International community should understand Sri Lanka better

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navineetham Pillay was fast asleep when Sri Lankan housemaid Rizana Nafeek was beheaded in Saudi Arabia after an unfair trial. But she issued a statement in next to no time on the impeachment of Dr. Mrs. Shirani Bandaranayake and the subsequent appointment of Mohan Peiris to the post of Chief Justice.

Pillay, who was notorious for issuing partial statements in support of LTTE terrorists during Sri Lanka's relentless battle against terrorism, has again attempted to meddle in Sri Lanka's internal affairs. Although her boss - UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon too condemned the beheading of Rizana, Pillay favoured the taciturnity as if she knew nothing of the action taken by the Saudi authorities.

As the Acting Foreign Secretary Kshenuka Seneviratne had quite rightly pointed out, the High Commissioner for Human Rights had made an unwarranted comment on a domestic matter in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka has categorically rejected Pillay's statement, as it lacked any semblance of objectivity, steeped as it is in bias, marred by erroneous facts and further compounded by the inappropriate tenor of its language, all of which are indicative of unequal and invidious treatment of Sri Lanka.

This is akin to the action by Hanny Megally following the visit of the OHCHR team to Sri Lanka in September 2012, when he deviated from the accepted practice, by de-briefing third parties, even before briefing Pillay in her capacity as High Commissioner, or the Permanent Representative of the country concerned.

Sri Lanka had told Pillay in no uncertain terms that the action against Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake was in conformity with the principles which govern disciplinary proceedings against judges contained in the basic principles on the Independence of the Judiciary endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1985.

The content of Pillay's statement sadly demonstrates that neither she nor her office has the understanding of the provisions of Sri Lanka's Constitution, and the related procedures for the removal of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

There is no doubt that Pillay's assertion that "Sri Lanka has a long history of abuse of executive power" is offensive to our nation, and is clearly beyond her mandate as UN Human Rights High Commissioner. Pillay has transgressed the basic norms which should be observed by a discerning international civil servant, by bringing into question the constitutional governance of a sovereign State.

The so-called concerns expressed by a few countries and international organisations, including the UN Human Rights Commissioner, give an impression that they approve the corrupt deals of Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake, who had either directly or indirectly, changed the Bench in two separate cases against her husband and a company which had offered her a thumping discount when purchasing a luxury apartment.

They had been perhaps ill-informed about the constitutional procedure and serious charges against Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake which had been proved by the PSC. As far as Pillay is concerned, it is impossible to expect a fair deal from a woman who had sympathised with the LTTE, the world's most ruthless terrorist outfit.

Several local NGO activists and bankrupt politicians have made desperate attempts to mislead some Colombo-based diplomats from the West and heads of international organisations. They have ignored the fact that the independence of the Judiciary does not mean that the senior most judges could indulge in any corrupt deal and wrongdoing and go scot-free. These judges do not enjoy immunity to do anything they wish under the guise of the independence of the Judiciary.

The impeachment of Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake is purely an internal matter of Sri Lanka and none of the foreign busybodies has any right whatsoever to meddle in these domestic issues. Secondly and more importantly, the entire impeachment process of Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake was conducted in accordance with the Constitution. Moreover, Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake was found guilty of serious charges before a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) and there was no other option than to impeach her, since President Mahinda Rajapaksa is duty bound to protect Sri Lanka's Constitution.

Since the impeachment was conducted in keeping with the Constitution, nobody in their right senses could point an accusing finger, unless he or she has other motives and a hidden agenda. No international force has the right to interfere in Sri Lanka's internal affairs as the President and the Government respect the Constitution and the masses have reposed implicit faith in them.

In our editorial last week, we pointed out that no country or international organisation has any right whatsoever to look forward to 'explanations' from Sri Lanka on a constitutional process. Nobody should pontificate to us on democracy as the President and the Government have always upheld democracy in the country and the independence of the Judiciary. However, the independence of the Judiciary does not mean that corrupt judges who abuse power could go scot-free.

It is the supreme duty of Ambassadors, High Commissioners and diplomats to strengthen the cordial relations between their countries and those they are stationed in. Regrettably, some of them attempt to poke their fingers in extraneous matters.

Nobody should attempt to juxtapose foreign investments which are not even remotely connected with an internal matter relating to the removal of a corrupt judge who had blatantly abused her power and obtained a cash discount of Rs. 1.6 million from a company against which a case was being heard under her purview. To cap it all, Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake had contravened income tax regulations and violated the constitutional requirement of declaring bank accounts running into millions of rupees.

Perhaps, the gloomy picture projected by lawyers who thrive on INGO funding and their local agents had induced some countries and international organisations to issue statements that they are disturbed by recent developments.

This is precisely what local NGO agents and bankrupt Opposition politicians anticipated. The hidden agenda was bared as some local NGO agents organised a signature campaign to protest against the Government. It is crystal clear that those who are day-dreaming of a regime change in Sri Lanka are behind these sinister campaigns.

Unlike during the UNP era under the Jayewardene and Premadasa regimes, President Rajapaksa is universally known as a strong human rights activist and popular lawyer who had spoken on behalf of victims of human rights abuses. Therefore, there is no need for anyone to preach to a Government under his leadership about fundamental rights - the right to express one's opinions freely without fear of retribution.

The action against Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake was also a way of respecting the law of the land. If not, it would have set a bad precedent and other judges too would have resorted to the law of the jungle.

Sri Lanka had always ensured its international obligations, and in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which had been fully implemented. The Government has always respected the right to peaceful protests and ensured the safety of all human rights defenders.

However, as a result, lawyers with political affiliations and those funded by INGOs turned Hulftsdorp into a Lipton Circus and brought disrepute to the Judiciary. The country's supreme court precincts had never been exploited for political purposes or demonstrations earlier, but Dr. Mrs. Bandaranayake permitted them to disrespect the Judiciary.

The international community should respect Sri Lanka for crushing terrorism and support the nation in its determined effort to usher in a new era for those who had been liberated in the North and the East. Sri Lanka needs the support of all to fulfil its dream of becoming the Wonder of Asia.