Connect with us

Midweek Review

Corruption: The House in a bind

Published

on

Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, listening attentively to Sarath Jayamanne, PC, at a recent meeting, at the Justice Ministry, to discuss amendments to the proposed anti-corruption Bill. Jayamanne served as Director General CIABOC (Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption) during the yahapalana rule. Lawmaker Rajapakse served the same government, as a minister, before the then President Maithripala Sirisena, acting on the behest of the UNP, abruptly removed him from the Cabinet-of-Ministers after he directed corruption allegations against the regime over the leasing of the Hambantota port on a 99-year lease. (From left) Attorney-at-law Ravindranath Dabare, Justice Secretary Wasantha Perera, Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakse and Sarath Jayamanne (Pic courtesy Justice Ministry)

In the absence of a proper ‘mechanism’ to tackle the massive waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement, disclosed by the parliamentary watchdog committees, COPE, COPA and COPF, they are quietly suppressed. In spite of repeated assurances given by the Parliament, tangible measures hadn’t been taken, so far, to ensure legal measures against those responsible. Therefore, the Parliament cannot absolve itself of the responsibility for the current crisis caused by a toxic combination of reckless decision-making, waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Justice, Prisons Affairs and Constitutional Reforms Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, recently declared that the major allegation directed at lawmakers, was corruption, Minister Rajapakse recalled how he was removed from the post of Chairman of the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s first term (2005-2010) as the President, after the outfit disclosed allegations, pertaining to misappropriation of as much as Rs 300 bn in public funds.

Minister Rajapakse said so at the OPA’s (Organisation of Professional Associations) 2022 awards ceremony held at the Cinnamon Lakeside on August 16. Addressing the gathering, after President Ranil Wickremesinghe and Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywadena, the one-time President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) said that the Cabinet-of-Ministers has approved a new Bill meant to tackle corruption and fraud. The project has received the support of retired Senior Additional Solicitor General Sarath Jayamanne, PC, lawmaker Rajapakse said, while disclosing the proposed law would deal with asset declarations of lawmakers. Let us hope that the new law, once enacted, will lead to examine among other things the scandalous refusal by Parliament to release the list of its members who have filed their declarations of assets and liabilities, from 2010-2018, in answer to an appeal filed by a journalist Chamara Sampath. The Parliament declined to release the required information in spite of the Right to Information Commission asserting that such information is not protected by parliamentary privilege.

PC Jayamanne, who retired in January last year, was also present on the occasion. Having received the appointment as Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) in Nov 2016, Jayamanne served in that post till late January 2020. Obviously, Jayamanne hadn’t been acceptable to the Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration. The Rajapaksa administration turned the CIABOC and the Attorney General’s Department upside down. The dismissal of so many cases, filed during Jayamanne’s tenure as the DG, CIABOC and incumbent Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, in his capacity as the AG, since the last presidential election, is an issue that should be addressed by President Wickremesinghe’s government.

There were obvious shortcomings in those filings, like failure to obtain signatures of all bribery commissioners to sign up on those indictments.

The soft spoken senior AG’s Department officer replaced DG, CIABOC, Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe after the then President Maithripala Sirisena publicly rapped her over the handling of bribery and corruption cases, particularly the high profile AGMS (Avant Garde Maritime Services) investigation.

Actually, the yahapalana government suffered irreparable damage, in late 2015, when its law and order Minister Tilak Marapana, PC, resigned after having defended the AGMS. Dr. Rajapakse, too, strongly defended the ex- Army Commando Officer Maj. Nissanka Senadhipathy’s enterprise.

Minister Rajapakse gave the assurance on a new law to tackle corruption and fraud in the wake, President Wickremesinghe addressing the contentious issue at the inauguration of the third session of the 9th Parliament.

The Presidential Media Division (PMD) in a statement issued in Sinhala, quoted Minister Rajapakse as having asserted that the ‘Aragalaya’, (public protest movement) had been caused by yahapalanaya sans transparency.

The moves to introduce a new Bill, against corruption and fraud, should be examined taking into consideration a controversial Cabinet proposal to pay compensation to 27 persons who held senior administrative posts and other positions during the Mahinda Rajapaksa presidency. They have been offered compensation to the tune of nearly Rs 120 mn whereas appeals made by 11 others were rejected.

The compensation has been awarded by a committee, headed by former Chief Justice Asoka de Silva. Other members of the committee, appointed by the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, are former Court of Appeal Judge Sunil Rajapaksa, President’s Counsel V.K. Choksy, former Auditor General S. Swarnajothi (resigned on November 11, 2021 and succeeded by Chartered Accountant K.S. Chandrapala de Silva), and retired Accountant H.D. Weerasiri.

The ruling SLPP (Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna) wants Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena to submit the Cabinet paper, in this regard, to the Cabinet of Ministers, headed by President Wickremesinghe. The case of those who had been allegedly victimized by a disputable process initiated by the then yahapalana Premier Wickremesinghe is likely to be presented to the Cabinet of Ministers, headed by Wickremesinghe himself. What would be the Justice Minister’s stand?

Shocking case of a Solicitor General

After Sri Lanka’s triumph over separatist Tamil terrorism, the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa vowed to eradicate corruption. But, just over a decade later, waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement, at every level of administration, has resulted in the country being declared bankrupt. The need to carefully examine the responsibility as well as the accountability on the part of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary cannot be ignored. The legislature should accept the major blame as public finance and enactment of new laws are its responsibility.

Let us discuss Solicitor General Dilrukshi Wickramasinghe’s dilemma—a case that never received sufficient media attention. Having lost the post of DG, CIABOC under controversial circumstances, Wickramasinghe returned to the AG’s Department where she maintained a low profile. The then Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC, interdicted her on Sept. 25, 2019, following a leaked telephone conversation she had with Avant Garde proprietor Senadhipathi in her capacity as the DG, CIABOC. The conversation was leaked to the media on Sept. 20, 2019, immediately after the recording of the discussion, without her knowledge.

The highly embarrassing recorded telephone conversation, whether edited or not, with Avant Garde Chairman Nissanka Senadhipathy, in which she virtually admits how she had to abuse her position in that litigation. That aspect was never investigated.

In spite of her being cleared by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), she was not allowed to return to the AG’s Department regardless of specific instructions issued in that regard. The ruling was given in respect of a case filed by Wickramasinghe against the Public Service Commission (PSC).

Wickramasinghe retired on July 30, 2021 after reaching the compulsory retirement age. The unparalleled ruling was given by a three-member AAT consisting of Justice N.E. Dissanayake, A. Gnanathasan, PC and G.P. Abeykeerthi. Justice Dissanayake functioned as the Chairman of the highest tribunal empowered to inquire into such an appeal.

Wickramasinghe appealed to the AAD on Oct 5, 2020. The AAT inquired into disciplinary authority exercised by the PSC in respect of the Solicitor General.

The original ruling that had been given on July 14, 2021 was amended on July 22 subsequent to the PSC seeking clarification of some matters which the AAT considered important. The AAT acknowledged that the issues that had been raised by the PSC weren’t taken into consideration at the time of the issuance of the July 14 ruling.

Attorney-at-law Riad Ameen and Assistant Secretary PSC Srinath Rubasinghe appeared for Wickramasinghe and the PSC, respectively.

The leaked telephone conversation in question was over the controversial case of the Avant Garde floating armoury that divided the previous government, with two ministers with excellent legal backgrounds striking discordant notes.

Dappula de Livera’s successor, Sanjay Rajaratnam, PC, hadn’t, however, allowed SG Wickramasinghe to resume work in spite of the original order nor the amendment ruling given on July 14 and July 22, respectively. A copy of the original order was delivered to the AG’s Office on the evening of July 14.

The AAT ordered (1) Immediate cancellation of PSC directive dated April 06, 2021 that placed SG on compulsory leave pending the completion of a formal inquiry (2) Rescinding of the PSC directive dated October 19, 2020 that sent the SG on compulsory leave to pave the way for her to resume duties (3) Retiring her on July 30, 2021 on her reaching the compulsory retirement age and (4) finalising the much-delayed formal inquiry into the SG’s conduct in terms of Public Administration Circular 30/2019 dated September 30, 2019, expeditiously.

But, the above-mentioned directives were not carried out. Therefore, Wickramasinghe had to retire on reaching the retirement age.

Having acknowledged that Wickramasinghe had found fault with the PSC for the undue delay in finalising the preliminary inquiry and reinstate her, the AAT asserted that the PSC failed to ‘exercise its discretion in a justifiable, reasonable and an objective manner.

The AAT pointed out that Senadhipathy trapped Wickramasinghe with the help of the then UNP Minister Vajira Abeywardena, who gave his phone to the Solicitor General, declaring that Senadhipathy was on line. According to the proceedings, Abeywardena received the call at a Colombo hotel while he was having dinner with Wickramasinghe and her husband. Abeywadena succeeded Ranil Wickremesinghe in Parliament as the only UNP National List MP.

The AAT questioned the failure on the part of those who conducted the preliminary inquiry to record Abeywardena’s statement or examine his phone. The AAT also noted that Senadhipathy spoke to Wickramasinghe through Abeywardena’s phone after Wickramasinghe strongly opposed the Minister’s move to invite the Avant Garde Chairman to have dinner with them at Abeywardena’s residence at Queen’s Road, Colombo 07.

The AAT stated that it had the power to take remedial measures in respect of decisions ‘tainted with error in law and fact’ taken by the PSC.

The AAT also pointed out that Wickramasinghe hadn’t initiated the call and from the outset she insisted that the recording was ‘doctored, edited and distorted.’ Proceedings revealed that AG de Livera had first listened to a tape recording that was edited at 10 places and Senadhipathy himself admitted having edited the recording but he never submitted the original to the Preliminary Investigation Committee. The AAT pointed out that the AG de Livera at the time he made a statement at the preliminary investigations based his assessment on what the AAT called an edited, distorted and unauthentic version of the recording.

Moves against Prof. Herath

Prof. Chritha Herath, former Chairman of the parliamentary watchdog, the committee on Public Enterprises has been quite conveniently dropped from the COPE. Rebel SLPP lawmaker Dullas Alahapperuma recently took up this case with Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena. This issue has been taken up along with the discarding of those who voted for him at the presidential contest on July 03. All of them have been dropped from ‘operating committees.’

Sri Lanka Audit Service Association (SLASA) recently requested President Wickremesinghe to re-appoint both Prof. Herath and Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts (COPA) Prof. Tissa Vitharana. This request has been made on the basis of the performance of the COPE and COPA under the much appreciated leadership given by the two Professors.

However, in the wake of the break-up of the SLPP over differences over economic and political strategy, lawmakers Herath and Vitharana have ended up among the rebels. Prof. Herath switched his allegiance to the group spearheaded by SLPP Chairman Prof. G.L. Peiris and Dullas Alahapperuma, whereas Prof. Vitharana joined the other rebel group also elected on the SLPP ticket.

The SLASA, in its letter to President Wickremesinghe pushed strongly for the re-appointment of the two lawmakers as the heads of the two parliamentary watchdog committees. The outfit warned of efforts to undermine the overall process of bringing the watchdog committees under utterly corrupt elements.

Speaker Abeywardena should look into the accusations made by SLASA without delay. In case, the Speaker felt the outfit made a deliberate attempt to mislead the President and the Parliament, it should be asked to explain.

Prof. Herath obviously angered the powers that be by courageously pursuing investigations with the support of his committee. It would be pertinent to mention that COPE investigations depend on the disclosures made by the Auditor General’s Department. AG W.P.C. Wickremaratne participated in COPE proceedings or was represented by a senior Department official. Lawmakers Patali Champika Ranawaka and Dr. Harsha de Silva, both members of the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) played a significant role in the examinations undertaken by COPE.

Prof. Herath’s stand at the COPE where he quite clearly antagonized the top SLPP leadership can be compared with the challenge faced by lawmaker Wijeyadasa Rajapakse during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s first term. The reaction of the political party in power to investigations undertaken by watchdog committees over the years revealed the nexus between political power and corruption at every level of the government. There cannot be a better example than the high profile Litro case that exposed the government. Litro, owned by Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation (SLIC) in 2020 hired top law firms to prevent state audit of the enterprise. Over Rs 20 mn was spent on the project. Among those who had been engaged by Litro were Romesh de Silva, PC, tasked with drafting a new Constitution and Sanjiva Jayawardena, PC, member of the Monetary Board. Under Prof. Herath’s leadership COPE took a strong stand against Litro’s move. The SLPP National List member didn’t mince his words when he questioned the rationale in a government-owned enterprises objecting to state audits. Unfortunately, the COPE obviously didn’t receive the backing it required both inside and outside parliament to fight corruption.

COPE created history in May this year when it quite clearly established the circumstances leading to the unprecedented economic fallout. Governor of the Central Bank Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, Finance Secretary Mahinda Siriwardana and Monetary Board members, Sanjiva Jayawardena, PC and Dr. Ranee Jayamahaha confirmed how the then Governor of the Central Bank Prof. W.D. Lakshman, Finance Secretary S.R. Attygalle, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, in his capacity as the Finance Minister, Cabinet-of-Ministers and Presidential Secretary Dr. P.B. Jayasundera pursued a dangerous economic line.

 It is a mystery why Jayamaha and Jayawardena continued to serve in the Monetary Board under successive CB Governors if they disagreed with policies pursued by them.

Against the backdrop of assurance given by President Wickremesinghe and Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakse that a new Bill would be enacted to fight corruption and fraud, it would be their responsibility as well as that of the Parliament to ensure proper functioning of watchdog committees.

In spite of the country being declared bankrupt and the vast majority of people unable to have two proper meals a day, corruption is on the march. Disclosures made by the Auditor General and parliamentary watchdog committees over the years point out that mega scale corruption takes place under the patronage of those responsible for ensuring transparency in public finance. That is the undeniable truth.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Midweek Review

Batalanda and complexities of paramilitary operations

Published

on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paramilitary operations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muthaliff’s role

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JVP’s accountability

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

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

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

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

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

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Independent Monitor

Published

on

You may think sloth comes very easy,

To your kingly monitor of the shrinking marsh,

As he lies basking smugly in the morn sun,

But he is organized and alert all the while,

As he awaits his prey with patience infinite,

Free of malice, a professional of a kind,

His cumbrous body not slowing his sprite….

But note, he’s no conspirator spitting guile,

And doesn’t turn nasty unless crossed,

Nor by vengeful plans is he constantly dogged,

Unlike those animals of a more rational kind,

Whose ways have left behind a state so sorry.

By Lynn Ockersz

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

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

Published

on

Wickremesinghe responds to Hasan during the controversial interview recorded in London

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

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

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

Q:

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

A:

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

Q:

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

A:

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

Q:

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

A:

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

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

Q:

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

A:

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

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

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

Q:

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

A:

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

Q:

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

A:

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

Q:

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

A:

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

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

Q:

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

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

Q:

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

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

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

Q:

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

A:

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

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

Q:

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

A:

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

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

 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

Trending