Courtesy The Daily News

The controversy over the alleged abduction of a Sri Lankan employee of the Swiss embassy in Colombo continues to drag on with the two countries engaging in a war of words and the saga taking a dramatic turn this week with the arrest of the employee by local authorities.

The incident began in late November when the employee, now identified as Garnier Banister Francis, alleged that she was abducted by unknown men in the vicinity of the Swiss embassy in Colombo and threatened.

It was alleged that Francis was threatened and details sought from her regarding the granting of political asylum to Nishantha Silva, a police officer who left the country in the aftermath of the recent presidential election.

The initial claim by Ms. Francis, raised through Swiss ambassador Hanspeter Mock at a meeting he sought with Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, indicated that the Swiss authorities attached a high degree of credibility and significance to this accusation. Following this, Prime Minister Rajapaksa assured a full investigation.

Negative coverage

However, international media such as The New York Times which reported the alleged incident displayed a degree of bias, headlining the story ‘Sri Lankan critics fear a crackdown is underway, and some flee’. This led to concerns at the highest levels in Colombo about the country’s image in view of the negative coverage the alleged incident was generating.

Muddying the waters further was former minister and Cabinet spokesman of the previous government, parliamentarian Rajitha Senaratne. At a media briefing, Senaratne claimed that a pistol was inserted into the mouth of the embassy staffer and information was demanded from her, raising questions as to how he was in possession of such graphic details of the alleged incident.

What ensued in the days that followed was a diplomatic stand-off. The Swiss Embassy, while demanding an inquiry into the alleged incident was denying access to the employee. This was on the basis that the staffer’s health condition was such that she would not be able to provide a statement. Even the identity of the employee was not disclosed by the embassy.

A request was even made that the employee be allowed to leave the country in an ‘air ambulance’ for medical attention. This request was denied on the basis that the employee, being a citizen of Sri Lanka, was subject to the immigration laws of the country.

Authorities in Colombo were faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, serious accusations were being made against the government alleging that an employee of an embassy was abducted and threatened, resulting in widespread negative publicity for the new administration. While the Swiss embassy was demanding an inquiry, it was also not providing ready access to the employee who made the claims.

The Police meanwhile had commenced investigations into the alleged incident. They had established the identity of the employee as Ms. Francis. By assessing evidence available through modern technology such as phone records and data available on transport apps, they were able to establish that some of the claims made by the embassy employee were inaccurate.

Sri Lanka’s Foreign Relations Ministry issued a statement in this regard. The sequence of events and timeline of the alleged incident, as formally presented by the Swiss mission on behalf of the alleged victim to the CID, did not in any way correspond with the actual movements of the alleged victim on that date, as borne out by witness interviews and technical evidence, including Uber records, CCTV footage, telephone records and the GPS data,” it noted.

Sri Lankan investigators

Colombo based envoys including Swiss envoy Hanspeter Mock who were following this series of events with great interest were also briefed on the developments. However, it appeared that Switzerland still had reservations regarding the evidence produced by Sri Lankan investigators.

Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Germany with concurrent accreditation to Switzerland, Karunasena Hettiarachchi was summoned to Bern by the Swiss State Secretary Pascale Baeriswyl. Ambassador Hettiarachchi was asked to explain the evidence that contradicts Switzerland’s version of events.

Following this meeting the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) issued a statement. It said that Ms. Baeriswyl confirmed that the employee concerned still cannot be questioned on health grounds, stressing that the individual’s health must take priority” but noted that the FDFA takes its responsibilities to its staff very seriously.”

Colombo however had decided to proceed with its investigations. Based on the findings of these investigations, Colombo Chief Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne ordered the embassy employee to make a statement to investigators. The Magistrate also restricted her travel overseas.

This was followed by another series of manoeuvres that were aimed at having Ms. Francis questioned at the Swiss embassy. This request was denied by the Magistrate who noted that the embassy premises would be considered Swiss territory and could create legal complexities.

Finally, Ms. Francis provided a statement regarding her alleged abduction over several days to local Police. Following a request by Police and a subsequent court directive, she was also produced before a panel of psychiatrists at the National Institute of Mental Health in Angoda.

It was against such a backdrop that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa met Swiss envoy Hanspeter Mock. Initial accounts of this meeting appeared to suggest that the meeting paved the way to clear any misunderstandings between the two governments in Colombo and Bern.

It was reported that President Rajapaksa explained to the Ambassador the progress of investigations into the incident so far, observing that it was well established that the alleged abduction was a total fabrication.

Irrefutable evidence such as Uber reports, telephone conversations and CCTV footage point to this fact. The Embassy official must have been compelled by some interested parties to bring myself and my government into disrepute,” the President was quoted as saying.

These reports also quoted President Rajapaksa as saying he saw no wrong” in the initial reaction of the Swiss Embassy to the alleged incident. It is justifiable. If a member of its staff is in trouble, the Embassy has to intervene,” the President reportedly said.

In a subsequent meeting with newspaper editors and head of electronic media institutions, President Rajapaksa elaborated on the controversy. Again, he re-iterated that the government did not have any suspicion and doubt about the conduct of the Swiss Embassy in Colombo over the matter.

They acted according to their duties and responsibilities. When one of their employees levelled an allegation, they complained about it to the government. That is their responsibility,” he said but observed that he himself was the victim in this issue as accusations were being made against his government just a few days after he assumed office.

The President revealed that investigations were ongoing to determine why the staffer acted in the way she did. If there was hope that the meeting between the President and the Swiss envoy and these comments would have cleared the air, it was short lived.

That was after Ms. Francis, the employee who made the allegations, was detained by Police subsequently. This was after the Attorney General’s Department had instructed the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) to arrest her, charged under the penal code with inciting or attempting to incite disaffection against the State as well as for giving or fabricating false evidence.

The Attorney General asserted that there was sufficient evidence to charge Francis under sections 120 and 190 of the Penal Code and to arrest her under section 32 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act which allows the Police to arrest an individual without a warrant based on credible information received or on the existence of reasonable suspicion against the person.

Employee’s personal rights

This was to elicit a swift response from the FDFA in Bern. Issuing a statement, it said that the FDFA is concerned about this development and calls on the Sri Lankan judicial authorities to ensure better protection of its employee’s personal rights in any further proceedings and compliance with national law and international standards.”

The FDFA has repeatedly called for due process to be followed. In particular, the FDFA has criticized the 30-hour interrogation to which the employee was subjected over three days despite being in poor health and the public statements by senior Sri Lankan officials questioning her account before the investigations had been completed.” The statement noted.

In what appeared to be an attempt to dispense with diplomatic niceties the statement added that Switzerland wishes to emphasize that in this high-profile case Sri Lanka’s reputation as a country that upholds the rule of law is at stake.”

Thus, there still appears to be significant differences of opinion between Colombo and Bern with the former declaring that its investigations point to the fabrication of a non-event and the latter questioning the credibility of these assertions.

It is clear that in the weeks to come, the Sri Lankan judicial process will take its due course in respect of Ms. Francis. Thus far, the government, despite the concerns that have been raised by Bern, has won plaudits for its handling of the issue and its frank statements, outlining what the investigations have revealed. Time will soon tell if Bern has blundered in attempting to defend the indefensible.