Connect with us

Features

“WE HAVE OUR JURY” – NEW YORK JUDGE MERCHAN

Published

on

The first ‘witch hunt’ of the century begins

by Vijaya Chandrasoma

And so the retribution gets under way, two and a half years too late. There are three more criminal trials against Trump, in which he has been charged with far more heinous crimes than the first, languishing in the wings of the federal courts of Washington DC (Obstruction of Justice and Sedition), Miami, Florida (Espionage), and Atlanta, Georgia (Election Fraud). Crimes which have been held up by a combination of a delay in pressing charges against Trump by Attorney General Merrick Garland, Trump’s famed legal strategy of Deny, Distract and Delay and the complicity of the most corrupt Supreme Court in the nation’s history.

Whatever we think of Trump, it is a tragedy of humiliation for a great nation to see one of its former presidents to be dragged down the sewer as the defendant of a salacious criminal trial in a courthouse in New York. For the first time in its history.

Trump has pleaded Not Guilty to each one of the 91 felonies, lying that this is another attempt by “Crooked Joe” Biden to “weaponize the Department of Justice” and carry out the greatest “witch hunt” in history, against a man who “has done nothing wrong”. A man, perhaps next only to Jesus in sheer adoration to some, who may be the “most innocent man the world has ever seen”. When the reality is that, to Trump, lying is as natural as breathing, and he is a criminal sociopath who considers himself legally and divinely above the law.

And he blames, again, Crooked Joe and the US Justice system, for delaying the hearing of these trials, which will conclusively prove his innocence to the general electorate before the November election. According to him, the inevitable spate of NOT GUILTY verdicts in all these trials before the November election will persuade the majority of undecided voters to join the cult of morons who believe he has done nothing wrong, can do nothing wrong and will lead the nation to the white, Christian Utopia they dream of, which they are terrified of losing to the brown-skinned, blood-poisoning vermin, who are “invading” the European Vaterland. A classic case of his trademark transference, as the delays have all been caused by his desire to postpone the trials till after the November election. When, as he hopes, he will be re-elected to the presidency and will be empowered to instruct his Department of Justice to dismiss the charges and so avoid imprisonment.

A most distressing sentiment I have gleaned from recent reported interviews with hardline Trump supporters in deep red states like Texas is that while they do not consider Trump fit to be president, while they are disgusted with his vulgarity and criminal behavior, they will still vote for him in November, because “he is better than Biden”.

Even Bill Barr, originally Trump’s loyalist Attorney General, incurred Trump’s wrath by testifying at the January 6 House Select Committee that Trump’s claims that the 2020 presidency election was stolen from him were baseless, that the allegations of election fraud were “bogus”, “idiotic” and “bullshit”. Ever since then, Trump has been insulting Barr in tweets and election campaign rants in his inimitable, vulgar style. And Barr in turn has repeatedly said that a second-term for Trump will be a threat to US democracy. Amazingly, though, at a recent interview, Barr said that when it comes to the crunch, he will vote for Trump in November, because “Biden’s progressive agenda will present more of a threat to the country”.

So the most powerful country in the world may elect a president, a convicted felon, that even moderate Republicans and Independents do not think is fit for the job. However, with seven months to go before the November election, with ample opportunities for Trump to either incriminate himself with his self-destructive, incendiary rants, or be incriminated by the myriad felonies he faces; and for Biden and the Democrats to get the message of a thriving economy across to the electorate; there is enough time for moderate Americans to come to their senses.

In my totally biased opinion, there is really no chance of the re-election of Trump and the end of democracy in the USA. As Winston Churchill famously said, “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else”. And they tried Trump once, a disaster they will not repeat.

The first trial which began on Monday, April 15, was nearly seven years too late, as it concerns the payment of “hush money”, for falsifying election campaign records relative to Trump’s sexual encounters in 2016. These payments were made to porn star, Stormy Daniels ($135,000), to Playboy model Karen McDougal ($150,000) for sexual encounters, and to a Trump Tower doorman ($30,000), who claimed he had a story about a child Trump had fathered “out of wedlock” with an ex-housekeeper at Trump Tower, to buy their silence before the 2016 presidential election.

Trump kicked off his pre-trial whining tweets, sobbing that the cruel Judge Merchan will not allow him to attend his son’s high school graduation, plaintively posting, “Who will explain for me, to my wonderful son, Barron, who is a GREAT student at a fantastic School, that his Dad will likely not be allowed to attend his Graduation Ceremony, something we have been talking about for years”.

Crocodiles have shed more convincing tears. Trump’s relationship with the son born when he was having public sexual encounters with porn stars, was, to put the kindest spin on it, indifferent. Rather like his relationships with most everyone else in the world, except for the grotesque love he has for himself. Also, this is a blatant lie. Judge Merchan has already agreed that Trump would be allowed to attend his son’s graduation if the case is progressing on schedule.

Trump also posted on Monday, “The Crooked Judge” has GAGGED me. Unconstitutional! The other side can talk about me, but I am not allowed to talk about them”. Another lie. Trump is free to talk about the criminal justice system, only he is not allowed to make ad hominem (directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining) attacks and threats of violence against people associated with the case and their families.

Trump then complained that his lawyers were not given “unlimited” chances to reject prospective jurors for the trial. New York state law, like that of every other state in the nation, caps the number of would-be jurors defense lawyers can object to without cause. Another obvious ploy by Trump’s lawyers to fail to assemble the required number of 18 eligible jurors (12 sitting with six alternates), so that the trial is further delayed or may require its move to a jurisdiction where Trump is not hated. Moscow immediately comes to mind.

Over half of the 96 prospective jurors questioned on Monday had to be excused as they admitted their bias against Trump. Tuesday was better. Seven jurors were seated. Though Trump seemed to be so bored with the jury selection routine that he dozed off for a few minutes.

On Tuesday night, Trump violated the gag order, tweeting a comment made by Jesse Waters of Fox News, referring to the jurors already selected: “They are catching undercover Liberal Activists lying to the judge to get on the Trump jury”. An obvious case of juror intimidation, threatening both sitting and prospective jurors. Judge Merchan is considering what action should be taken against Trump for this blatant violation of the gag order.

The court was not in session on Wednesday. On Thursday, six more jurors were deemed eligible, making a total of 12 sitting jurors and one alternate for the Trump trial.

Judge Merchan runs his court by the book, and will not tolerate any histrionics by Trump or dilatory tactics by his counsel. He is confident that trial proceedings can begin by Monday, April 22, with a full complement of 12 sitting jurors and six alternates.

At the end of the successful seating of the full complement of jurors and alternates, defense counsel requested the prosecution to share the names of the first three witnesses they plan to call after opening arguments; a courtesy that is normally extended, but not legally required. The prosecution refused, on the basis of the vicious lies and threats Trump had earlier posted against the judge, the prosecution, other witnesses and court officials and their families. When Trump’s defense counsel assured the court that Trump will not post anything about these witnesses in the future, Judge Marchan said, with more than a trace of irony, “I don’t think you can make that representation”.

The other item of speculation is whether Trump will testify in his defense at the trial. Trump himself has stated with conviction that he intends to so testify “as he has nothing to hide, he has done nothing wrong”. News heard by the prosecution with great delight. Trump’s defense counsel will instruct their client not to take the stand, being fully cognizant of the fact that Trump will not be able to speak one word without perjuring himself. But Trump, who has often said that he is a stable genius whose knowledge of the law is paralleled only by that of the great Alfred the Great, the Anglo-Saxon King of the 9th century, who assembled a code of law in his kingdom that had to be applied to all persons, rich or poor, friends and enemies. A code that was inspired by Leviticus 19.15, coincidentally one of Trump’s favorite clauses in the only Good Book he has read, other than his second Bible, Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” (My Struggle):

“You shall do no iniquity in judgment. You shall not favor the wretched and you shall not defer to the rich. In righteousness you are to judge your fellow”.

It would be child’s play for a man of such religious fervor and devotion to the truth to acquit himself with glory at a witness box in an earthly court of justice in a city which he once hallucinated he owned.

Next week should be most interesting, unless the Supreme Court can come up with yet another ingenious reason for delay. Presidential immunity?



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Justice and democracy in Sri Lanka’s new political era

Published

on

The legal processes are steadily closing in on some of the most controversial cases that have remained as open questions without closure for many years. These include the Easter Sunday bombings of 2019, the Treasury bond scam that erupted in 2015, and a range of corruption allegations that became synonymous with successive governments over the past two or more decades. What once appeared to be stalled investigations are now showing signs of movement through the courts and investigative agencies. Recent developments suggest that these long running cases are entering a decisive phase. In the Easter Sunday attacks investigation, new arrests and investigations have brought renewed attention to allegations that extend beyond the immediate perpetrators and into questions of intelligence failures and possible political complicity. The arrest and detention of former intelligence chief Suresh Sallay under the Prevention of Terrorism Act has intensified public interest in uncovering the full truth behind the attacks.

The Treasury bond scam has also re-entered the spotlight. The Supreme Court has recently overturned legal obstacles that had prevented prosecutions from proceeding and directed that the case moves forward expeditiously. This has reopened one of the most sophisticated financial scandals in the country’s recent history and brought several prominent political and financial figures back under legal scrutiny. As those implicated in these unresolved cases are leading figures from previous governments, which have spanned both sides of the political divide since Independence, it can well be imagined that there is tremendous opposition to the gradually enveloping legal processes that is both seen and unseen.

These cases that are now being investigated cut across political camps and involve individuals who occupied some of the highest offices in the country. The result is that resistance to accountability is likely to emerge from many quarters. Still to be opened are the thousands of cases of persons gone missing during the war. Presidential Commissions have been appointed with regard to them, but there has been no serious investigations of the type now taking place.

In these circumstances, it can be surmised that the government led by those who are new to power would wish to retain a maximum of power to face the pushback that is bound to emerge from those in the opposition who have wielded power for generations. The government may calculate that this is not the time to disperse authority or reduce the instruments of state power available to it. Instead, it may believe that a period of centralised control is necessary if investigations, prosecutions and reforms are to proceed without interference.

Provincial Elections

It appears that the opposition’s efforts to mobilise the people and public opinion against the government have not been successful so far. One such instance was the attempt to generate opposition to price increases. Although people have undoubtedly been affected by rising prices and economic difficulties, these efforts failed to gather significant momentum. Another attempt came when President Dissanayake predicted that opposition politicians would face imprisonment in the month of May as legal cases progressed, though this has not happened. Critics claimed that such remarks suggested an intention to influence judicial outcomes. Yet this criticism also failed to gain traction among the public. The likely reason is that public memory remains fresh. Many people continue to associate previous governments with economic mismanagement, corruption scandals, abuse of power and the eventual economic collapse. In comparison, the present government continues to enjoy a reservoir of public goodwill and credibility. As long as legal action appears to be based on evidence and proper process, the public seems prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt.

The government’s deliberate and cautious approach to political reform that would reduce its centralised power needs to be seen in this context. The monthly approval by Parliament of the emergency regulations is justified by the government as due to the continuing need to respond to the devastation caused by Cyclone Ditwah. However, when viewed together with the reluctance to hold provincial council elections on the grounds of electoral reform, the failure to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the postponement of constitutional reform, they all appear to reflect a preference for retaining maximum control at a politically sensitive moment. There is a logic to this approach. Governments facing major legal and political confrontations often seek stability and control. So does every despot. However, there is also a downside.

When political competition is denied to legitimate outlets, it often finds expression in confrontation, obstruction and polarisation. The advantage of prioritising the conduct of provincial council elections at this time is that it could reduce the political pressures that are building up. The main opposition parties are united in calling for these elections to be held. Conducting them would provide an opportunity for opposition political parties to obtain a measure of democratic representation and political authority at the provincial level. This would be especially true in the northern and eastern provinces, in which the ethnic and religious minorities predominate. It cannot be forgotten that the provincial council system was developed as a constructive response to the ethnic conflict. Elections at the provincial level would create opportunities for a new generation of political leaders to emerge through democratic competition rather than patronage. Many of those now facing legal scrutiny belong to an older generation to whose needs the younger may be less deferential.

Two Pillars

Another reform that could command bipartisan support is the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The PTA has once again become controversial because it is being used in situations that extend beyond its original purpose. The detention of former intelligence chief Suresh Sallay under the Act, the continued incarceration of some Tamil detainees from the war period, and the arrest of individuals accused of speech related offences have all revived concerns regarding prolonged detention without trial and excessive executive power. The reason the PTA has been difficult to repeal is that it is closely associated with concerns regarding national security and territorial integrity. Introduced in 1979 as a temporary measure to confront the emerging separatist conflict, it survived through decades of war and has remained on the statute books long after the conflict ended.

At the same time, history shows that extraordinary powers are likely to be misused. Laws that permit detention without trial or broad executive discretion are rarely confined to their original purpose. Governments of different political parties have used such powers against opponents and critics. The temptation to do so is inherent in the possession of unchecked authority. The way forward could therefore be a combination of accountability and reform. The government should continue to support independent investigations and prosecutions in major corruption and security related cases. Demonstrating political will in this regard would strengthen public confidence in the rule of law and reinforce the principle that no individual is above the law. The PTA could be replaced with legislation that amends the Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code in a manner that addresses legitimate security concerns while complying with democratic norms and human rights standards.

There are also international dimensions to consider. The European Union has repeatedly linked governance and human rights reforms, including reform of the PTA, to Sri Lanka’s continuing access to the GSP Plus trade concession. Progress on these issues would strengthen Sri Lanka’s international standing at a time when economic recovery remains a national priority. The government has a rare opportunity. It possesses a strong electoral mandate, public goodwill and a reputation for integrity that previous governments lacked. It can combine the pursuit of justice in long delayed cases with meaningful democratic reforms that reduce political resistance and broaden public support. At this time, accountability and power sharing are the two pillars which Sri Lankans need to be committed to build a just and democratic society for a better future without delay. Failure now would make for a long period of waiting for the next time.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Features

Pitfalls and exclusions in academic recruitment

Published

on

Academic recruitment

A public university relies on its teachers in fulfilling its responsibilities to the wider community. While teaching remains the chief responsibility of the academic staff, they also conduct research and play a central role in keeping the university a vibrant space where they and students can freely participate in conversations that concern not just routine classroom education but also society at large. The broader intellectual culture and intellectual integrity of a university thus depend on how its academics perform their functions. Therefore, universities should take the task of recruiting their academics seriously. It is important to ensure that this task is done responsibly, transparently and credibly through a fair, thorough and multi-phased evaluation process.

As both an applicant and a member of selection panels for recruitment, I hold that the recruitment procedures, currently in place in our university system, require radical reforms. Echoing some of the concerns raised by Kaushalya Perera in her Kuppi article on recruitment in March 2026, I focus on the limitations I have observed and experienced, specifically in the recruitment of Lecturer (Probationary) and Senior Lecturer positions. The article also aims to explore how these shortcomings could be addressed.

The Advertisement

Recruitment for Lecturer (Probationary) and Senior Lecturer positions is done through an open-advertisement which also involves an interview with shortlisted candidates. Advertisements are finalised in line with a template issued by the Registrar’s Office. Generally, an initial draft, prepared by the Registrar’s Office, is sent to the relevant academic departments for revisions. The revisions have to be made within the template provided, which allows space for the mention of only specialisation requirements.

It should be noted that not all revisions to the advertisement, suggested by the Department Head, are accepted in the next round. Deans, Vice Chancellors and Registrars, who have very little understanding of the disciplines associated with the position, sometimes reject the changes proposed by the Department. Technocratic in their thinking, they don’t recognise that an academic programme can be taught by persons with specialisation in another overlapping discipline. For instance, a position in English, at a university in Sri Lanka, is very well suited to not just those who have postgraduate qualifications in literary studies but also those who are from the disciplines of Applied Linguistics, Cultural Studies or Translation Studies, as these areas are taught as sub-fields of English studies at most universities in the country. These disciplinary overlaps, even when pointed out by Heads, are often overlooked by our administrators.

In place of this process, dominated by academic administrators and registrars, the advertisement should ideally emerge, from the relevant department, in the form of a comprehensive job description. It should mention the nature of the position advertised, the kind of teaching (and research) expected, how the position relates to other positions in the department, in terms of specialisation and workload, and the ways in which the recruited candidate would contribute to overall institutional development.

There can be no one-size-fits-all model when it comes to recruitment. Individual departments vary in size, strength and specialisation requirements. Departments with sizable academic staff may want to emphasise specialisation during recruitment, whereas smaller departments may prefer generalists who can handle a wide-array of courses. Specifying the rationale for the requirements included in the job description may help potential applicants get an understanding of the position advertised and the selection panel to conduct the evaluation process in a fair manner.

Review of Applications

Once applications are received, we sometimes find promising candidates but with qualifications that don’t carry in their title the name of the discipline or the department in which the position is advertised. Sometimes the disciplines or fields of specialisation that appear in the advertisement and the ones that appear in the qualifications are not identical in nomenclature, even though the research undertaken by the applicant during their graduate studies is strongly relevant to the position advertised. Even when such applications are accompanied by strong and relevant publications, our system does not view them positively. Instead, nomenclatural differences are used to reject promising candidates. Such differences are also used as a pretext when universities want to exclude a candidate for their cultural background, political beliefs or other reasons. Even if academic departments recognise such applications, at the next stage, the administrators of the university try to veto them. We lose inter-disciplinary scholars of high academic standing because of the high-handedness of university administrators.

Selection Panels

Selection panels for academic positions typically comprise the Vice Chancellor, the Dean of the Faculty, the Head of the Department, two academics nominated by the Senate and two members of the University Council. In the case of programmes/disciplines jointly housed under a single department, if the Head comes from a discipline other than the one in which the position is advertised, they may not be able to contribute in an informed manner to the recruitment process. However, some Heads refuse to appoint nominees from the relevant discipline in their place as they view sitting on selection panels as their exclusive privilege.

Sometimes university Senates do not take the appointment of Senate nominees seriously. These appointments are decided in a hurry without serious deliberations at senate meetings packed with numerous agenda items. Sometimes even if the relevant department has suitable academics to serve as Senate nominees, the Senate chooses academics from other departments or disciplines who do not have a nuanced understanding of the requirements of the position advertised and its disciplinary parameters. Sometimes specialists in the relevant discipline may not be available at a university. On such occasions, Senates tend to fill up the positions with academics from other disciplines, instead of inviting external nominees from other universities. At a state university in Sri Lanka, I was interviewed thrice for academic positions by selection panels that comprised not even one specialist from the relevant discipline.

The Marking Scheme

The marking schemes used in recruitment have their own drawbacks. Publications are sometimes evaluated for their quantity rather than quality. The opinion of the subject specialist is not sought or taken seriously when a candidate’s research is evaluated. This is why our universities are saddled with academics who engage in plagiarism or predatory publishing. The evaluation process should be tightened in such a way to bar the entry of those who lack academic integrity.

It is worrying to see that marking schemes and schemes of recruitment penalise applicants who have excelled in their graduate studies and are well-reputed for their recent research and publications just because they did not earn a first-class or second-class upper-division pass at the undergraduate level. Our narrow focus on a candidate’s first degree prevents us from giving due recognition to how that person has gained intellectual depth over the years. Some marking rubrics, which allocate points for eye-contact and posture during the interview, dilute the seriousness associated with the academic position, de-prioritise scholarship and turn the interview process into a stage performance.

Cultural Credibility

In recruitment, many universities look for cultural credibility (a term that I borrow from the work of Sulaxana Hippisley) as an unwritten requirement. Some departments are reluctant to hire applicants who are not their alumni. Some selection panels discriminate against candidates from certain ethnic or religious backgrounds. In some departments, women are rejected because they are likely to go on maternity leave or have more domestic responsibilities than men. Gender and sexual minorities have to mute and censor their identities at interviews because they are likely to face rejection if they openly declare their orientation. We have no policies and procedures in place to ensure recruitment is conducted in an inclusive way that sees diversity as a strength.

The Way-forward

When recruitment fails, the entire intellectual culture of that university takes a hit, and several generations of students are affected. Some of the current problems, related to quality in our higher education system, stem from bad recruitment policies and practices. Instead of trying to address these issues through rigorous and inclusive recruitment practices, we try to seek solutions via band-aids like quality assurance and workshops on curriculum writing and pedagogy for university academics.

In developing alternative recruitment policies and practices, we have to demand that the needs and expectations of individual departments are heard. Our selection panels should include more subject specialists than administrators and council nominees. Most of the evaluation should be completed before the interviews, and interviews should be treated as opportunities to get to know candidates in person and pose clarifying questions rather than as occasions for full-scale evaluation. We have to be open and receptive to new, inter-disciplinary scholarship and cultural, ethnic and gender diversity. If we are unwilling to introspect and bring about these reforms and revise our marking schemes, we will continue to recruit the wrong candidates and thereby fail our students and the wider community.

Mahendran Thiruvarangan is a Senior Lecturer attached to the Department of Linguistics & English at the University of Jaffna.

(Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.)

by Mahendran Thiruvarangan

Continue Reading

Features

Rocking scene … in Japan

Published

on

Chitral ‘Chity’ Somapala, now based in Sweden, has been active in the music scene for many years, and is known for his hard rock work with European bands like Firewind, Power Quest, and Avalon.

In Sri Lanka, he’s a household name and that’s the reason why he checks out the local scene, on a regular basis, keeping rock music lovers in the groove.

His shows are invariably ‘full house’’ events.

Sri Lanka’s rock star is now ready to do the needful … in Japan, and rock fans in that part of the world are already gearing themselves up for a rock explosion, with Chitral in the spotlight.

The show is scheduled for 03rd October, 2026, at the Hattori Ryokuchi Park, in Osaka, with Wayo.

The blast off is from 1.00 pm onwards.

However, before he checks out the Osaka scene, Chitral has another important date in his itinerary – a spectacular Sri Lankan musical extravaganza at the Sydney Opera House, in Australia.

The concert is titled Rhythms of Sri Lanka and will be held on 23rd August, 2026.

Back in Colombo soon to oblige local rock fans

Although Chitral Somapala is, indeed, a big name, as a rock artiste, he also revives the music of his parents, as well, often performing their music, along with his own songs, at live programmes.

In fact, the album ‘Dambulugale’, released in 2018, which is a tribute to his parents, famous Sri Lankan musicians P. L. A. Somapala and Chitra Somapala, turned out to be a massive hit, not only in Sri Lanka, but with Sri Lankans the world over.

The album, a compilation of various cover songs, previously written and performed by his parents, was dedicated to Chitral’s parents, and released on the 70th anniversary of Sri Lanka’s independence.

He also dropped ‘Chitral Somapala Live In Concert’, in 2023, with 22 tracks, and has several other releases to his credit.

Besides his rocking career, Chitral was asked by veteran film directors Chandran Rutnam, Asoka Handagama, Priyantha Colombage, Udayakantha and Shameera Naotunna to contribute his talent for their soundtracks, and he won a Presidential award and an International award for the movie ‘Let Her Cry’ by Asoka Handagama.

Chitral will be back in Colombo soon with another rocker for his fans, so watch out for Rock Meets Reggae.

Continue Reading

Trending