UN war crimes report out :
Strong, small Govt. team for Geneva
Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, Justice Minister Wijeyadasa
Rajapakshe and Eastern Province Governor Austin Fernando left for Geneva
on Friday night to engage in crucial lobbying and advocacy prior to the
UNHRC session that begins tomorrow, September 14 in the Swiss city.
In contrast to the small, high capacity team that went on Friday for
this year’s sessions, in 2012, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s
government sent a delegation of 71 members to Geneva ahead of that
year’s Human Rights Council session when Sri Lanka faced a US initiative
that pushed for an international probe. Despite the 71-member
delegation, Sri Lanka lost to the US sponsored resolution that year with
a margin of nine votes.
Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to Geneva, Ravinatha Aryasinha,
a seasoned campaigner on the UNHRC front, is expected to join the
top-level Sri Lankan delegation in Geneva, before the council session.
Meanwhile, Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne left for Geneva last
evening to join the ministerial team.
Following on, from many positive measures initiated by the government
in recent months, Washington has already assured Colombo that it would
move a resolution at the Geneva session supporting a credible domestic
inquiry by the Sri Lankan government within a reasonable period.
The majority of UNHRC member nations are expected to support the
US-sponsored resolution in the belief that the new government of Sri
Lanka, which is continuing policies begun after the change in the
presidency on January 9, is committed to concrete measures towards
reconciliation. This positive outlook in Geneva is a major relief for
the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government.
The foreign ministers and permanent representatives of 47 member
States of the UNHRC will take part in the session starting on September
14. The Council’s current member States includes 13 African countries,
13 Asian Pacific countries, eight Latin American and Caribbean
countries, six Eastern European countries and seven Western European and
other countries. China, Russia and India are on the Council in this
session.
As Sri Lanka has already worked with those governments supporting the
new US proposal, Foreign Minister Samaraweera’s team will not oppose the
resolution containing the US proposal and, therefore, a vote is not
likely to be called at the Council.
Minister Samaraweera will hold a special discussion with UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Al-Hussein today. At the meeting, the
Sri Lankan Foreign Minister and the UN Human Rights Chief are expected
to exchange their views on issues related to accountability and
reconciliation in Sri Lanka.
UN report
Meanwhile, the UNHRC report on alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka during
the final phase of the war will shortly be presented to the Human Rights
Council session in Geneva. It has already been speculated in Sri Lanka
that the report contains the names of 42 people in connection with war
crimes charges.
An advance copy of this report was expected to be handed over to the
Sri Lankan government parallel to US Assistant Secretary of State for
South and Asian Central Asian Affairs Nisha Biswal’s visit to Sri Lanka,
two weeks back. The Sri Lankan government received an advance copy of
the report last Friday.
However, according to western diplomatic circles, the US’s move to
push for a resolution supporting a credible domestic investigation by
Sri Lankan authorities will mitigate the negative impact of the UNHRC
report - at least to a certain extent. At the same time, it will compel
Sri Lanka to ensure that the domestic investigation will take place in a
manner acceptable to international parties, including the UNHRC.
“The new government has restored the international community’s faith
in the judicial system of Sri Lanka. That is why they have given a green
light to a domestic investigation. But, the US support for a domestic
investigation would not be a blanket one, as speculated by some. We will
have to conclude the domestic investigation within a certain period of
time and if we fail to stick to the time-frame we will come under
pressure to face an international investigation. This is the reality we
have to understand,” a top level government official, who was part of
the government’s initiatives on the accountability front, told the
Sunday Observer.
Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan government is expected to take certain
steps in the direction of strengthening accountability and
reconciliation even as the UNHRC session gets under way. Among them will
be the tabling of the report of the Presidential Commission
Investigating Cases of Missing Persons (PCICMP) in Parliament towards
the end of this month.
The report was handed over to President Maithripala Sirisena by its
chairman, Maxwell Paranagama, a retired Supreme Court judge, two weeks
ago. The Paranagama Commission’s report mainly deals with issues related
to violations of international humanitarian law or ‘war crimes’
allegedly committed by both parties and the recommendations to prevent a
repetition.
At the same time, plans are afoot to publish the much talked about
report of the commission headed by retired Justice Nissanka Udalagama
which probed the killings of 17 NGO workers just months before the
commencement of the final phase of military offensives against the LTTE.
The CID conducted investigations into the killing of 17
Non-Governmental Organization workers on August 4, 2006 in Muttur. The
outcome of the inquiry was forwarded to the Attorney General on April
18, 2007, under the Reference Number CR1/185/2007. However, many
sections in the international community raised doubts over the bonafides
of the Sri Lankan government when it came to inquiries into the
killings.
In 2006, faced with an international outcry, the government appointed
an eight-member Commission of Inquiry (CoI) headed by Justice Nissanka
Udalagama to investigate a series of incidents, including the killing of
five students in Trincomalee and the massacre of aid workers of Action
Against Hunger (ACF) in Muttur.
Although the commission concluded its work, its report was never
published by the government. The government’s move to desist from
publishing the Udalagama report made a serious negative impact on Sri
Lanka’s human rights track record over the past few years. Even the
Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, appointed by Rajapaksa’s
government to address concerns of the international community,
recommended its publication.
The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government’s initiative to publish the
Udalagama Commission report is expected to be construed as a ‘progress
step’ by the international community at this year’s Geneva session.
Another key move that is in the offing is the appointment of a
special prosecutor in connection with investigations into war crimes
charges. Although ultra-nationalist forces in the South may view this
action with suspicion, the international community expects significant
action by Sri Lanka in this regard, especially in line with former
President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s joint statement with UN Secretary General
Ban ki Moon.
Attorney General controversy
The Attorney General came under criticism from civil society
organizations in the country with the outcome of court cases against
Kumaran Pathmanathan and former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa
concerning the Avant Garde private security firm. It all began when a
coalition of civil society movements including trade unions and the
Puravesi Balaya last week lashed out at the Attorney General for
apparently taking an ‘arbitrary decision’ to conclude the cases filed
against LTTE chief arms procurer Kumaran Pathmanathan alias KP and the
floating armory of Avante Garde Security Services Limited.
Speaking at a press conference in Colombo, Puravesi Balaya Convenor
Saman Ratnapriya openly criticized the conduct of the Attorney General,
the chief legal officer of the government, saying he has taken an
arbitrary decision to conclude these cases even after a Deputy Solicitor
General (DSG) had recommended to him by a report to proceed with the
cases. Ratnapriya said that a copy of the report that was sent by the
DSG to the Attorney General asking him to proceed with these cases, was
with him.
Rathnapriya urged the President to appoint a committee comprising
suitable persons to look into the decisions of the Attorney General
regarding these cases.
“There is no legal provision to take forward these cases due to the
position taken by the AG,” he said adding that there was no legal
sanction to maintain private armouries in the country. Rathnapriya’s
outraged remarks came just a day after the Attorney General explained
his position on the Avant Garde and Kumaran Pathmanathan cases.
The controversy took a new turn on Friday when the Legal Officers’
Association of the Attorney General’s Department said in a statement,
that they unequivocally stood by the decisions of the Attorney General.
The statement also said the decisions taken by the Attorney General were
in full compliance with the law and procedure.
“The Association wishes to first place on record that the Department
has, throughout its history of 130 years, continuously followed a
procedural system which has well stood the test of time and ensured that
the final decision taken with regard to any case or legal opinion is
based on a thorough examination of all available material and, where
necessary, after calling for additional material and after consultation
with more than one officer.
Therefore, the recommendations contained in a preliminary report of
an officer to whom a matter has been initially assigned may not always
accord with the ultimate decision. However, the decision will always be
a carefully considered one.”
Avant Garde
“In the Avant Garde floating armoury case, the officer who was
originally allocated the file prepared an initial report which was based
on statements and investigation notes made available by the CID.
Based on that report, the Attorney General consulted other senior
officers and also called for observations from the Ministry of Defence,
Sri Lanka Navy and Director, Merchant Shipping. It is only after
considering the views expressed by all officers who were consulted, as
well as the observations received from the said authorities, that a
final decision was made as to whether there was sufficient evidence to
adduce charges. It is in the interest of justice and in the highest
traditions of the Department, therefore, that its internal procedures
were followed and will continue to be followed.
In response to media reports on Kumaran Padmanathan (KP), the
Association claims that the criticisms are based on “assumptions based
on misreported facts” pertaining to proceedings before the Court of
Appeal on the last date in CA Writ Application No.08/2015. It is
stressed that the case is not one before a criminal court with specific
allegations and charges against KP. Instead, the case has been filed
under public law seeking the remedy of a writ of Mandamus on the
Attorney General to prosecute KP in relation to several specified
incidents and unspecified incidents.
As already clarified, the Senior Deputy Solicitor General who
represented the Attorney General on August 31, 2015, communicated to
court the preliminary information received from the police at that point
in respect of some of the incidents referred to in the petition and
requested further time to submit a comprehensive report after obtaining
more information.
This was pursuant to the Court of Appeal having directed the Attorney
General to assist court.
The very fact that court granted further time until October 28, 2015
to submit a report after receiving all the information demonstrates that
the Attorney General did not make any submission exonerating KP. This is
manifest from the journal entry in the court record.
Mis-reporting
Regrettably, mis-reporting of what transpired in court on the last
date has led to a complete distortion of the facts, causing
misconceptions among the public. The erroneous media reports have also
been misused by those with malicious motives who have descended to such
depths as to level vicious personal attacks on the Attorney General.
In fact, the most significant development in the KP matter is the
strong action taken by the Attorney General in terms of the powers
vested in him under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code,
whereby he has directed the IGP to conduct a comprehensive investigation
into all criminal incidents where KP may have been involved and report
whether there is evidence implicating him, so that KP may be charged in
accordance with the law.
However, this progressive step has not received the media attention
it deserves,” the statement said.
However, in the eyes of the public, the inability to take action
against the floating armory and LTTE”s Chief Arms procurer Kumaran
Pathmanathan are matters of contention. Although a lot of media hype was
created around the two cases, they are likely to end up as damp squibs
with the Attorney General’s failure to proceed with the cases.
First Cabinet meeting
The first Cabinet meeting of the national unity government was held
on Wednesday under the patronage of President Maithripala Sirisena at
the Presidential Secretariat.
When the President chaired the last Cabinet meeting of the 100-day
interim government on August 5, he greeted his ministers saying, “We
will meet again after the election”.
As the President expected, the majority of his 100-day government’s
Cabinet ministers were present last Wednesday.
The first issue of the new government was raised by Minister Mahinda
Amaraweera who underscored the current issue pertaining to paddy
purchasing. He categorically said paddy should not be stored at the
Mattala International Airport.
At this point, President Sirisena stressed the need for adopting a
long-term solution to address this problem, without resorting to ad-hoc
measures like in the past.
The other important topic discussed at the Cabinet meeting was the
forthcoming Local Government election. The tug-of-war that prevailed in
the previous Cabinet over the new electoral system re-emerged at this
meeting too with some ministers alleging that the earlier demarcation
had been done in such a manner that it would favour the United People’s
Freedom Alliance.
The ministers said that under the present system the number of wards
had been increased from 3,000 to 4,000 and demarcated in a haphazard
manner not taking into consideration important factors such as the
social and cultural background of the people.
Accordingly, a Cabinet sub-committee was appointed to look into the
various shortcomings and demarcation of wards. It is likely that a fresh
initiative will be made to re-demarcate the wards in terms of the 19th
Amendment to the constitution.
In the meantime, the Ministers decided to hold the local government
election in March for which nominations will be called in January.
Portfolio exchange
The manner in which deputy ministers and state ministers were
appointed last week was greeted with mixed reactions by the people on
the ground. While some said that it was a measure towards
‘reconciliation’ between the two main political parties that remained
rivals for nearly 65 years, others noted that certain ministerial
appointments made a mockery of Parliamentary democracy.
For instance, for the first the time in Sri Lanka’s political
history, two deputy ministers exchanged their ministerial portfolios
soon after taking oaths! They were Nimal Lansa and Arundika Fernando,
elected representatives of the UPFA who served as ruling party members
under former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s administration.
Nimal Lansa, who was first appointed as the Deputy Minister of
Tourism and Christian Affairs, was reluctant to work under his Minister
John Amaratunga who represents the same electorate. While Lansa is the
UPFA organizer for Wattala, Amaratunga functions as the UNP organizer
for the same electorate. Lanza informed President Sirisena that he could
not work as the ‘Deputy Minister’ of Amaratunga, as he had some ‘issues’
with the UNP Minister.
As a remedial measure, Lansa had a discussion with his Parliamentary
colleague Arundika Fernando over an exchange of portfolios. Fernando, an
MP for the Puttalam district, was originally given the Home Affairs
portfolio. As a result of that ‘deal’, Lansa and Fernando agreed to
exchange their ministerial portfolios, setting a new trend in Sri
Lanka’s political establishment.
In another development, Ranjan Ramanayaka, a staunch critic of
wrongdoers of the former government, was appointed as the Deputy
Minister of S.B. Dissanayake, a politician who faced various allegations
in the recent past. During the election period, Dissanayake – who once
make a derogatory remark about former President Chandrika Bandaranaike
Kumaratunga - was often at the receiving end of Ramanayaka’s criticism.
The Gampaha district Parliamentarian found himself in a difficult
situation when he realized that he had been appointed as the deputy
minister of Social Services Minister S.B. Dissanayake.
Cabinet
It was no secret to many in the political circles that prominent
figures who campaigned for good governance such as the Ven. Maduluwawe
Sobhitha Thera, were disappointed over certain ministerial appointments.
They said that the government should have taken measures to reduce the
number of ministries by mutual agreement, without burdening taxpayers.
At the same time, there were serious concerns over some MPs who were
given ministerial portfolios, especially from the UPFA camp.
Voicing the concerns of civil organizations who campaigned for ‘good
governance’, veteran film maker Dharmasiri Bandaranaike, a stalwart of
the Purawesi Balaya organization, said that the civil society of the
country was “utterly disappointed” over the manner in which the
ministers were appointed.
“Those who were rejected by the people had obtained ministerial
portfolios. Is this the ‘change’ we fought hard to bring about?”
Bandaranaike asked in an interview with BBC Sandeshaya.
“Overthrowing the Rajapaksa regime which seemed invincible was not an
overnight process. It was a collective exercise by a large group of
people. But, if things proceed in the present manner, it would be the
end of Sri Lanka’s politics,” the much-respected film maker said.
“People do not question leaders of the government over recent
developments. It is we who have to answer their questions as we meet
them on the streets, on a daily basis,” Bandaranaike stressed. |