Columns

• Will the covers be drawn to hide Cricket Lanka’s indiscipline?

Danushka Gunethilaka, who was out for a duck in the T-Twenty World Cup tournament’s opening match against novices Namibia on October 16 and ruled out from the rest of the tour due to a hamstring injury, showed his limp hadn’t affected his nightwatchman shift by successfully managing to keep himself and Sri Lanka in international headlines.

Last Sunday morning, the nation woke to shock and horror at the breaking news of 31-year-old batsman Danushka Gunathilaka being held by the Australian police on charges of rape and sexual assault committed against a 29-year-old Australian woman at her home on the night of November 2. He had been arrested at 1 am Australian time at his hotel, hours before his teammates were to take their Sunday morning flight home.

MAKING HEADLINES BEYOND THE BOUNDARY LINE: Lankan cricketer Danushka Gunathilaka behind bars in a Sydney prison after alleged rape of Australian woman

In a televised statement, Sex Crimes Squad Commander Jayne Doherty said: “The pair had communicated on various platforms before meeting up on November 2, Wednesday. He had met the woman for drinks at a bar and returned to her home, where the sexual assaults allegedly occurred.”

Doherty alleged that though the woman had initially agreed to have sexual intercourse, she had withdrawn her consent upon Danushka’s alleged refusal later to wear a condom for safe sex.

New laws in New South Wales relating to sexual offences define consent as ‘free and voluntary agreement to sexual activity’ and ‘is not to be presumed.’ It also holds that consent can be withdrawn at any time. It specifically refers to unprotected sex and states that, though a woman may have initially consented to have sex, the requisite consent is withdrawn the moment she refuses to continue without a condom.

This specific reference is obviously motivated to protect the right of a woman who, though she may be willing to have sex with her partner may refuse sex without a condom out of fear of contracting AIDS or a sexually transmitted disease or out of fear of conceiving an unwanted child.

Danushka Gunathilaka was produced in court on Monday. Bail was refused. The case was adjourned to January 12.

But more alarming details emerged on Wednesday after the court authorised the release of the New South Wales Police four-page Fact Sheet which alleges, among other lurid claims described in graphic detail, that:

n          The accused was engaging in “forceful” sexual intercourse, during which he allegedly “put one hand around her neck for 20-30 seconds and choked her”. It was alleged he had choked her twice more.

n          On the third occasion, he had allegedly restricted her breathing for six seconds, before she “tried to remove the accused’s hand by grabbing his wrist, but the accused squeezed tighter around her neck for a further 10 seconds”.

n          The Fact Sheet alleges: “The complainant was clear that she did not consent to engage in sexual intercourse without a condom. Further, the complainant did not consent to sexual intercourse that involved choking. The complainant was in shock, she did not feel safe saying anything to the accused out of fear of retribution.”

On Wednesday, a new Sydney-based law firm was retained by Sri Lanka Cricket on behalf of multimillionaire Danushka — who, as the Police Fact Sheet also revealed, earns US$8000 or approx. Rs. 3m a month and spends US$4000 or approx. Rs. 1.5m a month – to represent him, replacing the Lankan-born lawyer. The firm issued a statement declaring: ‘Danushka Gunathilaka maintains his innocence.’The presumption of innocence will, of course, be a matter for prosecutors in an Australian Court to rebut beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of an Australian judge and jury when the case comes up for trial sometime next year. It’s best to let the matter rest in a Sydney courtroom and let justice take its course.

It’s best to let the issue of innocence or guilt be decided under the applicable laws of the land in which the alleged offence was committed according to the admissible evidence laid before court, rather than elsewhere based solely on evidence of prejudice and personal sexual inclinations bordering on fantasy.

But here in Lanka, it’s already in full swing. In the local court of public opinion, the trial has commenced without delay. An army of males has trooped in to defend the last male bastion of coitus without ‘interruptus’ with or without consent. They have interpreted the sexual freedoms Australian women enjoy as a licence for men to exploit with impunity. That an invite by a woman to her home, after a few drinks, is the magical ‘open sesame’ that unfailingly allows a man to sate lust to the limit.

To crown this base mentality, the self-proclaimed keeper of the nation’s morals, SLPP Parliamentarian S.B. Dissanayake — who once held as his greatest wish to strip former President Chandrika and see her walk naked on the road in hysterics — stepped into this virtual court on Thursday to give his verdict: ‘Boys will be boys. When boys go, they must be doing little, little things.’

But Lanka’s Cricket Board didn’t initially think that the alleged sexual assault by the 31-year-old cricketer qualified as errant actions of a boy but considered the matter more seriously. On November 7, it immediately suspended him from all forms of cricket. This was, of course, merely a meaningless gesture since the player will, in any event, be ‘unavailable’ for selection due to his pressing legal commitments to be in Australia for some time.

The meaningful solid support would come a day later backed with public money to pay for the legal consequences that have flowed.

On November 8, the Sri Lankan Cricket Board announced that it will be paying for Danushka’s legal defence in Australia. They said; ‘He was with the team in an official capacity, so we felt we should pay the legal fees.’

The change of heart came the day after the Secretary to the Sports Ministry told reporters, “We cannot escape from our responsibility. We should appear for him. During a discussion, Minister Sabry also said that he is only a suspect, not a culprit. But if he is found guilty he must pay back. We have no authority to help him out with his personal issues, spending public money.”

But apart from these public officials’ private remorse in allowing indiscipline to rage rampant among players on tour, what’s the legal basis on which they spend public money to hire foreign lawyers to defend an alleged rapist abroad, when the offensive act was committed not in the course of his duties nor in connection with his duties as a member of the Lankan team but beyond the ambit of protection in violation of the Cricket Board’s own code of discipline imposed on team members?

Six days after the November 2nd night incident, the Board says it is still to figure out whether Gunathilaka broke the 10 pm curfew on the relevant day. If it’s still groping in the dark, perhaps the New South Wales Police Fact Sheet presented to the Sydney court may help them out.

It reveals that Gunathilaka and the woman boarded the ferry to go to Rose Bay at 10.50 pm. They arrived at the woman’s home at 11.20 pm. By the time Gunathilaka left the alleged crime scene, the time was shortly before 1 am. Furthermore, it is claimed that before he left the hotel that evening to keep his sexual rendezvous, he hadn’t informed the Lankan cricket manager as all team members are required to do before leaving the premises.

And then there’s the question of what made the Cricket Board Selectors include Danushka Gunathilaka in the T20 squad in the first place for this year’s World Cup tournament.

There is no denying that in the field of discipline, Danushka has been a serial offender with six charges against his name. Among the charges for which he faced disciplinary action is the serious case where, during the South African tour in Lanka in July 2018, he and a friend were accused of raping two Norwegian women in his Colombo hotel room. His friend was charged with rape while Gunathilaka denied the charge, claiming he was sleeping.  The Sri Lanka Police said he was innocent and dropped the inquiry.  The Cricket Board, however, imposed a suspension for ‘misconduct’.

The last year, 2021, was a record-breaking year for Gunathilaka where he was punished thrice for violating discipline.  In March, the ICC reprimanded Gunathilaka for using offensive, indecent language towards a West Indies batsman.

In April, the Sri Lanka Cricket Board initiated disciplinary action against the cricketer after a brawl in a hotel bar in Matara over a woman. A three-member committee of inquiry found Gunathilaka’s conduct ‘unprofessional and lacking the required level of integrity expected of a National Player’. But instead of a ban, he was ordered to undergo mandatory counselling sessions with a psychiatrist.

But two months later, despite the Committee’s findings and ignoring the mandatory counselling sessions, he was selected for the England tour. He fared as expected. He, and two other team mates, broke COVID protocol and stepped out of the bio-bubble for a night out in Durham. They were promptly sent back home and suspended for a year but after they appealed, the ban was lifted.

So with the dossier on Gunathilaka before them, the Fact Sheet of his offences staring at them, what made the selectors plug for him to be in the Lankan squad for the world cup event? Was it that they saw some redeeming light in his on-the-field performance, some hopeful ray in the left-hand batsman’s batting prowess that overshone his dismal off-the-field conduct? Was it his brilliance in wielding the willow that made the selectors grant him absolution for his manifest sins?

Take Gunathilaka’s batting record. The ICC statistics speak for themselves. His batting average in tests is a pitiable 18. In ODIs, it is a passable 35. In T20s, it’s a shocking 16. He is ranked 58 in the ODIs but has failed to get even ranked in Tests and T20s. Were the selectors expecting a divine miracle similar to the one Bhanuka experienced during the T20 Asia Cup in September?

But rather than answer, attack is the best form of defence for the Cricket Board, which, to disarm its critics and ward off its own culpability for ignoring indiscipline, has now embarked on a witch-hunt to root out all the bad eggs in the team. Good. But it should be a separate inquiry.

To pan out from the zoomed focus and opt for the wide angle shot to include others in the frame, will be to blur the issue. The others may have their own sins but for them, there must be a separate trial. Not to heap them all into one cauldron and boil them together to make a stew. This is a blatant bid to excuse Danushka’s latest alleged offence by holding indiscipline as the common vice of all.

Isn’t it akin to Government MP Diana Gamage — without disproving the charge levelled against her — asking in Parliament on Thursday, why she is the only one accused of being a dual citizen when there are other dual citizen MPs also in the House?

As Saint Augustine of Hippo said in 400 AD: ‘Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.’

On Thursday, Sports Minister Ranasinghe publicly apologised to the Australian people for the incident but said ‘since Danushka is a Sri Lankan citizen and a player, we have a responsibility to pay for his legal defence’. Does this mean that any Lankan citizen abroad accused of a heinous crime will be afforded a top legal defence paid for by public money?

Or does this eagerness to extend a financial hand only apply to selected political celebrities who may be arrested and tried abroad for human rights violations under the universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity wherever committed, as nearly happened to ex-President Gotabaya during his fugitive stay in Singapore this July?

One final question: Would the Sports Minister, Sri Lanka Cricket and SB Dissanayake’s ‘boys will be boys’ legion, who have come out in force to defend an alleged rapist abroad, have displayed the same zest had a similar incident happened in Sri Lanka, involving a Lankan test cricketer and a Lankan top politician’s daughter, sister or relative as the victim who claims she had withdrawn consent?

Would the present defence for the accused then have turned to howls of protest at the violation of the local Madonna?