Untitled Document

Political Column

By a Special Correspondent

Playing on a sticky wicket

Of bus drivers and cops
Today there is a growing public outcry against speed maniacs on our roads.

An unprecedented rise in the number of deaths due to road accidents has been witnessed in the past two weeks or so. Indeed it is higher than the number of lives claimed by the dengue epidemic.

According to police statistics, 42 people died on our roads last month and the figure for this month could be more.

Sufficient safety measures are not taken by authorities to reduce this alarming trend.
The cause for most of these accidents is either negligence or reckless driving by private bus drivers who are eager to beat each other to go home with a big kitty at the end of the day. It is apparently a side effect of the open market economy. This is not to say that the market economy is bad, but its adoption in a developing country like Sri Lanka should come with safeguards to prevent the socio-economic process from being derailed.

If somebody is to say that the dengue epidemic is another side effect of these modern social trends introduced by our governments during the past twenty years, no body could deny it, because much of the plastic garbage we find today on the roadside is a direct result of the modern social trend.

Going back to the alarming trend of accidents on our roads, some of our politicians come next to the private bus maniacs who travel at uncontrollable speeds on crowded highways.

Motorcades carrying politicians also whiz past you regardless of the other road users and paying scant respect to the highway code.

There had been earlier instances, where ministers and VIP motorcades ran over pedestrians. The police often turn a blind eye to these incidents, because they have to think of their future promotions and better places to work. So, in our country the police cannot act impartially because they have been enslaved by the political authority. Therefore, it is essential that the Independent Police Commission should start to take shape soon.

The UNP in the opposition generated a huge public outcry pressurising the government of President Chandrika Kumaratunga to set up the Independent Police Commission.
Now, the Constitutional Council including the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition can push for the setting up of the Independent Police Commission, which should be aimed at freeing the police from the clutches of politicians.

If party politicisation of the Police still prevails, the main indictment falls on Interior Minister John Amaratunga if we were to look at the allegations levelled by former Minister Mangala Samaraweera against Mr. Amaratunga.

Mr. Samaraweera says he has been singled out by the Interior Minister to be harassed unnecessarily. He alleges that he is being unfairly hauled before the CID for the alleged attack that took place at Akuressa during the election time. Minister Amaratunga has been accused of trying to run a police state.

Mr. Amaratunga on the other hand says the Criminal Procedure Code and the Penal Code single out offenders. It is not him who is doing it, but the laws of the land, he says.

The police or the CID should take note of the allegations made by Mr. Samaraweera on the CID itself. A letter addressed to the Director CID gives details of these alleged harassments. If a government politician was also involved in the shoot out at Akuressa as alleged by Mr. Samaraweera supporters, it should be inquired into in fairness to the former minister. If by any chance the PA comes back to power, the CID would definitely twist the story in favour of Mr. Samaraweera and would question the UNP politician involved.

It is a shame on the police to be slaves of their political masters. That is why the people should now air their voices for the immediate appointment of the Independent Police Commission. Since the necessary legal background for such an appointment has been provided by the 17th amendment to the constitution, it is not a difficult task. -Political Correspondent

While the Sri Lanka cricket team gets one of its worst batterings on its first-ever extended tour of England, temperatures ran high, in cricket administration circles.

The controversy over Sri Lanka's representative at the International Cricket Council meeting had, according to Mr. Thilanga Sumathipala been resolved with him attending it.
The Sports Ministry and the Interim Board administering the money-spinning cricket body had issued letters to him making him eligible to attend the ICC meeting in London, Mr. Sumathipala said, confirming this from London.

He further said he had been accepted by the ICC as the alternate director representing Sri Lanka, despite a letter from the chairman of the Interim Board asking the ICC not to accept Mr. Sumathipala.However, Interim Board sources, insist that only the Board Chairman attended the main ICC meeting and only Mr. Hemeka Amarasinghe was empowered to represent Sri Lanka consequent on an opinion of the Attorney general that Mr. Sumathipala should not attend. Supporters of Mr. Sumathipala claim that the UNP's powerful chairman Malik Samarawickrama is playing a key role in the controversy and blocking Mr. Sumathipala.

However, sources close to Mr. Samarawickrama say his aim is to sort out the disputes and set the pitch for the Cricket Board to hold its much delayed annual general meeting.
While Sumathipala supporters speak of what he did to bring the UNF government to office, his opponenets also speaking of what he reportedly did in August 2000 when President Kumaratunga presented a new draft constitution amidst allegations of attempts to buy over UNPers, similar to the allegations of PA frontliners being bought over last October.

The key issue in the whole controversy is the advice of the Attorney General asexplained in a letter to the Sports Ministry. The letter said:

"It would appear from the material made available to me that in terms of the Interim Injunction issued by the District Court of Colombo…, Mr. Thilanga Sumathipala has been restrained from acting and/or performing functions and/or holding a post a) as a member of the executive Committee and b) as an authority of the Board of Control for Cricket.
"Thus it is seen that the issue remains unresolved and the Interim Injunction continues to be in force. In the circumstances… I am of the opinion that it would not be in order for the Interim Committee to nominate Mr. Sumathipala as its delegate to the ICC (meeting)." The Attorney-General in another letter said that the nomination of a delegate or representative to the ICC was entirely a matter for the interim committee. Hence the nomination made by the Minister was invalid.

This ruling given by the AG was taken up in government circles. Sports MinisterJohnston Fernando held discussions with Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe who said that the government would be compelled to abide by the Attorney General's ruling. However Minister Fernando referred to an earlier ruling by the Attorney-General, sayin it was no bar for Mr. Sumathipala to contest despite the court order.

"Having regard to the Orders by the District Court of Colombo, I have to advise you that there appears to be no order from the District Court preventing Mr. Sumathipala seeking election at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting and election of office bearers," the AG had said in that letter.
In a further review of the matter by the Attorney General, and consequent to representations made by Mr. Sumathipala, which included an opinion from Mr. Desmond Fernando, the AG said, in a letter to the Sports Ministry Secretary:

"In my view… the manner in which Mr. Sumathipala was nominated is clearly contrary to the procedure contemplated by law and as such for all purposes such nomination remains as that of the Minister. Whilst the regulations provide for the approval by the Minister, the process by which Mr. Sumathipala was nominated could never be regarded as a nomination by the Interim Committee and as such the said nomination is legally untenable. …
"… The fact that Mr. Sumathipala participated at the ICC Executive Board on an early occasion despite the said Injunction would have no relevance to he present issue.…

"In conclusion I wish to state that my opinions are solely based on the issues that arose in the correspondence between your Ministry and the Attorney General's Department. You may also note that even though I was not obliged to grant an interview to the lawyers representing Mr. Sumathipala it was done so as a matter of professional courtesy and their submissions were given due consideration." The AG's position was contested by well-known lawyer Desmond Fernando who is backing Mr. Sumathipala. In a letter to the AG, Mr. Fernando said:

"I regret to state that (your) opinion is not a correct statement of the legal position.

"The distinction drawn by you between legal eligibility to seek election to the post of President BCCSL and hold office if elected is clearly fallacious. Your position is that according to the Court decision a person is entitled to seek election and be defeated or to seek election and win, but not to hold office if elected. According to you, a person is entitled to seek office and win, but not to hold office. Your position is manifestly absurd.

"I have to regretfully state that your statement of the law is not tenable.…

"In any event the Interim Injunction granted related solely to the election. There was no allegation whatsoever that Mr. Sumathipala was in anyway subject to any disqualification personally, which is at all should have been dealt with by the members as per the BCCSL rules.

"The District Court in the very teeth of the previous Interim Injunction had permitted Mr. Sumathipala to contest the office of President of the BCCSL at the subsequent election for the next year, admittedly to hold such office if elected.

Your statement that, "I am also conscious of the fact that both the Hon. Minister and members of the Interim Committee are aware of the contents of the Interim Injunction issued in DC Case No. 5305/99/Spl" fails to take into account that the District judge who heard the subsequent case was also aware of the said contents. It is not precisely clear as to what you are trying to imply.

"The letter dated 14.5.2002 addressed to the ICC by Anura Tennakoon, Chief Executive of the BCCSL, contained not only the name of Mr. Sumathipala as Alternate Director, but also Hemaka Amarasuriya as Director.

"In such circumstances, the same procedure having been followed, then clearly your Opinion vis-á-vis Mr. Sumathipala will be equally applicable to the appointment of Mr. Amarasuriya as Director.

"The nomination of Mr. Amarasuriya and Mr. Sumathipala, was clearly and manifestly made by the BCCSL. The decision to seek the Minister's views was that of the Board alone. The Board then agreed with and adopted the Minister's views. The Board was free to reject his views.

"Your statement that, 'the process by which Mr. Sumathipala was nominated could never be regarded as s nomination by the Interim Committee' is a most elementary logical howler.

"The norms of natural justice and transparency would demand that the said matter ought not to have been dealt with behind the back of Mr. Sumathipala, an affected party." In view of the Attorney General rulings on the matter and other opinions expressed on the matter, the government sought further advice from its top legal experts, Mr. K.N. Choksy and Mr. Tilak Marapana. However, they were constrained to say that due heed should be paid to the AG's ruling.

In the midest of claims and counter claims it is at this point of time known Mr. Hemaka Amarasuriya Chairman of the Interim Board attended the ICC Board meeting and Mr. Sumathipala had attended the Annual General Meeting of the ICC.

Political Column Archives

Back to Columns