'OMP will strengthen democracy, human rights'

by Manjula Fernando

Reiterating his party's stance on the controversial Office of Missing Persons Act, and explaining the decision to fall in line with the government on this issue, JVP Leader and Chief Opposition Whip Anura Kumara Dissanayake says, the JVP first proposed such a mechanism to trace the missing, a week after the end of the LTTE War in May 2009.

Pix: Samantha Weerasiri

He opined, not only the Joint Opposition but even some members in the Government were hell-bent on blocking the Bill from seeing the light of day.

The excerpts of the interview:

Q: What is the JVP's stance on the Office of Missing Persons Bill ?

A: When someone passes away, normally, the related issues can be settled without much delay. But the issue of disappearances cannot be settled like that. Parents and relatives of such persons undergo severe hardships and distress. Time can never erase the wounds in their hearts. Therefore, the government has a duty to look into the matter of the disappeared.

In 2009, about a week after the end of war, we presented a set of proposals. We took up the position that these allegations need to be investigated. But the government did nothing to investigate and apprehend those responsible. Due to pressure from the United Nations, the new government was compelled to take some action. While the government had an indecent hurry to get the Bill passed in Parliament, the Rajapaksa JO gang were in a similar hurry to sabotage the process. What took place in Parliament that day is the culmination of their tactics. JVP had three important amendments to present at the debate.

At the committee stage, when the Speaker called for amendments, MP Bimal Ratnayake could present only two of the three amendments because of the unruly situation. We had followed the proper procedure, and handed over the three amendments to the Speaker well ahead of the debate, further there was prior agreement with the Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera. The Government therefore is duty bound to include all three amendments forwarded by the JVP.

Q: Do you have any issues about the manner in which the Bill was passed in Parliament on August 11 ?

A: It received Cabinet approval, if it was discussed at the committee stage. They can pass it, in keeping with the due procedure. But, it was very clear that some members of the Government who were part of the former regime did not want the Bill in Parliament. The Rajapaksa gang shared these sentiments. There was a white van culture even years after the war ended. The masterminds of that culture wanted to see this process being disrupted. The adjournment debate on Friday was to be moved by the JVP. But we were willing to sacrifice our time for the OMP Bill debate. But, the corrupt in the Government and the Rajapaksa gang disrupted everything.

Q:Do you believe the Speaker acted in good faith when the Bill was hurriedly passed in Parliament ?

A: The Speaker tried to put the House in order, control the disorderly MPs responsible for the pandemonium and continue the debate. The Speaker could have done more to allow a full debate on this controversial Bill. In this, he seems to have failed.

Q: Will you be raising this issue in Parliament in the future ?

A: No, we plan no action against the Speaker, but we request the Speaker to ensure that such things will not happen again.

Q: The Joint Opposition has criticised the JVP's decision to back the OMP Bill. Calling the JVP a 'crimson elephant calf' (Rathu Ali Petiya), they say you are merrily toeing the government line. Your comments ?

A: We don't take their accusations seriously. They are a 'politically displaced' group. They are blind to any new political culture in the country. They cannot talk about democracy, they destroyed all norms of democracy in the country. They cannot talk of bribery and corruption. They are the ultimate corrupt, bribe takers. They cannot talk of good governance either. The only slogan that has been left for them is the Sinhala nationalism.

In his first speech after the election defeat, Mahinda Rajapaksa said, 'I was defeated because of the Muslim and Tamil votes'. Hence, they harbour hatred and anger towards them. Instead of talking of human rights, justice and fair-play, they try to breed communalism among the people. We are a political movement that stands for democracy. Our decisions are independent, but may vary according to the situation. To the Rajapaksa gang we may appear to be working with the UNP. They are entitled to their opinion. But as you may recall, we did not support the Government when a no confidence motion was brought against Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake. We cannot be intimidated by the concocted elephant stories. Such allegations are not new to us.

When our leader Rohana Wijeweera was released from prison in 1977, after the UNP government was elected to office, the SLFP accused him of being a UNP crony. There were cartoons in newspapers depicting him as an elephant's tail. This is the same old drama being re-enacted. The JVP is not engaged in Rajapaksa's or Ranil's lap-dog politics.

Q:What are the clauses in the OMP Bill that the JVP sought to have it amended?

A: One is the clause on obtaining direct finances, we say it has to be through the Consolidated Fund. If not, the funding sources could influence the work of the Office. The second is on the provisions to facilitate a search, without a warrant. We believe it is an important requirement, as you know, if there is an attempt to seek a warrant, the persons in detention centres could be transferred to other places. We propose these visits should be reported to the IGP within 24 hours. The third amendment which did not make it to the Bill during the debate stage, is to remove the provisions that empower this office to enter into direct agreements with foreign or local bodies for training and other purposes. The Foreign Ministry or relevant agencies should be vested with powers to negotiate such agreements. We are against direct powers being granted to this office.

Q: Have you opposed such agreements with the local bodies as well ?

A: Yes. While we acknowledge that the setting up of the OMP is a commendable move in the direction of strengthening human rights and democracy in Sri Lanka, we need to be mindful of moves by the West to meddle with internal affairs of other countries. Their weapon is human rights. They invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Syria over human rights. Our party supports any genuine effort towards strengthening democracy, but there cannot be room to peddle hidden agendas of the West.

Q: The Speaker and the Leader of the House Minister Lakshman Kiriella promised to include all three amendments of the JVP. Is it going to be a lengthy process ?

A: Minister Kiriella promised to include our amendment at the Party Leaders' meeting but later on in Parliament he said, he will do it after consulting the Foreign Minister. Within three hours of the party leaders' meeting his stance changed. We firmly believe these amendments need to be included in the Act. It is not our responsibility that the amendments failed to be included in the Bill. The Speaker should take the first responsibility. It was his protocol to call for amendments to each page of the Bill. That did not happen. The other is, we handed over the three amendments to the Leader of the House prior to the debate. So, it was his responsibility as well. On the other hand, the Rajapaksa gang disrupted the proceedings and hijacked the opportunity for a decent debate. The three parties should take responsibility for the failure to submit the amendments.

Q:What if they disregard your request ?

A: Then we will be forced to take action. A Government cannot act arbitrarily in passing an important Bill and also members should not hijack an important debate the way the Rajapaksa gang did. (Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe promised that the JVP amendments will be included in the Act during Thursday's Parliament proceedings)

Q: MP Wimal Weerawansa says he asked for a vote on the Bill from the Speaker before it was passed hurriedly. Is it correct?

A: I did not hear that. They were standing in the Well of the House creating utter chaos, and threatened to run away with the mace. Amid the turmoil the Speaker went ahead and passed the Bill. This unruly lot totally disregarded the Standing Orders. If they failed to move amendments to the Bill, Weerawansa must beat his back with a stingray's tail because it was all their doing.

Q: There are allegations that the OMP Bill is the first step to a dark process to penalize the war heroes. There will be the Truth Commission, the Office of Missing Persons and finally, a hybrid court dictated upon by the West. Your comments ?

A: My brother is a missing person. I can relate to the plight of these people and their state of mind. The parents and relatives of missing persons need a permanent place to seek straight answers and find a closure. If not, mothers will continue to appear with photographs of their loved ones during elections or whenever there is a foreign dignitary visiting the country. Such pain will not fade away with passing days or due to fearful threats. Shouldn't we end this tragedy? Certainly, it will not be a pleasant process. If there have been killings and disappearances, it will be a huge controversy. But, unless we brace ourselves to overcome that challenge, there is no way we could move on.

The OMP Bill is not a judicial process. No one can use this report, even newspaper clippings, as evidence in a court of law. This process is not included in the 'Evidence Ordinance'. However, what transpires in the process can be used as material to argue a case in a court of law by the defence counsel. That is all.

Q: What is your party's stance with regard to the composition of this Secretariat ?

A: The seven members to the Secretariat will be nominated by the Constitutional Council and the President will make the appointments. We don't believe it is a 100% pure process. The JVP is not embroiled in the myth that this process or the Secretariat on Missing Persons will provide answers to all issues related to disappearances in the country. Neither do we believe this office will ensure no more disappearances in the future. Yet, it is reassuring that there is some sort of legal mechanism to seek relief, it is an achievement. It will be our duty to guide the office in the correct path.

Q: The JVP is planning to call for an investigation into disappearances during the '71 and '89 insurgencies, including the death of your leader Rohana Wijeweera. But the Bill provides for prioritizing the most recent cases. What have you to say?

A: There are three points. One is the proximity, the others are cases with strong evidence and cases of a controversial nature. Comrade Rohana Wijeweera's case fulfills two of the above requirements. There is strong evidence; and the state media publicized his arrest and detention by the Security Forces. It created a major public uproar. It fails to fulfil only the proximity factor. Hence, it can be investigated, but we are not so naïve as to expect justice from his murderers. Anyway, there will be a formal request from the Party to the OMP in this respect.

Q: Will it provide for the investigation of people for whose disappearances the JVP is responsible ?

A: Yes, if there are such cases, that too can be investigated.