Columns

 Embassy Staffer contradicts her statements

Serious doubts over her credibility

Sirisena changes gear from being “neutral”

Crisis in the UNP continues

That dubious distinction could go to 34-year-old Garnier Banister Francis, Swiss Embassy’s Assistant Migration Officer. She claimed that she was abducted by five men who came in a white Toyota Corolla car on Monday, November 25 from outside the Embassy premises at R.G. Senanayake Mawatha (former Gregory’s Road). She complained that her telephone had been searched and details taken. She alleged that she was blindfolded, tied with a rope, and repeatedly questioned about visas issued to Chief Inspector Nishantha de Silva of the CID and his family. The latter has already found asylum in Switzerland.

On top of her alleged experience, she had said, when she got home that night, her neighbours had telephoned to say there were people making inquiries about her in the vicinity. She had telephoned her immediate boss, the lady Swiss Migration Officer, on the night of November 25. She told her she was leaving her residence to another location for safety reasons with her husband Pradeep Elmo, an amateur mountain climber and other immediate family members. She had claimed her life was in danger. Ambassador Hanspeter Mock put together a report giving details of her encounter. This was not comprehensive and contained only what was elicited from the panic-stricken staffer. It was handed over to Ravinatha Aryasinha, Foreign Secretary on Wednesday, November 27. It came between two other meetings Ambassador Mock had, one in the morning with Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and one with Prime Minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa in the afternoon.

By Thursday (November 28), a team of CID detectives arrived at the Swiss Embassy. At a meeting with Ambassador Mock they sought more details. The envoy was to tell them that the local staffer was in a state of shock and he could not elicit more details than those already given. He had said all what he knew has been put down in a note he handed in to Foreign Secretary Aryasinha. Thus, for the detectives, what was valid testimony until then were the details the envoy had given.

Ambassador Mock had then alerted the Colombo based diplomatic community, particularly those from the Western countries. They were shaken. Many launched protective measures for their local staff giving telephone numbers of senior officials for hurried evacuation. This was in the event of an emergency. They were told they could be whisked away to their capitals if indeed there were serious threats to their lives. A few also spoke of a bizarre story of the alleged abduction saying it was the handiwork of an Israeli trained group who were operating under the code name “Sicario.”  It is the Spanish word for hitmen used often by Mexican drug cartels and made popular by a recent movie. This unsubstantiated colouration gave the alleged abduction a mischievous or even a dangerous connotation. A group of envoys met Foreign Relations Ministry’s Additional Secretary for Multilateral Affairs Ahmed Jawad on Friday (January 31) to urge the government for immediate action. He was acting Foreign Secretary in the absence of Aryasinha, who had accompanied President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to New Delhi.

The Swiss Embassy’s highly explosive staffer Garnier Banister Francis with her face covered being taken to the office of the Judicial Medical Officer to examine her mental and physical condition. She is accompanied by two lady officials from the Swiss Embassy in Colombo. Pic by Lahiru Harshana

The Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), that learnt of Ambassador Mock’s complaint was livid. The FDFA, which was voicing the view of the Swiss government, declared “At the end of November, a local employee at the Swiss Embassy in Colombo was detained on the street and threatened by unidentified men to force her to disclose embassy-related information. The FDFA responded to this incident through a series of demarches.” The same statement quoted State Secretary Pascale Baeriswyl as telling Sri Lanka Ambassador to Germany, Karunasena Hettiaratchchi, (concurrently accredited to Switzerland) that Berne remained “ready to take the necessary steps to restore confidence between Switzerland and Sri Lanka.” In other words, she has publicly admitted that the Swiss government had no confidence in Sri Lanka. Going by her assertions, the alleged abduction episode had ruptured it. The statement came after Ambassador’s Hettiaratchchi’s meeting where a Swiss request for an air ambulance to evacuate the local staffer was discussed.

Now comes the bombshell – the Garnier Banister Francis saga has reached a contentious state. Did the alleged abduction really happen? Despite contentions from some who say that her state of mental restlessness due to trauma led to the first account she gave, there were a plethora of contradictions in more than 20 hours of statements she had made to the CID. Those who claim it did, argue that the shock and worry prompted the local staffer to make the first statement and insist “an incident did take place though not the way she described it.” One of the reasons they attribute is her physical behaviour and her sudden departure from home. Of course, such a phenomenon could also arise if she later realised that she had ‘exploded a bomb’ by making the abduction claim. There was still no substance in her allegation to confirm either an abduction, or her being held at gunpoint.

“Her version casts serious doubts and is riddled with contradictions and confusion. It is a fake story,” said a top Police source familiar with the investigation. The facts will soon become public, he said, but declined to elaborate saying the investigation is still proceeding. Nevertheless, there was “technical evidence” to confirm that she was present at Kollupitiya, just after the time she claimed the alleged incident occurred. Was that a drop off point of “the abductors” or did she travel there on her own? Here again there was nothing to confirm that she had been released by the so-called abductors, the source said.

Adding further credence to serious doubts cast by the local staffer, the state-run Daily News quoted Defence Secretary Kamal Gunaratne as saying “no CID team or any law enforcement unit of this country abducted the Swiss Embassy employee. It is a totally fabricated allegation.” The comments came during his visit to the new Army Headquarters complex at Akuregoda in Battaramulla. He said he was making those remarks “in a one hundred per cent responsible manner.” Joint Cabinet spokesperson Minister Ramesh Pathirana said this week, “we are of the view that the aim of the so-called abduction was to bring the government into disrepute. Whatever said and done, we are not sure the Swiss Embassy is aware of that.”

If she claimed earlier through her Ambassador that she was abducted from just outside the Embassy premises at R.G. Senanayake Mawatha, in Colombo 7, she has changed the story. She has told detectives that she went to St Bridget’s Convent to meet a teacher who had sought her help to seek asylum in Switzerland. She had collected documents linked to it. Thereafter, she has claimed visiting the teacher in an apartment along Palmyrah Avenue in Kollupitiya, Colombo 3. It is here that a person pointed a gun and the abduction reportedly took place, she said later. In her first version, there was no reference to a gun.

Mrs. Garnier Banister Francis does not have any other different names, and is a Miss Xavier. She has contradicted most of what she told her Ambassador Mock convincing investigators to believe her saga was concocted. To ensure that her interrogation was transparent and within the law, they went an extra mile. That is to produce her before a Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) to examine and declare that she was in a fit condition to make a statement. This is ahead of her statement being recorded.

Earlier, Berne and Colombo, as revealed in these columns last week, had agreed in principle that the local staffer should make a statement. The venue was the bone of contention with Berne insisting that it be done at the Embassy premises. However, the government insisted that the normal process for Sri Lankans was to report to the CID headquarters since they were handling the investigations. The deadline set by a Magistrate’s Court to give a statement was ending. It was then agreed she would go to the CID headquarters.

Though she is the complainant, her head was covered with a cloth when she arrived. Such a practice is followed only in the case of a suspect, but this was for her protection in the light of the serious complaint she had made, said an officer. After complaints that she was mentally distressed, it had been agreed that she should be examined by a medical panel of three specialist doctors in terms of an order given by the Magistrate. This is to confirm whether or not she is medically and physically  fit. This is after her statement was recorded. It was not possible for the Swiss authorities to obtain the help of the ICRC for the visit to CID headquarters. The issue did not come within the mandate of the ICRC.

What will follow after the investigations are concluded has become the critical question. On the one hand, it is clear that the local staffer misled her Ambassador, thus the Swiss government, the Colombo based diplomatic community and more importantly the Sri Lanka government. A prejudicial report in The New York Times just days after the incident caused serious damage to the image of the new government. ‘The white van era is back’ was the theme of the report that went worldwide. In the light of the evidence that has surfaced so far, the complainant could face legal action on different counts. That is in in view of the serious consequences that have arisen. This is in light of the claims of a very serious nature she has not been able to substantiate.

On the other hand, it becomes incumbent on the Swiss government to clear the air. This naturally means having to acknowledge its own mistakes. Of course, that is once the investigations are concluded. It is noteworthy to distinguish the different prisms through which western and other embassies in Colombo look at their local staff. The former gives them greater weightage and attention than the others. This explains why evacuation plans for local staffers in other diplomatic missions were put in place after the Swiss saga.  The incident also led to other local staffers in the Swiss embassy being questioned. Where matters went wrong, quite clearly, is when the complaint of the local staffer was taken seriously by them without verification. Another serious lapse is their reluctance to promptly produce the local staffer to make a statement without deciding that she was not in a fit state. If indeed she was in a state of panic and trauma, the CID would have then reported it. It should have been left in the hands of the CID to determine, if necessary, with medical opinion. Instead, the Swiss tried to whisk her away in an air ambulance. That made the situation worse. Therein lies a very serious lapse. More so when the Swiss bend backwards to stress their traditional ‘neutrality’.

In correcting what happened, the local staffer should be made answerable if she is determined to be in a fit state. At least a public statement from both sides could clear such matters because the long-term relationship between the two countries is what matters. In this situation, laudably the government has stood its ground over the abduction episode. It has thus vindicated itself through the course of action it took. It is well within their right to now seek the return of CI de Silva against whom domestic inquiries are now under way. However, this appears to be a far cry from happening.

There is a more far-reaching aspect to what appears to be the purported abduction saga. Did Garnier Banister Francis come out with her story and later contradict herself out of her own volition? What did she seek to gain? The argument that she did so to obtain asylum herself does not hold much water. She knows the procedures all too well and is unlikely she would have resorted to that move. Therefore, is there a deep rooted conspiracy pointedly at President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the government. These questions loom over the local staffer’s own claim that the “abduction” was over Chief Inspector Nishantha de Silva. She also claims that her abductors repeatedly questioned her over the migrant visas granted to CI de Silva and his family.

It is confirmed that CI de Silva took along with him documents dealing with several high-profile cases which revolved around Gotabaya Rajapaksa when he was Defence Secretary. It is also known that power brokers within the previous government used material related to these cases for propaganda against Rajapaksa for a long period. They had access to material available with the CID. Both before and during the presidential election campaign, such material was liberally used in the social and sections of the print media. Sections of the government accused the United National Party (UNP) for the conspiracy. However, UNP General Secretary, Akila Viraj Kariyawasam flatly denied the claim.

Yet, onetime Joint Cabinet spokesperson and former Health Minister, Rajitha Senaratne, told a news conference last Monday that it did not do any good to the UNP. He said “The importance of salt is felt only when it is absent in a curry. Journalists too would now feel the same about the curtailment of media freedom. Few days back, I exposed the case of white van abductions.  I met those people and they sent me information. I produced it before the media. Some thought I was uttering lies. Just a week after coming to power, the white van abductions have come back. A woman has been taken against her will and a gun was shoved in her mouth. Following that, her phone was snatched from her. Afterwards all the data were taken from her phone. She was questioned. It was only after two hours that she was released on a street.”

Senaratne added: “Even today, that woman is unable to talk due to mental trauma.  The Prime Minister is telling her to give a statement. She is even unable to talk to the residents living near her house. She stays gazing upwards, let alone making a statement. She is in a great fear. She might have never seen such a thing even in a movie. Today the Switzerland embassy requested Sri Lanka to carry out an investigation; they are trying to send the whole family to Switzerland due to fear.” That Senaratne and credibility are two poles apart is known after his role as Cabinet spokesperson.

Two persons who were associated with Senaratne at the pre-presidential election news conference have already been taken into custody. An investigation is under way on his remarks.

Senaratne’s gaffes are far too many to recount, However, it is not clear why he resurrected the so-called white van issue when the vehicle allegedly used was a Toyota Corolla. Senaratne was joined by his former ministerial colleague Ranjith Madduma Bandara, once a Law and Order Minister. He told a news conference at Siri Kotha, the UNP headquarters in Pitakote on Wednesday, November 28. “Again, the country has gone back to the situation which was there before 2015. An official of the Swiss Embassy was kidnapped in a white van and held at gunpoint and was threatened yesterday. She was accused of issuing a visa for an official. We carried out good governance for five years but now they are reversing what we did. This was not the mandate given by people and the Venerable Theras.” Even after their defeat at the presidential elections, UNP stalwarts, it appears, have developed a fine art of shooting themselves in the foot. What both Senaratne and Madduma Bandara, considered senior in the UNP, do not realize is that the Swiss saga is not a domestic political issue but one that concerns the country and its people. It deals with the integrity of the country. By championing non-existent causes, they are doing more damage to the country either wittingly or otherwise.

Among the handful of Sri Lankans who have brought disrepute to the country generating worldwide publicity were Emil Savundranayagam and Sepala Ekanayake. Some 52 years ago, Emil Savundra as he was called, committed bribery and fraud on an international scale. His Fire, Auto and Marine Insurance Company collapsed leaving 400,000 British motorists without coverage. Jailed for eight years, Savundra died two years after his release as a drug addict.

Sepala Ekanayake, a youth from Hambantota, moved to Germany. There he married an Italian woman – Anna Aldrovandi. In 1980 they relocated to Modena, in Italy. Ekanayake’s Italian visa expired, and a renewal was refused. In June 1982 he travelled to New Delhi airport and boarded an Alitalia Boeing 747 on its way to Tokyo. As the flight was under way, he made a ransom demand saying that bombs were strapped to his body. He wanted his wife and son named Free together with US $ 300,000 brought to Bangkok’s Don Muang International Airport. He threatened to blow up the aircraft if his demands were not heeded. His wife, son and the money were delivered. When he arrived in Sri Lanka, he was arrested, and the money was seized. The country’s image took a bad beating.

In the two cases above, the government in power then worked closely with the countries involved to resolve issues. However, in the case of Garnier Banister Francis, the contradictory claims have led to an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between Sri Lanka and Switzerland. That is what makes the issue much more serious.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who is closely monitoring the Swiss saga, told publishers at a meeting on Wednesday the coverage by local media was “good”. He also chaired a meeting of the government parliamentary group that followed with a dinner on Thursday night at the Janadipathi Mandiraya. The ruling alliance members were told that each of them would receive Rs20 million for development work in their electorates. This was besides an allocation of Rs 2 million for every Grama Sevaka division.

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa said they should concentrate on development work on a priority basis. There will also be a fast-tracked programme to provide 100,000 jobs to “poorest of the poor.” Parliamentarians also discussed matters relating to the ceremonial opening of Parliament on January 3, next year. President Rajapaksa will make a policy statement on this day. Opposition UNP is poised to seek a debate on the speech amidst speculation that Parliament would be prorogued again. Ahead of such a debate, due to the present prorogation, the re-constitution of the House Business Committee will become necessary. At present it is weighted with more UNP members. It is only thereafter that their motion calling for a debate could be placed on the Order Book of Parliament.

The UNP, however, continues to be embroiled in its internal crisis. A six-member Committee appointed by leader Ranil Wickremesinghe to study the current situation and recommend measures to rectify them ended up in chaos. This was after several MPs decided to ask Wickremesinghe to step down from the leadership. The five member committee comprises Lakshman Kiriella, Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Malik Samarawickrema, Thalatha Athukorale, Vajira Abeywardena and Ashu Marasinghe. Some MPs wanted Wickremesinghe to serve as the patron of the UNP – one which was rejected by some. The task of conveying the decision was left in the hands of Lakshman Kiriella and Vajira Abeywardena. The duo was to later convey to other committee members that Wickremesinghe had said a firm “no.” In return, Wickremesinghe loyalists are recommending a Leadership Council comprising himself, Sajith Premadasa and Karu Jayasuriya. Abeywardena later declared publicly that the party should have “a mature leader,” a move which means Wickremesinghe should continue. However, the committee was agreed that Premadasa could be their Prime Ministerial aspirant.

In this backdrop, some 28 members from the Working Committee, the party’s policy making body, have sent a signed letter to Wicrekemsinghe to convene a meeting before December 20. There are 68 members in the Working Committee. It is highly unlikely that such a meeting will take place thus leaving a stalemate behind. The purpose of the meeting is to ask Wickremesinghe to step down but one of his loyalists said, “the leader will decide on the proper course of action. He is waiting to discuss these matters with Premadasa, but he’s not showing up”.

It was a different story for the leader of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), a member of the ruling alliance. President Maithripala Sirisena has changed gear from being “neutral” during the pre-presidential election period. He told party organisers at a meeting this week that the party should “go all out to ensure President Gotabaya Rajapaksa receives a two thirds majority” at the upcoming parliamentary elections. A marked shift indeed. Despite his claim of “neutrality,” senior leadership of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), the main partner of the alliance, is aware that Sirisena leaned heavily in favour of Sajith Premadasa’s candidature. One of them who commandeered a statistical survey found that the votes received by Gotabaya Rajapaksa in the Polonnaruwa District would have been “much more” if Sirisena had backed him. The leadership has also become privy to discussions Sirisena held with top Premadasa supporters and the measures he adopted sequel to their requests before the presidential elections last month.

He declared that he would visit every district and urged organisers to arrange meetings so he could speak to the people. The post presidential election period shows that Sirisena has fallen between two stools. At first, he weighed strongly in favour of Premadasa though his party’s Central Committee decided to support Gotabaya Rajapaksa. It was only after such a decision was made and when he came under pressure from Premadasa loyalists that he declared he would stand “neutral.” His sudden shift in position comes amidst reports that the government may, after the parliamentary elections, ask him to vacate the sprawling presidential house at Mahagamsekera Mawatha. He may be given another official bungalow since accommodation for ministers has become an issue now.

After the meeting ended, SLFP General Secretary Dayasiri Jayasekera declared that the party would insist on contesting the parliamentary elections under the chair symbol. For this purpose, he said, the SLFP had already signed an accord with Gotabaya Rajapaksa before he became President.

Ahead of the parliamentary elections, the northern capital of Jaffna will see the birth of a new political party. It is being formed by M.K. Sivagilingam who unsuccessfully contested the presidential elections. He and his partner Sri Kantha are members of Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation (TELO), a partner of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). The duo has been removed from TELO. They are planning an inaugural meeting at the Navalar Hall.

The Swiss saga continued to take centre stage for the third week running. Detectives have carried out a thorough background check on the family of Garnier Banister Francis. The issue will come up before the Magistrate’s Courts on Tuesday. There are indications that details of her testimony, if not some, would surface on this day.

On other front, it is a smooth run for the government with the main opposition UNP in disarray. To say it would affect the UNP’s prospects at the impending parliamentary elections would be an understatement. Another debacle is in the waiting.