No chance for Mahinda to regain party leadership:

Disciplinary action could disrupt SLFP unity
 

When former President Mahinda Rajapaksa left for Uganda on Tuesday morning, little did he know that he was flying into a major controversy.

Although the former President’s second son, Yoshitha, was not permitted by court to accompany his father, several close allies of the former first family were handpicked for the visit. It was more like a picnic for the associates of Rajapaksa who toiled and moiled to facilitate his ‘comeback’, over the past 16 months.

Among them were Uditha Lokubandara, former Parliamentarian and now Rajapaksa’s General Secretary, Lohan Ratwatte, Dhanasiri Amaratunga, Mahendra Sampath and Neville Wannairachchi. Wanniarachchi, the personal security officer of the former President, is also under probe in connection with a number of allegations.

Interestingly, after Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni extended an invitation to Rajapaksa to attend his fifth swearing-in ceremony, the former President resorted to an interesting tactic.

He, in an unprecedented move, requested money from the country’s foreign ministry for his air tickets, food and accommodation.

The letter requesting for ‘travelling expenses’ was sent by Rajapaksa’s Private Secretary Uditha Lokubandara to Foreign Ministry Secretary Chithrangani Wageeswara. The letter was sent last week and it informed the Foreign Ministry that Rajapaksa would be in Uganda for four days.

Despite travelling on taxpayers’ money, Rajapaksa opted to fly in business class and the cost of his ticket was approximately Rs. 420,000. His transit point was Dubai International Airport.

Rajapaksa sought financial assistance not because he was in a destitute situation as far the finances were concerned. He knew that seeking money from the Foreign Minister for his Ugandan visit would keep him away from the law enforcement authorities who are constantly monitoring the former first family’s avenues of income. On the other hand, such a move will earn him sympathy among gullible, grassroots level voters – the former President’s ‘forte’ in electoral politics .

The Foreign Ministry’s move to fund Rajapaksa’s visit to Uganda was unprecedented,as the ministry did not offer that kind of generosity to other former Presidents. For instance, former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, who ruled the country for 11 years, never received such benefits under the Rajapaksa administration.

MR and Musaveni

Musaveni, to Rajapaksa, is a long-standing friend. Needless to say there were obvious reasons behind their friendship.

Political observers identify many similarities between the systems of governance, adopted by Museveni and Rajapaksa. The most noticeable similarity, however, was excessive corruption.

It was reported that US$ 12.7 million in donor funds had been embezzled from Uganda’s Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) under Museveni’s rule and it caused ripples across donor capitals in late 2012, prompting serious questions about Uganda’s commitment to fight corruption.

The stolen donor funds were earmarked as crucial support for rebuilding northern Uganda, ravaged by a 20-year war, and Karamoja, Uganda’s poorest region. Approximately 30 percent of the national budget came from foreign aid in 2012. After claims that the money was channeled into private accounts, the European Union, United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, and Norway suspended aid.

In 2005, Museveni amended the Constitution to remove term limits, allowing him to be a candidate for the presidency as many times as he wished. It was, in more ways than one, similar to the infamous 18th Amendment introduced by Rajapaksa in 2011.

The Ugandan leader won all recent elections amid serious allegations of unlimited bribery, disenfranchisement, intimidation and violence. Attempts by the Opposition to challenge the elections in court were futile. The legal system upheld them although there was evidence of malpractice.

Museveni, like the former Sri Lankan President, had no qualms about arresting and harassing political activists of the Opposition. Opposition Leader Kizza Besigye has been arrested and charged 34 times in five years. Apart from arrests, military officers, on multiple occasions, simply barricaded his home and in effect prevented him from leaving his house. It was similar to the treatment meted out to the critiques of the Rajapaksa rule, before January 8, 2015.

For fifth time

Museveni, the ruler of Uganda for 30 years, was due to take oaths as the head of state for the fifth time. The 71-year-old leader won 60 percent of the vote in February, allowing him to take on another term and extend his rule to 35 years. The opposition, however, cried foul and protests broke out, plunging the country into a chaotic situation.

There were contradictory views on the manner in which the Ugandan election was held. EU monitors said the election was held in an intimidating atmosphere and the electoral body lacked independence and transparency.

Ugandan state officials said it was free and fair, and dismiss accusations that they have clamped down on free speech.

On Wednesday, the country’s police again arrested opposition leader Kizza Besigye after a street protest. Besigye, who heads the Forum for Democratic Change party, won 35 percent of the vote in February. He has been under house arrest on and off since. It strongly resembled the arrest of former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka, just weeks after the conclusion of the Presidential election in 2010

To suppress public criticism,Uganda blocked social media sites including Twitter, Facebook and Whatsapp before the swearing-in ceremony on Thursday, launching a crackdown on dissenting views.

Giving an interesting explanation to cover up the real intentions of the ban, Executive Director of the telecommunications regulator of Uganda, Godfrey Mutabazi said security agencies had requested the move as “a measure to limit the possibility of terrorists taking advantage” of visits by dignitaries.

On the day of his swearing-in, the majority of international delegations attending the event received the ‘shock of their lives’ when they saw Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir at the ceremony.

Bashir has been wanted since 2009 by the International Criminal Court on charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region.

By inviting Bashir, the Ugandan President sent out a strong signal to the international community that he was not ‘bothered’ about the ICC’s arrest warrant on the Sudanese leader.

Western diplomats who represented the US, Canada and some European nations at the summit, walked out of Museveni’s inauguration Thursday as the Ugandan leader railed against the court, calling it “useless” in his speech. Amid all this drama, the former Sri Lankan President, a close friend of Musaveni, remained seated.

The US State Department said the walkout, which included the American delegation, was “an appropriate reaction.”

Uganda is a signatory of the Rome Statute, meaning it is obligated to arrest those wanted by the ICC. At the inauguration ceremony on Thursday, however, Musaveni blatantly disregarded his international commitments.

Mossaad Mohamed Ali, executive director with the African Center for Justice and Peace Studies in Kampala, said during the different African Union summits, they talked a lot about withdrawal from the ICC.

“Uganda is one of the big supporters of the ICC, even, you know, he (Museveni) asked for the cooperation of the ICC in order to investigate the crimes that had been committed here in Uganda by the LRA, among others,” he said.

“However, now we witness this change in different positions of the different leaders. And now it’s Museveni by his statement yesterday morning,” Ali said.

Former President Rajapaksa, a man who has keenly observed the affairs of the International Criminal Court over the past seven years, carefully monitored these developments from a front row seat at the Kololo ground where the inauguration ceremony was held.

When Rajapaksa was in power, the ICC and other international platforms pushing for accountability were anathema to him. Therefore, Museveni’s controversial speech bashing the ICC must have been music to his ears.

When asked about the former President’s security in Uganda, a member of his delegation told the Sunday Observer that Rajapaksa was given “special security” by the Ugandan government due to political unrest in the country. He said the delegation was even given a new hotel after the political unrest broke out.

Minister meets Rajapaksa

A day before Rajapaksa left for Uganda, he held a meeting at Parliamentarian Salinda Dissanayake’s house in the Kurunegala district. Dissanayake was recently removed from his electoral organiser post by the party and the meeting was organised to flex his muscles opposing the SLFP Central Committee’s decision.

At the meeting, Dissanayake’s supporters passed a resolution in protest of the decision remove the Parliamentarian from his post. After the meeting, Kurunegala district MP and ardent Rajapaksa supporter Johnston Feernando took the former President to a hotel at the heart of the Kurunegala town. One of Rajapaksa’s former allies was waiting at the lobby of hotel to meet his former ‘boss’.

The ally was none other than T.B. Ekanayake, a deputy minister of the national unity government. Ekanayake was vociferous campaigner for Rajapaksa before the last Parliamentary election and he was among the first group of MPs who switched sides after the polls.

At the meeting with the former President, Ekanayake voiced his concerns and said he had been treated ‘shabbily’ by the yahapalana government. It was quite apparent that Ekanayake was not happy with the portfolio he received from the unity government and the Rajapaksa group attempted to cash in on his dissatisfaction.

It is also important to understand the ‘thinking’ behind Rajapaksa’s meeting with Ekanayake. It came against a backdrop where a number of MPs representing the Rajapaksa group had initiated ‘peace talks’ with party authorities.

As exclusively reported in our lead story last week, they embarked on ‘peace negotiations’ to stave off party disciplinary action for attending the rebel UPFA breakaway May Day rally.

Punitive action

Informed SLFP sources disclosed that in the event of a resolution being moved in the next SLFP Central Committee to take punitive action against those SLFP MPs who participated in the Kirulapone May Day rally, measures would first be taken against only those who had a previous record of rebellious actions against the party leadership.

The ongoing discussions between the rebels and the hierarchy will decide the process, they said. A further proposal to heal the rift is a proposal to vest party responsibilities in some dissident SLFP MPs currently in the UPFA rebel group.

Several SLFP MPs of the UPFA rebel group, which calls itself the ‘Joint Opposition’, had last week reportedly contacted former SLFP General Secretary Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Deputy Speaker Thilanga Sumathipala and, UPFA General Secretary Mahinda Amaraweera, and expressed willingness to cooperate with the party leadership.

Party insiders claim that the overtures by the rebels were prompted by the perceived success of the SLFP’s official May Day rally in Galle.

The SLFP rebels had asked the three seniors to persuade the party hierarchy to hold back impending disciplinary action against the SLFP MPs who had joined the UPFA rebels’ May Day rally in Kirulapona which was attended by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Nearly 40 SLFP MPs joined the Kirulapona May Day rally while the other bulk of the Parliamentary group attended the SLFP’s May Day event in Galle.

Speaking to the Sunday Observer, UPFA General Secretary Mahinda Amaraweera admitted that discussions were underway “at a personal level” to arrive at an “amicable settlement”, in a clear move to avoid actual disciplinary action that could disrupt party unity.

“I can confirm that discussions are going on. But, they are not official discussions. I don’t wish to disclose the names of the dissident MPs who negotiated with me as it would hamper the progress of our discussions. I personally believe the success of the SLFP’s May Day rally in Galle prompted them to initiate a dialogue with the party” Amaraweera said. “We don’t need to chase anyone away. The Party has to be strengthened. If they agree to cooperate with the party leadership, we don’t have to pursue disciplinary action,” he added.

“They urged the party to desist from pursuing disciplinary action against MPs who attended the Kirulapona rally. But they had no objections to disciplinary action against party dissidents on other allegations,” a senior SLFP Parliamentarian told the Sunday Observer.

“It is important to note that the SLFP will not compromise on its position. President Sirisena will remain the party leader and others have to accept his leadership. There will be no chance for former President Rajapaksa to regain party leadership. He can contribute to the party as a Patron,” the Parliamentarian said.

However, the discussions did not move fast over the past few days as President Sirisena was overseas, attending the anti-corruption summit in London.

A party spokesman said the discussions would gather more momentum after the President’s return to the country. It is widely assumed that these ongoing peace negotiations will weaken the Rajapaksa group, to a great extent.

Closed-door meeting

It was in this context that rumours started floating around saying four Major Generals had met former Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa for a closed-door discussion.

It was in the grapevine that the four senior Military officers who met Basil Rajapaksa also had strong links with former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.

The discussion had apparently taken place at the former Minister’s personal residence in the Nugegoda area.

Interestingly, the two of the four Major Generals are eying the Army Commander’s post, after Lieutenant General Chrishantha de Silva’s retirement.

The Army Commander is to retire from service on August 21 and it leaves the government with the option of appointing a new Army chief. However, a senior government spokesman said there was possible that the government might grant a service extension to the incumbent Army Commander.

The former Minister’s alleged meeting with four senior Army officers sends a strong signal to the government. It shows that Rajapaksa loyalists are still holding key positions in the Army, posing a serious threat to the government and to the country’s political stability – at large.

Under the Rajapaksa administration, the government adopted a military-style administration attaching a great importance to security forces when it came to day-to-day affairs of the country.

The new government, which came to power in January, last year, turned it into a civil administration and the whole ‘euphoria’ involving the military was shifted. That, quite understandably, seems to be a major worry for some senior Army officers trying to align themselves with the Rajapaksas to regain their lost status.

When asked about the development, a senior government spokesman, who wished to remain unnamed, said the military authorities would soon launch a probe into the matter.

“We heard that the intelligence services had revealed details about their secret discussions with the former Minister. Military officers, while in service, are strictly prohibited to engage in political activities.

There is a code of conduct they are expected to adhere to. So we believe the Army will not pussy-foot on this matter,” he told the Sunday Observer.

This also comes in the light of the government’s attempts to set up a accountability mechanism to probe into alleged war crimes during the final phase of war.

One has reasons to believe that some top-notch Army officers are still not comfortable with the whole concept of accountability and reconciliation.

When the President visited London for the anti-corruption summit, other world leaders and the international media hailed him as a man committed to bring about reconciliation through a credible accountability mechanism. Although the government has the political will to embark on this process, there is a question over its long-term strategy and tactics. On the other hand, it is all too evident that the government’s accountability process is quite slow and the patience of the international community is wearing thin.

Nihal Jayawickrama backs foreign involvement

An interesting insight in this regard was shared by Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama, former Justice Ministry Secretary, when he delivered ‘Dr. P. R. Anthonis memorial lecture’ in Colombo on Wednesday. He outlined as to why the Sri Lankan government was not in a position to avoid Foreign Involvement in its accountability process.

Jayawickrama said, “The Attorney-General’s Department, which remained embedded in the Presidential Secretariat from 2011 to 2015, did not possess the capacity or the inclination to view, with independence and impartiality, the crimes allegedly committed with the knowledge or connivance of those at the highest levels of the then government.

“Instead, its senior officers travelled annually to Geneva to deny before the international community that any such crimes had ever been committed.

An Attorney General himself uttered what was later proved to be a lie in regard to a disappeared journalist.

“Is it being seriously suggested that these same officers should now be entrusted with the task of presenting the evidence which the OHCHR claims it has, and which they have so strenuously repudiated for decades

The apparent indifference with which investigations that commenced after the change of government are being handled by those in the commanding heights of that department suggests that the culture in that department remains the same.

“Sri Lanka’s inability to conduct credible investigations through quasi-judicial bodies has also been demonstrated by the performance of a succession of commissions of inquiry headed by retired judicial officers.

“The Udalagama Commission lost its credibility very early in its proceedings. The Paranagama Commission keeps rolling along, from month to month, year to year, signifying the urgency it attaches to Enforced Disappearances.

The performance of the previous Human Rights Commission, which had the duty to investigate infringements of fundamental rights, was so abysmal that the United Nations downgraded its status for lack of balance and objectivity.

“President Sirisena as well as several ministers of the present government have declared that, following the appointment of a new Chief Justice, “our judiciary is now independent”.

“This simplistic assertion appears not to recognize that the judicial culture of the Supreme Court, especially evident in the past decade, has been one of extreme deference to the presidential executive. Whenever fundamental rights were invoked, the court, composed as it was of judges appointed by President Rajapakse, often from among his contemporaries at Law College, would, more often than not, capitulate to executive assertions of state security.

“Political opponents of the previous government and members of ethnic minorities, and indeed civil society, have rarely, if ever, obtained any relief.

The judgments of the Supreme Court, especially in matters affecting individual rights, reveal an astounding ignorance or unfamiliarity with contemporary developments in the law in other jurisdictions.

“The failure of the present government to resort to a ‘vetting’ process, which was successfully applied under the Constitution of Kenya, will only strengthen the belief among the international community that our judiciary lacks the competence or the integrity to address war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“The question which the government will need to address is whether it has, with the resources available to it, the capacity to effectively investigate, prosecute and try the serious allegations referred to in the report of the OHCHR investigation on Sri Lanka, including war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“To admit that we cannot undertake these tasks alone is not an admission of weakness.

On the contrary, it will be a sincere and genuine commitment to achieving the objective of accountability on behalf of those who laid down their lives and the families who continue to live in grief.

“In respect of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the expertise of lawyers skilled in dealing with such crimes, military analysts, crime scene investigators, trauma experts, psychological counsellors, and a host of others who are competent to address issues of victim needs and rights, witness preparation and protection, are essential, and international assistance in that regard ought to be welcomed.”

This speech highlights the fact that the leaders of the government have to stop ‘politicking on the sly’ in terms of accountability and adopt a comprehensive strategy in this regard.

In the absence of a comprehensive strategy, ‘diplomatic sweet talk’ will be of little assistance to the government in the global political domain.