A Wifes Challenge
SRI LANKA HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
(February 13, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) If there was coup attempt arrest me also, Sarath Fonsekas wife, Anoma, challenged the authorities. Speaking to the media, the arrested common candidates wife said that if a coup plot had been hatched at the hotel in which Sarath Fonseka and his election team were staying during the last presidential election then she should also be arrested. I should also be arrested. I was in the hotel all throughout with all the members of my family,?said Anoma Fonseka. There were many political leaders who also had taken rooms at the hotel and who were also present. Obviously she is trying to ridicule the allegation of their being a conspiracy hatched by Sarath Fonseka to assassinate the president and his family. Mrs. Fonseka went on to say that she had seen her husband in prison and that he is not in a position to answer any charges as he has not been informed of what the charges might be.
She also said that while she has been allowed to see for an hour a day which she has divided into two visits of half an hour each so that she can join him for lunch and dinner, the officers are present at all times and there was no privacy. Anoma Fonseka went on to say that her husband had survived three attempts to kill him by terrorists and was regularly examined by doctors at the military hospital. She therefore requested permission for these doctors to see her husband. This request has been denied. In view of this she has written to the Red Cross asking them to make this request on her behalf. While all kinds of allegations are being spoken of in public, all such allegations started only after he decided to contest the elections. She also conveyed her husbands request for the people, particularly his supporters and the military personnel to act peacefully.
A demonstration at Maharagama Junction
There was a further demonstration at Maharagama Junction at which large crowds participated to protest the arrest of Sarath Fonseka. The people angrily protested the arrest and demanded that the politician be released. The police used tear gas to disperse the crowds and arrested a number of them including a Buddhist monk who was a participant in the demonstration. The large crowds and their angry mood clearly showed the serious reactions of the people towards the arrest.
A Magistrate warns the police not to abuse their powers
The police produced eight persons at the Colombo Magistrate’s Court stating that they had damaged state property during a demonstration held the previous day in which the protested the arrest of Sarath Fonseka.
After listening to police who showed photographs of persons with weapons gathered at the place, the Magistrate asked if any of the persons carrying weapons had been arrested. In fact, none of these persons had been arrested. Instead, the police only arrested the protesters who were there in support of Sarath Fonseka and none of the members of the goon squad that were brought in by the supporters of the government to attack the protesters. The Magistrate severely reprimanded the police and said that they and the courts should not abuse their powers for political purposes and instructed the officers to arrest the persons identified in the photographs. She then gave personal bail to the eight arrestees. This is a clear recognition by the judiciary of the police abuse who were criticised in the media for directly supporting and protecting the goon squads who had gathered to disrupt the peaceful protest of Fonsekas supporters
Professor G.L. Peiris, a government minister attempts to justify Fonsekas arrest
Prof. G.L. Peiris who had been the Vice Chancellor and head of the law faculty of the Colombo University and for a long time a teacher of law, attempted to justify the arrest of the common opposition candidate, Sarath Fonseka, saying that merely because somebody was a candidate for a presidential election he was not specially privileged before the law. He was trying to justify the arrest on the basis that the law should prevail in the country. He was also trying to justify the filing of the case before a military tribunal.
This one time academic who perhaps has the largest number of post graduate degrees in law in Sri Lanka became the spokesman for the government in trying to create some legal pretext for Fonsekas arrest. While he was talking about the rule of law he would certainly be fully aware that it does not exist in any part of the country and that there is a collapse of the rule of law everywhere in Sri Lanka.
When Prof. Peiris first entered politics he came on the basis that the rule of law had so collapsed in the country and that it was necessary to become involved in politics in order to restore it. However, in the decades that followed the rule of law did not improve but, in fact, degenerated to an extent that the entire criminal justice and constitutional systems fell into the deepest crisis. This legal luminary has nothing very much to say now on the collapse of the legal and constitutional system in the country. During the presidential election he said in the media that since retired general Sarath Fonseka was not a registered voter he was ineligible to contest the election. This kind of nonsensical statements on the law is constantly uttered by thi so-called legal intellectual. This is a reflection of the utter meaninglessness of the law within Sri Lanka. Prof. Peiris has come to represent not the prestige of the law, but the very collapse of the law.
That intellect of this sort was responsible for the law students of several generations would indicate the quality, or the absence of the quality of the legal education in Sri Lanka. Once a a High Court judge said that at one time Sri Lanka had legal luminaries but that now what it has is legal lunumiris. This can be said of Prof. G.L. Peiris.
All entrances to Colombo Courts Sealed Off
As the case of opposition politician Sarath Fonseka is taken before the Supreme Court today all the roads to court the complex have been blocked by large contingents of police officers who checks all ID cards and who are only allowing lawyers to enter. Even the petitioners are not allowed to go to the court.
Around 1,000 policemen are blocking the roads. Several Special Task Force Units are also in place and vehicles carrying water cannons are also situation in the immediate area.
Usually a large number of people come to this very busy court premises. Today, they are not allowed,?said one lawyer.
Two days ago angry crowds demonstrated against the arrest of Sarath Fonseka and a petition was filed. Today, when the petition is to be argued it was very likely that large crowds would come to witness the case and demonstrate their support for their candidate in the last elections who is being detained in military custody.
It is the right of the people to watch court proceedings, particularly on issues of public interest as this case is. Today all such avenues are closed. People including lawyers have a right to protest and demonstrate. But, today, the government is afraid of all that. What is the freedom of expression left in this country??asked a lawyer, who did not want to be named. It is too dangerous to even a make a comment, even by lawyers like us? he said.
SRI LANKA: Diary of Terror part 11 — 15th February 2010
Death threats to opposition Presidential Candidates lawyer
Sri Lankan Human Rights Watch
(February 16, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Wijedasa Rajapaksha PC, the senior lawyer handling the case onbehalf of defeated common candidate for the presidential election Gen (Ret) Sarath Fonseka, has received death threats. This was announced by the opposition official spokesman to the media. According to the reports, Mr. Rajapaksha has received death threats several times telling him to abandon the legal work that hes doing on behalf of Sarath Fonseka.
Retired General Sarath Fonseka and the opposition have announced that they are filing an election petition to annul the election result announced by the Commissioner of Elections on the 27th of January regarding the Presidential Elections. The opposition is challenging the result on the basis of election riggings.
The Supreme Court last week allowed an application requesting permission to be granted to the lawyer for Gen (Ret) Sarath Fonseka to visit him in prison and to get his signature for the election petition. The application before the Supreme Court was filed by the wife of Sarath Fonseka and several opposition leaders, alleging that several violations of fundamental rights have been made against the defeated opposition candidate.
Making of death threats has become very much a part of the political culture in Sri Lanka. Many lawyers recently have received death threats for appearing for political opponents of the government.
On two occasions, notices were filed in the Defense Ministry website naming lawyers who appear for some opponents of the government as traitors, implying that they deserved to be punished. On the first occasion, lawyers appearing for the Sunday Leader in a case before a district court were named as traitors. On another occasion, several lawyers who were appearing for defendants in cases under the Prevention of Terrorism act were named as traitors and were threatened with death. Several letters were distributed by a group calling itself Mahason Balakai (Demon Brigade) threatened such lawyers with death. On another occasion, a lawyer appearing for many human rights cases had a grenade thrown at his house. All these actions came under serious condemnations from local and international human rights agencies, including the international bar association and several agencies of the United Nations.
The Sri Lankan Bar association passed resolutions condemning threats and attacks on lawyers several times and a called for effective investigations into such allegations. Despite such calls, no investigations have been conducted and no one has been prosecuted for such actions. In some instances, lawyers themselves have filed cases for violations of their rights before the Supreme Court and these cases are pending.
In the recent weeks, there were many instances in which opposition demonstrations were attacked by thugs who were accompanied by the police. On several occasions, media agencies published photographs of thugs attacking demonstrators and being protected by the police. On many occasions, the government politicians participated in leading attacks against demonstrations, calling for the release of Gen (Ret) Sarath Fonseka.
The police often tried to arrest the opposition demonstrators rather than the criminals attacking demonstrators. On one occasion, a magistrate severely reprimanded the police for acting partially and for not carrying out their legal obligations.
The leading journalist Prageeth Ekanaliyagoda has disappeared for two days prior to the presidential elections and the police have not been able to provide any information about this disappearance. The family and the friends of the disappeared journalist believe that the government death squads are behind the disappearance and that this is the reason that the police are unable to investigate into this matter.
The countrys leaders of the Buddhist orders of monks have explicitly condemned the arrest and detention of Sarath Fonseka and others from the military. They have called the President to release the general and others. So far, the government has not made any official response to this very extraordinary call from the countrys leading Buddhist clergy.
Mahinda Rajapaksha as president has made no attempt at all to demonstrate that he is making an attempt to control the situation in the country within a framework of rule of law and democracy. Instead, the governmens approach seems to be extremely provocative and encouraging of violence against all opponents, thus recreating a situation in which forced disappearences, illegal arrest and detention, blatant abuse of legal process with fabricated charges and creating fictitious accusations accompanied by a complete abuse of the state media for propagating to slander and falsehood against opponents are all characteristic of the present situation.
The government has made it all to obvious that by hook or crook it wants to get a two thirds majority within parliament. Obviously, this is not rationally a possibility. If it can be achieved at all, it would be achieved by use of force creating of completely false impressions. Such an outcome would not have any kind of credibility at all. However, the government seems to be pursuing this course despite evoking most unusual forms of opposition even from the countrys three leading orders from Buddhist Sanga.
Under these circumstances, the threats made to the lawyer representing Sarath Fonseka need to be taken seriously and resisted by all those who are concerned about rule of law and democracy in the country. This lawyer and others who engage in the exercise of their legitimate functions deserve the concern and the protection of the rest of society and the international community.
SRI LANKA: The Diary of terror- 12 Report- 17th February 2010
The Sanga Convention Cancelled Due to threats
By Sri Lankan Human Rights Watch
(February 17, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The prelates in the three great Buddhist chapters in Sri Lanka, in issuing a statement on the 16th February, stated that due to the situation prevailing in Sri Lanka and considering the security of the Buddhist monks and the people who would gather for the Maha Maluwa on the 18th of the month and also the security of the Sri Dalada Maligawa (The Temple of the Sacred Tooth Relic) they have called off the meeting of the three chapters indefinitely. Earlier the prelates of the three great chapters called for a gathering of all the monks in the country to discuss the chaotic situation that has arisen in the country due to the degeneration of democracy and good governance. They stated that it has been a perennial function of the Buddist monks to advice rulers and the people of the country on matters of social importance.. It was for the purpose of exercising this traditional function that the great gathering of the monks was called. In a separate letter addressed to the president the monks also called for the unconditional release of the common candidate of the joint opposition, Sarath Fonseka, from military custody. They published a copy of this letter.
On the 16th prior to the issue of this letter by the prelates of the three great chapters ,they had come under severe pressure from the government which sent ministers to ask the monks to cancel the meeting. By the afternoon pressure had been exercised from the highest positions which stated that the monks would not be allowed to continue with the meeting. Following this, a group of about 50 monks led by a senior monk associated with the government stormed into the headquarters of the prelates and threatened that they would hold a meeting at the same place and time thus disrupting the meeting called by the prelates. This would have led to violence amongst the monks and it is under these circumstances that the prelates stated in their letter that they are unable to hold this meeting because of the need to guarantee security for the monks and the people who would participate as well as provide protection for the Sri Dalada Maligawa.
The particular wording used by the monks has been interpreted by many to indicate that they have been under threat and that they are trying to avoid a situation of conflict and violence that might be perpetrated against this meeting.
A leading lawyer who has observed the situation closely stated that even the leading monks who are the chiefs of the three great chapters of the country are unable to hold a public gathering indicates the extent of the violence and disturbance existing in the country.
The theme of the meeting that was to be held on the 18th was the dangers faced by democracy and good governance with the aim to reestablish these great principles. That democracy and good governance cannot be discussed by the countrys leading Buddhist monks indicates, the extent of threats faced by others of the political opposition in the country to have these matters discussed with the people.
It was under such conditions that the presidential election was held and the parliamentary election is due to be conducted. Naturally this is not the environment that should be created by the government in situations where the people are to participate peacefully in the elections to select the persons of their choice to rule their country. Exposing people to violence that participate in an election in order to select their own rulers amounts to the deprivation of the basic rights of people to elect their own government. To hold an election to form a government and at the same time to deny people the right to engage in rational discussion on such important issues in a peaceful manner, violates all the norms that should be held as sacred in situation of such importance.
The monks are the most respected section of the Sinhala community. They are not of any radical bent on any matters and in recent years their politics have been very much in support of the existing government in order to resolve the conflicts that have existed with the LTTE in particular. Thus, even the loyalty of such groups is being doubted by the existing government when it comes to the elections.
This is an extremely dangerous situation, not only for the opposition but even for the monks who live in their temples and who conduct their affairs in a peaceful manner.
SRI LANKA: The Diary of Terror – Part 13- February 18, 2010
Conscienceless fabrication no impediment to hold public office?
By Sri Lankan Human Rights Watch
(February 18, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) A group of security staff for the retired General Sarath Fonseka, who was the common candidate in the last presidential election,were released by a magistrate yesterday (17th February) as there was no evidence against them to hold them in detention any further. They were arrested on the 27th of January while the election results were being counted. A large military contingent of soldiers was sent to guard the hotel where the opposition political leaders were gathered to follow the election results. The government mounted a highly publicized campaign with photographs of soldiers surrounding the hotel and broadcasted the news that the government had come to know of a conspiracy hatched by Sarath Fonseka, together with a continent of army deserters and others, with the view to assassinate the president and his family.
This story was aired repeatedly by television, radio and the print media. The group of Fonseka supporters were arrested were treated as part of this alleged assassination plot. This story was further reinforced by official government spokesmen that included ministers, members of parliament, and other officials from the government through the media. Many interviews were conducted from among the viewers, asking for their reactions over such a plot. Often, the interviewees were carefully selected from among the government supporters. Their statements, often couched in very provocative language, were repeatedly publicized. An overwhelming impression was created that there was in fact a plot to assassinate the president and his family. The government media did not give publicity to the statement by Sarath Fonseka and others who denied and dismissed these allegations.
There can be hardly any doubt that such propaganda about the assassination plot was carried out with the knowledge of the president, the Secretary of Defense and other important ministers of the government. The open propaganda was continued for several days and there was no attempt by any of these highest officers of the government to stop it or declare that it was not the truth.
The arrest of many persons reinforced the propaganda about the assassination story. These persons were arrested by Criminal Investigation Division and detained in the notorious fourth floor of the CID headquarters. Very little access was given to the families and the lawyers of these detainees.
Now, it is quite clear that the entire story was a fabrication and that the spokesman who spoke about this incident to the media in fact have propagated a completely false and provocative story. It is also very clear that that entire exercise was carried out with the full knowledge of the highest authority in the country.
What then is the position of the law in Sri Lanka on such deliberate propagation of an absolutely false story, attributing a commission of a grave crime? The damage such propaganda can do to any individual citizen cannot be exaggerated.
Are there no legal and moral consequences for such actions within the Sri Lankan system? Does not the president, as the highest officer, and all others who hold high positions, have a duty to refrain from such behavior and, where they fail to do so, to face responsibilities for such actions? In any society that still maintains decent moral standards, will those who have engaged in such an activity be deserving of holding of any public office?
