The assassination of Lasantha Wickramatunga and his last powerful message has given rise to a discussion on the state of freedom of expression in Sri Lanka. A local group, Vikalpa, has published online a series of comments by journalists and others and several of these spokesmen have presented the gravity of the violations of freedom of expression and the climate of suppression that exists in the country. At least one spokesman pointed out the bleak transformation of the whole political system, within which criticism by the media does not produce any significant reaction on the part of the government. It is not just a matter of the present government but the system of governance that came into being in Sri Lanka in 1978.
However, what seems to be missing from the discussion on the dangers faced by persons advocating freedom of expression is the link between this issue and the collapse of the rule of law in the country. A study of any one country where freedom of expression is solidly entrenched demonstrates the link between the law and the protection of free speech. In the United States, the 1st Amendment is perhaps considered the most important right of the people. Attempts to interfere with this right, either by the state or by various ideological groups who do not wish ideas that they are opposed to being expressed, will be defeated at the earliest stages by the operation of the law.
In the creation of the Supreme Court of the United States the idea of defending the individual, as against the all-powerful government, was considered the most paramount duty of the court. The 4th Chief Justice, John Marshall, (September 24, 1755 July 6, 1835), laid the foundation for the defence of individual freedoms within the United States.
If the constitution and the law fail there is nothing to protect anyone including journalists and others who wish to express their opinions freely. Today the fact that constitutionalism has been abandoned in Sri Lanka and that the rule of law is at its lowest ebb, are not controversial statements in any sense. They are statements made routinely on an almost daily basis by many people, including the leaders of the law enforcement agencies as well as many senior judicial officers.
It is not possible to develop a strategy for the defence of freedom of expression and the protection of the media without addressing the larger issues of the displacement of the constitution and utter disregard for every law, including criminal law and criminal procedure in Sri Lanka. The murder of any person, including journalists has become as easy as childrens games where toy guns are used to destroy pretend enemies.
Lasantha Wickramatunga, in his now famous last article, spoke of the situation by addressing the Sri Lankan president thus:
Sadly, for all the dreams you had for our country in your younger days, in just three years you have reduced it to rubble. In the name of patriotism you have trampled on human rights, nurtured unbridled corruption and squandered public money like no other President before you. Indeed, your conduct has been like a small child suddenly let loose in a toyshop. That analogy is perhaps inapt because no child could have caused so much blood to be spilled on this land as you have, or trampled on the rights of its citizens as you do.
Even the most elementary forms of criminal law no longer operate in the country. Let us take the tragedy which struck Lasantha himself. First he received death threats. In any country where the rule of law operates no sensible person would dare to make death threats because he would know that the consequences would be serious. Secondly, Lasantha, like anyone in Sri Lanka today, took the death threats seriously. Perhaps this is the clearest indication of how bad things have become. Thirdly, the only alternative left to Lasantha was either to quit and leave the country or leave journalism and, as he says, revert to his legal practice. This sense of fatalism in having no alternative but to wait for the death threats to be carried out, demonstrates how frightening life has become in Sri Lanka. Two and two equals four and it is with the same certainty that death follows death threats. Fourthly, the threat was carried out and it was done in broad daylight on a public road. The executors of the threats had nothing to fear; they did not need secrecy. Next, no investigations have been carried out and Lasantha himself, like any other sensible person knew that no serious investigation will ever be carried out. The next point, people holding the highest office has made speeches calling for investigations which too, are regarded today by almost every sensible person cynically. The people remind themselves of the speech of Rev. Buddharakitha, who made a speech of condolence over the radio after the assassination of Prime Minister Bandaranaike and who was later found to be complicit in the assassination conspiracy. The only difference in Lasanthas assassination is that now the conspirators will neither be investigated nor brought to justice.
Lasanthas final message began with the reminder that, like in the armed forces, in journalism too, people are called upon to lay down their lives in Sri Lanka. Sadly, in this he was not very accurate. In fact, any lawyer seriously taking up an issue against the government or a powerful person faces a similar fate. The throwing of grenades at the house of a lawyer dealing with anti graft and human rights issues and the public naming of several lawyers who appear in court for alleged terrorist suspects, as well as the letter by the Mahason Balakaya, making similar death threats, are all very recent events. Even accountants and auditors who may in the course of their normal duties expose corruption are facing a similar situation. Opposition politicians, particularly at the grass root level in the villages and remote areas and almost anyone who is identified as a possible target for elimination are in the same boat. Even ordinary citizens who may complain about corruption, even against petty officials or abuse of power, face a similar fate as demonstrated by the case of Sugath Nishanta Fernando of Negombo who was assassinated in September 2008 for just that reason. The simple truth is that more people live with the fear of being subjected to an extrajudicial killing than ever before. The numbers belonging to this group are larger in the east and in the north and, in fact, even access to information is not available to estimate how many people face such a situation.
Thus, it is time for the persons fighting for the freedom of the media to open their eyes to the situation of the entire country. It is a lawless place that provides no protection to the individual. It is only by addressing this central issue that freedom of expression can be guaranteed in Sri Lanka. This calls for a long haul effort but there is no other option.
