SRI LANKA: A local criminal disables a man and police fail to act

Dear friends, 

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that police and the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission have failed to investigate case in which a man was attacked and disabled by thugs allegedly working for a local criminal. The case highlights a relationship of convenience between criminal informers and the police in Moragahahena, and unwillingness on the part of the SLHRC. 

CASE DETAILS: (according to the testimony of the victim and his wife) 

Cattle driver Janaka Bulathsinhalage was disabled for life last year when he was attacked by two men, who told him they were acting under the orders of a local thug; he was hospitalised with severe leg fractures. The next day, August, 24 2008, his wife Kamani lodged a complaint (CIB/1/122/316) with the Moragahahena Police and then met with the station’s Officer-in-Charge (OIC) a day later. According to Kamani the OIC was dismissive and verbally abusive, claiming that he knew the identity of the attackers. The officer suggested that Janaka deserved his punishment since the local thug, Tudor–who he described as the only informant in the village–had told him that Janaka had sexually abused his stepdaughter and that Kamani’s accusations were bogus. 

Humiliated and worried for her daughter, Kamani went to meet the Assistant Superintendent of Police in Horana the next day with the girl to refute the claims, and he gave them a complaint form to submit at Moragahahena Station. After various delays and minor harassment her complaint (Minor Crime Report: MCR/1946/08) was written on a loose piece of paper and she was told that it would be pasted in the book later. To date no follow up has been made. 

On October 28, 2008 Kamani made another complaint and a request for protection (CIB 242/377 C11) to the Moragahahena Police, claiming that Tudor had threatened to assault her. On October 30 both parties were called for an inquiry but were dismissed on the grounds that there were no witnesses, so on October 30 Kamani submitted the names of two witnesses (CIB11 267/395). An officer then took a statement from the witnesses and from her at home. Seven months later action has still not been taken. 

On 27 March the couple made separate written complaints to the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission (HRC/1586/09 and 1587/09), the Chairman of the National Police Commission, the Inspector General of Police, the Deputy Inspector General (Legal) and the Senior Superintendent of Police in Panadura regarding the incident and the lack of action taken by the Moragahathenna Police. The Chairman of the SLHRC replied (April 1, 2009) noting that there was a time limit for complaints, and that since three months has lapsed since the incident (August 23, 2008) they could do nothing. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 

Two issues particularly concern us with this case. Although Moragahahena officers followed procedure in the beginning, they then simply abandoned it. The next step would be for statements to be taken from the suspect and other witnesses, and for the case to be presented to the Magistrates’ Court once fully investigated; the fact that this has not been done in seven months suggests that either the local officers are not aware of due process, or that they are aware of it but choosing to flout it. Our reports suggest that Tudor exerts power over the local police in this district, which would more or less render them useless. The Police Commission was set up to look into matters such as this, and yet it has not. 

Sri Lanka’s human rights commission was set up to give victims an avenue of complaint when other routes are closed to them. To have this avenue only open for three months after an abuse takes place is neither useful nor pragmatic, particularly considering the systemic delays in police stations and courts around the country. There is also a lack of human rights education in Sri Lanka and many people have no idea of their rights, not to mention the correct procedure for protecting them. To set deadlines that exclude victims who do not have enough knowledge, or who were stalled, or perhaps just patient like Janaka and Kamani, is to go against the spirit and the purpose of human rights protection. 

Furthermore it should be noted that by failing to act against Janaka’s attackers or follow up on the protection Kamani asked for, the Moragahahena police are continuing to violate their rights. Even if the arbitrary three-month deadline is followed, since the violation is ongoing the case is still applicable. 

SUGGESTED ACTION: 

Please write to the local authorities listed below and demand an inquiry leading to due disciplinary and legal action against the OIC and other responsible officers at the Moragahahena Police Station, if they are shown to have failed to protect the rights of citizens, and to have supported local criminals. Please also write to the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission requesting the removal of its three month deadline.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER