Connect with us

News

Campaign expenditure: How JRJ Constitution paved way for corruption

Published

on

…continuing need for finger painting with indelible ink and ‘silent period’ questioned, EC reminded of risks taken by media

Text and pics by Shamindra Ferdinando

Chairman of Election Commission Attorney-at-Law Nimal Punchihewa on Tuesday (16) explained how the 1978 Constitution had abolished specific laws meant to ensure financial integrity of lawmakers. In terms of the pre-1978 laws, those who had acted in violation of them not only lost their parliamentary seats but civic rights, as well, Punchihewa, one-time member of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, said. Punchihewa cited several examples while pointing out even the losers faced punitive measures in case of transgressions. However, the 1978 Constitution had changed the situation overnight.

 Punchihewa made the above observations at a workshop arranged by the Election Commission at its Rajagiriya Secretariat where senior lecturer Tudor Weerasinghe, Asoka Dias, Director MTV/MBC, Ariyananda Dombagahawatte, Chief Editor, Irida Lankadeepa, and Saman Sri Ratnayaka, Commissioner General of Elections, discussed the role of the media in the coverage of national election process and related matters. The opening remarks were made by Channa P de Silva, Director, research and policy planning.

 Punchihewa compared the powers enjoyed by his Commission and that of India as he explained the weakness of the EC here. Punchihewa pointed out EC in Sri Lanka lacked the power to reject even a candidate who had been found guilty by court in respect of a bribery charge.  “Therefore, we have no option but to accept nominations handed over by such persons,” he said.

Punchihewa succeeded Mahinda Deshapriya as the Chairman of EC after the last general election, in Aug 2020.

Having flayed a section of the media for pursuing agendas inimical to free and fair election process, Punchihewa emphasized the responsibility, on the part of both print and electronic media, to ensure what he called a level playing field. The media should never be a cat’s paw of racketeers. The lawyer discussed the coverage of elections in terms of the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th Amendments while asserting both the print and electronic media failed to live up to expectations of those who desired neutrality on their part.

Emphasizing that any elected government should follow the basic principle that it was only the caretaker andcertainly not the proprietor, lawyer Punchihewa said that the democracy depended on free and fair elections. However, the absence of incidents on the day of the election didn’t mean a free and fair election, Punchihewa said, urging the media to respond courageously to challenging situations. Referring to Sri Lanka’s international commitments, lawyer Punchihewa said that the country couldn’t afford not to adhere to agreements, including ICCPR accepted over the years.

Pointing out that the law prevented lawmakers from engaging in business with the government, Attorney-at-Law Punchihewa mentioned two cases of members of Parliament losing their seats. Albert de Silva lost the Galle seat he won at the 1977 general election after one-time Prime Minister Wijayananada Dhanayake filed an election petition over the former having a government license to deal in kerosene, Punchihewa said. Dr. Rajitha Senaratne, too, lost his seat on the same grounds though he was immediately accommodated on the UNP National List.

Punchihewa categorized the 1981 Jaffna District Development Council polls, the 1982 referendum, and the 1999 Wayamba Provincial Council poll as having had the worst abuses in Sri Lanka’s electoral history.

Citing a Supreme Court ruling in respect of a case filed against the then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga putting off a scheduled election, lawyer Punchihewa said that even the President couldn’t interfere with the people’s right to exercise their franchise.

The  EC Chairman also referred to another court ruling in respect of the Army preventing those living in LTTE controlled areas from entering the ‘cleared’ area to vote at the 2001 general election to underscore the privileged status of voters to exercise their franchise under any circumstances.

 The Island

 drew the attention of EC Chairman Punchihewa to his failure to act in spite of the inordinate delay in the UNP not filling its solitary National List slot, privileged status given to ex-lawmakers to contest presidential election thereby causing a sharp increase in public expenditure (the EC was reminded its former Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya on record as having said that the cost of the 2019 presidential poll went up to Rs 8 bn from 4 bn due to doubling of the number of contestants), the Election Department/Election Commission and Parliament turning a blind eye to the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) ordering Northern electorate not to vote at the 2005 presidential election and recognition of the LTTE, in late 1989, as a registered political party. 

 We also sought an explanation from the EC as regards the responsibility on its part as well as that of the Parliament. The meeting was also told how the two largest political parties, represented in Parliament, the SLPP and the SJB, with 145 and 54 lawmakers, respectively, happened to be unknown political parties. The EC owed an explanation as to how registered political parties were re-registered under controversial circumstances in spite of tough measures to prevent registration of new political parties, The Island pointed out.

 Responding to criticism of the media directed by EC Chairman Punchihewa, Asoka Dias reminded the risks taken by the media in the performance of their duty. Declaring that the Dec 1999 presidential had been the first national poll that received high profile coverage by state and privately owned media, Dias recollected the Dec 18, 1999 election night suicide bomb attack directed at the then People’s Alliance final rally at the Town Hall.

The LTTE suicide attack claimed the lives of two media persons, namely Indika Paththiniwasam (Sirasa, assistant cameraman) and Anura Priyantha (ITN, assistant cameraman). In addition to them, five media men, including three foreigners, received injuries. A separate suicide attack at Ja-Ela, directed at an UNP rally, also on the same day, claimed the lives of several persons, including retired Army Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Lakshman Algama.

Dias said Sirasa faced a dilemma whether to report the death of Paththiniwasam before informing his 25-year-old wife. The CID, however, found fault with Sirasa over the delay in reporting the Town Hall blast. Dias said that the ITN, too, would have been in a quandary.  “We were repeatedly asked why Sirasa has not reported the blast immediately”. Dias questioned the rationale behind the CID questioning Sirasa over the delay in reporting the blast.

Dias compared the experience gained by the Sri Lankan media in covering elections under exceptionally difficult circumstances and that of the foreign journalists. Referring to a spate of attacks on the media over the years, Dias asserted that the Sri Lankan media faced far more challenges in covering elections than their foreign counterparts.

Commenting on what Dias called lethargic attitude of political parties, he said that in 2000 Sirasa had offered three free minutes each to political parties contesting the general election. In spite of receiving free air time, Sirasa found it difficult to convince political parties to make use of the opportunity, Dias said.

 Responding to almost doubling of the public expenditure as a result of the number of candidates at the last presidential poll being closer to 40, Dias said that the electorate found it difficult to identify genuine contestants and dummy candidates.

Dias raised a number of questions including one on the usefulness of marking voters fingers with ink to prevent organised impersonation against the backdrop of national identity card or some other official document being made compulsory for voting. The Sirasa representative said that a substantial amount of public money could be saved by doing away with futile marking of little fingers. Dias emphasized the need to revisit the whole process, including the contentious of ‘silent period’ in the run-up to elections as social media platforms, satellite TV et al continued to campaign. According to him, the 48-hour ‘silent period’ was irrelevant due advancements made by the media.

Dias recollected how media openly backed selected candidates in 1902 at the Kotahena local government poll. At the first legislative council election in 1912, two newspapers backed P. Ramanathan (The Ceylonese) and Dr. H. M. Fernando (Morning Leader).

The Island 

pointed out the media had been conveniently silent on some contentious issues. The media largely remained silent when the EU alleged in 2004 the Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) led TNA, won 22 seats at the April 2004 general election with the LTTE’s support. Another instance of media apathy was war-winning Army Commander Gen. Sarath Fonseka contesting the 2010 Presidential, poll under the Swan symbol, a political party that hadn’t been represented in either local government institutions or provincial councils or Parliament. The Swan alliance contested 2015 (Maithripala Sirisena) and 2019 (Sajith Premadasa) presidential polls though the media never bothered to examine the story behind such political projects.

Tudor Weerasinghe explained how media, too, contributed to the gradual deterioration of public sector institution. Weerasinghe discussed the responsibility on the part of the media to recognize real issues. The failure to do so could be catastrophic, the lecturer said, urging the media to take on institutions instead of targeting individuals. Misdirected criticism of individuals could have a devastating impact on the entire electoral process, Weerasinghe warned. The academic explained how in spite of the change of governments the systems continued much to the dismay of those who expected genuine transformation. According to him, foreign electorates experienced the same dilemma.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1980s further deteriorated the global balance of power. Referring to the Suez Canal and Cuban missile crises, Weerasinghe pointed out how the West exploited the collapse of the Soviet Union to take unilateral decisions in respect of Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo. Weerasinghe discussed how the media exploited situations as part of various political and other strategies regardless of consequences.  According to him, Sri Lankan media is no exception.

At the conclusion, Saman Sri Ratnayaka explained the role of the EC, difficulties and challenges as the electorates continued to expand as the system came under increased pressure. Ratnayake discussed responsibilities and accountability on their part to ensure a level playing field. The Island asked Ratnayake who would take responsibility –the EC or the parliament-for increasing the number of Local Government members from 4,000 to 8,600 at a massive unbearable burden to the taxpayer. The official explained the circumstances leading to the increase. According to him, the parliament took the decision.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

News

Govt. seeks INTERPOL assistance to bring Basil Rajapaksa back

Published

on

The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and Police Headquarters are in the process of seeking INTERPOL assistance to secure the return of former Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa to Sri Lanka, police sources said yesterday.

A senior police officer said steps were being taken to obtain international assistance to bring Rajapaksa back to the country to face court proceedings relating to two cases in which arrest warrants have been issued against him.

The Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court last week and the Matara Chief Magistrate’s Court several weeks ago issued warrants for Rajapaksa’s arrest after he failed to appear before court.

Colombo Fort Magistrate Pasan Amarasena recently directed the CID’s Illegal Assets Investigation Division to arrest and produce Rajapaksa before court over allegations of misappropriating Rs. 7.8 million belonging to the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau.

According to investigators, funds allocated to the Bureau in 2014 for promotional activities had allegedly been used to distribute 12,000 T-shirts during the Uva Provincial Council election, resulting in a financial loss to the Government.

The Magistrate also released former Tourism Promotion Bureau Managing Director Rumi Jaufer, who had been in remand custody, on two personal bail bonds of Rs. 1 million each and imposed a foreign travel ban on him. Investigators said charges had been filed under the Public Property Act.

Meanwhile, Matara Chief Magistrate Chaturanga Eranga Dissanayake issued a warrant on May 22 for Rajapaksa’s arrest over a case filed by the Police Financial Crimes Investigation Division regarding the purchase of a one-and-a-half-acre land plot at Brown’s Hill, Eliyakanda Road, Matara.

Rajapaksa’s counsel had informed court that the former minister was overseas receiving medical treatment and submitted medical reports in support of the request for his absence. However, the Magistrate, noting his repeated failure to appear before court, ordered the issuance of a warrant.

Rajapaksa is believed to be in the United States, where he has reportedly been receiving medical treatment. His exact location has not been disclosed publicly.

Meanwhile, Minister of Public Security Ananda Wijepala said the same legal measures used to bring back drug traffickers and organised criminals hiding overseas would be applied to former ministers and politicians wanted by courts.

Speaking at a media briefing in Kandy on Thursday, Wijepala said the law would be enforced equally without considering a person’s political status or position.

He said international mechanisms, including INTERPOL notices, would be used against former ministers and politicians abroad who had warrants issued against them.

A police source said the authorities were considering obtaining INTERPOL assistance in the case of Basil Rajapaksa. An INTERPOL Red Notice, if issued, would serve as a request to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition proceedings, while the final decision on surrender would be taken according to the laws of the country where the individual is found.

by Norman Palihawadane and SK Samaranayake

Continue Reading

News

Ravi warns against attempts to stir communal tensions over Easter attacks probe

Published

on

Ravi

New Democratic Front (NDF) MP Ravi Karunanayake on Thursday warned against attempts by certain sections of society to incite racial and religious tensions under the guise of seeking justice for the victims of the 2019 Easter Sunday terror attacks.

Addressing a press conference in Colombo, Karunanayake called for a genuine and impartial investigation into the attacks, while cautioning that the tragedy should not be exploited to undermine communal harmony or derail ongoing investigations.

“There are attempts by some interested parties to create communal disharmony and sabotage opportunities for a genuine investigation into the Easter Sunday attacks,” he said.

Karunanayake, who identified himself as a member of the Catholic community, said he was deeply saddened by the conduct of certain individuals and groups seeking to exert influence and pressure on the investigative process.

“I am saddened to see the conduct of some of our religious leaders exerting influence and pressure on ongoing investigations,” he said, stressing that any inquiry into the attacks should be guided by the principles of justice and humanity rather than political or sectarian interests.

The MP said there was no justification for promoting racism or religious extremism in the country and urged all communities to work towards preserving the longstanding coexistence among Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, Burghers and Malays.

“We must return to a society where all communities live together with mutual respect and affection. Humanity must come before any religious identity, whether one is Catholic, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist,” he said.

Karunanayake emphasized that the ultimate objective of any investigation should be to uncover the truth and deliver justice to the victims while safeguarding national unity.

“Hatred must be eliminated, not cultivated. Any investigation into the Easter Sunday attacks should be conducted in a manner that preserves the social fabric of the nation,” he said.

He reiterated his support for a credible and transparent investigation into the attacks, adding that justice could only be achieved through an independent process free from undue influence and attempts to inflame communal sentiments.

Continue Reading

News

AG undertakes High Court Judge will not be summoned over Yoshitha Rajapaksa case

Published

on

  •  Initial report detailed High Court Judge summoned another Judge regarding order.
  • Writ application filed by three senior Bar members protecting Rule of Law.
  • Dr. Romesh de Silva PC argued Judges cannot be questioned on judicial orders.
  •  Court issued interim order stopping steps on the summons.
  •  Attorney General later gave undertaking Judge would not be summoned as witness.
  •  Petitioners accepted relief; proceedings ended as principle accepted

 In a first time occurrence in the history of the country, a High Court Judge, at the request of the Attorney General’s Department, issued summons on another High Court Judge in order to question him regarding the correctness and accuracy of an order made by him.

The matter arose in criminal proceedings instituted against Yoshitha Rajapaksa.

Thereafter, three senior members of the Bar instituted filed a writ application in the Court of Appeal seeking to quash the summons, stating that their objective was to protect the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary. The Petitioners were President’s Counsel Uditha Egalahewa, President’s Counsel Farman Cassim and senior Attorney-at-Law Sugath Caldera.

The case was taken up on June 2 and Dr. Romesh de Silva, PC, appearing for the Petitioners and leading several President’s Counsel, submitted in the Court of Appeal that the application had been filed in the public interest to safeguard the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary.

Counsel drew the attention of Court to the Constitution, which recognizes the independence of the Judiciary as an intangible heritage of the people of Sri Lanka. He submitted that Sri Lanka had consistently recognized and protected judicial independence.

Dr. de Silva expressed appreciation to the three Petitioners for having come forward to protect the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary. He stated that it was the duty of the Bar to protect the judiciary, because Judges by nature of their office cannot defend themselves.

He submitted that a Judge could not be questioned regarding an order made by him in his judicial capacity. Counsel contended that judicial orders are subject to appeal and that, ultimately, orders of the Supreme Court are final and conclusive. He argued that no Judge, whether of a primary court or the Supreme Court, could be questioned regarding the correctness or accuracy of an order delivered in the exercise of judicial functions.

Counsel accepted that a judicial order itself may be subjected to scrutiny and analysis in an appropriate forum. However, he submitted that the Judge who delivered the order could not be questioned concerning its correctness.

Referring to the facts of the present case, Dr. de Silva submitted that the High Court Judge had been summoned to explain the basis upon which he had made the order in question. He maintained that, irrespective of the correctness of the order itself, the sole issue before Court was whether a Judge could be compelled to answer questions regarding an order delivered by him. Counsel submitted that such a course was totally impermissible.

State Counsel, in lengthy submissions, objecting to the interim order and notice informed Court that the intention behind summoning the Judge had been to question the Judge regarding the procedural steps adopted by him and to demonstrate that the order had been made contrary to law.

The Court of Appeal, comprising the President of the Court of Appeal Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justice Priyantha Fernando, thereafter adjourned to consider the matter and subsequently issued an interim order preventing any further steps being taken pursuant to the summons that had been issued.

The interim order was made operative for a period of one week in order to afford the Attorney General an opportunity, if necessary, to make further submissions.

When the matter was next called on June 12, State Counsel informed Court that the Attorney General had reconsidered his position and would give an undertaking to the Court of Appeal that the High Court Judge would not be summoned to give evidence.

Upon a request made by Dr. de Silva and after hearing submissions, the Attorney General further undertook that the Judge’s name would be removed from the list of witnesses filed in the High Court.

The Petitioners took the position that the undertakings furnished by the Attorney General substantially granted the relief sought in the application and accordingly stated that the proceedings could be brought to an end, as the principle contended for by the Petitioners had been accepted.

Dr. de Silva thanked the Attorney General for his reconsidered position.

It is noted that the State Counsel who appeared on behalf of the Judge who had issued the summons had previously appeared as junior counsel for the State before that same Judge when the summons had originally been issued at the request of the State.

 Dr. Romesh De Silva PC with

Mr. Ikram Mohommed PC

Mr. Manohara De Silva PC

Mr. Rohan Sahabandu PC

Mr. Sanjeewa Jayawardena PC

Mr. Saliya Peirs PC

Mr. N.R Sivendran AAL

Mr. Niran Anketell AAL

Mr. S.V Niles AAL

Mr.Pasindu Bandara AAL

Mr. Sahan Ginige AAL appeared for the Petitioners. Mr Oswald Perera State Counsel with Sajitha Bandara State Counsel appeared for the Attorney General and the second Respondent Hon Udesh Ranatunga under whose hand the Summons has been issued. Mr Chandaka Jayasundera PC appeared for Hon Sahan Mapa Bandara the third Respondent on 12th June 2026.

Continue Reading

Trending