Former lawmaker M. M. Zuhair, PC, has strongly opposed what he calls forcible cremation of Covid-19 victims on a directive given by Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC.
The following is the text of a letter by former Senior State Counsel Zuhair to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa:
This is further to my previous representation dated 06th May 2020.
According to media reports the Hon Attorney General has directed the Director-General of Health Services that the dead bodies of Covid-19 victims unclaimed by the immediate members of the family to be cremated. (Ada Derana. Lk-09/12/2020 at 15.07 hrs. and AFP “Sri Lanka cremates Muslim Covid-19 victims against religious wishes” 09/12/2020 7.40 pm).
Firstly it is well known that the right to accord a dignified burial to a deceased person is an internationally recognized right. This is a right available to every person not merely to Muslims.
Secondly it is equally well known that the kith and kin of the deceased Muslims in particular have refused to accept the dead bodies as a protest against the unlawful refusal by the health authorities of our country to allow Covid 19 deceased persons a dignified burial. In the circumstances the Attorney General ought not to have directed the forcible cremation without hearing the kith and kin of the deceased persons. Such direction is in violation of the principles of natural justice, which principles the Attorney General is bound to uphold.
Thirdly, the direction has been made in terms of the Quarantine and Prevention of Deceases ordinance. If that be the case, the Attorney General would have seen that section 3(1)(i) of the Quarantine Ordinance provides for both options of burial and cremation and that he ought not to become a party to directing solely the cremation of the ‘under protest’ bodies without the consent of the kith and kin and in violation of the provisions of the Quarantine Ordinance read with section 17 (1) (c) of the Interpretation Ordinance. He ought not to expose the illustrious office of the Attorney General and the State to possible claims of damages.
Fourthly, Professor Tissa Vitharana has been quoted in the media last week that the expert panel appointed by the Minister of Health to advise her on the quarantine measures does not have a single virologist and hence not a competent panel, though the country has many eminent experts, virologists, epidemiologists, etc. Whereas 190 countries in the world had permitted burial of Covid-19 deceased persons following the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines, Sri Lanka and China are said to be the two countries that do not allow burials. The excellent work otherwise done by the countries health authorities and the armed forces are being brought into disrepute world-wide by the panel’s undue delay in resolving the problem by giving convincing scientific reasons as to why the WHO guidelines cannot be followed here.
Fifthly, if in fact and in science Covid- 19 will spread through contamination of water, I wish to state that no one, Muslim or otherwise will ask for burial of their victims. According to WHO any virus contaminated water may cause diarrhea but will not spread Covid-19.
Sixthly recent judicial decisions have kept the matter open to be decided by the Cabinet based on expert opinion which is anxiously awaited. Courts have not restrained the government or the experts from taking necessary decisions.
Permit me also to point out the following matters. Two Ministers Hon. Chamal Rajapaksa and Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera said recently that the government is favourably considering restoring the 27th March 2020 gazette allowing both burial and cremation for Covid-19 deceased persons and a third Minister Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella said a final decision will be taken after the experts give their opinion to the Health Minister Pavithra Wanniarachchi. The country’s accredited experts on the subject must not delay giving the opinion and they must do so with convincing scientific reasons for the public to know, because the government’s pursuit to restore burials in line with the opinion of the experts of the country as well as the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines are being perceived as being delayed unreasonably.
According to the WHO, water contaminated by any virus may cause diarrhoea but not Covid 19. If the local experts on virology and epidemiology have scientific reasons to establish that Covid-19 will spread through contamination of water to the living cell of a host, they also need to explain that apart from human beings animals, birds and fish will not be infected and will not host the virus and transmit them to human beings who may consume or handle them. There is thus an urgent need for the Sri Lankan experts to clear with scientific reasons all possible misconceptions.
The main protective measures that the public have been presently made aware of, to restrict the spread of Covid-19 are related to contamination through inhalation of infected droplets or by touching infected surfaces but not to Covid-19 contaminated water being consumed by living cells and getting transmitted to human beings. Experts in the relative field must clarify these matters on an urgent basis with scientific reasoning and evidence.
The composition of the committee of experts and their expertise in the relevant field to override WHO guidelines and the meetings or discussions they are engaged in need to be publicized in the interest of transparency. These representations are being made in the interest of the country’s best interests, its global reputation particularly in the Middle-Eastern countries which provide the highest foreign exchange earnings of US $ 7,000 million per year and in establishing acceptable scientific reasoning in the process of decision making affecting the fundamental rights of persons both living and dead.”
A copy has been also sent to the AG.
GL: Colombo Port City Bill received AG’s sanction
…SC scheduled to commence hearing petitions today
By Shamindra Ferdinando
SLPP Chairman Prof. G.L. Peiris says that the proposed Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill is consistent with the Constitution. Prof. Peiris, who is also the Education Minister, insists the Bill received the sanction of the Attorney General.
Prof. Peiris explained to the media the circumstances under which the incumbent government had initiated the proposed Bill. He did so having briefed Ven. Dr. Ittapane Dhammalankara Thera as regards the current political developments, at the Sri Dharmaloka Maha Viharaya, Rukmale, Pannipitiya, on Saturday (17).
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa recently presented the Colombo Port City EC Bill to the Cabinet of ministers. The 76-page Bill provides for the establishment of an EC authorised to grant registrations, licences, authorisations, and other approvals to carry on businesses and other activities in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to be established within the Colombo Port City.
Responding to government member Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse’s bombshell accusations that the proposed Bill when enacted in parliament would transform newly reclaimed land adjacent to the Galle Face Green to sovereign Chinese territory, Prof. Peiris emphasized the responsibility on the part of the President in respect of the implementation of the project. Declaring that even an amendment couldn’t be moved without specific approval of the President, Prof. Peiris said all reports pertaining to financial matters, too, should be submitted to the President.
The former law professor also challenged those opposed to the proposed Bill claiming that the police and the military would be excluded from performing duties in the reclaimed land. One-time External Affairs Minister insisted that the police and the military enjoyed the right to exercise powers in terms of the country’s law in case of violations.
The minister said that the government was keen to create an environment conducive for foreign direct investment. However, those who now decried the Colombo Port City EC Bill conveniently forgot the formation of the ‘Greater Colombo Economic Commission’ (GCEC) under a new draconian Bill introduced by the then President J.R. Jayewardene.
Prof. Peiris said unlike JRJ’s Bill, the one proposed by the incumbent government adhered to the Constitution hence the approval from the Attorney General.
Prof. Peiris alleged that the JRJ’s Act paved the way for GCEC to take decisions pertaining to newly formed Export processing Zones (EPZ) and basically conduct its affairs outside the purview of the parliament. Claiming that those who exercised the required powers could transfer funds to and from accounts and anyone violating the secrecy faced jail terms, Prof. Peiris stressed that even the judiciary couldn’t intervene in some matters pertaining to this particular Act introduced in 1978.
According to Prof. Peiris, in 1992, the then President Ranasinghe Premadasa further strengthened the law by depriving the public an opportunity to obtain a restraining order from a court in respect of the all-powerful Commission.
Prof. Peiris accused the UNP and its breakaway faction, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) and other interested parties of propagating lies against the project as part of their overall political strategy. The minister acknowledged that the UNP was among those who moved the Supreme Court against the proposed Bill.
Since former Justice Minister Rajapakse strongly condemned the proposed Bill at a hastily arranged media briefing at Abayaramaya under the auspices of Ven Muruththettuwe Ananda thera, several Ministers and State Ministers, Keheliya Ranbukwelle, Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Prof. G. L. Peiris, Namal Rajapaksa, Ajith Nivard Cabraal responded to their colleague on behalf of the government.
A five-member bench of the Supreme Court will begin hearing the petitions today (19).
Among those who filed cases against the proposed Bill were President of the Bar Association Saliya Pieris, PC, former lawmaker Wasantha Samarasinghe on behalf of the JVP, civil society activists, Gamini Viyangoda and K.W. Janaranjana on behalf of Purawesi Balaya and the Center for Policy Alternatives (CPA).
Viyangoda questioned the government’s motive in depriving the public ample time and space to challenge the constitutionality of the Bill.
Purawesi Balaya spokesperson said that the disputed Bill had been placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on the 8th of April 2021, at a time when the sittings of the Supreme Court were suspended for the vacation. In terms of the Constitution any citizen seeking to challenge a Bill on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the Constitution has to do so within one week of being placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, which in this instance is the 15 th of April 2021. The petitioner said between the 8 th April 2021 and 15 th April 2021, there were the weekend and three public holidays intervening, thereby giving any citizen seeking to challenge the Bill, only two working days to obtain legal advice and representation.
Those who complained bitterly over urgent Bills exercised the same strategy as regards the controversial Bill, the civil society activist said. Responding to another query, Viyangoda said that if the government was confident the Bill didn’t violate the Constitution, it could have been properly discussed at their parliamentary group meeting before being presented to the cabinet of ministers.
Hiding in obscure corner of India, Myanmar’s ousted lawmakers plotting to dethrone military junta
BY S VENKAT NARAYAN
Our Special Correspondent
Roughly a dozen ousted Myanmar lawmakers, who fled to India after the February 1 military coup, are now busy plotting to dethrone the generals.
In a spartan hillside room in India furnished only with a thin sleeping mat, one of the Myanmar Members of Parliament (MPs) spends much of his days attentively listening to Zoom conference calls and tapping away messages on his smartphone.
The short, soft-spoken man is among the handful of ousted Myanmar MPs who have fled across the border to India’s remote north-eastern region after the military coup and the lethal crackdown on dissent.
Two of the lawmakers and a Myanmar politician spoke to a Reuters reporter. They are involved with the Committee Representing the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw or CRPH, a body of ousted lawmakers that is attempting to re-establish the civilian government and displace the military.
The three said the group is supporting demonstrations, helping distribute funds to supporters and holding negotiations with multiple entities to quickly form a civilian administration nationwide. They asked not to be named for fear of reprisals against their families back home.
Most of the ousted lawmakers are from deposed leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) that overwhelmingly won a November 2020 election, which the military has annulled.
The coup has been met with a fierce pro-democracy movement and tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets across the country, despite the crackdown.
Security forces have killed over 700 people, and more than 3,000 have been detained, including more than 150 lawmakers and members of the former government. Mobile and wireless internet services have been shut down.
The fear of detention and inability to rebuild a civilian government without internet connectivity has driven some Myanmar lawmakers involved in the resistance to work from India, the two MPs elected to Myanmar’s Parliament said.
“There is no time,” one of them, who is from the country’s western Chin state, told Reuters. “People are dying in our country.”
A spokesman for Myanmar’s military did not answer calls seeking comment. The junta has accused the CRPH of treason. The group is working to set up a national unity government to challenge the military’s authority.
Since fleeing to India around two weeks ago, the lawmaker said he had been holding regular discussions with colleagues to set up a parallel administration in Chin state, under directions from the CRPH.
The process is complex, involving building consensus between elected representatives, political parties, ethnic armed groups, civil society bodies and civil disobedience movement leaders, the two lawmakers and the politician said.
The CRPH is also keen on opening communications with India, where at least 1,800 people from Myanmar are already sheltering. It will seek New Delhi’s blessings for the parallel government it is attempting to form, the politician said.
“We can’t rely on China, Thailand and other neighbouring countries,” he said. “The only country where refugees are being welcomed is India”.
India’s External Affairs Ministry did not immediately respond to questions from Reuters.
This week, NLD lawmakers from Myanmar’s northern Sagaing region held an online conference call, but only 26 out of 49 representatives dialled in, according to the second MP who attended the meeting from India.
“We don’t know where the rest are,” the federal lawmaker said. Two party officials were now trying to track down their missing colleagues.
Some of the fiercest resistance to the junta has come from Sagaing. In the last two months, around 2,000 families involved in the civil disobedience movement in one part of the region have been given financial assistance of around 17 million Kyat ($12,143), the lawmaker from Sagaing said.
The presence and activities of escapee Myanmar lawmakers could pose a diplomatic quandary to India, particularly given New Delhi’s close ties with the Myanmar military rulers.
But India’s position on the Myanmar crisis itself appears to have somewhat shifted in recent weeks. This has also been acknowledged by some CRPH representatives.
At an United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting on April 10, Indian diplomat K. Nagaraj Naidu said New Delhi is pushing for a return to democracy in Myanmar. “The first, and most immediate step, in this regard is the release of detained leaders,” Naidu said.
However, India is concerned around internal divisions within the CRPH that could hobble its functioning, a source with knowledge of New Delhi’s thinking said.
The politician involved with the CRPH said he is hopeful that India will engage with the group.
“If democracy wins in Myanmar, it is also a win for India,” he said.
Wijeyadasa, under heavy flak over opposition to China project, says ready to face consequences
by Shamindra Ferdinando
SLPP lawmaker Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, PC, yesterday (18) told The Island that he stood by the accusations he made in respect of the proposed Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill.
The former Justice Minister emphasised that he had expressed concerns publicly regarding the planned project after carefully examining the proposed Bill.
“In spite of a spate of statements issued by various government spokespersons, I’m confident of the legal process scheduled to begin today (19). The entire country should be concerned over the government move made at the behest of China.”
Responding to another query, the Colombo district MP urged political parties represented in Parliament to study the Bill with an open mind. The proposed law should be examined taking into consideration the previous UNP-led government transferring control of the strategic Hambantota port to China on a 99-year-lease and China is also in control of a terminal in the Colombo port for 35 years.
The MP said that he was ready to face the consequences of his decision to take a contrary view as regards the Chinese project. Those who had been benefited by the mega China funded project would shamelessly back it, lawmaker Dr. Rajapakse maintained, recollecting how members of parliament backed the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement brokered by Norway, shielded Treasury bond thieves et al.
Those who moved the Supreme Court against the proposed Bill included the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, MP Rajapakse said. The former Minister claimed that unprecedented tax exemptions provided to the businesses coming up in the newly reclaimed land adjacent to the Galle Face Green would pose a severe threat to the national economy.
The MP said that he didn’t personally have anything against China or any other country, but strongly believed in political and economic independence of the country. Therefore, the right-thinking lawmakers couldn’t under any circumstances vote for the proposed Bill as it was, the former Minister said.
GL: Colombo Port City Bill received AG’s sanction
A Policy Science Analysis
Hemas Consumer strengthens portfolio with L’Oréal partnership in Sri Lanka
7-billion-rupee diamond heist; Madush splls the beans before being shot
Unfit, unprofessional, fat Sri Lankans
The Burghers of Ceylon/Sri Lanka- Reminiscences and Anecdotes
Opinion6 days ago
A Cabinet reshuffle needed
Features2 days ago
Port City Bill Requires Referendum
news6 days ago
Proposed law will turn Port City into a province of China – JVP
news6 days ago
PM intervenes to iron out differences among coalition partners
Sports6 days ago
The brand of cricket we want to play is free and relaxed: – Sangakkara
Sports3 days ago
Sebs’ cricket stalwart Cooray retires after more than three decades of service
Editorial6 days ago
Happy New Year!
Sports6 days ago
Sheran’s back to back half centuries help Joes