News
This country has destroyed image of our whole family, not only that of my husband, says Dr Shafi’s wife
That her husband is in jail is not Imara’s only problem. She has nowhere to live, no job and her children are no longer in school.
This week, the Criminal Investigation Department told the Kurunegala Magistrate’s Court they had no evidence that her husband, Dr Shafi Shihabdeen of the Kurunegala Teaching Hospital, had made Sinhalese women sterile by clamping their fallopian tubes during caesarean operations, that he had links with any terrorist organisation or that he had amassed wealth in excess of his earnings.
Dr. Shafi and (top) the Kurunegala Hospital where he worked as an SHO
It brought relief to the family–they have three children aged 15, 13 and 10–but the problems that started in May 24, when Dr Shihabdeen was arrested and detained, are far from over. And questions about due process and its abuse in this case, lawyers say, are even more troubling.
Her family was destroyed, Dr M F N Imara, 43, told the Sunday Times. She left home for safety soon after her husband’s arrest and is now lodging with a friend because nobody–not even Muslim property-owners–want to rent space to her. They are afraid of the implications it might hold for them.
Imara’s two daughters were students of Maliyadeva Girls’ College in Kurunegala, while her son attended Maliyadeva Boys’ College. The older girl had initially insisted on attending school. She quit a few days later after being ostracised by pupils and received psychiatric help. The other two children also stopped school.
Imara is also under treatment now. The stress has been too much. She is considering entering her children to private schools. And, after being exposed to great hostility at work–she is attached to the same hospital as her husband–she requested for and received a transfer. But she is still on medical leave.
“Each and everywhere, people are refusing us because of fear,” Imara, who was born and bred in Kurunegala, said. Her husband is from Kalawewa but settled in her hometown. “Even if we search for a house to settle in, when I reveal my identity they are afraid to give a place to us.”
“It is not only Sinhalese,” she said. “Muslims are also fearful thinking it will cause a problem to them. This country destroyed our image. Not only that of my husband. Some media have destroyed the image of my children.”
Imara finds the thought of continuing to live in Sri Lanka challenging. But she has no immediate plans of leaving. Her first priority is to be “one family with my husband again”. At the moment, she meets him only once a week.
While the CID were clear in their presentation to court that the multiple allegations against Dr Shafi lacked basis in fact, there are concerns that forces such as UNP MP Ven Aturaliye Ratana Thera will again compromise the process by politicising it. But Dr Shafi’s case had raised concerns in legal circles at the very outset.
A key problem was there was no clear evidence on which to arrest and detain Dr Shafi. “To arrest a person, there must be some material that justifies an arrest,” said Saliya Pieris, PC, who has long practised in the sphere of criminal law. And in something like an assets case, whether it is money laundering or corruption, the local police obviously don’t have the wherewithal to look at it. The local police are not competent.”
In such instances, it is the CID or the Bribery Commission that is adequately geared to take on the case. “It would be very difficult to determine within 24 hours whether a person’s assets are from corruption or money laundering,” Mr Pieris said. “Those take years of investigation. In all these prominent cases of money laundering and assets, there is first an investigation and only after that is the suspect arrest.”
There are also the allegations related to forced sterilization. “Once again, you cannot conclude a person’s guilt on the basis of possibilities. You can’t just detain him because someone has said something or you think it might be. The Secretary of Defence issuing a detention order must be satisfied that there are grounds to issue such an order, and that it is something that can be tested in court.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed these principles in fundamental rights judgments.
The CID report filed to the Kurunegala Magistrate on Thursday was the result of an intense and in-depth investigation, said Hejaaz Hizbullah, Counsel for Dr Shafi. Statements were taken from the doctor’s supervisors, doctors and nurses who assisted him during caesarean operations, minor employees, technicians, etc.
“Nobody had given evidence or a statement to say he has, in anyway, through fingers, clamps or forceps, damaged the fallopian tubes,” Mr Hizbullah, who was present in court, said. “Quite a few said it was impossible to do without being detected.” A CID officer had also attended a caesarian operation and observed the procedure, recording that the theater was well lit and the process was closely watched by other professionals.
The CID also recorded evidence from the Kurunegala Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Police who was the source of a newspaper article regarding an unnamed doctor who allegedly performed 4000 operations leading to women being made sterile. According to the DIG’s statement, “he only informed the journalist that there was a rumour and nothing else.” He said the writer had included of his own accord details such as 4000 women being affected.
With regard to Dr Shafi’s assets, it was found he had several properties and businesses and earned around Rs 1.9mn a month. Some of the properties were bought by selling the car permits and his wife were entitled to. The CID did not make an allegation of disproportionate income or asset base to court. But he did not rule it out.
The CID is awaiting results of investigation into some other bank accounts and will make a final conclusion later. Up to now, however, nothing “abnormal” has been found, Mr Hizbullah said.
On the allegation of terrorism, neither the CID nor any of the intelligence gathering agencies of Sri Lanka recorded any evidence or reported any suspicion with regard to terrorist activity. Phone records were checked and “not a single phone call was made to a terror suspect”. The CID told court that this cannot be an allegation under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and told court they will make an application to the detaining authority to take suitable action.