The agitation to have Sarath Fonseka released seems to have acquired a momentum of its own from the moment the man was transported to the Welikada prison. The groundswell of public sympathy for the former army commander is palpable, now more than at any point before in the whole unsavoury episode, as the one-time hero is dragged down (‘like a common criminal’ as many protest) by a relentless process seemingly outside his control. Witness the visibly emotional crowds pushing and shoving the police in order to reach out and touch him when he arrives at the court house to attend hearings relating to the other numerous cases filed against him. Within the prison his arrival has caused enough diversion, as with a celebrity, to necessitate the minor staff being ‘ordered’ not to talk to him.
While the mood of public dismay is apparent, so is the opposition’s failure, still, to gain traction with a potential base of mass support in this situation by mobilising against the increasingly autocratic trend in government - a post-election style generally that has been mirrored in the handling of the Fonseka saga. The regime for its part seems keenly aware of the volatility of the situation caused by the developments it has itself set in motion, with the arrest, detention and court martial of the Opposition’s presidential candidate soon after the election. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Fonseka’s behaviour, this is not a narrative that reads very favourably in the book of contemporary history, with its familiar overtones of intolerance.
Consummate politician that he is, president Rajapaksa wasted no time in announcing, the very day after Fonseka’s incarceration, that the door was open for him to ‘seek pardon.’ The first hint came from Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa in a statement to a private newspaper, the day before the imprisonment, to the effect that the president was willing to “review the second court martial decision to sentence former Army Commander” if he appealed. This was followed by President Rajapaksa’s own statement at a function in Polonnaruwa on Oct 1, the day after Fonseka was taken to Welikada, that “the existing Constitution describes a clear process to follow if former Army Chief Sarath Fonseka appeals for a pardon.”
With Anoma Fonseka asserting that her husband had ‘done no wrong’ and would therefore not seek pardon, various groups including influential sections of the Sangha have very publicly taken up the cause, with Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe personally writing to the President requesting him to remit the prison sentence. The President’s response (as communicated in the media) has been that he would only consider such a plea if it was made by Fonseka himself or one of his family members. A pardon granted in response to Opposition pressure would concede a victory to them, it would seem.
To encourage the desired response from parties concerned the President reportedly referred to former president Chandrika Kumaratunga and how she made appeals for the release of her husband Vijaya Kumaratunga when he was jailed on ‘Naxalite charges’ in the 1980s. Ms Kumaratunga has since gone on record to categorically deny this claim. Be that as it may, the position that ‘pardon may be sought’ is being urgently canvassed by the government’s strongmen, Susil Premajayantha, Maithripala Sirisena, Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena and others at press conferences. Does it not appear that the government is in fact quite keen for Fonseka to ‘seek pardon?’
 |
| General Sarath Fonseka surrounded by supporters on his way to Court from the Welikada Prison. |
Now this creates a situation that cuts both ways. On the one hand the President seems to have got the upper hand over his opponent and it might seem that Fonseka has no choice but to beg for pardon, thereby forfeiting the last vestiges of dignity that he possesses. But Fonseka on the other hand can dig in to his prison cell and refuse to seek pardon, thereby maintaining the moral high ground and adding fuel to the volatility that prevails outside his cell. Should his health deteriorate or should any harm befall him while in custody, it could induce the ‘wrath of the people.’
It is unlikely that his incarceration will serve to erase the memory of the role he played in defeating the monster of terrorism that plagued the nation for three decades, and that he risked his life to do so. This reality will be kept front and centre of the public consciousness by the disparate forces that have rallied to his cause. If anything the imprisonment will serve to martyr him further.
Has the government got itself into a ‘Catch 22’ situation? Is this why it is eager to de-fuse the situation by getting Fonseka to ask pardon and live as a free man (who will have less mass appeal than a martyr)? From now on much will depend on how the Opposition plays its cards. It hasn’t exactly turned up any trumps yet, and one of its first moves at the Inter Parliamentary Union has fallen flat. According to reports the Human Rights Council of the IPU rejected UNP MP Jayalath Jayawardena’s complaint that Sarath Fonseka’s rights had been violated, with the Council having held that proper legal procedures had been observed under Sri Lankan law.
If MP Jayawardena bungled his mission, it could not have been for want of arguments to support his case. It was only last week that party leader Ranil Wickremesinghe cogently argued in the pages of this newspaper that the verdict of the second court martial violated the Constitution, the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and “even the verdict of the first court martial.”
Wickremesinghe argued that violating procurement guidelines could not amount to ‘a fraudulent act.’ He said (among other things) “the violation of guidelines is not a violation of any law and therefore cannot result in anyone being sentenced to imprisonment.” He further stated that no evidence was led at the trial to establish that Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s son-in-law Danuna Tilakaratna had a direct or indirect interest in Hicorp Private Ltd. “In such a situation how can there have been an omission on the part of Gen. Sarath Fonseka to inform the Tender Board that his son-in-law had an interest in Hicorp Private Limited?” he asked.
The closed nature of the court martial procedure has meant that the public have remained very much in the dark with regard to the deliberations that led to Sarath Fonseka’s conviction, sentencing and imprisonment. Glimpses that are being revealed now, such as those emerging from Wickremesinghe’s statements (up to now not contested) only serve to increase apprehensions that all is not well in the state of Sri Lanka.
The writer is a senior freelance journalist. |
E-mail