House awakens to fiery words

By Chandani Kirinde

Although many expected heated arguments between Government and Opposition legislators, when they met after a month's break, proceedings were conducted in a somewhat subdued manner except for a few loud exchanges between PA's Mervyn Silva and UNPs A.H.M. Azwar.

Deputy Defence Minister Anuruddha Ratwatte who opened the debate on behalf of the Government had the grim task of revealing the high cost of human life as a result of the three day operation "Agni Kheila" that was launched on April 25.

"One hundred and sixty seven men including five officers sacrificed their lives, 1905 were injured while 88 others are missing in action," the Minister told the House.

Minister Ratwatte explained that troops had managed to capture terrorist held lines on the first day of the operation but by the third day, due to heavy casualties as a result of artillery and mortar fire by the terrorists, and for tactical reasons, troops had vacated the newly captured areas.

Mawanella was also high on the Minister's agenda and he outlined in detail the steps taken by the government in the wake of the clashes and said no stone would be left unturned to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.

Many government parliamentarians tried to draw a parallel between the Mawanella incidents and the anti-Tamil riots of 1983 stating that while in 83 little was done to put a stop to the rioting by the then UNP government, President's Kumaratunga had acted swiftly to bring things under control by airlifting troops to the troubled areas and clamping a curfew.

Minister Ratwatte's appeal to all legislators not to play politics with the sensitive issue of race relations was heeded by most MPs who spoke after him.

Chief Opposition Whip W.J.M. Loku- bandara spoke on the politicization of the police force by government politicians and blamed police inaction for the unrest at Mawanella .

"You have used the police to win elections and for many other illegal activities. You have let the genie out of the bottle and now you can't control it," he charged.

Mimicking President Kumaratunga in his own inimitable style, Mr. Loku bandara went onto to ridicule the address to the nation by the President after the Mawanella incidents and expressed his great displeasure at her suggestion that the UNP was connected to the incidents.

"Please tell your sister not to talk in this irresponsible way," Mr.Lokubandara said turning to Speaker Anura Bandaranaike. "It makes the blood of the millions of UNP supporters boil."

JVP's Wimal Weerawansa tried to put the Mawanella incidents in perspective saying it was clear that an extortion bid by henchmen of a leading PA politician in the area had led to the problems.

He said the Police had repeatedly refused to record the statements against the thugs responsible for the unfortunate incidents due to pressure from the politician concerned.

"Today the government says it has taken steps to arrest the situation. It is like closing the stable door once the horse has bolted," he said.

Mr.Weerawansa said the government was quick to use the emergency regulations against striking railway workers but when it came to the perpetrators of violence in Mawanella, counter-measures had been slow.

UNP's Kegalle district MP Mano Wijeratne said trouble had been brewing in the district since last year's elections which he charged were rigged.

He said the appointment of a Presidential Commission to probe the Mawanella incidents was done only to satisfy SLMC leader Rauf Hakeem and not to find out what really happened there. He called for the appointment of a Parliamentary select Committee instead to look into the matter.

Another UNP MP of the same district R.A.D.Sirisena had a bone to pick with the Bandaranaike's accusing them of being instrumental in causing much of the disharmony among the Sinhalese and the country's other ethnic groups over the years.

"The President cannot pass the ball to the UNP's court this time. The UNP has always worked to protect racial unity," he emphasized.

SLMC leader Rauf Hakeem whose 11 MPs help to keep the PA government in power said he was willing to join the government to stop the recurrence of such incidents and thanked the President for her prompt action to deal with the situation.

Although Mr. Hakeem did express his displeasure at the alleged involvement of certain govt. politicians in the clashes as well as the failure to intervene, he did not renew his threats to pull out of the government as he had done soon after the Mawanella incidents.

Mr.Hakeem who analysed the incidents in detail and speaking for nearly an hour said the actions were typical of elements seeking political patronage. Although he did not mention any names, it has been alleged that supporters of Rural Industrial Development Minister Mahipala Herath had started the clashes. However. Mr. Hakeem and Mr. Herath were seen chatting together within the Chambers from which one can draw the conclusion that Mr. Hakeem at least believes in Mr. Herath's innocence.

Mr. Hakeem also believed there was a bigger conspiracy behind the violence ."This was not a Sinhala-Muslim clash but an attack on the economic well-being of the Muslims in Mawanella.," he said .

Mr.Hakeem also said some of his cabinet colleagues did not appreciate the position taken by him and had accused him of breaching the collective cabinet responsibility by threatening to pull out of the government.

Minister Mahipala Herath said the attempt to involve him in the Mawanella incidents was done by his political opponents to defame him and said if the police were involved in the incidents as alleged by some, they could have caused greater havoc.

He said he had worked cordially with the Muslims in the area and even helped develop their religious sites.

UNPer Gamini Jayawickrema Perera diverting from the subject, spoke on the gross disregard for the law among politicians of the ruling party, referring to the holding of a musical show on the premises of the Mulleriyawa mental hospital despite a court injunction against it.

"What is the rule of law we have in this country if a court order is disregarded in this manner," he questioned.

Many of the Opposition legislator's remarks literally fell on deaf years as many were absent from the Chambers, emerging only when the vote was being taken. 

It was also a poignant moment as the Sihala Urumaya's lone MP Thilak Karunaratne delivered his farewell speech before resigning from Parliament.

Mr. Karunaratne analyzed the failure of the "Agni Kheila" operation saying his repeated warnings that the LTTE was building up its defences during its self-declared ceasefire had not been heeded by the Government.

Quoting from Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" which says "never attack the enemies strongest positions", Mr. Karunaratne said Elephant Pass was the LTTE's strongest position and it was obvious to anyone that it would be strongly defended.

Mr.Karunaratne who first came to Parliament from the SLFP in 1989 formed the "Hela Urumaya" group within the party. He joined the UNP in 1994 and later resigned to from the Sihala Urumaya. He will be replaced in parliament by the National Organizer of the SU Champaka Ranawaka.

As the days proceedings came to a close, many MPs were seen shaking Mr. Karunaratne's hand as he walked by their seats. Mr.Karunaratne also joined with the rest of the opposition to vote against the extension of the emergency which was passed by a majority of nine votes with 110 voting for and 101 against the motion.

State violence Vs rebels' right to life

This is so both in the substance of the rulings themselves (which reprimanded Britain for 'shortcomings in transparency and effectiveness' in inquiries into the killings and a corresponding 'failure to cause a proper investigation'), as well as in the nature of the debates that are taking place in Britain as a result.

The underlying question is both all too familiar and all too relevant for us: Is the State justified in resorting to terrorist tactics to counter terrorism? On the one hand, some commentators in Britain have taken the position that terrorism cannot be repelled by conventional law and order means and that there can be no holds barred when fighting terrorists.

On the other, civil libertarians argue that while governments are entitled to take defensive action against terrorist groups, lives cannot be taken without justification and with impunity. 

The whole is predictably enough, run through with the kind of incendiary passion that appears to govern any issue dealing with Northern Ireland. Families of victims appeal for the further prosecution of soldiers and policemen and call Britain a terrorist state while relatives of those who died at the hands of the IRA conversely express horror at the rulings.

The European Court in Strasbourg was considering four applications which involved separate incidents of killings by British forces in Northern Ireland during the thick of an alleged government 'shoot-to-kill' policy in combating the IRA.

In one particularly controversial incident, eight IRA members, including a senior commander, were shot by security forces in an ambush following an IRA attack on a police station after a phone call regarding the attack was intercepted. It was notably the highest single death toll that the IRA had to endure during its 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland.

But the incident raised the question of killings carried out following undercover operations where arrests could have been an alternative. A non-IRA passerby was also killed and his brother seriously injured during the ambush. 

At that time, the Irish Times commented aptly enough that 'whatever (the IRA men) may have done or however suspect they may have been, the British Army was not entitled to act as judge, jury and executioner in their case. To do so would be to adopt the standards of the paramilitaries.' 

In another incident in 1982, three unarmed IRA men were killed by officers of a special support unit who justified their actions on the basis that they had fired at their car after it crashed through a checkpoint even though forensic tests showed that the firing started after the car had stopped.

The other two incidents involved the killing of a suspected IRA member by a paramilitary group and the shooting of another individual in the back after his car was rammed and police opened fire without warning as he got out of the car. He was later given an IRA funeral.

Relatives of the victims pointed to a shoot-to-kill policy adopted by the United Kingdom Government in Northern Ireland and referred to reports by Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch, as well as to statements made by a senior policeman and investigator appointed to examine allegations of such a policy.

They argued moreover that their cases could not be looked at in isolation from the other cases in Northern Ireland involving the use of lethal force by State agents where examination of deaths between 1969 and 1994 showed that, at the material time, there was a practice whereby suspects were arbitrarily killed rather than arrested. Meanwhile, inadequate investigations into these and other cases were also contended to be evidence of official tolerance on the part of the State of the use of unlawful lethal force.

Interestingly, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, making submissions in Strasbourg, emphasized the obligation on the part of the State to carry out an effective official investigation when an agent of the State was involved or implicated in the use of lethal force. 

Internal accountability procedures had to satisfy the standards of effectiveness, independence, transparency and promptness, and facilitate punitive sanctions.

The Commission pointed out that it was not sufficient for a State to declare that while certain mechanisms were inadequate, a number of such mechanisms regarded cumulatively could provide the necessary protection and submitted that investigative mechanisms relied on in these cases, singly or combined, had failed.

In essence, the European Court agreed with this argument, stressing the need to secure 'accountability in practice as well as theory.' Accordingly, it declared that for an investigation into alleged unlawful killing by State agents to be effective, the persons responsible for and carrying out the investigation must be independent from those implicated in the events.

However, the Court was careful to restrict itself to the failure of the British government to investigate the killings properly rather than decide on whether the killings were lawful or proportionate or to rule on the alleged 'shoot to kill' policy of the government. Thus, it warned that 'proper procedures for ensuring the accountability of agents of the State are indispensable in maintaining public confidence and meeting the legitimate concerns that might arise from the use of lethal force. Lack of such procedures will only add fuel to fears of sinister motivations as illustrated by the submission made by the applicant concerning the alleged 'shoot-to-kill policy.'

The Court ruled significantly that the right to life clause in the European Convention on Human Rights under which the applications were brought applied as much to state investigation of deaths as it did to actual killings.

By failing to properly investigate the killings, Britain had breached its obligations under the Convention. The British member of the European Court concurred with the decision.

Emotion against the recent rulings meanwhile continues to run high in the United Kingdom. The outrage has stemmed mainly from a Court order directing the government to pay each applicant £10,000, plus up to £30,000 costs. While Northern Ireland's first minister David Trimble condemned the court ruling as 'hurtful and perverse' given that most of those killed were heavily armed terrorists, the Prime Minister's office issued a guarded statement saying it wanted time to study the ruling. 

It was also reported that the Government might appeal against the rulings to the grand chamber of the Strasbourg Court. 

While the rulings might prompt a re appraisal of investigations into deaths in Northern Ireland where the identification of those responsible is still possible, what is feared however is that there could be a rash of applications in Strasbourg by relatives of individuals killed during security operations in Northern Ireland, numbering well into the hundreds. Ironically, relatives of British security forces killed by the IRA have also declared their determination to appeal to the European Court against their own trauma, thus paving the way for a wholly surreal if not nightmarish legal tit for tat before Europe's highest rights tribunal.

But as the Guardian editorialised soberly this week, definitive boundaries need to be drawn around last week's European Court rulings which did not condone terror or question the right of a State to defend itself. Rather, what the rulings added up to was the necessary truth that 'we cannot expect the agents of the state to be better than mere terrorists.

' This, in turn, pointed to the need - when the province is ready - for a process akin to South Africa's search for truth and reconciliation. 

At the moment however, the cumulative effect of the Strasbourg rulings on the killings in Northern Ireland continues, quite tragically to be precisely the opposite. 

And the parallels that one can draw from this as far as Sri Lanka is concerned can only be way too obvious even for the irresistibly simpleminded.

Who was responsible for the Mawanella disaster?

Victor Ivan

It is clear that the government had followed a policy of promoting the emergence of a particular group of local political leaders. A restrained, educated and experienced person like Dr. Jagath Balasuriya was of no importance to the government. Those who were important to the government were local leaders who have the capability to act like thugs. There is no doubt that the reason for this is lack of confidence in the people who elect the government.

The strength of a politician of this category depended on thuggery. That strength is derived from well known criminals of the area. 

In addition to indulging in criminal activities on behalf of their political masters who provide them protection, they also indulge in their own criminal activities, taking refuge under political protection. Because these groups have indulged in criminal activities on behalf of politicians and also because they need the help of these groups in future elections, politicians always follow a policy of protecting them even when they commit crimes in their own personal interest.

Due to immense power enjoyed by the local political leaders, the local police do not have the clout to go against persons who function as political henchmen. Often the head of the local police has connections with the local political leader. As a result, protection to the closest henchmen of the local political boss has become the official policy of each police station.

Although the President has said that a group of opportunistic and power hungry persons were responsible for the distractions at Mawanella, the real responsibility should go to the violent followers of minister Herath. Whether minister Herath was in Sri Lanka at the time of the incident is not significant. A group of persons who are functioning under minister Herath's political shadow have been exacting tribute from the people of this area for some time. When complained, the police followed a policy of ignoring those complaints because the alleged culprits were close to the minister.

At night on April 30, some people forced themselves into Zahira hotel near the Mawanella bus stand and demanded tribute. 

When the cashier had refused to pay the tribute they demanded, the result was that the cashier was taken out of the hotel, tied to the Premadasa statue which was close by, assaulted and his belly was cut.

This incident roused the people of the area and, when the police failed to take action the anger of the people was directed against the police. They surrounded the police and started protesting. The response of the police was to attack them in a most provocative manner. It was thereafter that the incident turned into a distinctive imbroglio.

If the police had strictly implemented the law, disregarding the connection they had with the minister, the destruction which occurred would not have taken place. 

However, because the police followed a policy of protecting the criminals, not only was there a massive destruction but the innocent common people had to pay a price. The compensation for the destruction should have been paid, not from public funds, but from the funds of the party concerned.

The fact that the law is not implemented against politicians connected to the government is not confined to Mawanella, but is a general feature in our country.

In a court case against D. M. Dissanayake which is being heard, he continues to evade justice, the lady judge who is hearing the case had to direct the police to arrest him and to produce him in court. However, the police has so far failed to do so.

During the Wayamba provincial council election, a group of persons connected to the government's political boss of the area, undressed a young woman who was distributing election handouts, and paraded her on the road. Due to the powerful protest that arose in the country against this disgraceful incident, the Attorney General had to institute legal action against the culprits. 

However, the member of the Wayamba Pradeshiya Sabha who is one of the main accused in the case has been constantly evading arrest and the police has been inactive, and consequently the high court judge had to order the OIC of the Katupotha police to explain his failure to arrest the person concerned.

A case which had been filed in connection with a shooting incident resulting in manslaughter in the course of the parliamentary election had Minister Janaka Bandara Tennakoon as a respondent. As he was evading arrest, the injured party had to go before the high court and pray for an order for the arrest of the minister. Subsequently the Minister surrendered to the court restoring to some extent the trust in our legal system.

Failure to honour judicial orders has been a characteristic of our politicians. Take for instance the case of Harry Liyanage. He was an accused in the Embilipitiya students killing case. After the court freed him, he went before the Supreme Court requesting that he be taken back to the army and be given all the promotions that were due to him, in view of the fact that he had been exonerated of all charges. 

The judgment of the Supreme Court was that he should be taken back to the army and that all his due promotions be given. However, the President failed to reappoint the petitioner and consequently had to go before the Supreme Court again seeking justice. 

However, considering the immunity of the President, the Supreme Court had to state that there was nothing it could do in the circumstances. This well illustrates the stage to which Sri Lanka has come.

The writer is the editor of Ravaya

More News/Comment

Return to News/Comment Contents