Connect with us

Features

Constitutional Reforms to ABOLISH the executive presidency NOW the urgent need

Published

on

Neelan – GL 2020 draft the best we might have had

BY Prof. Savitri Goonesekere

(Continued from last week)

 When Chandrika Kumaranatunga took office she pledged to introduce a new Constitution that would repeal what she described in colourful Sinhala as Bahubootha Executive Presidential form of governance. This task was entrusted not to a Constituent Assembly of Parliament but to a group of individuals with a range of expertise, with leadership from, Prof GL Pieris, Minister of Constitutional Affairs and late Dr Neelan Tiruchelvam. Both were distinguished alumni of the Peradeniya and Colombo Law Faculty of that time. They had both competed for the prestigious Rhodes Scholarship. Late Lalith Athulathmudali said that the decision to award the scholarship to GL was based on a careful scrutiny of my husband’s letters of reference to each at some point in their careers. My husband was famous for attaching equal importance to  opposing viewpoints and Lalith said they had a hard time figuring out from the references who was best!

Neelan and GL produced perhaps the best Constitution for Sri Lanka we might have had, in 2000. It had an excellent chapter on Fundamental Rights that reflected contemporary developments. It also had constructive proposals for power sharing and the independence of the judiciary and public service from political control. Most importantly, it replaced the Executive Presidency with the tried and tested method of an Executive branch with a Prime Minister and Cabinet responsible to  Parliament.

Unfortunately a single provision that enabled President Kumaranatunga to become prime minister for the rest of her Presidential term, was used by the Opposition led by Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe to tear up into pieces the document on the 2000 Constitution on the floor of the House, when it was presented in Parliament, by Minister GL Pieris. The government fell, and this led to the first “cohabitation” in governance arrangement between President Kumaranatunga of the SLFP, and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe of the UNP. The 2000 Constitution has never entered the discussions on Constitutional reform that followed.

A short period of “cohabitation” was followed by a General Election and a further short second term for President Kumaranatunge. The 17th Amendment was passed by Parliament at this time with the leadership of the JVP and provided for the first time Independent Commissions to strengthen public administration, and a Constitutional Council empowered to make recommendations to the President on high post appointments to the judiciary and public service

Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa was elected as Executive President in 2005. He was given a mandate to abolish the Executive Presidency. However, the focus of his administration was addressing the armed conflict in the North with his brother, who was appointed Secretary of Defence. Winning the war in 2009 was a catalyst for a sea change in the political life of an experienced and respected  politician, who had also related to an agenda of human rights. My husband appeared for him as petitioner, and won a fundamental rights case for him, and also successfully argued the  famous Janagosha case on the right to  peaceful political  protest.

From 2009 Mahinda Rajapaksa went on a different political  path, surrounded by family and friends espousing a culture of political patronage that debilitated all institutions of governance. This was an inherent aspect of governance in this country even  before that. However misuse of Presidential powers without any inhibitions, and family political patronage and   empowerment   and cronyism was carried to different and more significant levels. In a feudal culture the perception that the President was all powerful and could not be questioned created new levels of sycophancy or reluctance to express different points of view in the administrative services.   This had a serious impact on all institutions and was replicated in the behaviour of Cabinet ministers and others who became  notorious for abuse of power and corruption. The Proportional Representation system with the focus on a Party machinery choice of candidates also led to more and more incompetent persons being elected as members of Parliament.

The 18th Amendment to the Constitution that saw a removal of the limitation on terms of the Executive President, a core concept in the 1978 Constitution embedded in Presidential power during a term of office, was perhaps an inevitable outcome. A President who had been elected to office, promising  to abolish the Executive Presidency was now quite comfortable with becoming a President for life. His cabinet and government was full of approval for  this change. So also the Supreme Court in the judgment of Shirani Bandaranayaka CJ when the 18th Amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court. The environment of acceptance and passivity and self censorship in  responding  to this change was such that there was silence even in academia on  this  very controversial Supreme Court  jurisprudence. It was the theme of my husband’s oration for the Bar Association, in  memory of  a former President,  Desmond Fernando PC.

2015 to 2022

The protest against the worst excesses of Mahinda Rajapaksa led to its unexpected defeat and the election of President Maithripala Sirisena and what was described as a rainbow coalition of political parties led by Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister. President Sirisena promised to abolish the Executive Presidency and was given this mandate by the majority of citizens  who helped him get elected to office. This was also a personal commitment given to Maduluwawe Sobhita Thero who led the resistance to the previous Mahinda Rajapaksa government. However, in the first flush of victory he was persuaded to support a Constitutional Amendment that would REDUCE presidential powers and transfer them to his Prime Minister, Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe. The draft Constitution of 2000 which provided for the abolition of the Executive Presidency was unfortunately not considered in this constitutional reform process.

If anyone expected this change to facilitate cooperation between these two centres of power in one administration that was an impossible expectation. Perhaps it increased expectations on the part of the Prime Minister, and resistance on the part of the President to the anticipated happy cohabitation. Inevitably the “empowered” Prime Minister had to experience the full brunt of Presidential anger when they had conflicting view points on the Arjuna Mahendran, Ravi Karunanayake and Aloysius  related bond scam. A hurriedly and sometimes  poorly drafted proviso in the 19th Amendment facilitated the Constitutional crisis of 2018 and the replacement of the 19th Amendment “empowered” Prime Minister with (of all people ) Mahinda Rajapaksa whom President Sirisena said he was fleeing from in anticipation of grave violence as a candidate in the Presidential election.

When the Easter Sunday violence took place, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, the empowered 19th Amendment Prime Minister, told the nation in  a BBC interview that he could not be held responsible for the appalling and reckless lapses in national security because he had been excluded by the President from the National Security Council and “was not in the loop”.

It is the 19th Amendment of the Sirisena/Wickremesinghe government which is the basis of the 21A (MoJ). The Gotabaya and  Wickremesinghe government are telling us that this will be the best response in strengthening governance and satisfying the demand for systemic and institutional change. And every one they address including the media and political parties  (most recently Maithipala Sirisena led SLFP) is applauding this initiative.

The Opposition’s counter arguments for the 21A (S) to abolish the Executive Presidency appears to be falling  on deaf ears, due to  ignorance, political expediency  or a collective sense of amnesia. The only focus seems to be on a single issue – whether or not to support an amendment prohibiting dual citizens from holding office that may lead to another Rajapaksa sibling being compelled to forfeit his national list seat in Parliament. And that after facilitating another person occupying a national seat in Parliament to become the country’s Prime Minister.

A new Constitution for Sri Lanka as part of Incremental Constitutional Reform

When Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe offers us the prospect of a new Constitution being drafted (after we have emerged from this crisis),  he seems to have forgotten the much publicized  efforts to do so during the Maithripala-Sirisena Ranil Wickremesinghe governments period in office. What emerged from the Constitution drafting Committee that Mr. Wickremesinghe himself chaired? Large and excellent reports by expert groups working on important areas of governance were produced.   What happened to those reports? What also happened to the report submitted to government by the  Lal Wijenayake  Committee on Constitutional reform after islandwide consultations over a period of time? What happened to the report of the Manouri Muttetuwegama Committee on Transitional Justice mechanisms? And the Truth and  Reconciliation Mechanism law that was drafted at the request of the government by a committee chaired by me with a dedicated team of  persons who gave their time freely without fees?

Even more curious, what happened to the report of the Constitutional drafting Committee appointed by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa? This committee was chaired by Romesh de Silva PC with, it is said, the leadership of Minister GL Pieris. Where is this draft Constitution and what is its approach to the Executive Presidency and “systemic and institutional change?”

The Way Forward

Faced with a crisis of proportions and impact  that has devastated the country it is incredible that we are now engaged in another round of political  play acting on constitutional reform. Let us at  least on this occasion take serious stock of the very real breakdown in governance that has led to this “man made and voluntary economic disaster” in a country renowned for its human development indicators in South Asia. In doing so let us recognize that we must abolish the Executive Presidency NOW and not later. This requires heeding the voice of the Aragalaya, and supporting the 21A (S) that will abolish the Executive Presidency and will also bring with it the institutional and systemic change in our governance that has been promised for decades by successive governments but never realized due to narrow and selfish political agendas. Saying Yes to the 21A (S) and No to the 21A (MoJ) which is a token gesture of Constitutional reform may be a last chance to save our country from further destabilization and “man made” disasters created through corrupt, inefficient and reckless governance.

Heeding the Voice of the People, Constitutional Reform and the Referendum Concept

The Rajapaksa governments 2005-2014 and 2019-2022 gave scant respect to the “Voice of the People”. Governments in which  Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe  had a leadership role, like the Yahapalanaya government, 2015-2019, appointed many “Consultative” and Advisory” Committees, on a range of important  subjects of public concern, including Constitutional Reform. Yet the government consistently discarded their reports. Research on the functioning of these “Committees” demonstrates that the Yahapalanaya period had more consultative Committees than any other government. The record of law making and policy formulation in this period however  demonstrates clearly government  inaction rather than action for change.

So “consultation and listening to the voice of the People and experts” can mean nothing more than political rhetoric. This can also lead to unexpected consequences. The failure to improve and achieve  intra-party democracy, in the UNP, the party led by Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe, despite the many Reports commissioned and Committees appointed, eventually led to a significant group breaking away, and forming a new party as Samagi Jana Balavegaya.

These experiences hardly inspire confidence in the Prime Minister’s address to the nation, saying he will appoint 12 or 15 “Committees” for effective public administration and financial management.  A large  Expert Advisory  Committee of eminent economists, has also been appointed to  the Central Bank. A promise has   been made by the Prime Minister  to  provide opportunities for youth participation, including from the Aragalaya, in some of these Committees. The latter initiative is said to help youth  to understand the difference between protest and participatory democracy!

It is time that our politicians understand what participatory democracy means, and that the people can see the difference  between this concept, and the “Committee Consultation” fetish that is a diversionary political maneuver to resist or avoid  change.  The Constitutional requirement of having a Referendum and hearing the voice of the People, to initiate major Constitutional reform, must also not be permitted to prevent efforts to  abolish  the Executive Presidency through Constitutional reform. This is also a demand of the Aragalaya and street protests, which include a large and diverse youth population.

Article 3 of our Constitution articulates the concept of the Sovereignty of the People as including the “powers of governance”. Article 4 clarifies the MANNER in which the PEOPLE’S POWER OF GOVERNANCE can be EXERCISED AND ENJOYED. It is on the basis of this concept that it can be argued that the President in exercising the Executive power of the People with a Prime Minister and Cabinet, collectively responsible for the government of the country under Article 43, has a LEGAL and not just an ethical obligation to fullfil his responsibilities of good governance, preventing  the type of  economic and political crisis confronting the nation today.

International law is considered “law” that creates legal obligations, despite the limitations on enforcement. Consequently, incapacity for enforcement no longer indicates that there is no legal obligation. A President and Cabinet Ministers who fail in their legal obligations in governance, can be called upon by the People to resign. It is the lack of a procedure for  enforcing  that legal obligation of resignation, except by  impeachment of the President,  that has contributed to the urgent need for  Constitutional reform  to ABOLISH the Presidency in the executive branch of government.

The 19th Amendment made the  President liable for a violation of rights and for the Supreme Court to provide “just and equitable relief” for such a violation. This provision was retained in the 20th Amendment. The possibility of a petition for violation of citizen rights, and a call for just and equitable relief in the form of a court order on resignation, in light of the serious responsibilities in governance under the Constitution, may seem theoretical and only aspirational at this time.

The Attorney General has advised that the Presidential status in the executive branch   cannot be removed without a two thirds Majority support in Parliament, and a Referendum.  The Referendum issue, and its impact on 21 A (S) is therefore an additional concern. This seems an obstacle in  effecting a critically important  Constitutional change, in responding  to our political and economic crisis.

The Constitution has a clear provision in Article 83 which indicates that a two third majority and a Referendum are  required for the amendment or repeal of Article 3. Therefore Article 4 on the  status of the President in the Executive branch of governance is NOT covered by the Referendum clause. The requirement for a Referendum is thus an interpretive perspective, based on jurisprudence in the Supreme Court linking Articles 3 and 4. That jurisprudence is also not consistent.

In the 20th Amendment case counsel cited earlier cases linking Articles three and four and argued that since the concept of Presidential power had been significantly modified by the 19th Amendment, a Referendum was also necessary to go back to the earlier concept of near absolute  Presidential executive power. The court in its opinion rejected this interpretation, and did not  follow the jurisprudence linking Articles three and four on the meaning of executive power. It is this interpretation  that is being cited in arguing that 21 A (MoJ)  seeking to only reduce Presidential powers that can be passed without a Referendum.

There is nothing to prevent the other argument being canvassed again in litigation on the current Constitutional Bills. Besides the Referendum issue can also be resolved if the Supreme Court follows the approach it took in the Port City Bill litigation, where the Court decided that it was not necessary to consult the Provincial Councils on a matter that required their consent, when it was impossible to do so as these bodies were not functioning at the time. The current situation and an argument that it is not possible to have a Referendum, in the current context, is supported by that case.

The lack of clarity on the issue of the need for a Referendum does not mean that this should  be used to prevent support for the 21A(S) that seeks to abolish the Executive Presidency. Besides holding such a Referendum is not as complicated and expensive as a General Election, that we cannot afford at this time. All that a citizen is required to do is to say “yes or no” to a single question, of the abolition of the Executive Presidency. They will be happy to provide the piece of  paper for this task to the Election Commissioner’s officials, if the State cannot afford to provide this, rather in the manner they are collecting the one rupee coins, after  the Minister said the State subsidizes the cost of  a rupee for a litre of fuel!

If the Referendum issue is  too complicated to resolve in initiating Constitutional reform to abolish the Executive Presidency the time may be ripe for demanding that the President exercises his powers under Article 86 of the Constitution to “submit to the People at a Referendum any matter which in his view is of national importance”. He claims that he has a mandate from 6.9 million people to complete his term. That is now an issue of public concern for  him as well as the People. He can hear the Peoples’ voice,  on  this matter through a Referendum, helping to also  solve the differences in viewpoint between him and the Peoples’ Movement of  Aragalaya.

Many of the persons involved  in this movement for systemic and institutional change  are the youth of a next generation, who have come together from diverse communities that link across class, caste and race,  calling for a different approach to accountable  governance, realizing  how poor and reckless government   impacts  the lives of the People and their future. Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe has cited a literary source, the German playwright Bertol   Brecht’s Caucasian Chalk  Circle to explain the manner in which he will perform  as the Prime Minister of the country.

Perhaps he as well as  citizens, especially the youth, engaged in the Aragalaya  should peruse the poem  of WS Senior, an Englishman who was a poet and  educationist in colonial Sri Lanka. His ashes are interred in Haputale with an epitaph from a poem he wrote on leaving this country: “oh my soul it will break with longing, it can never be good bye”. His poem “The Call of Lanka” has these lines:

I climbed o’er the crags of Lanka

And gazed on her golden sea

And out from her ancient places

Her soul came forth to me

“Give me a Bard said Lanka

A Bard of the things to be

A Bard  for my joys  and pains

But  most shall he sing of Lanka

In the brave new days that come

When the races all have blended

And the voice of strife is dumb

Hark Bard of the fateful future

Hark Bard of the bright To-Be

A voice on the verdant mountains

A voice on the golden sea,

Rise Child of Lanka, and answer

Thy mother has called to Thee.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

America at 250: Most unfitting President, Biggest World Cup Tournament

Published

on

Messi and Yamal to face each other in Sunday’s World Cup Final

The world’s oldest constitutional democracy turned 250 on the Fourth of July, two weeks ago. It is a rather quirky coincidence that in the 250th year of its largely successful existence, America should be having as its president the most unfitting person in history, and that in keeping with the American trait for mixing serious purposes with fun and play, it should also be hosting perhaps the largest edition of the World Cup Football Tournament. The triple coincidence – the anniversary, Trump presidency and the World Cup – is not without some meaning.

The essence of the Trump presidency has been to recast America in the mould of Trump’s own vulgar and outlandish presuppositions about who belongs in America and what the rest of the world owes to America. Internal exclusions and external isolation have always been a part of American history, but Trump’s project has been to make them America’s sole and permanent purpose. Make America great again by making it more intolerant and more imperfect, as opposed to pursuing the country’s founding purpose of striving towards a “more perfect union.”

Trump is also giving a new meaning to America’s exceptional isolationism by slashing immigration, deporting American residents whom he and his Maga cabal don’t like for the vilest of reasons, withdrawing from global agencies that America created and closing down American agencies providing global services, imposing tariffs on every country and deeming them as payment for America’s past generosity under weak presidents, and threatening neighbours with annexation while militarily attacking others.

2007: Lionel Messi holding baby Lamine Yamal

He got his nose bloodied after listening to Netanyahu and starting a fight with Iran, made a fool of himself by first announcing that he will provide safe passage to ships through the Strait of Hormuz and charge them 20% of their cargo value, and immediately withdrawing it after being told that it was a lamebrained and impractical idea. The Iranian Foreign Minister tweeted that it is a good approach but 20% is too high! The reality is that Iran has effectively closed the strait again, after Trump said his ceasefire with Iran is over, and there is nothing the might of America can do about it – thanks solely to Trump.

The world, not to mention America, are back to where it was soon after February 28. And Trump is back to February 28, with more attacks on Iran while telling Israel to keep out of it and hoping that Iran will soon come to the table. The Iranian regime is insisting that it is Trump and not Iran who will have to blink first again. For the rest of the world and the people of America, fuel and fertilizer prices are again rising along with the prices of goods and services that depend on them.

Meanwhile, the Fourth of July marking America’s 250th Anniversary of American independence has come and gone. Every year, Americans cheer and celebrate the Fourth of July as a civic festival in their local communities. Families take their children to Washington, Philadelphia, Gettysburg and other historical sites to learn and appreciate their history. The state hardly gets involved and there are no military parades or flights of fighter jets. Trump changed it last year by holding a military parade in Washington but it did not excite anyone. The army had to go to extraordinary lengths to protect the city roads from cracking up while parading its massive tanks. This year Trump’s efforts to turn the 250th anniversary celebration into a personal vanity affair spectacularly backfired and what was becoming a national damp squib. Not so ironically, it was rescued by the 2026 World Cup tournament that began on Thursday, June 11 and will end on Sunday, July 19.

World Cup Down to the Wire

The 23rd FIFA World Cup hosted by America, Mexico and Canada with matches played in 16 cities – 11 in the US, three in Mexico and two in Canada – became a significant occasion for the US. It provided an antidote to Trump’s vain and unsuccessful usurpation of the country’s 250th anniversary, even as it became an occasion to show the world that there is still much more likeable about America in spite of all the ugly MAGA makeover that Trump has been giving it from the White House.

What is unique about America is that it is the first and the only immigrant country to become a superpower in world history. An open door country with a melting pot ethos, America has consistently struggled at every stage of its evolution to defy the homogeneity of the privileged, and to celebrate across-the-board heterogeneity in every aspect of the human condition. If the purpose of Trump’s presidency has been to break this arc of American history, the World Cup became an occasion to demonstrate that the arc will continue in spite of Trump.

The World Cup was an eye opener to both resident Americans and visiting football worshippers. Except for the Olympics sporting events, competitive sports in America are dominated by (American) Football, Baseball, Basketball and (Ice) Hockey, and the competitions are all limited to American teams along with some Canadian teams especially in Hockey. The extent of any international connection is limited to allowing players from Central America and Japan for Baseball, and from Canada and Eastern Europe for Hockey. In other words, American notions of exclusivity and self-sufficiency seamlessly extend to the world of sports from the universe of politics and economics.

The arrival of the World Cup, 32 years after America hosted its first and only World Cup in 1994, was an eye opener to American sports fans and the general public. This was international sports at their doorstep and an occasion to live through the experience of witnessing the world’s best exponents of the game fiercely displaying their talents in friendly competitions. The visiting fans who thronged the games brought life and diversity and retail spin offs to the cities where the games were played. The visitors to a person, both players and fans, were enthralled by the magnificence of America’s sporting facilities and the range of amusement and entertainment the host cities offered.

The tournament also became a smorgasbord of different nationalisms from around the world but manifesting pride and passion in support of national football teams and not boastful belligerence about national militaries. The teams were also more equal on the pitch than their governments are at the UN podium. The better teams of the day won in the end but every team made each game as competitive as it could. Small countries from West Asia, Africa and little Atlantic islands went boot-to-boot with European and South American giants and kept everyone guessing until the final whistle. The really big Asian countries – China, India, Indonesia etc. – could not qualify for admission, while Asia’s two industrial giants – Japan and South Korea – acquitted themselves well even though they were unlucky not to go beyond the group stage.

The team that America fielded should not have been allowed to represent the country based on Trump’s executive negation of all DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) programs in government and in federal hiring. But it did and the US team would have made the 1960s promoters of cross-racial ‘rainbow’ alliances proud. Similar rainbow teams have become the norm of almost all West European countries and England.

Players of colour have become superstars in western football teams and have quite clearly internalized natal nationalism as opposed to being assimilated by them. They are all descendants of birthright citizens of the old empires, a legal tradition that is more universal and anterior to the abolition of slavery and the 14th Amendment in the US, as Chief Justice John Roberts reminded the Trump Administration in overturning its executive order to end the recognition of birthright citizenship in America. A practice that is shared by three dozen countries.

The US Team at the World Cup began as a promising outfit playing with flair and freewheeling style and could have gone as far as the Quarter Finals to play Spain. The team was undone prematurely by Trump’s sleazy intervention with FIFA bosses to suspend the Red Card penalty ban of a US player, Folarin Balogun, for a foul he had committed in an earlier match. Trump’s role and the penalty suspension created a public uproar and in the upshot an inspired Belgium trounced the US whose players performed very poorly perhaps under the weight of the embarrassment that their President had inflicted on them.

The World Cup tournament itself is now down to the final match, the 104th of the tournament, on Sunday, July 19th, between the reigning World Cup champions, Argentina, and Spain, the current Euro Cup holders. The match for the Third Place will be played on Saturday (July 18), between France who lost 0-2 to Spain in a surprisingly one-sided game, and England who went down in a heartbreaking 1-2 defeat to Argentina after leading 1-0 up till five minutes before the final whistle.

The French were the tournament’s cracking team till they came up against Spain who had been belabouring until then. The English team had bestirred all of England back home with their gritty win against Mexico in its national stadium full of 85,000 spectators, but once again came up short in the penultimate game.

The final between Argentina and Spain will feature the 39 year old Argentinian maestro, Lionel Messi, looking to win his second World Cup, and the 19 year old Spanish prodigy, Lamine Yamal. The football internet is abuzz with a 2007 photograph showing then 20 year old Messi carrying Yamal as an infant during a photo session in Barcelona, Spain, where Messi played club football. On Sunday, in New York/New Jersey, they will face each other in a spirited encounter for the biggest prize in sports.

by Rajan Philips

Continue Reading

Features

Two memorable excerpts from a former SLAF commander’s memoir

Published

on

Prime Minister Magaret Thatcher at opening of the Victoria dam. President Jayewardene, Mahaweli Minister Gamini Dissanayake and Finance Minister Ronnie de Mel are also in the picture

These two excerpts from the forthcoming book, To Survive As One Nation, One People by Air Chief Marshal Oliver Ranasinghe. A Retired Commander of the Sri Lanka Airforce makes interesting reading. The first is of a sudden demand on the SLAF for emergency air support for the besieged Jaffna Fort when the only available helicopters were being prepared for a VVIP flight for UK PM Margaret Thatcher and her husband, Mark.

The second deals with ferying PM Rajiv Gandhi and his wife Sonia to Katunayake after a naval rating had hit Gandhi with a rifle butt.

In April 1985, the UK’s first female prime minister visited Sri Lanka to ceremonially declare open the Victoria Dam and Power Station built with aid under the patronage of Queen Elizabeth II. The completion of the project was a significant milestone for the Accelerated Mahaweli Development Programme, with the power station having an installed capacity of 210 MW. Two helicopters were stationed at Air Force Headquarters premises to fly the VVIPs at 6:30 a.m. on 12 April to Victoria Dam. I was Commanding Officer of the Helicopter Wing and assigned to fly Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her husband.

However, at around noon on the day before the flight, I got a desperate call from the Joint Operations Command (JOC) requesting that 250 troops be airlifted to the Jaffna Fort immediately, since “hot intelligence” had informed that the enemy had planned to attack the fort that night.

I did not have any helis in the Wing as all had been deployed throughout the North and East. The only other two serviceable helis were in the VVIP security cordon, standing by to fly Prime Minister Thatcher and the other VVIPs the next morning. According to VVIP flying procedures, the helis are kept for 48 hours before the flight within a security cordon which is well-guarded by guards and air dogs. No one is allowed to go witin the security cordon without the Commanding Officer’s approval.

I had to take a quick decision about whether to drop the troops using the two helis from the cordon and run the risk of having no heli to fly Prime Minister Thatcher the next morning. The alternative was to say “No,” to the Army and take the risk of losing hundreds of soldiers at the front, facing a humiliating defeat, loss of prestige, morale and losing the Jaffna Fort, which was the Army’s pride.

If the latter happened, our conscience would be inconsolable even today. When we were fighting the battle, we were one unit: Army, Navy, Air Force and Police. The Air Force was always there. We never said no. So, I took the decision to fly immediately to Jaffna to carry out the task using the two VVIP helis. I was taking a huge risk, jeopardizing my career in the Air Force, by disregarding the standing orders and removing the two helis from the VVIP cordon.

By 1:00 p.m., we took off from Katunayake for Jaffna, using the two VVIP helis without Air Force Headquarters approval. I was captaining one heli with Flight Lieutenant Lasantha Waidyaratne as my co-pilot. (He was the pilot who, a long time later on, landed a heli at Jaffna Fort in the impossible task code-named Operation Eagle.) Flight Lieutenant Tennyson Gunawardena was flying the other heli as captain. I had to fly as we did not have any pilots to spare.

From the Palaly airport, we flew with twenty-two passengers without seats, keeping within the maximum all-up weight, and headed into the Jaffna Fort, approaching with the wind and not headwind as usual, avoiding enemy guns.

By 5:30 p.m., Tennyson called me on the receiver transmitter unit and said, “Sir, it is raining heavily in Katunayake, and we have to go in bad weather in the night back to Katunayake. So can I leave now?” I said, “Okay,” and ensured the heli was made ready for the VVIP the next morning. In the meantime, I kept flying the balance troops.

I did not get down at all from the heli and refuelling, too, was done whilst I was sitting in the pilot’s seat. The Brigadier-in-Charge in Jaffna came up to the heli very late in the evening and told me that, if I couldn’t drop all troops that night, to do the balance first thing in the morning. I said, “No, I will drop all tonight as I have to fly back to Katunayake for a very important task.”

We dropped all 250 troops into the Jaffna Fort and, after refuelling at Palaly, left at around 10:00 p.m. to fly back to Katunayake. However, we got caught to heavy rain on the stretch from North of Mannar to Katunayake. The weather was so bad that we had to request radar assistance to steer to Katunayake. However, I decided to disregard radar advice and told my co-pilot to follow the coastline, just to be clear of obstacles such as high-tension wires. Helicopters do not fly in rainy weather, let alone bad weather, and definitely not at night, but we had no choice.

Lasantha, my co-pilot, swears that he has not done a bad weather flight of that nature, either before or since, in his flying career. In fact, he says that he matured as a pilot during the last hours of that flight!

At around midnight, we landed at Katunayake where the crew was ready to take the heli and clean it to VVIP standard, which they did throughout the night. I was relieved and happy that I could return to Katunayake the same night.

The next morning, we positioned the two helis by 6:30 a.m. at Air Force Headquarters premises to fly the VVIP. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her husband, Mr.Denis Thatcher, had a safe and comfortable flight to Victoria and back. In fact, Mrs.Thatcher was fast asleep when we touched down in Colombo!

As the Commanding Officer of the No.4 Helicopter Squadron, I risked my life and career because I did not want the Jaffna Fort to fall into the enemy’s hands and lose Army lives. Also, I did not want to let down the VVIP and spoil the image of the Sri Lanka Air Force. If anything had gone wrong, obviously I would have been “thrown” in the sea. I believe such life and death situations reveal the inborn/emerging leadership potential of individuals.

This excerpt deals with flying Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and his wife, Sonia, to Katunayake after a naval rating on ab honour guard struck Gandhi with rifle butt.

In July 1987, I was out of the Helicopter Squadron and serving as Base Commander—Anuradhapura. The Commander of the Air Force called me one day and asked me whether I was still current on helis, and I said, “Yes.” He said, “I am sending a Bell 214 for you to do some flying training.” The next day, the heli arrived at Anuradhapura, and I got back into swing doing some flying training.

After two days, I was told to come to Katunayake to do a flight. I was told that I had to fly the visiting Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, from the Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA) to Galle Face and back. He was coming to sign the much-talked about “peace accord.” The Indian Prime Minister arrived at the BIA, and he was ferried to the Galle Face green, from where he was taken in a motorcade to President’s House to sign the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord.

Without taking much time, the motorcade returned to the Galle Face green. There was no panic. Rajiv Gandhi was smiling, but Sonia Gandhi helped Rajiv get in first, to the inner seat of the helicopter, and Sonia sat next to the window. If not for that, everything was normal.

I started up, switched on the VHF radio and contacted the Air Force Operations Room for take-off clearance. They told me that at the Navy’s Guard of Honour parade, there had been an incident targeting Rajiv Gandhi. That played havoc in my mind. I had to think that whoever planned and failed would have a “plan B,” and that would be to target the helicopter. Then I realized that, if so, both Rajiv Gandhi’s life and mine would be destroyed by “plan B.” That was my thinking. I had to save this VVIP, our state visitor. To do that, I had to make decisions on my own.

There was no one to tell me what to do. So, I took off in the most unexpected direction and avoided the usual route and followed a different route to BIA, whilst all the time being alert. Coming over BIA, I disregarded the usual approach procedure to the surprise of the Air Traffic Controllers and approached from the wrong direction and landed, but not in the designated landing place, to avoid a possible sniper or RPG attack.

The VVIP got off and walked away to the awaiting Indian Air Force aircraft. That relieved me of the tension of delivering the “precious cargo” in one piece.

(The book is distributed by the Vijitha Yapa Bookshop)

Continue Reading

Business

‘Giving up was never an option’: The fisherman  who fought back after losing millions in SL

Published

on

Seamax factory at Dickowita Harbour

 Spanish Israeli entrepreneur Simon Max Astandoust, a fourth-generation member of the renowned Astan fishing family, has endured years of legal battles, business setbacks and the loss of millions of dollars after investing in Sri Lanka’s fishing industry. Yet, despite the challenges, he has chosen to stay and rebuild.

 In an interview with the Sunday Island, the founder and CEO of Seamax Ceylon (Pvt) Ltd speaks about his struggle, the restoration of his state-of-the-art factory vessel Astan II, and his plans to introduce cutting-edge seafood technology to Sri Lanka.

 Q: You began operations in Sri Lanka in 2018. What was your original vision and investment?

 A: We started operations in 2018 with an initial investment of around US$1 million. Over time, that investment grew into several million dollars because we believed Sri Lanka had enormous potential in the fishing industry.

 My original intention was to develop a project through the Board of Investment (BOI) and introduce new technology to the country. However, the Government at the time encouraged us to work directly with it instead. We believed that this partnership would help us move forward faster and create something unique for Sri Lanka.

Overhauled Astan II

 Our goal was to operate within the harbour and establish a modern fishing operation centred around advanced technology and sustainable seafood processing.

 Q: What challenges did you face after starting operations?

 A: Around eight to 18 months after we began our investment, COVID-19 hit. The pandemic created enormous difficulties. In countries such as Spain and the United States, governments provided financial support to help businesses survive. Here, the Government itself was facing a difficult economic situation and was unable to provide similar assistance.

 Initially, we were told that there would be a grace period and that we would not be pressured for payments as long as we maintained our workforce and kept the operation alive. But later, that understanding changed, and demands for payments began despite the fact that we had a 15-year agreement.

 That was the beginning of the major conflict.

 Q: How did the change of Government affect your operations?

A: When a new Government came into power, the 15-year agreement signed with the previous administration was not recognized. The factory was closed and legal action was initiated against us.

 This was extremely difficult because we had invested heavily based on a long-term agreement. We had built infrastructure, brought in technology and created employment opportunities.

 During this period, while the vessel was caught up in legal disputes, a group of people attempted to take control of the ship. One of the most painful experiences was that some lawyers who had been working for us changed sides and supported those attempting to take the vessel.

Simon Max Astandoust

 The legal battle continued for years and only concluded in 2025.

 Q: Your vessel, Astan II, is central to your investment. What happened to it during this period?

 A:  Astan II is not just a fishing vessel. It is a huge factory vessel with a complete processing facility inside. It was designed to bring a completely new level of technology to Sri Lanka’s fishing industry.

 Unfortunately, because it remained idle during the legal proceedings, it suffered significant damage. Ships cannot simply sit in a harbour for months or years without proper operation and maintenance. The Sri Lankan weather conditions are particularly harsh on vessels.

The vessel deteriorated badly, but after we regained control, we decided to completely restore it. It was overhauled.

 Q: How much did the restoration cost and what work was involved?

 A:  The restoration cost approximately US$1.5 million and took about one year, beginning in 2025. The vessel was almost a complete rebuild. One of the biggest technical challenges was repairing the three generators. Because the harbour did not provide electricity, these generators had been running continuously to maintain the vessel. Over time, this caused significant wear and tear.

 Finding replacement parts was another major challenge. Many of these parts are not imported into Sri Lanka, so every component had to be sourced from different countries and brought in individually.

 A team of around 14 to 20 people worked on the restoration, including a Sri Lankan chief engineer and local professional deck crew. Their expertise and dedication were extremely important.

 Today, the vessel is in brand-new condition.

 Q: You mentioned that the absence of diplomatic representation made your struggle more difficult. Why?

 A: I hold Spanish and Israeli citizenship, and neither Spain nor Israel has an embassy in Sri Lanka. Normally, when a foreign investor faces serious difficulties, an ambassador can engage with authorities and help protect the investor’s interests.

 In my case, I had to face everything alone. I had to deal directly with government institutions and the legal system through my lawyers. Having diplomatic support would have made a significant difference. But ultimately, I had to rely on the courts and the legal process.

 Fortunately, the maritime judges understood the complexity of the situation and the importance of maritime law. Their fair approach restored some of my confidence.

 Q: Your vessel uses unique -70°C “Ultra-Fresh” technology. Can you explain how it works?

 A:  This is one of the most exciting parts of our project. The technology comes from Japan and is only about two years old. Traditional freezing methods often affect the quality of fish because the freezing process is slower and damages the texture. This technology works differently. It uses a glazing process where the fish is frozen from the outside, creating a protective layer.

Within approximately two hours, the fish is completely frozen. This process eliminates bacteria and preserves the quality of the fish.

When the fish is later defrosted using the correct method, it is almost exactly like fresh-caught fish from the ocean. The taste, texture and quality are preserved. At present, nobody else in Sri Lanka is carrying out this type of ultra-fresh freezing technology onboard a fishing vessel.

 Q: What advantage will this technology give Sri Lanka?

 A: Sri Lanka has excellent fishing resources, but we need to move beyond simply catching fish. The future is about value addition, quality control and accessing premium international markets.

With this technology, Sri Lanka can export seafood at a much higher value because customers will receive a product that maintains the quality of freshly caught fish.

 This is not just about one company. It is about introducing a new concept to the country’s fishing industry.

 Q: After everything you have experienced, why did you decide to continue investing in Sri Lanka?

 A: I come from a family of fishermen. This is my fourth generation, and my son represents the fifth generation. Fishermen are not people who give up easily. The sea teaches you resilience. You face storms, difficulties and uncertainty, but you continue. Of course, there were moments when I lost faith. Losing millions of dollars and spending years in court is not easy for anyone.

But eventually, the justice system gave me confidence again. The maritime judges understood the situation and treated the case fairly. That showed me that there are people in Sri Lanka who understand the importance of protecting investment and respecting the law. That is why I decided to continue.

 Many people told me that, despite the difficulties, the Sri Lankan judiciary would ultimately deliver justice. At the time, after years of uncertainty, it was difficult to know what the outcome would be. But in the end, that is exactly what happened. The courts examined the facts and delivered a fair judgment.

 The maritime judges understood the complexity of the situation and the importance of maritime law. Their fair approach restored my confidence—not only in the legal system but also in Sri Lanka itself.

 Q: What are your future plans for Seamax Ceylon?

 A: Our plan is to expand significantly. We intend to bring two or three more large factory vessels to Sri Lanka, along with five local fishing vessels. We also plan to establish a new processing factory near the beach. However, this time we will work through the Board of Investment rather than entering into a direct agreement with the Government.

 The BOI provides a structured framework for investors, and we believe this is the right way forward. My son Sam, who is the CEO of our US-based company, will also return to Sri Lanka to help introduce successful business concepts and support the next stage of development.

 Q: What keeps you motivated after such a difficult journey?

 A:The answer is simple: we do not give up. I come from a family of fishermen. This is my fourth generation, and my son represents the fifth generation. Fishermen understand struggle. You cannot control the ocean, but you learn how to survive. You face storms, difficulties and uncertainty, but you continue moving forward.

 I have lost money, faced difficult times and experienced moments of disappointment. But I never stopped believing in the potential of Sri Lanka. One thing that gave me strength was the faith many people placed in the country’s judiciary. I was repeatedly told that the courts in Sri Lanka would deliver justice, and ultimately that belief was proven right. The maritime judges understood the situation and gave a fair decision based on the law.

That experience reminded me that, despite challenges, Sri Lanka has institutions and people who respect justice. That is why I decided not only to stay but also to invest again.

For me, this is not merely a business project. It is about resilience, trust and proving that when you believe in something, you continue fighting until you succeed.

by Saman Indrajith ✍️

Continue Reading

Trending