martial either to try servicemen, regardless of their rank or other merits. An Army cannot survive or set up exceptional precedents, granting favours.

The convict, in his capacity as the former Army Chief, has passed sentences on 153 Army officers, cashiering them and jailing them for a year or more, when the war was in full swing in the East. In addition, 298 Non- Commissioned officers too had been discharged and given one-year jail terms. Similarly, 2394 deserters had been imprisoned during his tenure.

On the other hand, the jurisdiction of a military Court Martial does not at all transgress powers in the legislature, nor has it anything to do with such commitments, as is the case in civil courts. In this instance, the litigation was purely against a senior military officer who knowingly acted in contravention of the Army Act.

Although Sarath Fonseka’s son-in-law, Danuna Tillakaratne has not been registered as a Director in Hicorp (Pvt) Ltd in Sri Lanka’s Department for Registration of Companies, it does not necessarily pre-empt the fact that he was not a director in that company, which has had its overseas outfit registered elsewhere. On the other hand, prosecutors in the Hicorp case have submitted to Court adequate documents with certificates of incorporation, confirming that Danuna Tillakaratne and one Ruwinda Gunaratne in the State of Oklahoma, US have continued to remain as registered agents (directors) in Hicorp International Inc. since November 10, 2005, of which the local Hicorp company has functioned as a subsidiary, but without any inclusion of Danuna Tillakaratne’s name in the local registration, for obvious reasons. How it would support the argument that he was not a beneficiary of the local company, when its international wing was responsible for dealings with the Army, is yet to be comprehended following court proceedings.

By deliberately concealing his relationship with his son-in -law, Danuna Tillakaratne, the former Commander aided and abetted Hicorp to sell war-related material to the Army. That too has been done using forged documents, violating USA law, Sri Lankan law and all international laws and ethics, to put it in short.

In the first place, Danuna Tillakaratne has produced documents with forged signatures, names and addresses of co-partners when registering Hicorp International. This includes even the forged signature of Ruwinda Gunaratna as the only other director in the company, in addition to himself. In conducting Hicorp business dealings, he has blatantly violated US visa formalities and bank account opening rules and regulations had carried out overseas travel on illegal visas and conducted clandestine defence deals by submitting forged documents while misrepresenting his identity to various companies, governments and agencies.

In fact, Chief Editor for the Asian Tribune, K.T. Rajasingham, at the World Institute for Asian Studies, in response to a legal notice, sent to the wire services on November 22, 2009, datelined Asian Tribune report, exposing Tillakaratne, has forwarded all documentary evidence to the media for an open inquiry against Tillakaratne in the US. The Asian Tribune has stood by its contents in the said report against his dealings.

Worst of all, Tillakaratne has continuously used a non-existent business address in Texas for correspondence, a move aimed at covering up his identity with the US Postal Service while he was working as a dealer in arms. His fake British Borneo Defence under Hicorp (Pvt) Ltd address was used exclusively for international dealings across continents. The same British Borneo Defence trade name has been found, used in Australia too. It is however subjudice to mention specific details about his nefarious activities at this juncture since a Court case is already on.

However, Tillakaratne, well aware of the authoritative (rather dictatorial ?) powers that revolved around his father-in-law, (Sarath Fonseka), in his capacity as former Commander and Chief of Defence-Staff, spread his wings across different overseas suppliers of defence related material to Sri Lanka. It is believed he has gained maximum credibility among those suppliers. After receiving precise, meticulous and vital information through obvious sources, he has shrewdly struck deals with Chinese, Pakistan, Israel, UK, US and other military suppliers in the international markets.

It was against this backdrop that Sarath Fonseka, both in his capacity as Army Commander and Chief of Defence Staff, for reasons known only to himself, forwarded written requests repeatedly to the Secretary of Defence at the Ministry of Defence for procurement of MBRL rockets and military hardware from different overseas arms suppliers, who have now been identified as companies or subsidiaries, confirmed to have had dealings with Tillakaratne.

To the amazement of the concerned, most of those hurriedly dispatched requests to the Ministry of Defence for the purchase of more arms came about after the elimination of LTTE terrorism in May 2009.

In practice, the Standing Cabinet Appointed Procurement Committee (SCAPC) at the Ministry of Defence carefully peruses such military procurement requests and duly identifies priorities before such orders are processed through M/s Lanka Logistics and Technologies Ltd, the wing established at the Ministry of Defence for the express purpose of buying military procurements. This channelling of procurements too was streamlined to avoid corruption and commissions after the present government came into power.

It is also worth mentioning here that several procurement requests for fresh supplies, forwarded by Fonseka, in the aftermath of the war, were turned down by SCAPC, after evaluating the projected requirement proper, which would have inevitably irked the wrath of the proposer.

Manifestations that have begun to emerge both here and abroad particularly after the onset of the island-nation’s rapid economic recovery programs, which are already in the process of paying dividends, are embroiled in mystery. Our nation’s rebirth appears to be an eyesore to some (a few countries) including for those who burnt midnight oil several months ago, to stall our victory over separatist terrorism. Those anti-Sri Lanka elements, most of who dubbed that it was an unwinnable war and genocide are now picking up steam, to once again place hurdles or sabotage our forward march.

Likewise, conducive international fora or launching pads are being readjusted with the support of politically divided expatriates and the Diaspora. Propaganda machines are swiftly getting oiled. They conveniently transmit fabricated and grossly inaccurate stories, mostly targeting international readers and agencies, policymakers and governments. Astonishingly, some of our own Sri Lanka based intellectuals, setting aside their academia, are now in the practice of providing interviews, news comments and quotes, largely to the international media with no concern whatsoever of their impact or repercussions. Sometimes, what they speak out wittingly or unwittingly does not at all come under their purview, nor do such comments carry any rationale. In fact, they tend to cause more damage to the country’s image which is sometimes worse than what we experienced under LTTE diktats. The truth is out there. In short, our foes are working overtime to give renewed life to the history splattered with blood.

While simultaneously making concerted efforts to destabilise us as a united nation, those elements are reopening their dust-covered propaganda outlets, of course, now with ‘soothing and eye-catching’ signboards unlike when the fully-fledged LTTE fund-raising campaigns were on in overseas capitals.

Those powers, judged by their new deceptive diplomacy outlook, are well poised to go to any extreme or extent to have their objectives realised, either by misinterpreting Fonseka episodes, or for that matter, anything else.

Human Rights is fast becoming saleable again with these new Shylocks and Devadattas. After the bitter lessons of the 30 year-long war, we have to be overwhelmingly alert to such alarming signals than ever before, since the country is passing through a significant transitory phase after it was brought under one flag. It is still not too late for us to realise this bitter truth.