By Shamindra Ferdinando

Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Justice L.T.B. Dehideniya yesterday (03) said that Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena’s recent disclosure of external intervention in Aragalaya could be inquired into only if he received a complaint about it.

The retired Supreme Court Justice said so when The Island asked him whether the Commission would take into consideration Speaker Abeywardena’s confirmation of external interventions in the public protest campaign that forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa out of office in July 2022. Dehideniya said that they were confronted with the question whether HRC could furnish recommendations in respect of such external interventions. He stressed that the HRC examined violations committed by the government.

The HRC held a media briefing at the Sri Lanka Foundation to explain the work carried out by the institution. In addition to justice Dehideniya, Commissioners, Attorney-at-Law Nimal Punchihewa (Investigations), Prof. Thaiyamuthu Thanaraj (Education and Training), Prof. Fathima Haniffa (Research) and Dr. Gehan Gunatilleke (Foreign Relations) briefed the media as regards their respective sections.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe appointed the new HRC in early July last year.

Attorney-at-Law Nimal Punchihewa explained the investigations undertaken into incidents that occurred on May 09/10, 2022. Punchihewa, who previously served as the Chairman of the Elections Commission, said that he was also inquiring into the failure on the part of the police and the military to pre-empt organized attacks across the country.

The Island sought an explanation from Justice Dehideniya against the backdrop of Punchihewa’s account of the inquiries already under way. Declaring that investigations have been completed to a large extent, Punchihewa said that the process would take some more time as there were some individual cases. HRC launched investigations into Aragalaya during the previous HRC headed by former judge Rohini Marasinghe.

Having explained how HRC dealt with violations, Justice Dehideniya said that they could intervene without a complaint if the issue was of national importance, an issue with social responsibility or an issue that would decide life or death of a person/s. Justice Dehideniya asked whether the issue raised here was serious enough to warrant HRC’s intervention on its own.

The Island reiterated that the issue raised was of national interest as the Speaker said so in Parliament. Justice Dehideniya asked how could HRC intervened when the Speaker said his life was in danger when members of Parliament could freely expressed their opinion under parliamentary privileges.

Justice Dehideniya explained the HRC couldn’t do anything about Parliament discarding its recommendations pertaining to a Bill. The HRC Chairman said so in response to The Island query what could he do when Parliament ignored recommendations made in respect of the controversial Online Safety Bill. Once enacted even the Supreme Court couldn’t intervene, Justice Dehideniya said, pointing out that a case filed in the Supreme Court in this regard was dismissed.

Justice Dehideniya said that though they couldn’t intervene following the enactment of the Online Safety Act, the HRC informed Speaker Abeywardene that Supreme Court recommendations, pertaining to that particular Bill, were not included.

Towards the tail end of the briefing, Dr. Gehan Gunatilleke said that some of their recommendations were accommodated. Justice Dehideniya and Dr. Gunatilleke explained the difference in their mandate in dealing with the government and other parties.

In respect of HRC recommendations issued pertaining to a complaint that had been investigated, the parties to the dispute could be summoned and tangible action taken to ensure the implementation, Justice Dehideniya said. In case of disagreement regarding the implementation of recommendations, the HRC could bring the matter to the attention of the President, Justice Dehideniya added.

Justice Dehideniya assured that the HRC would stand by the media though it was their responsibility to operate within the law, thereby prevent government interventions.