Connect with us

Midweek Review

Warning issued over proposed ‘Open Government Partnership’ action plan

Published

on

A group session in progress (pictures courtesy PMD)

The USAID had no qualms in announcing the Rs. 1.92 billion (USD $13 million) project with a Parliament that blatantly protected Treasury bond thieves. The civil society, too, remained conveniently silent over the Treasury bond scams (do not forget the Samagi Jana Balawegaya MPs, as then members of the UNP, shielded the Treasury bond thieves. They can never absolve themselves of their culpability in the bond scams. One of those MPs even had the audacity to write a book stating that there was no scam!).

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Additional Secretary to President Ranil Wickremesinghe at the Presidential Secretariat Chandima Wickramasinghe recently declared that there shouldn’t be a dispute whatsoever over the proposed third National Action Plan (NAP) expected to be implemented in line with the ‘Open Government Partnership’ (OGP) project.

She strongly advised against the government and the civil society pointing fingers at each other after having jointly worked on such a project. The official emphasized that neither the government nor the civil society should be held responsible, separately, as it was a joint venture.

The Additional Secretary issued the warning at the inaugural multi-stakeholder workshop meant to prepare the country’s third NAP for 2023-2025, held at the Renuka Hotel, Colombo, on January 10.

The latest initiative involved the Presidential Secretariat, Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) and Sarvodaya. The OGP project is meant to bring the government, the civil society and citizens together to primarily achieve transparency and accountability.

Declaring that the government decided to prepare the NAP on a directive issued by President Wickremesinghe, principally for the benefit of the people, Mrs. Wickramasinghe said that the report would be submitted to the Cabinet-of-Ministers for approval.

The gathering was told Cabinet approval would be sought next month. The country is in such a deepening political-economic-social crisis that agreeing on a NAP at this juncture would be a herculean task. Rapid developments taking place, both in and outside Parliament, emphasize further divisions among political parties, individual members of Parliament and civil society as the country struggles to cope with the worst-ever post-independence economic fallout.

Perhaps, the Presidential Secretariat, TISL and Sarvodaya should examine why the first and second NAPs failed before they proceeded. If they are genuinely interested in addressing the issues at hand, the need to identify the root causes for the developing crisis should be identified and properly dealt with. The PMD launched an online survey to collect public response in respect of key sectors/issues in support of their effort.

Over the years, as various interested parties, including the civil society, examined the root causes of the deterioration of the public and private sector here, there is absolutely no need for a fresh examination. Democracy rests on three pillars – executive, the legislature and judiciary. The legislature enacts laws, the executive implements them and the judiciary arbitrates when either of the other two fail in their responsibilities. Therefore, those formulating the third NAP should peruse the unprecedented Supreme Court judgment in respect of the fundamental rights petitions filed against the economic ruination caused during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency.

The Nov 14, 2023 ruling was delivered by a five-member Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC. While the Chief Justice with Justices Buwaneka Aluwihare, Vijith Malalgoda, and Murdhu Fernando agreeing collectively issued the majority verdict, Justice Priyantha Jayawardena dissented.

Political parties represented in Parliament obviously lacked the strength to address issues raised by the Supreme Court. Parliament owed an explanation regarding the continuation of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to Investigate Causes for the Financial Bankruptcy declared by the Government and to Report to Parliament and Submit its Proposals and Recommendations in this regard many weeks after the SC ruling. It would be pertinent to point out that absolutely no action has been initiated so far in respect of those who had been found faulted by the SC. The SLPP General Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam heads the PSC. On January 09, Secretary to the Treasury Mahinda Siriwardena appeared before the PSC where he was quoted, in a statement issued by Parliament on January 12, 2024, that the government never announced bankruptcy.

That statement issued by Parliament’s Director Legislative Services/Director Communication (Acting) Janakantha Silva further quoted Siriwardena as having explained that the government declaration that certain debts couldn’t be settled couldn’t be technically considered a state of bankruptcy.

Action hasn’t been taken to close the massive loopholes created by the Yahapalana government that is draining valuable foreign exchange from the country, mainly created by it doing away with the time tested exchange controls in 2017 that were in existence since 1953. With the country’s finances being in charge of the people responsible for two massive Central Bank heists can we expect anything better than their oft repeated mantra IMF, IMF, IMF….? But, most importantly, the IMF mantra is not working as was espoused by those who insisted on taking its medicine and most Sri Lankans are suffering as never before! Some of these economic hitmen even wanted to bring in economic whiz kids from places like Harvard and Yale business schools to put things right here from Yahapalana days, not seeing the obvious that those wizards can’t put right the continuing slide to economic disaster in the US, which is dragging down even countries like Sri Lanka with it, mainly because of our dependence on the fiat dollar system.

The age old saying is that the test of a pudding is in its eating, but for most Sri Lankans it is increasingly a case of there being nothing to eat.

Interestingly, the Parliament issued this statement a day after an IMF delegation arrived here on a week-long visit to examine the recent economic developments and follow-up on upcoming programme targets and commitments. Perhaps the Parliament should explain why Sri Lanka knelt down before the IMF for the 17 occasion if the situation here didn’t technically require it to be called bankrupt.

Persons in charge of the Presidential Secretariat led-effort to prepare the third NAP, should take into consideration the country had been bankrupted by the actions of the executive and those who represented the legislature as well as political appointees. They should also keep in mind that the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government enacted under controversial circumstances a new Central Bank Act to restore fiscal discipline in the country after the SC ruled that the then President, two Finance Ministers and Governor of the Central Bank created the problem by their actions or non-actions.

PMD survey

Additional Secretary to the President,
Chandima Wickramasinghe addressing the
inaugural multi-stakeholder workshop at the
Renuka Hotel.

The Presidential Media Division (PMD) sought public views on five specific issues to help prepare the third NAP. The PMD based its survey on the following five sectors:

*Improvement of public services

–ways and means to improve public service machinery, promotion of innovations in the private sector for efficient delivery of public services including health, education, transport, public utilities, consumer services.

*Prevent bribery and corruption

– How to deal with systematic corruption at every level thereby encouraging accountability in the public sector as well as promotion of access to information, etc.

*Manage public resources more effectively

– Measures meant to maximize utilization of financial and physical resources of the government.

*Create safer environments for communities

– Measures that address public safety, including needs of children, women, disabled and other vulnerable communities.

*Effective management of National and Provincial projects

– Proper implementation of projects that had been funded with foreign and domestic sources, in a cost-effective manner, with transparency, timely completion and achievement of desired results.

The issues at hand/explosive combination of factors – deterioration of public services, unbridled waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement, squandering of public resources, perilous economic-political-social environment and pathetic state of utilization of foreign and domestic funding remain cause for serious concern.

The private sector, too, at varying levels, is embroiled in corruption. In fact, the five matters raised by the PMD can be described as deterioration of public finances to such an extent the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government had no option but to suspend debt repayment due to public sector corruption and public-private sector corruption. There cannot be a better example than the controversial sale of debt free and tax paying Lanka Marine Services Limited (LMSL), a wholly owned company of Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) to John Keells Holdings (JKH) subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court in May 2008 to explain Sri Lanka’s predicament.

A three-member bench of the SC, consisting of then Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva and Justices Ameratunga and Balapatabendi, agreeing in respect of a fundamental rights case filed by lawmaker Vasudeva Nanayakkara (UPFA), ruled that the Chairman of PERC (Public Enterprise Reform Commission) Dr. P. B. Jayasundera, caused the sale of LMSL in an illegal and biased manner.

The case dubbed Vasudeva Nanayakkara vs Choksy and others (John Keells case) revealed how political authorities, at the highest level, and officials, collaborated unabashedly in a corrupt deal that shook the very foundation of the government. At the time the SC gave its historic ruling in 2008 Dr. PBJ served as the Secretary to the Treasury.

The influential official continued till the end of 2014 and again returned as the Secretary to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in late 2019. Dr. PBJ was one of those faulted by the SC in its Nov 14, 2023 ruling in respect of fundamental rights petitions filed against economic ruin.

Choksy, referred to in the SC ruling regarding LM case, had been the one-time Finance Minister (the late K.N. Choksy). Successive governments did absolutely nothing. Did anyone bother to examine the responsibility on the part of the blue chip in this regard? The 18th respondent in the LMS case Susantha Ratnayake of JKH was invited by the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government to run the BoI. That proved the government didn’t bother about the LMS ruling.

Collapse of earlier initiatives

Sri Lanka joined the OGP in 2015, the year the yahapalana government perpetrated the first Treasury bond scam in late Feb 2015. The first NAP covered the Yahapalana period (2015-2019) and the second (2019-2021). The government perpetrated the second Treasury bond scam in late March 2016.

The second NAP covered the Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s period of unprecedented chaos. In short, at the end of the period covered by the second NAP, disorder and confusion reigned.

Interestingly, the third report had been ordered by Wickremesinghe who served as the Premier during the period covered by the first NAP and then elected as the executive by the SLPP held responsible for the economic chaos that descended on the country with the Covid-19 pandemic. In fact, those in power, regardless of the political party they belonged to, blatantly acted contrary to the Constitution, thereby violating even the basic OGP principles intended to make governments more inclusive, responsive, and accountable. Had governments abided by the law of the land, Sri Lanka could have automatically fulfilled the OGP obligations and preparation of NAP would have been child’s play.

As OGP is a global effort involving governments, perhaps they should pay attention to what is going on in Parliament here. One of the key issues that emerged in the wake of Aragalaya that ousted Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who had been elected with a significant majority at the 2019 presidential poll, is how the abolition of time-tested Exchange Control (emphasis is mine) Act No 24 of 1953 contributed to the deterioration of the national economy. During the period covered by the first NAP, the Yahapalana government enacted a new Foreign Exchange Act No 12 of 2017 that favoured unscrupulous exporters and importers.

In spite of Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, publicly declaring, both in and outside Parliament, that the 2017 Act contributed to the crisis, the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government remains committed to that law. In fact, no less a person than former Governor of the Central Bank Dr. Indrajith Coomaraswamy told Parliament, in 2019, how the 2017 law diluted regulatory powers exercised by them, thereby greatly weakening financial discipline. But the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government did nothing to amend that law. Now the Rajapaksas and Wickremesinghe are together and the possibility of remedial measures seems very unlikely.

It would be interesting to see whether the third NAP would address this issue. Would PMD and its partners dare to recommend restoration of time-tested provisions in the original law to compel the Cabinet-of-Ministers to take tangible measures?

Regardless of past atrocious actions, the government can take tangible measures to reinstate public faith in the governance. The responsibility on the part of the Cabinet-of-Ministers for the crisis should be examined taking into consideration the fundamental rights application filed by the then ministers Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila against the transferring of 40% of government-owned shares of Yugadanavi power plant to US Company New Fortress Energy in Sept 2021. In early March 2022 The Supreme Court dismissed their petition as well as other petitions without taking them up for examination.

There hadn’t been a previous instance of members of the Cabinet moving the Supreme Court against their colleagues who exercised executive powers while simultaneously functioning as lawmakers. In line with the OGP principles, Sri Lanka should seriously consider bringing in far reaching but necessary constitutional amendments to bar members of Parliament exercising executive powers.

The writer doesn’t think we (parties represented in Parliament) have the political will to do so. The recent disclosure of the alleged manipulation of the Cabinet-of-Ministers by those responsible for the immunoglobulin scam and the subsequent directive issued by Maligakanda Magistrate Lochani Abeywickrema for the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to obtain Cabinet papers and other relevant documents submitted by the Health Ministry in this regard underlined the gravity of the problem.

The success of the third NAP entirely depends on the willingness on the part of the executive, legislature and judiciary to genuinely examine the repeated failings. Those tasked with preparing the NAP should consult the National Audit Office (NAO) and, depending on the requirements, heads of parliamentary watchdog committees, regarding the failure on the part of successive governments to act on recommendations made by the NAO.

A case in point is the NAO report on Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) pertaining to the tour of Australia for the T20 World Cup (Oct 09-Nov 13). That audit report, released in 2022, laid bare sordid operations of the SLC but the government stood firmly by those who had been faulted by the State Audit. Instead of taking immediate remedial measures, Sports Minister Roshan Ranasinghe, who sought to tackle the powerful body, was sacked. Obviously, lawmaker Ranasinghe lacked the political support enjoyed by former Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella who received a new ministerial portfolio regardless of serious accusations regarding his direct involvement in the sordid immunoglobulin scam and its apparent attempted cover up.

Can ministers accused of acting contrary to their responsibilities be dealt differently and granted privilege status depending on their political affiliations?

Audit on 2016 USAID project, etc., needed

Initially, the writer wanted to participate in the PMD survey but later decided to raise relevant issues to compel interested parties to pay attention. The OGP project shouldn’t be just another lucrative project for the civil society as over the year’s deterioration of the public sector and related sectors paved the way for various foreign funded projects that consolidated civil society.

In late 2016, during Karu Jayasuriya’s tenure as Speaker, Sri Lanka entered into a high rofile agreement with the USAID in Nov 2016 to strengthen accountability and good governance. USAID-Sri Lanka Parliament ‘operation’ got underway over a year after the launch of the OGP project.

The USAID had no qualms in announcing the Rs. 1.92 billion (USD $13 million) project with a Parliament that blatantly protected Treasury bond thieves. The civil society, too, remained conveniently silent over the Treasury bond scams (do not forget Samagi Jana Balawegaya MPs, as then members of the UNP, shielded the Treasury bond thieves. They can never absolve themselves of their culpability in the bond scams. One of those MPs even had the audacity to write a book stating that there was no scam!).

Those who benefited from the USAID project, are on record as having said that the three-year Strengthening Democratic Governance and Accountability Project (SDGAP) was meant to improve ‘strategic planning and communication within the government and Parliament, enhance public outreach, develop more effective policy reform and implementation processes, and increase political participation of women and underrepresented groups in Parliament and at local levels.’

The Presidential Secretariat as the focal point for the OGP project should examine major efforts undertaken by previous administrations to address the issues the third NAP intended to deal with. It can ask for a report from Parliament regarding the implementation of the USD 13 mn project, just one of the many USAID projects.

In addition to the USAID projects, the European Union, too, implemented various projects but, unfortunately, regardless of such efforts to improve good governance and accountability, Sri Lanka is in chaos. Such efforts appeared to have had no impact on the executive and legislature at all. If they did, Ali Sabry Raheem, who had been a member of the House Privileges Committee at the time he was arrested and fined in March 2023 for smuggling of gold and smartphones worth nearly Rs. 80 mn couldn’t have remained a lawmaker.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Midweek Review

Batalanda and complexities of paramilitary operations

Published

on

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent combative ‘Head-to-Head’ interview with British-American Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera has opened a can of worms. As to why Hasan raised the Batalanda Presidential Commission report, during a 49-minute interview conducted at the London’s Conway Hall, with a clearly pro LTTE audience, remains a mystery. This must be yet another notorious way to show how even-handed they are as in the case of its coverage of Russia, China, Palestine or Ukraine for their gullible viewers.

Recorded in February and aired in March 2025, the interview is definitely the most controversial the UNP leader, who is also an Attorney-at-Law, ever faced during his political career; always used to getting kid glove treatment, especially after taking over the party in 1994.

The continuing public discourse on Batalanda should provoke a wider discussion on Sri Lanka’s response to separatist Tamil terrorism, since the cold blooded murder of Jaffna SLFP Mayor Alfred Duriappah, which signalled the beginning of the LTTE terror campaign that ended in May 2009 with the crushing military defeat of the Tigers on the banks of the Nathikadal lagoon, as well as two southern insurgencies in 1971 and 1987-1990.

As Nandana Gunatilleke (one time JVP General Secretary and ex-MP), Dr. Wasantha Bandara (ex-JVPer and close associate of the slain JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera), Indrananda de Silva (ex-JVPer, incumbent Central Committee member of Frontline Socialist Party [FSP] and ex-military photographer) and Uvindu Wijeweera (Rohana Wijeweera’s son and leader of Dewana Parapura) agreed during the recent Hiru ‘Balaya’ discussion, conducted by Madushan de Silva, the Batalanda operation was in line with the overall counter-terrorist/insurgency strategy of the then government.

The issues at hand cannot be discussed at all without taking into consideration the JVP terrorism that, at one-time, almost overwhelmed the UNP’s unbroken rule, since 1977, carried out while openly brushing aside most of the universally accepted genuine parliamentary norms. The country’s second Republican constitution, promulgated by the UNP regime with a 5/6 majority in Parliament, in 1978, had been amended no less than 13 times by the time they were finally ousted in 1995. This was mainly to facilitate their continuous rule. Unfortunately, all stakeholders have sought to take advantage of Batalanda, thereby preventing a proper dialogue. Quite surprisingly, none of the guests, nor the interviewer, bothered, at least, to make a reference to the JVP bid on President J.R. Jayewardene’s life in Parliament on the morning of July 18, 1987. At the time, JVPer Ajith Kumara, working in the House as a minor employee, hurled two hand grenades towards JRJ, with the then Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa seated next to JRJ. While one government MP lost his life, several others suffered injuries, including then National Security Minister Lalith Athulathmudali, whose spleen had to be removed.

At one point, Gunatilleke declared that they assassinated UNP MP for Tangalle Jinadasa Weerasinghe on July 3, 1987, in response to the government killing well over 100 people, in Colombo, protesting against the signing of the Indo-Lanka accord on July 29, 1987. The parliamentarian was killed near the Barawakumbuka-Welangahawela bridge on the Colombo-Rathnapura-Embilipitiya Road. The UNPer was killed on his way home after having declined Premier Premadasa’s offer to make an SLAF chopper available for him to reach home safely.

Against the backdrop of MP Weerasinghe’s assassination and the grenade attack on the UNP parliamentary group that claimed the life of Keethi Abeywickrema (MP for Deniyaya), the government had no option but to respond likewise. The operation, established at the Batalanda Housing scheme of the State Fertiliser Corporation, constituted part of the counter-insurgency strategy pursued by the UNP.

Those who called Batalanda complex Batalanda torture camp/ wadakagaraya conveniently forgot during the second JVP inspired insurgency, the military had to utilize many public buildings, including schools, as makeshift accommodation for troops. Of course the UNP established Batalanda under different circumstances with the then Industries Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe providing political authority. Batalanda had been an exclusive police operation though the Army had access to it whenever a requirement arose.

Those who had been suddenly withdrawn from the Northern and Eastern Provinces, to meet the rapidly evolving security threat in the South, required accommodation. FSP CC member Indrananada de Silva had received unhindered access to Batalanda in his capacity as a military photographer and the rest is history.

As to why Indrananda de Silva switched his allegiance to the FSP should be examined, taking into consideration his previous role as a trusted military photographer, formerly a Lance Corporal of the Military Police. An influential section of the JVP, led by Kumar Gunaratnam, formed the FSP in April 2012 though it didn’t receive the much anticipated public support. Both Indrananda de Silva and Nandana Gunatilleke, who aligned himself with the UNP, found fault with the JVP-led National People’s Power (NPP) over its handling of the Batalanada issue.

Paramilitary operations

Paramilitary operations had been an integral part of the overall counter-insurgency campaign, directed at the JVP responsible for approximately 6,600 killings. Among those death squads were PRRA primarily drawn from the SLMP (Sri Lanka Mahajana Party) and SRRA (the socialist Revolutionary Red Army). PRRA had close links with the Independent Student Union (ISU) whose leader Daya Pathirana was slain by the JVP. The vast majority of people do not remember that Daya Pathirana, who led the ISU during the turbulent 1985-1986 period, was killed mid-Dec. 1989. The second insurgency hadn’t started at that time though the JVP propagated the lie that they took up arms against the UNP government following the signing of the Indo-Lanka peace accord on July 29, 1987.

In addition to PRRA and SRRA, the government made use of paramilitary groups, namely Kalu balallu, Ukkusso, Rajaliyo, Kaha balallu, Kola koti, Rathu Makaru, Mapila, Gonussa, Nee, Keshara Sinhayo, Le-mappillu and Kalu koti.

The UNP also involved some elements of Indian trained Tamil groups (not of the LTTE) in paramilitary operations. Such operations, that had been backed by respective Cabinet Ministers, were supervised by local law enforcement authorities. Paramilitary operations had been in line with psychological warfare that was meant to cause fear among the JVP, as well as the general population. Military operations that had been combined with paramilitary actions received the blessings of the political leadership at the highest level. In the case of Batalanda (1988-1990) President J.R. Jayewardene and Ranasinghe Premadasa knew of its existence.

Even after the eradication of the top JVP leadership, by Nov. 1989, police, military and paramilitary operations continued unabated. Former JVPers appearing on ‘Balaya’ agreed that counter-insurgency operations were actually brought to an end only after D.B. Wijetunga succeeded President Ranasinghe Premadasa after the latter’s assassination on May Day 1993.

After the LTTE resumed war in June 1990, just a couple of months after the withdrawal of the Indian Army (July 1987-March1990), the UNP authorized paramilitary operations in the northern and eastern areas. Members of TELO, PLOTE, EPRLF as well as EPDP were made part of the overall government security strategy. They operated in large groups. Some paramilitary units were deployed in the Jaffna islands as well. And these groups were represented in Parliament. They enjoyed privileged status not only in the northern and eastern regions but Colombo as well. The government allowed them to carry weapons in the city and its suburbs.

These groups operated armed units in Colombo. The writer had the opportunity to visit EPDP and PLOTE safe houses in Colombo and its suburbs soon after they reached an understanding with President Ranasinghe Premadasa. Overnight at the behest of President Premadasa, the Election Department granted these Tamil groups political recognition. In other words, armed groups were made political parties. The Premadasa government accepted their right to carry weapons while being represented in Parliament.

It would be pertinent to mention that thousands of Tamil paramilitary personnel served the government during that period. There had been many confrontations between them and the LTTE over the years and the latter sought to eliminate key paramilitary personnel. Let me remind you of the circumstances, the EPRLF’s number 02 Thambirajah Subathiran alias Robert was sniped to death in June 2003. Robert was engaged in routine morning exercises on the top floor of the two-storeyed EPRLF office, on the hospital road, Jaffna, when an LTTE sniper took him out from the nearby Vembadi Girls’ high school. The operation of the Norway managed Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) made no difference as the LTTE removed Robert who led the party here in the absence of leader Varatharaja Perumal, the first and the only Chief Minister of the North-Eastern Province.

In terms of the CFA that had been signed by Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe and LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, in Feb. 2002, the government agreed to disarm all paramilitary personnel. Many wouldn’t remember now that during Premadasa’s honeymoon with the LTTE, the Army facilitated the LTTE onslaught on paramilitary groups in selected areas.

Muthaliff’s role

During the ‘Balaya’ discussion, the contentious issue of who shot JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera came up. Nandana Gunatilleke, who contested the 1999 Dec. presidential election. as the JVP candidate, pointing to an article carried in the party organ that dealt with Wijeweera’s assassination said that he wrongly named Gaffoor as one of the persons who shot their leader whereas the actual shooter was Muthaliff. The headline named Thoradeniya and Gaffoor as the perpetrators.

Declaring that he personally wrote that article on the basis of information provided by Indrananda de Silva, Gunatilleke named Asoka Thoradeniya and Tuan Nizam Muthaliff of the Army as the perpetrators of the crime. Thoradeniya served as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in the Maldives during the Yahapalana administration, while Muthaliff was killed by the LTTE in Colombo in late May 2005. The shooting took place at Polhengoda junction, Narahenpita. Muthaliff was on his way from Manning town, Narahenpita, to the Kotelawala Defence University.

The programme was told that the JVP had over the years developed close relationship with Thoradeniya while Indrananda de Silva accused Dr. Wasantha Bandara of duplicity regarding Muthaliff. How could you recognize Muthaliff, slain by the LTTE, as a war hero as he was actually one of the persons who shot Rohana Wijeweera, the latter asked.

At the time of his assassination, Muthaliff served as the Commanding Officer, 1 st Regiment Sri Lanka Military Intelligence Corps. The then parliamentarian Wimal Weerawansa was among those who paid last respects to Maj. Muthaliff.

At the time of Rohana Wijeweera’s arrest, Muthaliff served as Lieutenant while Thoradeniya was a Major. Indrananda de Silva strongly stressed that atrocities perpetrated by the police and military in the South or in the northern and eastern regions must be dealt with regardless of whom they were conducting operations against. The former JVPer recalled the Army massacre in the east in retaliation for the landmine blast that claimed the lives of Northern Commander Maj. Gen. Denzil Kobbekaduwa and a group of senior officers, including Brigadier Wijaya Wimalaratne, in early Aug. 1990 in Kayts.

Dr. Wasantha Bandara warned of the Western powers taking advantage of what he called false narrative to push for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

It would be pertinent to mention that the LTTE also used the underworld as well as some corrupt Army personnel in planning high profile assassinations. Investigations into the assassination of Muthaliff, as well as Maj. Gen. Parami Kulatunga, killed in a suicide attack at Pannipitiya, in June 2006, revealed the direct involvement of military personnel with the LTTE.

Indrananda de Silva disclosed that soon after Anura Kumara Dissanayake won the presidential election last September, the FSP, in writing, requested the JVP leader to inquire into killings during that period, including that of Rohana Wijeweera. The FSPer alleged that President Dissanayake refrained from even acknowledging their letter. Indrananda de Silva emphasized that Al Jazeera never disclosed anything new as regards Batalanda as he exposed the truth years ago. The former JVPer ridiculed the ruling party tabling the Batalanda Commission report in the wake of Wickremesinghe’s Al Jazeera interview whereas the matter was in the public domain for quite some time.

Indrananda de Silva and Nandana Gunatilleke exchanged words over the latter’s declaration that the JVP, too, was subjected to investigation for violence unleashed during the 1987-1990 period. While the FSPer repeatedly declared that those who carried out directives issued by the party were arrested and in some cases killed, Nandana Gunatilleke took up the position that the party should be held accountable for crimes perpetrated during that period.

The interviewer posed Nandana Gunatilleke the question whether he was betraying his former comrades after joining the UNP. Nandana Gunatilleke shot back that he joined the UNP in 2015 whereas the JVP joined UNP as far back as 2009 to promote retired Army Chef Sarath Fonseka’s presidential ambition even though he wiped out the JVP presence in Trincomalee region during the second insurgency.

JVP’s accountability

Nandana Gunatilleke is adamant that the party should accept responsibility for the killings carried out at that time. The former JVPer declared that Vijaya Kumaratunga (Feb. 16, 1988), first Vice Chancellor of the Colombo University (March 08, 1989) Dr. Stanley Wijesundera, Ven. Kotikawatte Saddhatissa thera (Aug. 03, 1988) and Chairperson of the State Pharmaceutical Corporation Gladys Jayewardene (Sept. 12, 1989) were among those assassinated by the JVP. SPC Chairperson was killed for importing medicine from India, the former Marxist aligned with the UNP said, while actor-turned-politician Kumaratunga’s assassination was attributed to his dealings with President J.R. Jayewardene.

According to Nandana Gunatilleke, except for a few killings such as General Secretaries of the UNP Harsha Abeywickrema (Dec 23, 1987) and Nandalal Fernando (May 20, 1988), the vast majority of others were ordinary people like grama sevakas killed on mere accusation of being informants. The deaths were ordered on the basis of hearsay, Nandana Gunatilleke said, much to the embarrassment of others who represented the interest of the JVP at that time.

One quite extraordinary moment during the ‘Balaya’ programme was when Nandana Gunatilleke revealed their (JVP’s) direct contact with the Indian High Commission at a time the JVP publicly took an extremely anti-Indian stance. In fact, the JVP propagated a strong anti-Indian line during the insurgency. Turning towards Dr. Wasantha Bandara, Gunatilleke disclosed that both of them had been part of the dialogue with the Indian High Commission.

It reminds me of the late Somawansa Amarasinghe’s first public address delivered at a JVP rally in late Nov. 2001 after returning home from 12 years of self-imposed exile. Of the top JVP leadership, Somawansa Amarasinghe, who had been married to a close relative of powerful UNP Minister Sirisena Cooray, was the only one to survive combined police/military/paramilitary operations.

Amarasinghe didn’t mince his words when he declared at a Kalutara rally that his life was saved by Indian Premier V.P. Singh. Soft spoken Amarasinghe profusely thanked India for saving his life. Unfortunately, those who discuss issues at hand conveniently forget crucial information in the public domain. Such lapses can be both deliberate and due to negligence.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Independent Monitor

Published

on

You may think sloth comes very easy,

To your kingly monitor of the shrinking marsh,

As he lies basking smugly in the morn sun,

But he is organized and alert all the while,

As he awaits his prey with patience infinite,

Free of malice, a professional of a kind,

His cumbrous body not slowing his sprite….

But note, he’s no conspirator spitting guile,

And doesn’t turn nasty unless crossed,

Nor by vengeful plans is he constantly dogged,

Unlike those animals of a more rational kind,

Whose ways have left behind a state so sorry.

By Lynn Ockersz

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Rajiva on Batalanda controversy, govt.’s failure in Geneva and other matters

Published

on

Wickremesinghe responds to Hasan during the controversial interview recorded in London

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera’s ‘Head-to-Head’ series has caused controversy, both in and outside Parliament, over the role played by Wickremesinghe in the counter-insurgency campaign in the late’80s.

The National People’s Power (NPP) seeking to exploit the developing story to its advantage has ended up with egg on its face as the ruling party couldn’t disassociate from the violent past of the JVP. The debate on the damning Presidential Commission report on Batalanda, on April 10, will remind the country of the atrocities perpetrated not only by the UNP, but as well as by the JVP.

The Island sought the views of former outspoken parliamentarian and one-time head of the Government Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha on a range of issues, with the focus on Batalanda and the failure on the part of the war-winning country to counter unsubstantiated war crimes accusations.

Q:

The former President and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe’s interview with Al Jazeera exposed the pathetic failure on the part of Sri Lanka to address war crimes accusations and accountability issues. In the face of aggressive interviewer Mehdi Hasan on ‘Head-to-Head,’ Wickremesinghe struggled pathetically to counter unsubstantiated accusations. Six-time Premier Wickremesinghe who also served as President (July 2022-Sept. 2024) seemed incapable of defending the war-winning armed forces. However, the situation wouldn’t have deteriorated to such an extent if President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who gave resolute political leadership during that war, ensured a proper defence of our armed forces in its aftermath as well-choreographed LTTE supporters were well in place, with Western backing, to distort and tarnish that victory completely. As wartime Secretary General of the Government’s Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (since June 2007 till the successful conclusion of the war) and Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights (since Jun 2008) what do you think of Wickremesinghe’s performance?

A:

It made him look very foolish, but this is not surprising since he has no proper answers for most of the questions put to him. Least surprising was his performance with regard to the forces, since for years he was part of the assault forces on the successful Army, and expecting him to defend them is like asking a fox to stand guard on chickens.

Q:

In spite of trying to overwhelm Wickremesinghe before a definitely pro-LTTE audience at London’s Conway Hall, Hasan further exposed the hatchet job he was doing by never referring to the fact that the UNP leader, in his capacity as the Yahapalana Premier, co-sponsored the treacherous Geneva Resolution in Oc., 2015, against one’s own victorious armed forces. Hasan, Wickremesinghe and three panelists, namely Frances Harrison, former BBC-Sri Lanka correspondent, Director of International Truth and Justice Project and author of ‘Still Counting the Dead: Survivors of Sri Lanka’s Hidden War,’ Dr. Madura Rasaratnam, Executive Director of PEARL (People for Equality and Relief in Lanka) and former UK and EU MP and Wickremesinghe’s presidential envoy, Niranjan Joseph de Silva Deva Aditya, never even once referred to India’s accountability during the programme recorded in late February but released in March. As a UPFA MP (2010-2015) in addition to have served as Peace Secretariat Chief and Secretary to the Disaster Management and Human Rights Ministry, could we discuss the issues at hand leaving India out?

A:

I would not call the interview a hatchet job since Hasan was basically concerned about Wickremesinghe’s woeful record with regard to human rights. In raising his despicable conduct under Jayewardene, Hasan clearly saw continuity, and Wickremesinghe laid himself open to this in that he nailed his colours to the Rajapaksa mast in order to become President, thus making it impossible for him to revert to his previous stance. Sadly, given how incompetent both Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa were about defending the forces, one cannot expect foreigners to distinguish between them.

Q:

You are one of the many UPFA MPs who backed Maithripala Sirisena’s candidature at the 2015 presidential election. The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo perpetrated the despicable act of backing the Geneva Resolution against our armed forces and they should be held responsible for that. Having thrown your weight behind the campaign to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa’s bid to secure a third term, did you feel betrayed by the Geneva Resolution? And if so, what should have the Yahapalana administration done?

A:

By 2014, given the total failure of the Rajapaksas to deal firmly with critiques of our forces, resolutions against us had started and were getting stronger every year. Mahinda Rajapaksa laid us open by sacking Dayan Jayatilleke who had built up a large majority to support our victory against the Tigers, and appointed someone who intrigued with the Americans. He failed to fulfil his commitments with regard to reforms and reconciliation, and allowed for wholesale plundering, so that I have no regrets about working against him at the 2015 election. But I did not expect Wickremesinghe and his cohorts to plunder, too, and ignore the Sirisena manifesto, which is why I parted company with the Yahapalanaya administration, within a couple of months.

I had expected a Sirisena administration to pursue some of the policies associated with the SLFP, but he was a fool and his mentor Chandrika was concerned only with revenge on the Rajapaksas. You cannot talk about betrayal when there was no faith in the first place. But I also blame the Rajapaksas for messing up the August election by attacking Sirisena and driving him further into Ranil’s arms, so that he was a pawn in his hands.

Q:

Have you advised President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government how to counter unsubstantiated war crimes allegations propagated by various interested parties, particularly the UN, on the basis of the Panel of Experts (PoE) report released in March 2011? Did the government accept your suggestions/recommendations?

A:

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

I kept trying, but Mahinda was not interested at all, and had no idea about how to conduct international relations. Sadly, his Foreign Minister was hanging around behind Namal, and proved incapable of independent thought, in his anxiety to gain further promotion. And given that I was about the only person the international community, that was not prejudiced, took seriously – I refer to the ICRC and the Japanese with whom I continued to work, and, indeed, the Americans, until the Ambassador was bullied by her doctrinaire political affairs officer into active undermining of the Rajapaksas – there was much jealousy, so I was shut out from any influence.

But even the admirable effort, headed by Godfrey Gunatilleke, was not properly used. Mahinda Rajapaksa seemed to me more concerned with providing joy rides for people rather than serious counter measures, and representation in Geneva turned into a joke, with him even undermining Tamara Kunanayagam, who, when he supported her, scored a significant victory against the Americans, in September 2011. The Ambassador, who had been intriguing with her predecessor, then told her they would get us in March, and with a little help from their friends here, they succeeded.

Q:

As the writer pointed out in his comment on Wickremesinghe’s controversial Al Jazeera interview, the former Commander-in-Chief failed to mention critically important matters that could have countered Hasan’ s line of questioning meant to humiliate Sri Lanka?

A:

How could you have expected that, since his primary concern has always been himself, not the country, let alone the armed forces?

Q:

Do you agree that Western powers and an influential section of the international media cannot stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over separatist Tamil terrorism?

A:

There was opposition to our victory from the start, but this was strengthened by the failure to move on reconciliation, creating the impression that the victory against the Tigers was seen by the government as a victory against Tamils. The failure of the Foreign Ministry to work with journalists was lamentable, and the few exceptions – for instance the admirable Vadivel Krishnamoorthy in Chennai or Sashikala Premawardhane in Canberra – received no support at all from the Ministry establishment.

Q:

A couple of months after the 2019 presidential election, Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared his intention to withdraw from the Geneva process. On behalf of Sri Lanka that announcement was made in Geneva by the then Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, who became the Premier during Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President. That declaration was meant to hoodwink the Sinhala community and didn’t alter the Geneva process and even today the project is continuing. As a person who had been closely involved in the overall government response to terrorism and related matters, how do you view the measures taken during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s short presidency to counter Geneva?

A:

What measures? I am reminded of the idiocy of the responses to the Darusman report by Basil and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who went on ego trips and produced unreadable volumes trying to get credit for themselves as to issues of little interest to the world. They were planned in response to Darusman, but when I told Gotabaya that his effort was just a narrative of action, he said that responding to Darusman was not his intention. When I said that was necessary, he told me he had asked Chief-of-Staff Roshan Goonetilleke to do that, but Roshan said he had not been asked and had not been given any resources.

My own two short booklets which took the Darusman allegations to pieces were completely ignored by the Foreign Ministry.

Q:

Against the backdrop of the Geneva betrayal in 2015 that involved the late Minister Mangala Samaraweera, how do you view President Wickremesinghe’s response to the Geneva threat?

A: Wickremesinghe did not see Geneva as a threat at all. Who exactly is to blame for the hardening of the resolution, after our Ambassador’s efforts to moderate it, will require a straightforward narrative from the Ambassador, Ravinatha Ariyasinha, who felt badly let down by his superiors. Geneva should not be seen as a threat, since as we have seen follow through is minimal, but we should rather see it as an opportunity to put our own house in order.

Q:

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake recently questioned both the loyalty and professionalism of our armed forces credited with defeating Northern and Southern terrorism. There hadn’t been a previous occasion, a President or a Premier, under any circumstances, questioned the armed forces’ loyalty or professionalism. We cannot also forget the fact that President Dissanayake is the leader of the once proscribed JVP responsible for death and destruction during 1971 and 1987-1990 terror campaigns. Let us know of your opinion on President Dissanayake’s contentious comments on the armed forces?

A: I do not see them as contentious, I think what is seen as generalizations was critiques of elements in the forces. There have been problems, as we saw from the very different approach of Sarath Fonseka and Daya Ratnayake, with regard to civilian casualties, the latter having planned a campaign in the East which led to hardly any civilian deaths. But having monitored every day, while I headed the Peace Secretariat, all allegations, and obtained explanations of what happened from the forces, I could have proved that they were more disciplined than other forces in similar circumstances.

The violence of the JVP and the LTTE and other such groups was met with violence, but the forces observed some rules which I believe the police, much more ruthlessly politicized by Jayewardene, failed to do. The difference in behaviour between the squads led for instance by Gamini Hettiarachchi and Ronnie Goonesinghe makes this clear.

Q:

Mehdi Hasan also strenuously questioned Wickremesinghe on his role in the UNP’s counter-terror campaign during the 1987-1990 period. The British-American journalists of Indian origins attacked Wickremesinghe over the Batalanda Commission report that had dealt with extra-judicial operations carried out by police, acting on the political leadership given by Wickremesinghe. What is your position?

A:

Wickremesinghe’s use of thugs’ right through his political career is well known. I still recall my disappointment, having thought better of him, when a senior member of the UNP, who disapproved thoroughly of what Jayewardene had done to his party, told me that Wickremesinghe was not honest because he used thugs. In ‘My Fair Lady,’ the heroine talks about someone to whom gin was mother’s milk, and for Wickremesinghe violence is mother’s milk, as can be seen by the horrors he associated with.

The latest revelations about Deshabandu Tennakoon, whom he appointed IGP despite his record, makes clear his approval for extra-judicial operations.

Q:

Finally, will you explain how to counter war crimes accusations as well as allegations with regard to the counter-terror campaign in the’80s?

A:

I do not think it is possible to counter allegations about the counter-terror campaign of the eighties, since many of those allegations, starting with the Welikada Prison massacre, which Wickremesinghe’s father admitted to me the government had engendered, are quite accurate. And I should stress that the worst excesses, such as the torture and murder of Wijeyedasa Liyanaarachchi, happened under Jayewardene, since there is a tendency amongst the elite to blame Premadasa. He, to give him his due, was genuine about a ceasefire, which the JVP ignored, foolishly in my view though they may have had doubts about Ranjan Wijeratne’s bona fides.

With regard to war crimes accusations, I have shown how, in my ‘Hard Talk’ interview, which you failed to mention in describing Wickeremesinghe’s failure to respond coherently to Hasan. The speeches Dayan Jayatilleke and I made in Geneva make clear what needed and still needs to be done, but clear sighted arguments based on a moral perspective that is more focused than the meanderings, and the frequent hypocrisy, of critics will not now be easy for the country to furnish.

 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

Trending