Columns

Where Sri Lanka’s non-adherence to the Rule of Law is concerned, there is a disturbing continuity between the immediate ‘Rajapaksa’ past and the present which cannot be wished away despite all our optimism. Signs of this were evident at the very start of the Sirisena Presidency giving rise to considerable disquiet.

These patterns have now become far more evident, indicating that there is little political will to measure up to the high expectations with which a new Presidency and a new Government were elected to office. In this context, the more President Sirisena sermonizes on what is right and proper in governance, the more he looks faintly ridiculous even as words spoken so loftily are clearly at variance with unacceptable political compromises made. On its own part, the United National Party’s performance is scarcely reassuring.

These are no ‘yahapalanaya victories’
This week, the Government pulled back on its appointment of former Rajapaksa loyalist Anusha Palpita to a senior position. The appointment had been made disregarding the indictment being filed against him for gross corruption. The idiocy of this entire exercise was that this retreat was then hailed as a welcome victory for the ‘yahapalanaya’ (good governance) administration. But the fact remains that such an obnoxious appointment should never have been made in the first place.

It is no ‘victory’ to have a Government so entirely oblivious to good governance as to blatantly appoint an individual who had been indicted in the High Court for gross corruption and then retreat on that appointment in the face of public fury, patting itself on the back as it did so. Certainly ‘yahapalanaya’ cheerleaders displaying inappropriate delight at these ‘victories’ constitutes an unwelcome path to encouraging this Government towards greater follies even as politicians laugh at the naivete of the public.

In this instance, those in ministerial ranks responsible for this disgraceful incident passed the accountability thereof to the Public Service Commission (PSC). If this Government was sincere in regard to its rhetoric, it should severely discipline its minister-puppeteers. But that political will is clearly lacking as we saw on innumerable occasions in the past, including Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapaksa’s disquieting actions where the ‘Avant Garde’ floating armoury scandal was concerned for which no ministerial accountability was enforced. Indeed, sporadic indictments against Rajapaksa loyalists and bumbling efforts elsewhere show that there is little genuine effort in the anti-corruption drive.

Injustices of the past continues
In other respects, the injustices of the past continue to the future. In the East, land issues of displaced Sinhala, Muslim and Tamil villagers continue. The tussle between the political authority and the military on the return of displaced land to villagers was predictable. Only the naïve would have expected otherwise. But the twist to the tale is that avaricious ‘yahapalanaya’ ministers have replaced Rajapaksa acolytes. The plight of the Panama displaced is one good illustration. Both in Panama and Ragamwela, the evictions were accomplished during the Rajapaksa years through brute force and by masked men threatening the villagers. One would therefore have expected that this injustice would have been speedily corrected by the new administration.

On the contrary and ironically enough, Panama villagers continue to be evicted from their lands despite a relevant cabinet decision in their favour. The entire weight of the law militates against such forcible acquisitions. On numerous occasions, the Supreme Court has stressed due process requirements to be applied for all evictions. In addition, when the land of an individual is sought to be acquired, the State cannot simply plead ‘public purpose’ and leave it at that. Neither does a vague ground of ‘meeting security requirements’ suffices. The State is under a clear duty to justify its reasons when taking land away from occupants. The plight of the displaced in Panama and surrounding villages is one good example where the displacement of the Rule of Law forcibly continues.

In the North, indecently hastened ‘reconciliation’ mechanisms are established without consultation with the victims in order to meet the forthcoming scrutiny of the international community. After all the painful lessons of the past, this push to have ‘cosmetic’ accountability is indefensible.

Performance of constitutional commissions
In this context, how have the independent commissions fared in restoring public trust in Sri Lanka’s institutional governance? This subject deserves detailed scrutiny. Suffice it to be said for the moment that the performance of the PSC and the National Police Commission (NPC) leaves much to be desired. Unfortunately, these are precisely the two Commissions vested with actual authority to compel accountability from state officials. This is quite distinct from the Human Rights Commission for example which does not have that mandate with the consequent result that however excellent its directives or orders may be, they are often than not bypassed by the establishment. A case in point is the Human Rights Commission’s positive finding in regard to the displaced Panama villagers some years ago which continues to be ignored by the relevant state officials.

In contrast, the PSC and the NPC have authority at their command if only this responsibility is used forcefully. Let us take the NPC as an example. During the time period that has lapsed since this body came into existence under the 19th Amendment, its record where the accountability of the police service is concerned is disappointing.

Public responsibilities cannot be  treated lightly
The NPC must not be regarded as a ‘post box’ where it merely entertains complaints and refers them to the police for investigation. Past practice has been that the investigation of police officers by other police officers yields no positive results. This must be changed. Substantive disciplinary control must be exercised by the NPC over the police service. We have yet to see this manifested.

In addition it needs to be clarified if the practice adopted by the first NPC under the 17th Amendment, of interdicting police officers indicted of torture under the Torture Act No 22 of 1994 continues. These are public responsibilities vested in the NPC and cannot be treated lightly.

In the absence thereof, the gains of the 19th Amendment become reduced to political propaganda and little else. An isolated ‘victory’ over a singular and monumentally bad appointment to the public service does not detract from this reality.