Connect with us

Editorial

Curiouser and curiouser

Published

on

The Diana Gamage defection from the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) becomes “curiouser and curiouser” by the day if we may borrow from Alice in Wonderland. Apart from murdering Shakespeare, the question of the good lady’s citizenship has also arisen in reports bruited around in the social media. These have alleged that she has been listed as a British citizen in the Company Registry in the UK and also that her British driving license recorded her as British citizen resident in the UK. Questioned on the subject, Gamage had offered an interviewer to show him her passport. This ended that particular line of questioning. A popular Youtube channel mentioned that her soldier grandfather was British adding some lunu ambul to an already spicy dish.

Gamage, whose husband Senaka de Silva, was a principal aide to General (now Field Marshal) Sarath Fonseka when he ran for President, was the general secretary of a little known political party called “Ape Jana Balavegaya” recognized in the books of the Election Commission. This was the party which Sajith Premadasa and his supporters acquired for the purposes of running at the parliamentary election last August after quittting the UNP. This was done by effecting a name change of the party by dropping the ‘Ape’in its title and substituting ‘Samagi’ in its place. Not only was the party name changed but also its general secretary, Diana Gamage, who was replaced by Premadasa loyalist Ranjith Madduma Bandara with Diana relegated to a slot of deputy general secretary of the rose that bore another name. That is why Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardene said in Parliament that this lady “owned” the Premadasa party. Her National List nomination to the legislature is widely believed to have been a consideration for transferring such “ownership.”

As far as we know, the Sri Lanka passports of persons holding dual citizenship do not specifically record that fact. They are issued a certificate of dual citizenship and invariably hold two passports, one from their other domicile (British, US, Canadian, Australian or whatever) and one from Sri Lanka. The question must obviously arise whether Gamage is a dual citizen or not. If she was, before 20A for which she voted was passed, she would not have been entitled to enter Parliament. It wasn’t that long ago that another “fair Member” as they are referred to in various legislatures in the British tradition, Geetha Kumarasinghe, lost her elected membership of the House after a protracted court battle over her Swiss citizenship. She had, like President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, subsequently renounced such citizenship and been re-elected to the incumbent Parliament having lost her seat in the previous one. Dual citizenship of Sri Lankans can be very easily ascertained and it is most unlikely that Diana Gamage entered Parliament under false pretenses. That is a matter that can be easily established but questions would remain on how and why she is described a British citizen in the official records of the government of the United Kingdom.

The SJB says it will expel the 20A defectors from their party. They have, as a first step, already asked the speaker to seat those eight lawmakers who defied the party whip, elsewhere in the parliamentary chamber. These arrangements will most likely be made in time for the next sitting. Although constitutional provisions were made to enable political parties to expel defectors, who risked losing their seats, when the proportional representation (PR) system of elections replaced the previous first-past-the-post Westminster model, no defector up to now has lost his/her parliamentary seat. The PR legislation, in the interest of checks and balances (of political parties acting unjustly) provided an appeal procedure enabling sacked MPs to either go to the Supreme Court or a Parliamentary Select Committee. A judgment of Chief Justice Sarath Silva made it very difficult for an MP to lose his seat although the door was not closed altogether. Obviously this lot of defectors, like those who changed sides earlier, would have done their homework on the risk of losing their seats before crossing the Rubicon. They well know that government’s can prolong Select Committee proceedings for ever and a day and their seats will not be endangered if they are on the right side of the fence.

Forgetting Diana Gamage’s ignorance of Shakespeare, which she amply demonstrated with her unforgettable howler on the floor of the House, declaring she loved her country more than she loved her party, there are obvious questions that arise. If she thought as highly of President Gotabaya Rajapaska then, as she says she now does, why did she give her party all wrapped up in ribbons – we won’t say gift because it was anything but that – to the Sajith-led group to run against the Rajapaksa-led SLPP at the August parliamentary election? Also, why did she accept an SJB National List seat which was surely not forced on her, to sit in opposition to the Rajapaksa government? Pardon us, fair lady, your slip is showing.

Now that 20A, certified last week by Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, is part of the country’s basic law, there is a vital question begging to be answered by those who today rule this island. If President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has solemnly assured the likes of Wimal Weerawansa, Vasudeva Nanayakkara and Udaya Gammanpila that the 19A bar on dual citizen running for election will be included in the promised new constitution by November 2021, why then is a year-long window being kept open between now and then? Did those who obtained this assurance seek a guarantee that the provision will not be used in the interim? If not why? Basil Rajapaksa has clearly indicated that he does not wish to renounce his U.S. citizenship as his brother did. Does that mean that he is content to stay where he is now and will not enter Parliament before the new constitution is enacted?



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Editorial

Diyawanna battles

Published

on

Friday 23rd April, 2021

Parliamentary sessions, at times, can be far more entertaining than cable TV programmes like Animal Fight Club. On Wednesday, our honourable MPs almost came to blows during a debate on the report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI), which probed the alleged instances of political victimisation under the previous government. The Opposition accused the government of having adopted an ad hoc method to open an escape route for the SLPP MPs and supporters with court cases against them.

The SJB argued, in Parliament on Wednesday, that all 90 cases mentioned in the PCoI report could not be considered instances of political victimisation as they had been filed by the person, who currently holds the post of Chief Justice, when he was the Attorney General. Its line of reasoning has left us puzzled. The SJB’s argument is apparently based on the assumption that the legality of actions taken by an Attorney General who goes on to become the Chief Justice cannot be challenged. But one may recall that in 2018 the Supreme Court rejected all arguments that the person, who is the current Chief Justice, put forth, in his capacity as the Attorney General, in defence of the then President Maithripala Sirisena, who sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and formed a new government with Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister, before dissolving Parliament, unable to muster a simple majority therein. The UNF government was reinstated, and, interestingly, the following year the Attorney General, whose defence of the presidential actions did not stand up to judicial scrutiny, became the Chief Justice. The rest is history.

That the SJB’s argument at issue is flawed cannot, however, be used to justify the government’s claim that all those against whom the aforesaid cases were filed during the yahapalana government have been politically victimised.

Political victimisation is part of Sri Lanka’s rotten political culture. Many people have been politically victimised under successive governments, and they need redress. The yahapalana government also manipulated the police and the Attorney General’s Department to compass its political ends while claiming to be on a mission to restore the rule of law and usher in good governance. But the fact remains that after every regime change, lawbreakers in the garb of government MPs pretend to be victims of political witch-hunts and some of them succeed in having their cases terminated. The Opposition is, therefore, right in having challenged some decisions of the PCoI on political victimisation although the arguments it has put forth to bolster its position are specious.

Meanwhile, among those affected by political victimisation are two former Heads of the Judiciary—Dr. Shirani Bandaranayke and Mohan Peiris. The impeachment that led to the ouster of Dr. Bandaranayake in 2013 was politically motivated. The then Rajapaksa government got rid of her because it considered her an impediment to its political project which it sought to have legitimised judicially. Two years later, the yahapalana government righted the wrong, but the method it employed for that purpose was wrong. Instead of having Parliament correct what it had done to her, it had President Sirisena reinstate her by ‘vapourising’ Chief Justice Peiris. The presidential decree that Dr. Bandaranayke’s removal was unlawful; the post of the Chief Justice had not fallen vacant and, therefore the appointment of Peiris as the head of the judiciary was null and void ab initio, made an already bad situation worse. The yahapalana government should have taken action against either Peiris or former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who appointed him the Chief Justice or both of them, if it had really believed in its claim that he (Peiris) had been functioning as the Chief Justice unlawfully; that was the only way it could have justified the defenestration of Peiris. There were reports that some yahapalana goons had threatened him to resign.

Justice Minister Ali Sabry recently declared in Parliament that the removal of Peiris as the Chief Justice had been illegal, and promised to take remedial action. This issue, too, should be debated in Parliament.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Carnage and boru shows

Published

on

Thursday 22nd April, 2021

The Opposition MPs attended Parliament, wearing black, yesterday, when the second anniversary of the Easter Sunday terror attacks fell; their ruling party counterparts wore black armbands, instead. Did they do so as a sign of sympathy and condolence, or by way of a political statement? Christians traditionally wear black while in mourning, but when aggressive men who resort to fisticuffs, at the drop of a hat, wear black, they look minatory. How frightening Parliament would have looked if those with a history of throwing projectiles and chilli powder at their political rivals in the House and even threatening the Chair had also been dressed in black?

The members of both sides did not care to behave themselves at least on the day when the country remembered the victims of the Easter Sunday tragedy. They invaded the Well of the House, yesterday, trading obscenities, according to media reports. What a way to remember the dead!

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) which probed the Easter Sunday attacks has held the yahapalana government including the President (Maithripala Sirisena) and the Prime Minister (Ranil Wickremesinghe) accountable for the tragedy. Most of the current Opposition MPs were in that administration at the time of the carnage (2019), and, therefore, cannot absolve themselves of the blame for the serious lapses that made the terror strikes possible. The fact that they have left the UNP, which was in power at the time, does not help diminish their culpability.

If the former UNF MPs currently in the Opposition think they can pull the wool over the eyes of the public with the help of gimmicks such as wearing black, they are mistaken. The least they can do to diminish their guilt, if at all, is to tender a public apology for their failure to heed the warnings of attacks and ensure public safety in 2019. Some of the maimed victims have said they have been forgotten, and the former yahapalana MPs are duty bound to take up cudgels for these hapless people they failed to protect.

The government grandees, who made a comeback by flogging the issue of the Easter Sunday terror and promising to punish the perpetrators thereof, also cannot dupe the public by bellowing empty rhetoric and wearing black armbands. They have to fulfil their promise at issue while granting relief to the terror victims. A small girl who suffered injury in the bomb attack on the Zion Church, Batticaloa, on 19 April 2019, is in need of funds to have her eyesight restored. Her family cannot afford the cost of surgery. So, the government MPs ought to reach out and help such victims. Boru shows won’t do.

Most of all, everything possible must be done to ensure that there will be no more terror attacks. There is no guarantee that the country is safe, for the masterminds behind the Easter carnage have not been identified. So long as they are at large, threats will persist and nobody will be safe. The incumbent government is full of politicians who brag that terrorism will not be allowed to raise its ugly head again, on their watch. True, they were instrumental in defeating northern terror, but let them be advised not to be cocky. It is said that terrorists only have to be lucky once, and their targets have to be lucky always.

The general consensus is that the government cannot summon the political moxie to go all out to have the masterminds behind the Easter Sunday attacks traced because it does not want any more problems to contend with on the diplomatic front; it is also accused of having cut secret deals with some politicians with links to extremists to muster a two-thirds majority in Parliament and secure votes at future elections. It will have a hard time trying to prove its critics wrong.

Only a fresh probe into the Easter Sunday tragedy will help find out who handled Zahran and Naufer. If the government fails to reveal the truth, the SLPP will have its MPs occupying the Opposition benches in the next Parliament, fully dressed in black, which, in our book, is the colour of failure and duplicity, where Sri Lankan politicians are concerned.

Continue Reading

Editorial

April carnage and murky waters

Published

on

Wednesday 21st April, 2021

A series of near-simultaneous terrorist bombings shocked the country on this day, two years ago. More than 250 persons including children perished in the attacks, which also left hundreds of others injured. It is equally shocking that no one has yet been punished for those heinous crimes and the masterminds behind the attacks have not been identified. The government would have the public believe that an extremist preacher named Naufer masterminded the attacks, but there is no credible evidence to prove its claim. True, Naufer indoctrinated the National Thowheed Jamaath (NTJ) cadres and had some influence over Zahran, who led the suicide bombers, but he, too, is believed to have had a handler.

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI), which probed the Easter Sunday attacks, has unearthed some valuable information about the incidents, but much more remains to be done. It has held the then President Maithripala Sirisena and the yahapalana government responsible for the serious security lapses that enabled the NTJ terrorists to strike with ease. It has also recommended legal action against several police and intelligence officers who failed to act on repeated warnings. It should have named the members of the yahapalana Cabinet and recommended that they also be prosecuted.

Archbishop of Colombo Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith must have struck a responsive chord with all right-thinking Sri Lankans, on Monday, when he said, some political deals that helped the government secure a two-thirds majority in Parliament for the 20th Amendment may have influenced the outcome of the Easter Sunday carnage probe. ‘He that has an ill name’ is said to be half-hanged; the present-day leaders have earned notoriety for political horse-trading, and it is only natural that they stand accused of having cut secret deals with those with alleged links to the Easter Sunday terrorists.

The government is in a dilemma. Pressure is mounting on it to initiate legal action against Sirisena. The SLFP is likely to pull out of the ruling SLPP coalition if Sirisena is prosecuted; such a breakaway will threaten the stability of the government to a considerable extent and, therefore, the SLPP is not in a position to throw Sirisena to the wolves. How will the government wriggle out of this catch-22 situation?

Legal action can be instituted, on the basis of the PCoI findings and recommendations, against those whose dereliction of duty and criminal negligence helped the NTJ terrorists destroy so many lives, but the country will not be safe unless the real masterminds behind the attacks are traced and dealt with. The PCoI has not dug deep enough in this regard as can be seen from the perfunctory manner in which it has treated the alleged foreign involvement in the Easter Sunday terror attacks. The bulky PCoI report has only eight pages on this vital issue, and the views of key witnesses who suspect a foreign hand have been rejected as mere ipse dixits. These witnesses, according to the PCoI report, are Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, former President Maithripala Sirisena, former Minister Rauff Hakeem, former Minister Rishad Bathiudeen, former Governor Asath Salley, Mujeebur Rahuman, MP, former Director SIS SDIG Nilantha Jayawardene, former Commandant of the STF SDIG M. R. Latiff, former Chief of Defence Staff Admiral (retd.) Ravindra Wijegunaratne, Senior DIG/CID, Ravi Senevirathne (retired) and former CID Director SSP Shani Abeysekera. So, if a fresh probe gets underway to identify the terror masterminds, the aforesaid witnesses will be able to furnish more information.

The Easter Sunday carnage should be investigated from all angles. The PCoI report says Zahran’s original plan was to attack the Kandy Perahera, but it was advanced due to the detection of explosives in Wanathawilluwa, international factors such as the IS losing ground in Syria and Iraq, and Zahran’s fear that he might be apprehended. It needs to be found out whether there was an attempt to use the NTJ terror to trigger a backlash against the Muslim community and drive the Muslims, especially those in the strategically important Eastern Province, into the hands of the separatists, or other such elements bent on destabilising the country.

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending