Connect with us

Midweek Review

Corruption saga continues

Published

on

A jubilant Rankan Ramanayake leaving Welikada prison (pic by Jude Denzil Pathiraja)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Sri Lanka Institute of Directors (SLID) and Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) recently declared corruption as the root cause of Sri Lanka’s current political and economic crisis. The declaration was made in a statement titled, “SLID and TISL launch ‘Business Against Corruption’ Initiative” issued to the media after the two organisations finalised an agreement on a three-year plan to address the issues at hand.

The statement described the contract as strategic collaboration between the two NGOs. Veteran banker Faizal Salieh and Attorney-at-Law Nadishani Perera signed the agreement for SLID and TISL, respectively.

TISL was launched in late 2002 whereas SLID came into being in April 2000. The assertion that corruption bankrupted the country underscored the failure on the part of successive governments (parliaments), the Finance Ministry, Monetary Board, CIABOC, Attorney General’s Department and the Auditor General’s Department, as well as apparent well-meaning bodies, like SLID and TISL. The way the political party system hindered and diluted the National Audit Bill and the Parliament moved court against the releasing of MPs’ asset declarations indicate the challenges faced in reforming the system.

No less a person than the Governor of the Central Bank Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, in May this year, acknowledged Sri Lanka’s shameful status. Dr. Weerasinghe, who retired as Senior Deputy Governor, CBSL in January 2021, was requested to take over the CBSL in April this year in the wake of Ajith Nivard Cabraal’s resignation amidst an unprecedented deterioration of the country’s financial situation.

Nadishani Perera succeeded as TISL’s Executive Director from Asoka Obeysekera in January 2021. Salieh was unanimously elected as the Chairman, SLID for the year 2021/22 at a virtual AGM held on Aug. 11, 2021. It would be pertinent to mention that the then State Minister of Finance, Capital Markets and State Enterprise Reforms Cabraal was the Chief Guest at this meet held a month before Central Bank Governor Prof. W.D. Lakshman was unceremoniously asked to step down to pave the way for the State Minister to return to the Governor’s Office.

Cabraal previously served as the 12th Governor of CBSL from July 2006 to January 2015 and returned. His second stint as the 16th Governor, CBSL lasted just eight months. As the 16h Governor he was elevated to the Cabinet rank. As a result, the Governor’s rank in the Table of Precedence has gone up from 20th to fifth place. The Governor is now ranked below the President, Prime Minister, Speaker and the Chief Justice.

In joint fifth place, the Table of Precedence comprises the Leader of the Opposition, Cabinet of Ministers and the Field Marshal.

When Cabraal succeeded Prof. Lakshman the government was in serious difficulty. Having ignored the IMF’s advice in early 2020 to restructure the debt and drop plans to do away with a range of taxes, the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government caused immense damage to the national economy. But the economic fallout cannot be entirely blamed on corruption since the country had to fend off the worldwide pandemic and the 2019 Easter Sunday terror attacks by Islamic extremists, both of which crippled the country’s vibrant and vital tourism industry and worker remittances, coupled with the fallout from the war in Ukraine.

Nadishani Perera declared their primary objective was to eradicate corruption supported by the private sector. She said so in response to a query from us. They’ll be seeking required funding from the ADB, World Bank and other institutions such as the Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE).

A toxic combination of waste, corruption, irregularities, mismanagement and ill-advised decisions contributed to the worst-ever crisis post-independence Sri Lanka experienced. Both public and private sectors should accept responsibility for the crisis. Shocking disclosures made by the Auditor General and at proceedings of the Committee of Public Enterprises (COPE), Committee of Public Accounts (COPA) and Committee of Public Finance (COPF) over the years repeatedly proved culpability of Parliament for the financial crisis.

The SLID-TISL project is meant to enhance transparency, accountability and integrity by encouraging ethical business practices, fair market competition, fair pricing and credible leadership.

The joint statement quoted Salieh as having said: “We are mindful of the current state of affairs, the ground realities, and the challenges faced by companies in doing business. Therefore, our approach on this journey is pragmatic and practical and will enable businesses to proactively and progressively mitigate the corruption risk using preventive measures, checks and balances on a voluntary, ‘best efforts’ basis.”

Nadishani Perera was quoted as having said: “Businesses play a critical role in any nation’s efforts against corruption. At this unique and transformative moment in Sri Lanka’s history, as the citizens have risen against corruption, it is of utmost importance that the business community also commits to do its part towards this mission.”

Bond scams

 In spite of high-profile projects reportedly meant to restore public confidence in public and private sectors, the situation continues to deteriorate. That is the undeniable truth. In late Nov 2016, the USAID in partnership with Sri Lanka Parliament launched USD 13 mn (Rs 1.92 bn) project to strengthen accountability, transparency and good governance.

Parliament owed the public an explanation as regards the success or utter failure of the three-year project. Did it achieve its objectives? Perhaps, the then Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, in his new capacity as the Chairman of the National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ) will care to explain the outcome of the USAID project. The USD 13 mn project should be examined against the backdrop of the Treasury bond scams perpetrated in Feb 2015 and March 2016 under then yahapalana (good governance) rule. Then Speaker Jayasuriya and the US obviously didn’t care that the yahapalana government delayed investigations into the Treasury bond scams and actually nothing really was done about it until then President Maithripala Sirisena appointed a presidential Commission of Inquiry (CoI) that included two sitting Supreme Court judges in late January 2017 to carry out a public probe.

Probably, Sirisena, now an SLPP MP (Polonnaruwa district) must have quite conveniently forgotten how he dissolved Parliament at midnight on June 26, 2015 to prevent the then COPE Chairman D.E.W. Gunasekera from tabling in Parliament his report on the first Treasury bond scam. At the behest of the UNP leadership, the then lawmaker Attorney-at-Law Sujeewa Senasinghe moved court to thwart the releasing of the COPE report. Senasinghe, an Attorney-at-Law even had the audacity to write a book denying the scam.

Regardless of Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) being under the spotlight over the Treasury Bond scams, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) had no qualms in receiving sponsorship amounting to Rs 2.5 mn in support from the tainted firm for its project, Law Asia 2016. The Colombo Port City and the USAID had been among the BASL’s sponsors for its other events.

 Eight years after the first Treasury Bond scam, what is the current status of the investigations and Sri Lanka’s efforts to convince Singapore to extradite Arjuna Mahendran, under whose watchful eyes as the Governor, CBSL the Treasury Bond scams took place? Can the Attorney General and the Justice Ministry explain measures taken by them since the change of government in July to have Mahendran extradited? Against the backdrop of assurances given by the Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, that a Bill to combat fraud and corruption would be enacted soon, the public have a right to know how the new government intended to handle Treasury Bonds scams probe/prosecutions.

Singapore-based Mahendran challenged The Island editorial (‘Cops and Robbers’) of Friday August 19, 2022. Denying he fled the country, the Singaporean revealed that his Counsel Romesh de Silva, PC secured the permission of Supreme Court justice K.T. Chitrasiri for him to leave the country. Justice Chitrasiri headed the CoI. The issue at hand is whether Mahendran through his learned Counsel gave an assurance to Justice Chitrasiri that he would return to the country in case the Attorney General initiated legal action over the Treasury Bond scams. Perhaps, Mahendran’s Counsel should set the record straight.

The question is when President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva made the request on behalf of Mahendran and secured approval as the former CBSL Governor claimed, did he give an assurance to the CoI that he would return within a specific period or did the CoI sought such a pledge from him.

Vidanapathirana Associates, on behalf of Ranil Wickremesinghe, several weeks after the last presidential election in Nov 2019, responded to a spate of allegations pertaining to Treasury Bond scams et al directed at the former Premier by yahapalana regime President Maithripala Sirisena. Responding to specific allegation that Wickremesinghe helped Mahendran to escape Sri Lankan justice, Vidanapathirana Associates stated (verbatim): “Mr. Arjuna Mahendran gave evidence before the Presidential Commission and therefore obtained its permission to leave Sri Lanka. He has not returned since then.”

The Attorney General’s Department should inquire into the circumstances under which Mahendran left the country.

Controversy over privatization

 Restructuring/privatization of loss-making state enterprises has received attention as part of the overall economic recovery efforts. However, rebel SLPP lawmaker Dr. Nalaka Godahewa recently raised the possibility of the new government exploiting the current economic crisis to privatize profit-making ventures, such as Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation (SLIC) and Sri Lanka Telecom. The former Viyathmaga activist was responding to President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent declaration as regards privatization.

Declaring his whole hearted support for the proposed restructuring of loss-making enterprises, Dr. Godahewa however questioned the move to privatize the profitable ventures. Such privatizations will further weaken the public sector due to the Treasury being deprived of much needed cash. Dr. Godahewa assertion that the vast majority of 94 state enterprises privatized between 1990-2003 during the tenure of late President Ranasinghe Premadasa and ex-President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga were profitable ventures reveals how the powers that be gradually deprived the Treasury of wherewithal.

The lawmaker while making reference to the controversial circumstances China secured the Hambantota port on a 99-year-lease for USD 1.2 bn in 2017, questioned the move to privatize SLIC and SLT.

Commenting on what he called Sri Lanka’s infamous privatization policy, Dr. Godahewa mentioned a few interesting facts regarding the privatized enterprises though he refrained from naming them. (1) The Supreme Court in 2009 reversed the sale of SLIC for Rs 6 bn during the tenure of Kumaratunga’s regime. At the time of the transaction, the SLIC had assets estimated to be worth over Rs 30 bn (2) The Supreme Court also in the same year reversed two more corrupt transactions, namely Waters Edge and Lanka Marine Services (3) A person who bought a plantation company earned a 100 percent profit within 24 hours after he sold the same property for double the amount he paid for (4) Those who acquired a company that dealt with food much more cash they paid for that particular state enterprise. That enterprise had more money in its bank accounts and the safes than what was received by the government from the buyer and (5) Some of those buyers earned massive profits by selling machinery and equipment.

So, no wonder she was dubbed Chaura Regina (bandit queen) by her one-time political soulmate Victor Ivan in a book he published and to this date ex-President Kumaratunga has not dared to challenge the accusations either in a court of law or by word.

The whole privatisation/restructuring programme appeared to have been carried out at the expense of the national economy while successive governments packed the public enterprises with their supporters. But the massive expansion of the public sector took place at the behest of Mahinda Rajapaksa, who served as the President from Nov 2005 to January 2015.

Public Administration Secretary Priyantha Mayadunne didn’t mince his words a few months ago when he declared how the public service had become an unbearable burden to the taxpayer. But why didn’t he speak up earlier? Mayadunne explained how the public service had been recklessly expanded to nearly 1.5 mn whereas the requirement was 500,000. One-time Justice Ministry Secretary Mayadunne emphasized the need to restructure the public service. Mayadunne’s warning to political parties represented in Parliament, state and private sector trade unions and the civil society that they will soon be categorized as traitors unless they agreed to far reaching economic reforms appeared to have fallen on deaf ears.

Regardless of consequences, the government and the Opposition seemed still struggling to score petty political points than reaching a consensus on workable solutions to address grave political, economic and social issues. Their failure to agree on urgently needed reforms agenda is evidence that the public cannot depend on political parties represented in parliament. Instead of addressing issues at hand, particularly the internationally supervised debt restructuring plan, those who are responsible for the economic fallout seemed determined to consolidate their positions while pursuing the same old strategies.

The government owed an explanation as regards accusations pertaining to the planned privatization of the SLIC and SLT.

TISL’s corruption index

 According to TISL’s most recent Corruption Perception Index (2021) Sri Lanka is ranked 102nd out of 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption. This assessment is certainly questionable. If corruption allegations directed at decision-makers, both in and outside Parliament, are properly examined taking into consideration the responsibilities of the executive, members of the legislature as well as the judiciary, Sri Lanka must be among the worst lot. The proceedings of the parliamentary watchdog committees, periodic reports released by them as well as the Auditor General’s reports paint a bleak picture. The SLID and TISL should inquire into public enterprises as the former represents nearly 1,000 personnel at top management level at state and private sectors. Instead of taking tangible measures to tackle waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement, the anti-corruption project could become yet another lucrative trade.

 Former Samagi Jana Balavegaya lawmaker Ranjan Ramanayake declared as he left Welikada prison last Friday (26) that Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, asked for a guarantee from him that he would continue his anti-corruption campaign. The declaration was made after Ramanayake serving a four-year term of RI for contempt of judiciary received a presidential pardon after he publicly acknowledged there was no basis for accusations, he directed at the judiciary on Aug 21, 2017 outside Temple Trees. The former MP apologized to the judiciary while promising not to say anything inimical to the judiciary ever again. Obviously, those who had gathered outside Welikada prison to welcome Ramanayake didn’t really comprehend the implications of the politician going back on his much-publicized declarations. During his tenure as a UNP MP, Ramanayake twice lashed out at the judiciary. In respect of the second case the Supreme Court sentenced him to two years RI suspended for five years.

There had never been a proper inquiry into Ramanayake’s audio tapes though they captured the attention of the public. The releasing of audio tapes of conversations among SSP Shani Abeysekara (he hadn’t been appointed Director CID then), the then Deputy Minister of Social Empowerment Ranjan Ramanayake, the then High Court judge Mrs. Padmini Ranawaka and President Maithripala Sirisena, in the wake of the 2019 Presidential Election, sent shock waves through political parties, the judiciary, the police and the civil society.

Controversy still surrounds the circumstances under which the police received the recordings, secretly made by Ramanayake. Selected tapes were released to both the print and electronic media. Attempts to hush up the shocking revelations, pertaining to the Himbutana killings (Bharatha Premachandra killing), and the subsequent judgment failed.

Those in authority conveniently refrained from conducting a proper investigation into the scandalous interventions made by Ramanayake, as well as the conduct of HC judge Mrs. Ranawaka, and Abeysekara, though the police recorded some statements, including that of Mrs. Ranawaka.

Parliament suppressed the matter. The then Speaker Karu Jayasuriya should explain what really happened. Jayasuriya was among those who called for presidential pardon for Ramanayake. The failure to examine Parliament’s pathetic response to the disturbing revelations and the suppression of CDs is a matter for concern.

Did Ramanayake speak to High Court Judge Mrs. Ranawaka to influence the murder conviction against Duminda Silva, sans permission from the party leadership? Did the then top UNP leadership tell him to approach judges in respect of various cases?

Ramanayake is also on record phoning High Court judge Gihan Pilapitiya and Magistrate Dhammika Hemapala. Following the disclosure of a fraction of the tapes, the police recorded statements from Mrs. Ranawaka (retired), Pilapitiya and Hemapala.

Let me focus on the conversations involving Mrs. Ranawaka, Ramanayake, Abeysekara and President Sirisena (now SLPP Polonnaruwa district MP. Sirisena also remains the SLFP leader).

Mrs. Ranawaka had no qualms in declaring that she had no confidence in President Sirisena though she subsequently directly pleaded with him to promote her to the Court of Appeal. Mrs. Ranawaka expressed doubts about President Sirisena when Ramanayake phoned her on July 14, 2016, in the wake of Abeysekara expressing serious concerns over the way the Duminda Silva matter, and related issues, were proceeding to their dislike. Nearly two dozen conversations, involving Ramanayake and Abeysekara, should have been examined without taking them in isolation. According to conversations now in public domain, Mrs. Ranawaka asked Ramanayake to intervene on her behalf when the latter pressed her on the pending judgment on the Himbutana killings. The judge also made reference to the then lawmaker and Attorney-at-Law Ajith P. Perera during her conversation, initiated by Ramanayake. The way the conversation continued, clearly indicated that the call taken by Ramanayake, on July 14, 2016, couldn’t have been the first and they knew each other very well. Mrs. Ranawaka, obviously exploited Ramanayake’s intervention to explore the possibility of moving up the ladder with unbridled political patronage.

Let there be a thorough inquiry into matters of concern. A genuine effort is needed.



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