Presidents speech will have Multiple

ramifications: -J. C. Weliamuna

2
016-10-31
President Maithripala Sirisenas comment during a speech
at Sathviru Heritage function at the Sri Lanka Foundation
Institute (SLFI) organized to transfer ownership of houses
and properties to the security divisions on October 12 and

the subsequent events which included the resignation of

Bribery Commissions Director General Dilruskhi Dias
Wickremasinghe created a quiet a stir in the political and
civil circles. The most shocked sections were the members
of the civil rights groups who worked tirelessly even with
a risk to their lives to bring President Sirisena to power.
Dailymirror spoke to widely respected human rights
lawyer J. C. Weliamuna, one of the leading activists who
worked to defeat the Rajapaksa regime on January 8, 2015
about the after effects of the Presidents speech and
reaction of the civil society groups. Excerpts;

Q When you look back do you feel happy about the change
that took place on January 8, 2015?

We are quite satisfied but the civil

society would not be fully satisfied. There are huge positive steps
in the direction of democracy. And we had a few things that we
struggled to achieve such as the 19th Amendment. Then we have
the Right to Information Act. There are a large number of changes
in overall governance factors. But there are also areas where we
have serious concerns. Overall I would say there no reason to be

unhappy.
Q Does that mean you dont have any regrets in working
to bring Yahapalanaya government?
No.
Q As someone who worked hard to bring defeat to the
former regime, how do you see the speech made by the
President recently? Does the content in that speech
contradicts some of the promises made when this
government came into power? Does the speech challenge
the most important concept of good governance and
separation
of powers?
In my view the speech was ill advised. No question about it. I
believe when the Head of State speaks, it could be subjected to
different interpretations. But we have to understand that the
people are also intelligent and they have their own
interpretations. So that is why there are lot of stories about
leaders speaking anywhere in the world. Even if a head of state
wants to withdraw or tender an apology, that will have lot of
ramifications. We have to understand that it was a leaders
speech. As I said earlier, it was ill-advised. There may be reasons
for it, but it was ill-advised in the sense that January 8 victory or
change was mooted by the civil society and the people in the
Opposition and there were also certain basic changes people
wanted. Those basic changes were the rule of law, democracy
and civilian rule. We wanted to have reconciliation and on the
whole a decent society. Those are the changes we wanted. One
interpretation is whether the speech has challenged those covalues. That is why the civil society is agitated. It has a right to be
agitated. It has contributed to the change. In my view, there are
three forces that had made the change. One was the political
force, particularly the UNP, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga

and all the smaller political parties which nominated the common
candidate. That was from the political force.
Secondly, the civil society force. I think they were the section
which mooted the idea, particularly late Ven. Sobitha Thera.
Thirdly, the peoplle. They wanted a change because what took
place in the Rajapaksa era was horrendous. I mean the murders,
the abductions and so on...
QAre you referring to what took place during the war?
I think the post-war era was worse than the war era, because if
we look at the post-war era, it was a consolidated effort. The
Rajapaksa family tried to consolidate its power and ruined the
democratic institutions. They had the golden opportunity to make
this country a heaven. Instead, they did everything possible to
consolidate power and made Sri Lanka a corrupt State.
Q Did the civil society groups which worked for the victory
of President Sirisena have any agreement prior to the
election?
There was a common agreement among these forces, be it
written or unwritten. Among them were re-establishing
democracy, the rule of law and fighting corruption. I think the civil
society must have felt hurt.
Q You repeatedly said that the Presidents comments were
ill-advised. Does that mean that his comments were not
spontaneous but pre-planned?
Why is the civil society overall supporting the government? That
is for a common agenda. They want some major reforms. So long
as reforms are intact, I have no doubt the civil society would
criticize but would support the government. We still feel we could
move the reform agenda. So, when this type of situation arises,
we must understand that this is a coalition government. No unity
government could work without issues. These are the two

different ideologies of different political leaders. So when we look

at the practical aspect of it, the reform agenda to be achieved
and delivered with one pre-condition, that is the UNP and UPFA
leadership, I would narrow it down to the President and the Prime
Minister must read the same language. But one could see these
political leaders are pressurised by people with vested interests,
political interest and private agendas. What we must understand
is that the civil society is closely monitoring these two. I have no
doubt that there are so many factions which want to create a split
and we want to make sure at least the civil society as well as I,
will do everything possible within the circle of my civil power to
ensure these two stick together. That is not because of the love
for them but because without that we cannot achieve the reform
agenda. It has to be achieved. With the 19th Amendment,
parliament cannot be dissolved for four and-a-half years. Political
stability is important though at present it seems to be a little
chaotic.
Q Once this government came in to power lot of
attitudanal changes took place among the international
community with regard to Sri Lanka. How will the
Presidents comments be read by the international
community? Doesnt this statement affect the country?
Unfortunately you are right. That is why I said when the politicians
talk, there are multiple ramifications. They are interpreted by
local actors, politicians within and outside parliament and the
international community. It was US President Eisenhower who said
As a leader I knew only one thing, that is my strength. I knew
what and what not to talk. Eisenhower was one of the greatest
leaders ever. He was a General during the World War II. If he
started talking about secrets of the war and all that what would
have happen to America? That does not mean that you should not
use your strength to streamline the organization. That is a
different mechanism. I still think that these ramifications can be

addressed if the President and the Prime Minister are serious

about it.
Now I heard about another discussion going on among some
intellectual groups, including a few foreigners. They were referring
to three criminal investigations into abduction and killing of
journalists and trying to say that the suspects were serving in the
military. Because they were war heroes, and investigating them
would tarnish the countrys image in the international arena. I
really dont know which way it would progress. I only hope it will
not go out of proportion. Because we all want this country to be
back on the track, at least where good governance is concerned.
On the other hand, after a long pause, Sri Lanka has been
politically recognised by the international community. We also see
potential of investments. We can get direct foreign investments
when there is political stability. Now these features are showing
signs of political instability. Ultimately those who do not want the
reform agenda would be benefited.
Q One of the reactions following Presidents speech was
the resignation of Director General of Commission to
Investigate Bribery or Corruption. It gives a bad message
on the independence of the Commissions. What is your
view?
I personally think the DG should not have resigned. If she
remained, it would not easy to remove her under the present
context and the Executive could do nothing about it. But the
remarks would have hurt her. She should not have resigned
although she has all the rights to do so. I hope there would be a
good, brave and equally capable replacement. What I see with
regret is a mud-slinging campaign against her. whichis totally
unacceptable. This was exactly what they did to former Chief
Justice Shirani Bandaranayake when she was impeached.

Q From here, where does the civil society go? Should it

withdraw from political engagements?
I must say MRs group that were in the extremely nationalistic
political ideology would criticize the civil society on matters of
principles. What it must do in my view -- just like another January
8 where there was a push by all segments. We must have another
similar revolution to see that the President and the Prime Minister
stick together and deliver the reform agenda. True, they can
criticise the political leaders. While doing so, we should motivate
them. The civil society invested their energy and time to make a
political change not for personal gain. They were clear that MR
should not be back, they were not supporting the President and
the PM blankly. They wanted them to deliver a reform agenda
which should include abolition of the executive presidency and
create reconciliation. They want institutions to be reformed so
that corruption could be fought. Who would do this if the civil
society give it up? It would be another turmoil and the economy
would be immensely affected as would be the future.
Q But there is a complaint by the public about a delay with
regards to the investigations; especially against
politicians?
We had never experienced political investigative units which are
capable of going into complex financial crimes of this magnitude.
Secondly, there was never a huge political need backed by the
civil society for such investigations before. Thirdly, when the
government came to power, the entire State mechanism was
under State capture. This particular group has captured the entire
institutions from parliament to police, military to investigators,
judiciary and to everyone. Since the small number of top officials
in the public sector had interest in the previous government and
had vested interest in the previous regime they blocked all the
investigations. The public servants should have come forward and

supported the investigation. But that did not happen. What

happened therefore, is that the investigations have become slow.

Secondly, they had to initiate different kinds of investigative

agencies. The Bribery Commission and the FCID were formed in
March, however, the CID became fully operational after it
recruited and trained around 70 investigators around June or July.
What these investigations were all about? According to what was
transpired, most of the transactions had occurred abroad and
they became multi-jurisdictional transactions. Even the USA or
Britain, it would take about four to five years. Our investigators
have been trained in different countries. If you put together, there
are about 300 investigators. Is it physically possible? When it
comes to judiciary, there could be more issues due to delay in
processing. When a suspect is remanded and put in a cell, some
of the ministers in this government would visit them and the gang
of imprisoned suspects enjoy their stay in the prison hospital. In
one of the CID reports oresented in court recently, it was stated
that some of those in prisons were being given food by the
military intelligence officers. My personal view is, it is unfair to say
that the investigations are slow.
Q There is an allegation that some of the genuine cases
such as abduction and murder of journalists are also
getting delayed?
Some of the allegations may be justified. If we take the
Ekneligoda case, the investigation started in 2010 and then they
were entrusted to DIG Anura Senanayake but he allegedly swept
matters under the carpet. When the government changed, the
probe was given to the CID in March 2015. From then on the
investigations are underway. In these investigations some
government officials and some military intelligence officers are
not cooperating. Initially court had to give orders to military to

provide necessary information and materials. Because of this, the

case has been dragging on for 16 months after the fresh inquiry
was initiated. According to what was reported to courts, some of
the crucial investigations and crimes particularly with regard to
abducting of journalists, military intelligence was allegedly
involved. And surely our intelligence are not unskilled, they did
their best during the war. After the war, they were used as
political scapegoats. There are some honest officers who had
contributed their skills during the war. After the war ended they
became part of MRs forces and had vested interest in that. Do
you think military had any need to abduct journalists?
Unfortunately they got involved in this mess and as a result of
this, they dont want to cooperate in the investigation.
During the court inquiry, some politicians and members of the
Bodu Bala Sena went and protested opposite courts. We saw the
bad precedence of naming and shaming the investigators in
public. As a human rights lawyer for 28 years, I have appeared
mostly against police investigators but had never made
allegations against them. We are living safely because of these
investigators.
Q There is a minister who criticize the FCID and said he
had advised his officials to avoid FCID if they are called.
What are your views on this?
He is violating the law and he should have been reported to court
for obstructing investigations. How can a minister say that? He
should not have been a minister in this government.
Q We also saw in the media that another minister was
critical of Prof. Sarath Wijesuriya, leader of the National
Movement for Just Society...

All what I would like to say is, any politician who attacks the civil
society leadership, would stand exposed one day. Thats all I can
say at the moment.
Q President has in a way justified his comments saying
that he needed two thirds majority to make the necessary
Constitutional changes which is also a demand by the civil
society. In that sense, was he right?
The President was right in saying that he needed two thirds to
achieve certain types of reforms. To achieve a Constitutional
change, you must have two thirds. That is important and that is
why I say this marriage is vital. Otherwise you could go on with a
simple majority. So, the President is right.
Now there are about 200 cases being reported by the three main
institutions; the Bribery Commission, the FCID and the CID. Unlike
the previous regime, these investigations are related to
politicians. Earlier the politicians had never been investigated.
Political leaders and others should have a clear mindset that we
must allow investigations to go ahead whether they are big or
small, or we would find it difficult to achieve our goal. Secondly,
my understanding about the police, they are more progressive
than the politicians. Despite all these hurdles, the police had gone
to that extent of even questioning powerful politicians without
any hindrances. They are public servants and they undertook
some of the toughest and difficult investigations. There might
have been political justification with regard to certain
investigation. Let us be frank with it. But those could be sorted
out. When there are open criticism of the investigative agencies,
then the ramification would be different. Wrongdoers might think
they are now protected by this. When making this statement one
has to carefully analyse that the President did not want to protect
them. However, these wrongdoers would get together and would

say the President is on their side and that the investigators

cannot touch them. In a developed country, it could have been a
different story. But in Sri Lanka, since these agencies have never
experienced investigating powerful politicians, it could take some
time.
Q Now that MR himself says that it was not he, but
President Sirisena himself confirms the FCID is politically
motivated. How do you see this?

That is why I say when a politician makes a statement there are

multiple ramifications. A set of wrongdoers, who were waiting to
attack the political investigators would have got a good dose in
their favour and they can use it. And I can tell you that already
there are some cases where Presidents speech was cited in
courts. In the case of journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda, the lawyer
appearing for the suspect says it. In Lasanthas murder case, the
lawyer appearing for the suspect says all these investigations are
politically motivated. I dont think the President intended that.
That is why I say it is ill-advised. I personally think that the
President does not want to stop these investigations.
Pix By Kushan Pathiraja
Posted by Thavam