Connect with us


Whereabouts of NTJ bomber Hastun’s wife still a mystery



Outgoing HR Chief says missing girl’s mother never mentioned Zahran

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) said Rajaratnam Kavitha, mother of P. Pulasthini (24) wife of Thowheed Jamaat suicide bomber Atchchi Muhammadu Hastun hadn’t informed the HRCSL Office in Batticaloa of Zahran Hashim’s involvement in the disappearance of her daughter.

Outgoing HRCSL Chairperson Dr. Deepika Udagama told The Island that there hadn’t been any reference to Zahran when Kavitha visited the Regional Office on April 17, 2019, four days before the Easter attacks.

Dr. Udagama was responding to The Island query whether the Regional Office informed Colombo of receiving a complaint as regards the missing young woman. The Island raised the issue with Dr. Udagama in the wake of Kavitha‘s testimony before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (P CoI) in late last month.

Kavitha said that she visited the HRCSL Regional Office in Batticaloa after the Kaluwanchikudy and Kattankudy Police stations declined to accept her complaints. Kavitha said: I informed an officer there that I had found out my daughter was with Zahran. At that moment he said he knew Zahran and that there was nothing to be scared of since Zahran was a normal person.” Kavitha also quoted the HRCSL official as having said there was no need to lodge a complaint and that he would look into the matter.

The PCoI was told that Pulasthini fled to India following the blast. Intelligence services are in the process of verifying controversial testimony before the PCoI. However, authorities are yet to reach a conclusion on Pulasthini’s whereabouts against the backdrop of initial reports she perished in

Sainthamaruthu blast that claimed the lives of several Thowheed Jamaat cadres.

Q: Did HRCSL receive a complaint in this regard or any information regarding Kavitha’s visit to HRCSL Regional Office?

A: We obtained a detailed report on the matter from our Batticaloa Regional Office. It also includes the log entry relating to the visit of Ms. Kavitha to the Regional Office on 17 April, 2020. According to our records, one Ms. Kavitha of Mankadu, Cettipalayam had visited our Batticaloa Regional Office on 17 April, 2019 accompanied by a male. Her complaint was that her daughter P. Pulasthini (age 24) had gone away with a young man from the Muslim community and had married him in 2015, and that her whereabouts were not known. She had appealed to the HRCSL to assist in finding her. As the matter was of a private nature, our officer had informed Ms. Kavitha that it did not fall within the HRCSL’s statutory mandate. Ms. Kavitha had been advised to seek the assistance of the police to find her daughter. At that point the mother had not informed of any attempts to complain to the police or of any inaction on the part of the police. If that were the case the complaint would have been registered.

In her complaint Ms. Kavitha had stated that one Razik from a Muslim organization was having influence over her daughter’s family life. There had been no mention of a Zahran. In fact, as a gesture of assistance our officer had called a telephone number provided by Ms. Kavitha which was said to be that of Razik. He had denied knowledge of Pulasthini’s whereabouts and had mentioned that the parents had complained to Maligawatta police station about the matter and that the police including CID had questioned him in that regard. As there was nothing out of the ordinary about the complaint, the HRCSL Colombo had not been informed. That is the regular procedure.

Q: Did PCoI ask HRCSL personnel to appear before it? And if not, will you be inquiring into this (in the wake of PCoI revelation.

A: No, we have not been summoned by the PCoI. The records from our Batticaloa office, in our opinion, do not give rise to any issue that requires further investigation.

Q: Did HRCSL inquire into Easter Sunday tragedy or receive complaints as regards the government’s failure to thwart the carnage?

A: Even in the absence of a complaint, the HRCSL could investigate this matter on its own initiative (per S.14 of HRCSL Act, No 21 of 1996). However, we are aware that the same issue is being canvassed before the Supreme Court via FR petition by at least one aggrieved party. When a matter is canvassed before the Supreme Court in a FR application, the Commission does not conduct a parallel inquiry. The decision of the SC is binding on all parties.

Pulasthini’s husband carried out the attack on St. Sebastian church, Katuwapitiya where over 100 people perished.

Dr. Udagama confirmed the announcement made by the Constitutional Council on Monday (3) regarding her decision to quit the post. Head of Department of Law Faculty of University of Peradeniya, Dr. Udagama received the appointment in Oct 2015.

The Constitutional Council said that Dr. Udagama tendered her resignation from the post of chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka with effect from September 2020.

The CC Chairman informed the Constitutional Council that the Human Rights Commission was rated as one of the best in the world and that he would like to convey the appreciation to its Chairman Dr Udagama and the members of the commission for the exceptional achievement.


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


20A passed at first reading stage amidst protests from SJB



By Saman Indrajith


The 20th Amendment Bill was passed yesterday in Parliament at the first reading stage amidst protests from the SJB.

Justice Minister Ali Sabry presented the Bill to the House.

SJB members who were wearing black armbands and badges with ‘No to 20’ printed on them shouted. They held placards denouncing the 20th Amendment.

 Some SJB MPs were seen coming from their desks to the Well of the House, and then the government MPs too came down and shouted, ‘Yes to 20’.

Serjeant-at-Arms Narendra Fernando and his deputy Kushan Jayaratne were seen standing before the Mace

 Trade Minister Dr. Bandula Gunawardane moved a number of Orders under the Special Commodity Levy Act for debate.

Seconding the move, Samurdhi, Household Economy, Micro Finance, Self-Employment, Business Development and Underutilised State Resources Development State Minister Shehan Semasinghe said that the Opposition should have raised their concerns elsewhere.

“They can now go before court and express their concerns. They have one more option. That is to secure a two-third majority in Parliament and defeat the Bill. Without doing any of them they shout here to disrupt sittings and thereby waste public funds. We remember how they behaved when they were in power; they brought in several no-confidence motions. They did so after suspending the Standing Orders of the House. The then Speaker Karu Jayasuriya suspended Standing Orders to allow JVP MP Vijitha Herath to move a motion. We do not act in such undemocratic manner. People have given us a mandate to do away with the 19th Amendment. We act according to that mandate.”

SJB Kegalle District MP Kabir Hashim:

There are two groups in this House. One group ruled this country for 20 years. We were in power for five years.

If they say that they need more powers to develop this country that is a joke.

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa said the TV camera was not focussed on MP Hashim.

SJB MPs shouted demanding that the camera be focussed on him

MP Hashim:

If this is the manner the government ensuring the rights of MPs before the 20th Amendment, what will happen to us after it becomes law?

MP Hashim:

Have you been able to bring down the price of a single commodity after coming to power? When you came to power in 1994 you promised to abolish the executive presidency, and do away with the open economic policies. You did not do so. Mahinda Rajapaksa too came to power on the same promises. But his government did not honour thems. Today, we are staging this protest to save the powers of the Prime Minister not for our sake. Do you remember the Subha and Yasa story. A palace guard and the king exchanged their places for the fun of it. But the guard did not give back the throne to the king. He remained in the position and even killed the King. The same will happen here when the 20th Amendment is passed.

Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage:

This is a government of the people. We will not do anything against people’s aspirations. We uphold democracy. During the times when you were in the government you did not hold elections. There are many MPs in the opposition today who want to join our government. By this morning there were 17 opposition MPs who wanted to join us. We will get 20 MPs from the Opposition to secure the passage of this Bill. You do not worry about saving the powers of the Prime Minister. We will see to that. You passed the 19th Amendment to prevent the Rajapaksas from coming to power. The Opposition paints a dismal picture of the 20th Amendment. Former Minister Hashim laments about the prices of commodities. Tell me the price of a coconut. Tell me. You cannot because you do not know. You do not know because you are living in luxury away from people.  Today a coconut is Rs 70 in the market. You are not with the people that is why you lost the election.

Industry Minister Wimal Weerawansa raising a point of order said that MPs could not demand that the camera be focussed on them. “Whenever there is a protest in the House, the camera should focus either on the Speaker or the Mace. That is the procedure. It was introduced by the former Speaker W. J. M. Lokubandara.”

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa:

We register our opposition and frustration over the 20th Amendment. This amendment has provisions that will erode democratic values.

Continue Reading


Speaker berates opposition for resorting to harangue at question time



By Saman Indrajith

Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena yesterday (22) reprimanded the Opposition MPs for wasting the time of the House. He said that MPs should not make speeches when raising questions listed in the Order Paper because only one hour had been allotted for the question time.

He said so when Ratnapura District SJB MP Hesha Withanage raised supplementary questions and made a lengthy speech.

Withanage demanded to know from the Prime Minister the number of Cabinet ministers in governments since 1978.

Responding on behalf of the Prime Minister Chief of the Government Whip Highways Minister Johnston Fernando said that there had been nine parliaments since 1978 and there had been different numbers of Cabinet ministers in those government. He said that the first parliament in 1978 had 25 cabinet ministers and the second parliament in 1989 had 21 cabinet ministers. The third parliament in 1994 had 23 cabinet and 31 deputy ministers with a total of 54. The fourth parliament of 2000 had 42 cabinet and 36 deputy ministers with a total of 78. The Fifth Parliament of 2001 had 25 cabinet, 27 non-cabinet and eight deputy ministers with a total of 60. The sixth parliament of 2004 had 31 cabinet, three non-cabinet and 31 deputy ministers with a total of 65. The seventh parliament of 2010 had 37 cabinet 39 deputy ministers with a total of 76 ministers. The eighth parliament of 2015 had 45 cabinet and 38 state ministers making a total of 87 ministers. The eighth parliament of 2019 had 16 cabinet and 38 state ministers with a total of 54. The ninth parliament of 2020 has 27 cabinet and 40 state ministers with a total of 67.

The first and second parliaments of 1978 and 1989 had one female cabinet minister each. Third parliament of 1994 had three cabinet and five deputy female ministers with a total eight female members. The Fourth parliament of 2000 had four female cabinet ministers. The fifth parliament of 2001 had only one female cabinet minister. The sixth parliament of 2004 had three female cabinet ministers. The seventh parliament of 2010 had two female cabinet ministers and one female deputy minister post making it three female ministers. The eighth parliament of 2015 had a total number of six female ministerial posts – two cabinet, two state and two deputy posts.  The eighth parliament of 2019 had one female cabinet minister. The ninth parliament of 2020 has one female cabinet minister and two female state ministers with a total of three.

The highest percentage of female ministers was in 1994 with 13.04% and the lowest was in 2020 with 3.7 percent, Minister Fernando said.

Responding to the question the percentage of female ministers in the present government, Minister Fernando said it was 3.6. He said the figure was the same as the percentage of female representation in Parliament.

When the time came for the supplementary questions, MP Withanage said that if the funds spent on the number of Cabinet ministers since 1978 had been spent for the development, the country would have been in a better position. Then he lamented that the percentage of female members in parliament did not tally with the population’s female percentage. Thereafter, he said that under the previous government a ceiling on the number of Cabinet ministers had been imposed and the incumbent government was planning to remove it. He asked how the government would justify the proposed increase in the number of ministers.

Speaker Abeywardena intervened and said the MPs could not be allowed to make speeches making use of time allocated for questions. “You should ask only supplementary question. This cannot be permitted. We have to give consideration to the time. We move on to the next item in the order paper.”

S.M. Marikkar raising a point of order said that the government Cabinet, state and deputy ministerial posts to serve their people. The Opposition MPs had only one opportunity and that was by raising the people’s questions. “That is our right. Do not deprive us of our right,” MP Marikkar said.

The Speaker said that his concern too was to ensure the MPs’ rights and for that purpose time had to be managed.

Minister Fernando said that MP Withanage had not raised a single supplementary question and made a speech instead and, therefore, if the latter could raise a specific question the government was ready to answer them.

Continue Reading


20A challenged in SC



A petition was filed in the Supreme Court by Indika Gallage, a lawyer, yesterday, challenging the 20th Amendment to the Constitution. The petitioner has requested the Court to declare that a referendum and a two-thirds majority in Parliament are needed for the passage of the 20th Amendment.

Gallage has made the Attorney General the respondent. The petition claims that the 20th Amendment to the Constitution violates Articles 01, 03, 04 (d,) 12.1, 14 (1) g, 27 (2) and 27 (3.)

Continue Reading