Courtesy Gossip TV

https://youtu.be/MId-ITDBaoQ

උපුටා ගැන්ම Lanka Mag

පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී රන්ජන් රාමනායක මහතාගේ ආන්දෝලනාත්මක හඬ පට සම්බන්ධයෙන් ජනතා නියෝජිතයින් පළ කළ අදහස් කිහිපයක්…

පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී මුජිබර් රහුමාන් මහතා…

මම පිළිගන්න දේ තමයි මන්ත්‍රීවරයෙක් වුණාම රජයේ නිලධාරීන්, සමාජයේ ඉන්න ඕනෙම කෙනෙක් එක්ක කතා බහ කරන්න අවශ්‍යතාවයන් තියෙනවා. නමුත් මෙතුමා ඒවා පටිගත කිරීම හා පටිගත කරපු ඒවා එළියට ඒම තමයි සමාජය තුළ මේක අර්බුදයක් බවට පත්වෙලා තියෙන්නේ. රන්ජන් රාමනායක ඒවා පටිගත කරපු එක හරීයි කියන එක මම පිළිගන්නේ නැහැ. ඒක වැරදි දෙයක්. මං හිතන්නේ පක්ෂය පැත්තෙන් රන්ජන් රාමනායක මන්ත්‍රීතුමා ඒ සම්බන්ධව සාකච්ජාවල් යනවා. මේ වෙනකොට යම් කමිටුවකුත් පත්කරලා තියෙනවා යැයි මුජිබර් රහුමාන් මහතා පැවසීය.

රාජ්‍ය අමාත්‍ය කෙහෙළිය රඹුක්වැල්ල මහතා….

හෙට දවසේ සමහර විට රන්ජන් රාමනායක කියන චරිතය එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය කියයි විනය පරික්ෂණයක් තියලා ඔහු ඉවත් කරනවා කියලා. ඒ ඉවත් කරනවා කියන වැඩපිළිවෙළ හරහාම ඔවුන් පෙන්නුම් කරන්න හදන්නේ මේක සම්පුර්ණයෙන්ම රන්ජන් රාමනායකගේ වැඩපිළිවෙළක්. බැලු-බැල්මට ඒක එහෙම දැක්කට මේක රන්ජන් රාමනායකගේ වැඩපිළිවෙළක් නෙමෙයි. යහපාලන රජයේ එවකට තිබ්බ මොකද ඔහු නිරන්තරයෙන් කියනවා මම දැන් අගමැතිතුමත් එක්ක කතා කළා. ජනාධිපතිතුමා හෙට හම්බවෙනවා. කියන්නම් ඔයාගේ ෆොමේෂන් එක ගැන. ක්‍ෂෙත්‍රයේ ඉන්න අයට පණිවුඩයක් දෙනවා අගමැති, ජනාධිපති සහ මුලු කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලයම මං කියන විධියට තමයි හැසිරෙන්නේ. එහෙම නැත්නම් මාව පාවිච්චි කරලා තියෙනවා ඔබතුමාලගේ සම්බන්ධීකරණ නිලධාරියෙක් හැටියට. රටේ නීතිය නමන්න, අධිකරණ තීන්දුවට බලපෑම් කරන්න, මාව පත්කරලා තියෙනවා නිල වශයෙන් නූනත්, නොනිල වශයෙන් කියන පණිවිඩය තමයි දෙන්නේ යැයි කෙහෙළිය රඹුක්වැල්ල මහතා පැවසීය.

රාජ්‍ය අමාත්‍ය රෝහිත අබේගුණවර්ධන මහතා….

තමුන්නාන්සේලා දැන් පේනවා පහුගිය රජය කොපමණ විධියට අධිකරණය දූෂණය කරලද කියලා. දැන් ජනතාවට හිතෙයි ඔලුව නමනවද, නැද්ද කියලා හිතනවා මේක දිහා බැලුවට පස්සේ යැයි අබේගුණවර්ධන මහතා පැවසීය.

BY EDWARD THEOPHILUS

I read variety of opinions on the proposed amendments of 21^st and 22^nd to the constitution by Mr. Wejedasa Rajapaksa in weekend newspapers of 12.01.2020. The editorials of some newspapers, politicians, and analysts in newspapers have expressed views on the proposed amendments and the vital matters regard to the proposed amendments are district votes cut off point, the executive power of the president and the power of parliament. Ordinary people of the country may have not read the comments published, but they are very vital issues for the country.

The 15^th amendment to the constitution changed the District Votes Cut Off point, most probably amendment was based on opinions of influential people or political strategists, to 5% from 12.5%.  The original constitutional reforms in 1978 introduced the Executive Presidential System, and a new election system which was aimed at giving proportionate representation to parliament and what was the underhand had elements of the changes were not clear to ordinary people of the country, but I heard many people were talking that the underhand elements of the proportionate representation were UNP to be in power forever and ever, and the future elected parliaments to limit the power to a less than two-third majority, which reflect the inability to amend the constitution.  I felt that the opinions of rural people were accurate to a certain extent and the operational pattern of the constitution clearly reflected the positively working the underhand elements as poor people in rural area thought.

The district election votes cut off point has been a vital concept since the 1988 general election and the concept based on the change had positive aspects at the time it was introduced. The main positive point was giving an opportunity to represent in parliament by small parties especially JVP and LTTE which took weapons in hand with an intention to achieve their aims.  However, the aims of both JVP and LTTE were not the aim of the entire nation and minor parties represented a small pace of population. According to the conditions of the constitution of Sri Lanka individuals and groups of people have rights that are not giving accede to deprive others’ rights to have own opinions. The experience in respect of the behavior of Marxist and Communist parties demonstrated that the prime strategy of them was to bereave the opinions of other political parties and insisting these Marxist and communist parties show that they have the right only for them.  I observed this situation when I was studying at university. There was not deviating objectives of elements of LTTE and JVP and all were in the same boat. However, someone can point out that JVP had not an aim to divide the country or to create a separate state challenging the unitary status of the country.

When I was studying at the university, I observed that ideas of small parties were extremely vicious and there is no point giving them an opportunity to destroy our society in the name of democracy or the rights of people.  Therefore, I believe, going back to the original proportionate representation with a district cut off point at 12.5% is the right amendment in a situation where people are struggling to become a developed nation. The system of working proportionate representation in Sri Lanka seems that it is a challenge to the sovereignty of people as the system included appointing representative without direct going to votes to gain the authority from public. People observed bullshits of opinions of small parties, which were established with vicious elements or intensions to show that they respect the rights of religions, racial intentions, and caste dictions, which support to divide society than uniting people as human being. What is the use of allowing such political parties work in society if they have intension destroy or take harmful action?  

Because of the diversity in society, it is not a right to destroy the right of others and the proposed amendment 22^nd focuses to give justice to everybody without deviating based on various elements.  Democracy is a misunderstood concept in Sri Lanka.  We can clearly see in the Western countries, although they highly respect democracy they do not allow political parties based on different elements. Small groups can join with major parties and if they are democratic and objectives of them reflect the justice, the policies of them could include in major parties if minor parties can make a difference.

The proposed amendment of 21^st to the constitution focuses on strengthening the power of the executive president. The editor of Sunday Times attempted to show that the proposed amendment of 22^nd to the constitution by Mr. Wejedasa Rajapaksa is an attempt to strengthening the hands of the executive at the expense of parliament to revert pre-2015 era. The truth is that people clearly saw that in the absence of executive power by the president Sri Lanka suffered, and the parliament of Sri Lanka showed that it is an institution with self-centred people and the case of Mr. Ranjan Ramanayake showed that members of parliament go beyond the limits of authority and attempted to influenced the judiciary , which is an independent institute as believed by people. The actions of the executive president are approved by people than the dirty behaviour of the representative of parliament.

People of Sri Lanka had the experience they were under Kings and Queens, who exercised executive power from the beginning of Sri Lanka state before Christ to the early 1930s. People are used to executive power the president than a parliament democracy, which represents members, who have intentions with contradictory opinions, purposes and intentions, and the executive power of the parliament has destroyed the expectations of people. The directly elected president by votes of people is the preferred nature of executive power in Sri Lanka. The 19^th amendment to the constitution killed the expectation of people and people responded with opposition to the 19^th amendment in the presidential election in 2019.

The idea of poorly drafting the 19^th amendment is a proof that it is wrong action of parliament or misleading public to give the authority to a prime minister who unable to win the consent of people to be the executive president.                

By Garvin Karunaratne

It is heartening to note that our new Governor of the Central Bank had understood that the IMF’s neoliberal economics that we have closely  followed from 1978, has miserably failed.(Sri Lanka’s new chief flays Neo Liberalism”: Economy Next 28/12/19)

Following the IMF since 1978- for over four decades, has made us become a heavily indebted country, a situation from which there is no return. My two books, How the IMF Ruined Sri Lanka and Alternative Programmes of Success(2006: Godages) and  How the IMF Sabotaged Third World Development(Godages & Kindle:2017)  which happen to be the only books that are critical of the IMF’s teachings that also provide details of how salvation can be reached may be of service. In fact my guru, Professor George Axinn, Professor of International Development at Michigan State University  in his introduction to my 2006 book: How the IMF Ruined Sri Lanka wrote: “It is hoped that this timely book  will enable international organizations  to arrest the trend of failures.”

In detail, in the late Seventies, the IMF took on the new role of prescribing the  path to be taken by the Third World countries to run their economies. This was the Structural Adjustment Program the IMF  imposed on  every country that sought financial help. In the Early Seventies  the Oil Sheiks increased the price of oil threefold and many countries had to flock to the IMF for help. The IMF laid down conditions that the countries had to follow if they are to get financial assistance and following the neoliberal policies was insisted on.

. The IMF was the institution established  by the United Nations to help and guide all countries in  financial matters and no one questioned what the IMF did.

Since gaining independence  the Third World Countries had to manage their finances. The incoming foreign exchange,  mainly from exports, was carefully handled and spent with great care, for essential goods and items that were required for national development. I speak through sheer experience. I was once in charge of allocating foreign exchange for small industrialists in Sri Lanka. We registered them after inspection where we carefully looked into what they produced, whether it was required for our country.  In case their production required any item imported- raw material or machinery, an allocation of foreign exchange was allowed. Anyone could apply for foreign exchange for travel or imports. Each case was looked into in detail by the Controller of Exchange of the Central Bank. No allocation of foreign exchange was made for foreign studies, unless the study could not be done in the country or the study was required for national development. A budget deficit was not heard of. A small deficit in any year had to be covered in the next year. It was a strictly controlled situation because the country had to manage with the foreign exchange it had. We had no other option whatsoever.

Countries had  two budgets, a Foreign Exchange Budget and a Local Currency Budget. The foreign exchange  budget had to manage all our foreign expenditure, within the incoming foreign exchange while the Local Currency Budget was managed with tax collection supplemented by printed local currency,

The IMF Model- the Structural Adjustment Programme, liberalized the use of foreign exchange. The IMF  prescribed that  the countries should  allow anyone any amount of foreign exchange  for everything-for luxury travel, for importing anything, for foreign studies and advised the countries to raise funds by privatizing State assets and also by borrowing foreign exchange if the country could not meet the demand. The IMF initially, gave loans at low interest and even gave periods of grace, when no repayment was charged. This helped the countries, and the leaders did not care about borrowing because they may  not be in charge when the loans have to be repaid.

Even a small commercial entrepreneur,  a sweets peddler on the street, will know that this Model of extravagant spending, without matching the expenses to what is available is a guaranteed recipe for disaster, but the IMF bluffed its way through, by retaining the likes of erudite professionals like Stiglitz and Sachs, with whom no one could ever argue and win.

The IMF laid down various conditions that had to be followed.

The conditions laid down were carefully decided to help the Developed Countries. Paul Volker tells us of how the conditionality was decided. 

As Chairman of the Federal Reserve ,  along with administrative colleagues, major foreign Central Banks and especially the IMF, could arrange stop gap  official financing and set out appropriate conditions  for the heavily indebted borrower countries (determined) out of our common concern about threats  to the American  and the global banking system”(From Banker to the World)

The funds obtained on loan were actually used to pay the debts and because the debts were to the IMF and financial institutions of the Developed Countries. Thus the foreign exchange that came in was shunted back  with profits (the interest), back to the Developed Countries.  However the country’s books recorded the loan as a debt and this is the how the foreign debt has ballooned.

Imports were not to be controlled.

The incoming foreign exchange was to be collected by the banks and to be used for imports and payments. The Government provided a list of items which should not be imported. The banks were to decide the exchange rate at which they would buy and sell the foreign exchange that came into the country. It was no longer to be controlled by the Government. It was supposed to be done by the process of supply and demand, but because the relaxed use of foreign exchange  caused a great demand, when the supply was inadequate, the local currency was inevitably devalued. Devaluation meant that all exports were discounted to the amount of the devaluation. In 1978 Sri Lanka devalued the Rupee by 101%. (Rs. 15.70 to Rs. 31.50)  This devaluation meant that our exports were sold at half price  while we had to pay double-101% more for imports.

A High interest rate was imposed. This meant that entrepreneurs in the country had to obtain loans at  high interest rates. In Sri Lanka, when this Neo Liberal- Free Trade Model was  enforced, the bank loan rate was raised to  25%. The local entrepreneurs could not compete with the imports that came in without paying tariffs or paying low tariffs. The result was that local entrepreneurs gave up  their businesses. Instead they found easy money by depositing the money in Fixed Deposits. Imports took the place of local production and this increased the debt of the country. This was advantageous to the Developed Countries because they found buyers for their manufactures.

The Private Sector was enthroned as the engine of growth and the Public Sector  activities were constrained. The problem is that the aim of the Private Sector is to gain the maximum profit while the aim of the Public Sector is the development of the Country.

The commercial infrastructure that the country had built to enable development had to be abolished. This included the  guaranteed price scheme for paddy,  loan schemes to spur production and these had to be abolished. In Sri Lanka this also included the Marketing Department that offered high prices for vegetables and fruits and simultaneously conducted sales at fair prices to consumers through a network of small shops to avoid inflation. The aim of the Marketing Department was to break even and therefore kept a margin of around 15% to cover cost of transport and wastage, while the Private Sector traders kept a margin of 100%. This Scheme helped the producer because a price higher than what was paid by traders was offered to producers. Simultaneously the produce was sold at cheap rates to consumers in cities,  at Fair Price Shops. This effectively controlled inflation.  The Marketing Department also ran a Cannery that purchased stocks of fruits and produced jam, food preparations  and juice, making the country self sufficient thereby saving foreign exchange spent for imports.  There was the Cooperative Wholesale Establishment that purchased essential items abroad and sold keeping a low margin to avoid importers charging high prices.

The Small Industries Department imported cotton yarn for distribution to textile makers. It also  guided handloomers to get into production. It  provided expertise for cooperative powerlooms to make fabric. The Department had a Research Unit at Velona to help the powerlooms. Thus Sri Lanka had a developed textile industry. We were self sufficient in producing all our textiles.

This entire commercial infrastructure necessary for national development was abolished at the instance of the IMF on the grounds that the Public Sector should not deal with commerce. This was inimical for development.

The IMF recommends that countries should obtain Foreign investment. Currently the Third World Countries  are bending backwards to entice foreigners to invest in Sri Lanka..  Investors come in search of profits. One area of Foreign Investment is Water.  Opening up water services for investors mean that foreign companies come in  establish water storage and purification systems and sell water to the people. They(foreign companies) collect profits for ever. This is the process set up by the IMF  for capital(foreign exchange ) to flow back from the Third World  to the Developed Countries.  Water services and purification systems are simple well known devices that can be easily set up by local entrepreneurs, but the locals are not provided with inducements  like tax haven periods and loans at reasonable interest to get into business. What has happened when foreign investors invest in water is that the local resource of water too has been converted to foreign exchange to flow from Third World countries to the Developed Countries!

Third World countries have enticed McDonalds,  Pizza Hut and such Multinationals to come in. They bring in a small sum of foreign exchange initially to establish their business. They  get into local trading in the local currency, but take away the profits in foreign currency for ever without paying any taxes. It amounts to a net loss of our foreign reserves.

Foreign companies getting into trading in local Rupees – like Uber etc. also amounts to a net loss of our foreign exchange as though they calculate profits in Rupees they take away their profits in foreign currency. One of the latest inroads is hotel bookings by foreign companies over the internet. Hotel bookings done insist on payment in Rupees to the hotelier, but the internet companies gets fifteen percent of the payment paid to them in foreign currency. Again this goes from our reserves. It is sad that our Central Bank fails to even understand how our foreign reserves are being robbed by these foreign investors.

Overall all  the economies of the Third World got restructured by the IMF’s Structural Adjustment Programme and foreign exchange flowed from the Third World Countries to the Developed Countries.

Tremendous  funds  were sent out of the Third World countries to the Developed Countries. The debt service alone flowing from Developing Countries to the Developed Countries amounts to $ 600 billion annually. This amounts to five times the Aid budget. The WTO’s  Agreement on Intellectual Property (TRIPS)  collects $ 60 billion annually. (Jackson Hickel: ‘Aid in Reverse: How Poor Countries develop Rich Countries’, in Global Policy(newleftproject.org)

Thus as far as Third World countries are concerned foreign investment bore a negative result.

On the whole every aspect of the IMF’s Structural Adjustment Programme  caused poverty in Third World countries  and created a situation where foreign exchange flowed from the Third World back to the IMF and the Developed Countries.

Milton Friedman  of the Chicago School of Economics, the author of the Free Trade- Liberalization Neoliberal Model of the IMF died recently having taken all Third World countries and even some European countries to their graves.

All these countries have followed the Neo Liberal –Free Trade Model. This Model also brought riches in billions  from the Third World to the Developed Countries.

Yet the IMF holds on to this Neo liberal-Free Trade Model, like flogging a dead horse. It is upto the IMF to understand their mistake and provide a growth strategy. The single strategy used by the IMF is to impose Austerity, which only brings about more poverty in the country. The rich are supported as their life style and mode of living- purchase of luxury cars and luxury items, travel, sending their offspring for foreign education and holidays all create a flow of foreign exchange from the Third World countries to the Developed Countries.

This is not a Model for Development; instead it is a Model designed to make the Third World countries indebted , create the flow of foreign exchange from the Third World  countries to the Developed Countries, in short to make the Third World countries ‘colonies’ of the Developed Countries.

Isn’t it sad that the IMF despite its failures over the past four decades has failed to find an algorithm to bring about growth and prosperity. My book: How the IMF Sabotaged Third World Development(Kindle) documents this story of how the Third World countries were gradually brought under the IMF  control. Their Model of Development actually enriched the Developed Countries at the cost of Third World Countries.

As far as economic development  is concerned, the IMF Model of Development is not functioning in the interests of the Third World countries. Already the ruler of Ecuador has decided not to pay up  the loans, because the loans were non developmental.

It is upto our leaders to ensure that loans are obtained for development purposes only and not used to provide for luxury living, the import of luxury cars and luxury travel all for  the rich.

It is not surprising that the neoliberal policies imposed on Sri Lanka by the IMF has resulted in our having accumulated a foreign debt of some $ 55 to 60 billion, a debt to service which our country has to pay $ 4.8 billion in 2020.

The solution

In view of the fact that foreign direct investment has today a negative effect on our foreign resources, the only option available to the Government is to insist that where the profit comes from trading in the local currency, the profit cannot be taken away in foreign currency. In the days before the IMF introduced its Structural Adjustment Programme, the USA had to collect payments for the supply of food under the PL 480 in local currency. . Then the USA offered  this money to US agribusiness firms at below market interest.(Wessel & Hantman: Trading the Future) The Government has to understand the basic fact that  foreign investment brings a negative result to our own foreign reserves in case the investors trade in the local currency.

The only path available to the Government is to follow import substitution, where we ourselves produce what we import and stop imports. We save the foreign exchange spent for imports and also find incomes for workers in the process. This has to be done on a massive scale. Our country has a great deal of experience in handling import substitution type of  industries. We hand a Marketing Department Cannery that was able to make Sri Lanka self sufficient in all food preparations, fruit juice and jam. It would be of interest to note that self sufficiency was achieved within three years-1955 to 1958. Once we produced around fifty percent of our Paper requirements. During the Divisional Development Councils Programme of Mrs Bandaranayake in 1971-1977 we established  many successful industries. There was a Paper Making Industry established in Kotmale, a Mechanised Boat Making Industry was established at Matara.  The Crayon Factory established in Morawaka is well known for its success. The art of making Crayons was unearthed at the Rahula College Science Lab at Matara after  three month long experiments under my personal direction. A crayon is a sophisticated product and if we could have produced crayons and successfully marketed it, which we did achieve, we can be dead certain of being able to spearhead a programme of import substitution.

That to me is the only method of economic development available to us.

Over to our new leaders. Hope the message in this Paper reaches our leaders.

Garvin Karunaratne

Former G.A. Matara

Author of How the IMF Ruined Sri Lanka & Alternative Programmes of Success(Godages) 2006 & How the IMF Sabotaged Third World Development(Kindle & Godages)2017

13/01/2020

KAMALIKA PIERIS

The Tamil Separatist Movement complained that the military did not leave the North after the Eelam war ended in 2009. In the whole country there are only 20 army divisions. Of this 10 are in the north and east, the Tamil Separatist Movement complained. The security forces continue to remain in the north and east in large numbers, observed Jehan Perera in 2016.  Wigneswaran said he saw no reason why there should be a 150,000 strong military still stationed in the north 7 years after the war ended.  He said that the Sri Lanka army was an overbearing presence in the north.

The army will not be withdrawn from Northern Province. The Northern Province is a part of Sri Lanka, nobody can question the military presence there, said the government firmly.  The government has every right to set up military establishments in any part of its territory. It has a legitimate right to decide where it keeps its forces. A sovereign state has the right to station its army in any place it chooses.

Forces must be positioned in strategic locations said Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Defence secretary.  In Sri Lanka army camps are situated in all parts of the country. If all the Provincial Councils ask me to remove the army then where am I to keep the army, asked President Mahinda Rajapaksa. US forces are stationed in Japan, Korea, and all over the world and nobody questions that.

 Defence secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa stated in 2012 that Sri Lanka is still under threat. The LTTE rump and pro LTTE organizations are trying to achieve separatism. They want to create another armed struggle here. There is ample evidence that they are constantly trying to contact groups in Sri Lanka and urge them to regroup militarily. There are 2400 once captured terrorists living in the north. The government has to be vigilant. There was the possibility of the war returning, the government said in 2014.

There was evidence to support this claim. In April 2014, the army killed three wanted persons, Sundaralingam Kajeepan alias Thevihan, Selvanayagam Kajeepan alias Gopi, and probably Navaratnam Navaneethan alias Appan. They were killed following a confrontation at Vedivachchikallu, south of Nedunkerni.  Thevihan had been involved in the LTTE air attacks on the Anuradhapura air base in October 2007 and the Kolonnawa Petroleum Storage facility also in 2007. 

This was the largest man hunt for LTTE cadres, launched in the Northern Province since the conclusion of the conflict in May 2009.  It has been launched in the wake of Gopi shooting at a police officer on Match 13 at Dharmapuram, a one-time LTTE stronghold.  Government saw this as an attempt to revive the LTTE. Gopi and Thevian had lived abroad. They seem to have been funded by the Europe-based LTTE groups. They were working under instruction form Nediyawan and Vinayagam. They were preparing the ground for another armed campaign.  The people in the area had helped the army with information. Authorities detained 60 persons, including 10 women in connection with their alleged involvement in the new terrorism project.

The military did not retreat from the north after winning the Eelam war in 2009. Instead, permanent military bases, were set up, to protect strategically important areas of the north and east.

The government started redeploying its naval and air assets to thwart any future attempt to open up illegal sea routes. The navy and air force will reposition their assets in support of ground deployment in coastal areas, the government announced in 2010. In Jaffna we have taken over some lands close to Port and airports, they said in 2013.

 Navy has shifted its north western HQ from Puttalam to Mullikulam to exercise naval command and control of Udappuwa to Arippu. The purpose was to ensure that north eastern seas couldn’t be use for illegal activities.

Cantonments were planned for key locations in the north, east and north western coast. Sri Lanka Navy established a cantonment camp at Mollikulam in the coastal areas. This would be the first of a series of satellite camps along the coastal belt form Karuwalakuda to Pukkulam with a 29 km extension into the Wilpattu national park.A road will be constructed to run parallel to this. LTTE had used their bases along the north western coast to bring in supplies from India across the Gulf of Manner. These camps will prevent this, said the government.

 However, civil society” opposed the reopening of the old Mannar road (Puttalam- Marichchikaddi.  The media observed that the Civil society” opposed decisions of the government that would deny the LTTE an opportunity to make a comeback.

Government would not demobilize the army or reduce military presence in the Northern Province under any circumstances, though the west was pushing for this, the government said in 2014. Army camps in the north will not be removed under any circumstances. Military bases which could hold the strategically important areas of the north and east needed to be carefully maintained.

There is no war one now, but war preparedness is necessary and the armed forces must remain as they are. There is a need for continued military vigilance and the majority of the citizens are more than happy about the continued existence of a strong military,   said Defence secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

The Tamil Separatist Movement thought otherwise. TULF had wanted the military camps removed in toto. As early as 2010 TULF objected to the opening of an army camp at Mullaitivu.  Also building permanent houses for the army. The government should forthwith stop opening any more new camps in Vanni, close down the one already opened and also abandon the idea of constructing permanent houses in the North and the East for the use of the Army, said TULF

In a peaceful situation, so much of Army Camps are not at all necessary and all Camps other than those that were in existence before the war, should be closed down immediately, without causing humiliation to the people who think that they are fighting a holy war” concluded the TULF.

Gamini Keerawella in 2013 made a plea for ht ere removal of the army from the north. A heavy and visible military       presence in every nook and corner of the north is counter productive for peace, he said. Sri Lanka cannot afford to consider a section of its own citizenry a security threat  

Having won the war,  the government seems to be doing its best to make the people in the north feel newly oppressed. That is not the way to win reconciliation. It is  a prescription for renewed rebellion, continued Keerawella.

The heavy militarization of the province, ostensibly designed to protect against the renewal of militancy is in fact deepening the alienation and anger of the northern Tamils, said Keerawella.

The continued presence of the army in Jaffna has created a serious concern internally and internationally. The claim of the government  that it is not possible  to reduce the military presence because of the threat of a re emergent LTTE reflects that is has not moved  from the earlier conflict mind frame, concluded Keerawella. Any emergence  of the LTTE has  to be checked in the political sphere.

Then in 2015 the Yahapalana government came into power. The Tamil Separatist Movement wanted the military camps removed completely. But even under Yahapalana the armed forces did not agree to give up all military bases. The government   refused to remove the High security Zone around the Palaly camp.   Lands that came under Jaffna and Palaly high security zone could not be released either. Sri Lanka should not succumb to western pressure meant to weaken military strength. They want to reduce the strength of the armed force there to make it ineffective,   said analysts.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of non-recurrence, Pablo de Greiff  who visited in 2017  also wanted the military presence reduced. He suggested that there should be a comprehensive mapping of land occupied by the military and the  land recently released. The government   should devisee strategy with deadlines for release  of land and plans for compensation of those areas that will not be returned. The Armed Forces should only retain land that is strictly necessary for security purposes .Decisions to retain land should not be made only by the military, it should not be within the sole purview of the military.

However, there was one very successful removal of a vital army camp. The entire Sampur naval base was removed by  President Sirisena. The 400 plus sailors who were there were sent to Boossa navy camp in Galle.    818 acres in Sampur   given to internally displaced persons   on the argument that 825 displaced families were living in Sampur in temporary shelters.  Tamil leaders attended the ceremony in verti and wearing garlands.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa had declared Sampur to be an industrial zone.  Lands in Sampur were given to the BOI for investments projects. The Sampur navy camp areas had been given to Sri Lanka Gateway Industries President Sirisena revoked this agreement. Gateway appealed. They stated that there was a master plan of the project included the development of the deepwater jetty bulk commodities terminal, power generation plants, sugar industries, fertilizer industries,  transshipping coal and thermal coal, iron ore industries, oil and petrochemical industry car manufacturing assembling plant and a host of other industries which would generate much employment. It was a cabinet approved project with the highest FDI ever in Sri Lanka history.    They were granted interim relief. The decision could be not over turned. A presidential order by gazette cannot be challenged as per article 35 of the constitution.

In 2017 TNA demanded   that the Navy base at Silawathura be removed and land released to civilians.   Also that navy vacate its camp at Mullikulam and give the land back to civilians there. The military said ‘no’. It would not remove the Navy camps at Silawathura and Mullikulam as they were needed for curbing arms, drug and human smuggling operations.  Mullikulam  army camp is on state land and need not be moved.

 TNA also wanted Navy base at Musali in Mannar removed. The military said no, again. The location of this Navy base was strategically important for the national security.  “It is an important location in terms of preventing illegal migration and illegal transportation of goods therefore the base will remain. However of the 34 acres, 6 would be released to owners.  So far 66 persons have claimed ownership of the land. Out of this number, 38 persons are dead. Government has given alternative lands of 20 perches each to 12 persons and four houses have been constructed. In Valikamam North too there were some lands that the military needed for national security reasons. In 2019, the navy was trying to acquire 163 acres of land belonging to KKS Cement Factory  and TNA was trying to prevent  this.

The Tamil Separatist Movement did  not like this. Since Yahapalana was   in power,  the  Tamil Separatist Movement became bold. In  February 2016,  probably encouraged by the regime change of 2015, residents of Parevipachchan in Kilinochchi forcibly entered the   Kilinochchi army camp in their area demanding that it vacate ‘forcibly occupied lands’. A tense situation arose as a result.

In April 2016,  R. Sampanthan with several TNA MPs and a group of NGO representatives had forcibly entered an army camp of Gajaba regiment in Kilinochchi .He had stated that the army camp should be removed and lands given back to the people. TNA defended Sampanthan’s action. He had only been there to inspect the houses in an area which was ‘unlawfully ‘occupied by the army, TNA said. 

Then In August 2016 when officials of the Mullaitivu Survey department went to mark the boundaries of a plot to be acquired by the navy they were turned back by residents. The Navy responded. Navy  had taken over the   670 acres in 2009 and were finalizing the transfer. Half was private owned, half was state  owned, with land given out on permits to people for settlement. Navy planned to pay compensation.

In February 2019,Tamil  civilians engaged in protest opposite an army base in Mullaitivu asking troops to leave the area. Photograph showed them holding up placards in all three languages.

In April 2019 Surveyors tasked with surveying the Mandaitivu navy camp, Jaffna, had to return as a group of protestors led by former Northern Provincial Councilor M.K. Sivajilingam obstructed their work. The government has decided to expand the camp and the surveyors had  arrived there to do their work. .The protesters blocked the vehicle in which the surveyors arrived and turned them back. .Sivajilingam vowed that the people would not allow the expansion of the navy camp.

With the change of President, from Sirisena to Gotabaya Rajapaksa , the military  once again stood firm. The government is not going to remove or relocate any military camp according to anybody’s whims, Defence Secretary Major General Kamal Gunaratne said in December 2019. Military camps are necessary to ensure the security of the general public. They do not harm  citizens living near it,  but provide service to its surrounding communities. Those who oppose Eelam agreed. The military should remain in strength in the North they said. 

There is still a need for vigilance in the North, said the military. There was evidence  for this. In June 2018 police in Nedunkerni stopped a three-wheeler scooter headed from Oddusuddan to Puthukudiyiruppu. A check on the three-wheeler revealed a locally manufactured bomb with 15 kilos of C-4 explosives. Police said the quantity was enough to destroy a car or van loaded with passengers. Among the other 24 items discovered were 31 detonators, 21 of them prepared for use, 52 other detonators, 120 rounds of T-56 assault rifle ammunition, a Grenade (Tamil Gundu), two pairs of binoculars, six remote control devices, LTTE camouflage trousers, shirts, caps, General Purpose Machine Gun ammunition, pages of July 9 2017 the Sunday Times with which the detonators were wrapped, different credit cards, mobile phones, insurance certificates, rubber stamps and writing pads. There were also SIM cards from two different mobile phone operators and envelopes containing cash. A list of arms and ammunition had been written in the back page of a calendar. The findings have become the subject of a Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) inquiry. Whether an attempt is being made to unearth buried or hidden military and related items for new operational purposes.

If they could not get the camps removed completely, then the Tamil Separatist Movement wanted the lands used by the camps to be reduced. The denial of land will  make them remove troops from north and east, observed Shamindra Ferdinando

  In 2018 Minister Swaminathan sought Cabinet approval to instruct the Army Commander, the Surveyor General and the Jaffna District Secretary, to take necessary steps to identify lands which can be released to their owners from Palaly Cantonment area in order to resettle, those in welfare centres and close down all welfare camps.”

At the insistence of the  Tamil separatist movement   the military  had already handed over lands during the Mahinda Rajapaksa government .400 acres out of the high security 1000 acres in Palali had been distributed. Military camps in Kayts were to be moved in 2015  to acquire land to distribute among owners.

In 2014, Sri Lanka   Air Force returned more than 240 acres of paddy land to 37 families in Keppapilavu, a village in Mullaitivu district. These lands are part of the 1200 acres of land used by the military in the area. There were conditions attached  to the transfer. The recipients  had to sign that in a future civil war, the lands would be willingly given back to the Air Force. If not they would be taken back anyway. Also owners cannot put up permanent fences or plant big trees such as coconut. One at least of the owners had refused to sign such a document saying that this was her dowry..

During Yahapalana rule more military occupied lands were handed over. In2016  it was reported that  President Sirisena has handed back 700 acres from HSZ to original owners. Earlier over 2000 acres were released with the government promising to release more land without compromising security.

In January 2019 the army  released1201.88 acres, including state and private land. They included 972 acres of state land in Kilinochchi and 120 acres of state land in Mullaitivu, where the Army had been running farms. Lands belonging to the Nachchikuda, Vellankulam and Udayarkattu Army farms were also released. 

They also released 46.11 acres of state land in Jaffna and the Vanni and 63.77 acres of private land in Jaffna and the Vanni. 139.56 acres of state land and 10.59 acres of private land, used by 57 Division and 3 Gajaba Regiment troops were released  in  Oddusuddan.

President  Sirisena stated that 88% of land held by the army when his Government assumed office had been released but this was not enough for those supporting Eelam.

The fact remains even 9 years after the conclusion of the war both agricultural land and residential lands yet continue to be in the possession of the armed forces. One glaring instance was Keppapilavu in Mullaitivu district. Where 75 acres of private land owned and possessed by local people for generations and centuries was yet held by the army. This matter has been discussed with both the President and army high-ups several times. For there to be reconciliation and national integration all land belonging to the people which are now in the possession of the armed forces should be released without any further delay, said the Tamil Separatist Movement  in 2018.

The government has released most of the land that was taken over by the military to be high security zones during the war. But there still remain significant parcels of land that have not been returned as they are considered to be of long term strategic value, observed Jehan Perera in 2019.  ( Continued)

චන්‍ද්‍රසේන පණ්ඩිතගේ විසිනි.

රන්ජන් රාමනායකගේ හඬපට රාජ්‍ය කලම්බා, මෙරට ජනතාවට බලකරමින් කියා සිටින්නේ, තව දුරටත් මෙරට අධිකරණය සම්බන්ධව කිසිදු විශ්වාසයක් නොතබන ලෙසයි. විධායකය, ව්‍යාවස්තාධායකය හා අධිකරණයෙන් රාජ්‍ය නිර්මාණය වන්නේ නම්, කිසිදු විශ්වාසයක් තැබිය නොහැකි පාදඩ අධිකරණයක් සමග තවදුරටත් මේ රාජ්‍යට පැවතිය නොහැක. අධිකරණය පාදඩකරණයට ලක්වී ඇත්නම් කලයුත්තේ අධිකරණය විසුරුවා හැර නව අධිකරණයක් ස්ථාපිත කිරීමයි. නමුත් එය කිරීමට කිසිදු නීතිමය ප්‍රතිපාදනයක් නොමැත. එසේනම් කලයුත්තේ කුමක්ද? මේ පාදඩ අධිකරණය සමග ඉදිරියට යනවාද යන ගැටලුව රට හමුවේ ඇත. එසේ නොවිය යුතු අතරම එසේ වීමටද ඉඩදිය නොහැක.

දැන් අප ඉදිරියේ ඇත්තේ මෙරට පරමාධිපත්‍ය බලය ඇත්තේ ජනතාවටද නැත්නම් අධිකරණයටද යන ප්‍රශ්නයයි. ඇත්ත වශයෙන්ම, සියල්ලන්ම දන්නා පරිදි මෙරට පරමාධිපත්‍ය බලය හොබවනුයේ ජනතාවයි. මේ අවස්ථාවේදී අතිගරු ජනාධිපතිතුමා විසින් කල යුත්තේ, අධිකරණය සම්බන්ධව පැන නැගී ඇති සියලුම කරුණු ජනතාවට ඉදිරිපත්කර අධිකරණයේ සම්පුර්ණ ප්‍රතිසංස්කරණයක් සඳහා ජනතා වරම් ලබා ගැනීමට ජනමත විචාරණයකට යාමයි. එම ජනවරමින්පසු සුපිරිසිදු අධිකරණ පද්ධතියක් සියලු නීති විශාරදයින්ගේ මුලිකත්වයෙන් ගොඩනැංවීම සිදුකල යුතුය. මේ ක්‍රම වේදයට එහා ගිට කිසිදු ක්‍රමවේදයකින් ඇතිවී තිබෙන තත්වයට පිළියම් කල නොහැක.

ආචාර්ය වරුණ චන්ද්‍රකීර්ති

මේ කතාව පටන් ගන්නේ හැරීගෙන්. හැරී තමයි ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට සංක්‍රමණය වෙච්ච මුල් ම ඔටුවා. හැරීට ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට සංක්‍රමණය වෙන්න පොට පෑදුණේ කොන්රාඩ් මෝල්තෙ-බ්‍රැන් (Conrad Malte-Brun) කියන භූ ගවේෂකයා කරපු යෝජනාවක් හින්දා. 1822 අවුරුද්දේ මෝල්තෙ-බ්‍රැන් පුංචි යෝජනාවක් කළා. ඒ යෝජනාවෙන් කියැවුණේ ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාව ඇතුළේ අලුත් බිම් හොයාගන්න” ගවේෂණ වැඩවලට එක එක විදිහේ සත්තුන්ගෙන් උදව් ලබාගන්න පුළුවන් කියලා. ඉතින් කාන්තාර හරහා යන්න ඔටුවෝ යොදාගන්න පුළුවන් කියන යෝජනාවත් ඒ අතර තිබුණා. ඒත් ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවේ ඔටුවෝ හිටියේ නෑ.

එහෙම නම් මොකක් ද කරන්න පුළුවන්? කරන්න පුළුවන් වැඩේ තමයි ඔටුවන්ව ආනයනය කරන එක. ඉතින් 1840 ඔක්තෝබර් 12 වැනි දා මුල් ම ඔටු නැව ඇඩිලේඩ් වරායට සේන්දු වුනා. ඒ නැව පිටත් වෙලා තිබුණේ උතුරු අප්‍රිකාවේ මොරොක්කෝව කිට්ටුව තියෙන කෙනරි දූපත්වලින්. කිලෝ මීටර් විසි දාහක් විතර දුර ගෙවලා ආපු මේ නැව් ගම‍න ඉවර වුනේ මැරිච්ච ඔටුවෝ පස් දෙනෙක් සහ පණ තියෙන එක ඔටුවෙක් ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට භාර දීලා. මැරිච්ච එවුන්ට නම් දාලා තිබුණා ද කියන එක නම් දන්නේ නෑ. ඒත් පණපිටින් හිටිය එකාට නම් නමක් ලැබුණා. ඒ නම තමයි හැරී.

හැරීගේ ඉරණම භාරවෙච්ච පුද්ගලයා ඉපැදුණේ මෝල්තෙ-බ්‍රැන් ඔටු යෝජනාව ඉදිරිපත් කරපු 1822 අවුරුද්දේ පාස්කු ඉරිදා (මාර්තු 22 වැනි දා). දැන් පාවිච්චි කරන දින දර්ශනයේ හැටියට පාස්කු ඉරිදා තීරණය වෙන්නේ මාර්තු 22 වැනි දා සහ අප්‍රේල් 25 වැනි දා අතර දවසක. හැරීගේ ඉරණම්කාරයාගේ නම ජෝන් අයින්ස්වර්ත් හොරොක්ස් (John Ainsworth Horrocks). ඒ කියන්නේ හැරී ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට සංක්‍රමණය වෙද්දි හොරොක්ස්ගේ වයස අවුරුදු 18 යි.

හොරොක්ස්ගේ තාත්තා සල්ලි හම්බ කළේ දකුණු ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවේ අලුත් ජනපද හදලා. ඒක, ඒ කාලේ හුඟක් අය කරපු බිස්නස් එකක්. පුළුවන් විදිහට ගම්මාන, පුංචි නගර හැදුවා ම අලුතින් සංක්‍රමණය වෙන අයට පදිංචි වෙන්න තැනක් හොයා ගන්න එක අමාරු නෑ. ඉල්ලුමට සැපයුමනේ. ඉතින් තාත්තා කරපු ව්‍යාපාරයට ම පුතාලත් සම්බන්ධ වුනා. ඒ අයත් තමන්ට පුළුවන් විදිහට ගම්මාන, පුංචි නගර හදන්න පටන් ගත්තා. 1842 දී හොරොක්ස් තාත්තා පරලොව ගියාට පස්සේ පුතාලා එංගලන්තයට ගියා. ඒත් එංගලන්තේ ඉන්න තරම් ආර්ථික හයියක් මේ අයට තිබුණේ නෑ. ඉතින් 1844 වෙද්දි හැරීගේ ඉරණම්කාර හැරොක්ස් පුතා ආපහු ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට ආවා.

අලුත් වාසභූමි හදන්න නම් ඒවාට ගැලපෙන, වතුර වගේ මූලික අවශ්‍යතා සපයා ගන්න පුළුවන් තැන් හොයා ගන්න ඕන. ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාව මහ ලොකු රටක් වුනාට හැම තැන ම ජීවත්වෙන්න බෑනේ. ඉතින් මිනිස් වාසයට ගැලපෙන තැන් හොයන එක ලොකු වැඩක්. 1846 දී මේ වගේ හොඳ කෘෂිකාර්මික බිමක් හොයන වැඩකට හොරොක්ස් පුතා මුල පිරුවා. ඔහුත් එක්ක මේ වැඩේට හය දෙනෙක්ගේ මිනිස් කණ්ඩායමක් එකතුවෙලා හිටියා. මේ කණ්ඩායමට සම්බන්ධ වෙච්ච තව කෙනෙක් හිටියා. ඒ තමයි, හැරී!

සැප්තැම්බර් 1 වැනි දා වෙද්දි මේ දේශ ගවේෂක” කණ්ඩායම ගිල් (Gill) කියන විල (දැන් ඒ විලට කියන්නේ, Dutton කියලාලු) ළඟට සම්ප්‍රාප්ත වුනා. ඒ අය යන්න බලාපොරාත්තු වෙච්ච තැනට තව වැඩි දුරක් තිබුණේ නෑ. කණ්ඩායම මේ විල ළඟ නැවතුනාට පස්සේ හොරොක්ස් තමන්ගේ තුවක්කුවට උණ්ඩ පුරවන්න පටන් ගත්තා. හැරී (ඒ කියන්නේ – අපේ කතා නායක ඔටුවා) හිටියේ ඒ ළඟ ම බිම ඉඳගෙන. සත්තු කියන ජාතිය ටිකක් නළියනවානේ. මැස්සෝ, කෝඳුරුවෝ වහද්දි පවා ඇඟ පත ටිකක් හොළවන්න වෙනවා. ඉතින් හැරීටත් ඒ පුරුද්ද තිබුණා. මෙහෙම ඇඟ පත ටිකක් හොළවද්දි හැරී පිටේ බැඳලා තිබුණු බඩු පොට්ටනිය හොරොක්ස්ගේ තුවක්කුවේ වැදුණා. ඒ එක්කම තුවක්කුව පත්තු වුනා. වෙඩිල්ල වැදුණේ හොරොක්ස්ටමයි. ඒ වෙඩි පාර හොරොක්ස්කේ දකුණු අතේ මැදගිල්ල ගලවාගෙන ගිහිල්ලා කටට වැදුණා. දත් පේළියකුත් ගැලවුණා.

ගමන අතරමග නවත්තපු කණ්ඩායම තුවාල වෙච්ච හොරොක්ස්වත් ඇරගෙන ආපහු ගෙදර ආවා. ඒ තුවාලවලින් ම සැප්තැම්බර් 23 වැනි දා හොරොක්ස් මියගියා. මැරෙන්න කලින් හොරොක්ස් තමන්ගේ අවසාන ඉල්ලීම ඉදිරිපත් කළා. හැරීට වෙඩි තියලා මරන්න කියන එක තමයි ඒ ඉල්ලීම. ඉතින් ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට සංක්‍රමණය වෙච්ච මුල් ම ඔටුවා – හැරී; වෙඩි කාලා පරලොව ගියා.

අපේ කතා නායක හැරීව පරලොව යවපු 1846 අවුරුද්ද වෙද්දි ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවේ ජනගහනය ලක්‍ෂ තුනකටත් අඩුයි. 1851 අවුරුද්ද වෙද්දි ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාව සමහර තැන්වලින් රත්තරන් හොයාගන්න පුළුවන් වුනා. ඒත් එක්කම හතර වටින් ම එක එක මිනිස්සු ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට එන්න පටන් ගත්තා. ඉතින් 1859 වෙද්දි ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවේ ජනගහනය ලක්‍ෂ 11 ක් කිට්ටු වෙන්න වැඩිවෙලා තිබුණා.

මෙහෙම ජනගහනය වැඩි වෙද්දි ඔටු සංක්‍රමණයකුත් වෙන්න ඕන. ඒත් 1859 වෙද්දිත් ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවේ හිටියේ ඔටුවෝ හත් දෙනයි. ඒ හත් දෙනා සහ හැරී අතර නෑදෑකමක් තියෙන්න විදිහක් නෑ. ඒකට කමක් නෑ.

කොහොම හරි දවසින් දවස වැඩි වෙන වැඩ ටික කරගන්න තරම් ඔටුවෝ හිටියේ නැති එක ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට ලොකු ප්‍රශ්නයක් වෙලා තිබුණා. ඒ හින්දා යහමින් ඔටුවෝ ගෙන්න ගන්න ඕන කියන තීරණයට ඒ අය ආවා. හැබැයි ඔටුවෝ විතරක් ගෙනැල්ලාත් වැඩක් නෑ. ඔටුවන්ගෙන් වැඩ ගන්න නම් ඔටුගොව්වොත් ගේන්න ඕන. ඉතින් ඔටුවන් සහ ඔටුගොව්වන් ආනයනය කරන වැඩේ ජෝර්ජ් ජේම්ස් ලැන්ඩෙල්ස් (George James Landells) කියන පුද්ගලයාට පැවරුවා. ලැන්ඩෙල්ස් මුල් වෙලා ගෙනාපු මුල් ම ඔටු නැව 1860 ජුනි 9 වැනි දා මෙල්බර්න් වරායට සේන්දු වුනා. නැව පිටත්වෙලා තිබුණේ කරච්චියෙන්. ඒ නැවෙන් ඔටුවෝ 24 කුත් ඔටුගොව්වෝ 8 දෙනෙකුත් ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට සම්ප්‍රාප්ත වුනා.

හැබැයි මේ බිස්නස් එක වැඩි කාලයක් කරන්න ලැන්ඩෙල්ස්ට බැරි වුනා. සිදුවෙච්ච අකටයුත්තක් හින්දා 1860 ඔක්තෝබර් මාසයේ දී මනුස්සයා රස්සාවෙන් අස්වුනා. 1866 දී සැමුවෙල් ස්ටකී (Samuel Stuckey) කියන පුද්ගලයා කරච්චියෙන් ඔටුවෝ සීයකට වැඩි ගණනකුත් ඔටුගොව්වෝ 31 දෙනකුත් ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට ගෙනාවා. ඒ වෙද්දි මේ ඔටු සෙල්ලම නැගලා ගිහිල්ලා තිබුණේ. ඉතින් ඒ දශකය ඉවර වෙන්න කලින් ඔටුගොව්වෝ තුන්දාහක් විතර ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට ආනයනය කළා. මේ තරම් ඔටුගොව්වෝ පිරිසක් ගේන්න නම් ගෙනැල්ලා තියෙන ඔටුවෝ ප්‍රමාණය ගැනත් අපිට හිතාගන්න පුළුවන්. මේ ඔටුවෝ ඇරගෙන ආවේ ඇෆ්ගනිස්ථානයෙන් සහ ඉන්දියානු උපමහාද්වීපයේ තියෙන රාජස්ථානය වගේ අනෙකුත් ප්‍රදේශවලින්. මේ විදිහට ගෙනාපු ඔටුගොව්වෝ බලුකිස්ථාන, කාශ්මීර, සින්ද්, පන්ජාබ්, ඇෆ්ගනිස්ථාන, ඊජිප්තු, තුර්කි ප්‍රදේශවල අය වුනත් ඒ හැමෝට ම කිව්වේ ඇෆ්ගන්නු” කියලා. කටට පහසුවට වචනය කොට කරලා ඒ මිනිස්සුන්ට ගන්නු” (Ghans) කියලා කියන්නත් කට්ටිය පුරුදු වුනා.

කල් යද්දි මේ ගන්නු” ඔටු බිස්නස් එකටත් සෙට් වුනා. මේ ඔක්කොම කතා කියන්න ඉඩක් නෑ. කොහොම හරි ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවේ ඔටු ගහනයත්, ඇෆ්ගන්” ජනගහනයත් ඉහළ යන්න පටන් ඇරගෙන තිබුණා. රට පුරා ම ඇතිවෙලා තිබුණු රත්තරන් හෙවිල්ලටත් මේ කට්ටිය සම්බන්ධ වෙන්න පටන් ගත්තා. මේ විදිහට පිටස්තරයෝ” කරන වැඩ ගැන ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවේ අයිතිකාරයන්ට” ඇති වුනේ ලොකු කනස්සලක්. ඉතින් 1895 පනවපු නීතියක් මාර්ගයෙන් රත්තරන් හෙවීම ඇෆ්ගන්නුන්ට තහනම් කළා.

1852 ඉඳලා චීන සංක්‍රමණිකයොත් රත්තරන් හෙවිල්ලට බැහලා තිබුණා. ඒ අයව පාලනය කරන්න නීති 1855 ඉඳලා ම පැනෙව්වා. කොහොම වුනත් 1877 වෙද්දි ක්වීන්ස්ලන්තයේ හිටිය රන් කනින්නෝ අතරින් දහ අට දාහක් ම චීන්නු. වැඩට දක්‍ෂ හින්දා චීන්නුව බඳවා ගන්න අනිත් මිනිස්සුත් කැමැති වුනා. වැඩ කරන්න දුන්නාට රත්තරන් දෙන්න බෑනේ. ඉතින් යුරෝපීය නොවන අය රටට ඇතුළුවෙන එක නවත්තන්න ඕන කියලා 1900 විතර වෙද්දි ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාව තීරණය කළා. ඒ වෙද්දි ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවේ ජනගහනය ලක්‍ෂ 38 කට කිට්ටුයි.

මේ අවශ්‍යතාව” සළකලා පිටස්තර” අය පිටු දකින ප්‍රතිපත්තියකට යොමු වෙන්න ඕස්ට්‍රේලියානු ආණ්ඩුව තීරණය කළා. 1901 අවුරුද්දේ ඉඳලා අවුරුදු 75 කට ආසන්න කාලයක් (ඒ කියන්නේ, 1975 වෙන කල් ම) යම් යම් ආකාරවලින් ක්‍රියාත්මක කරපු සුදු ඕස්ට්‍රේලියානු ප්‍රතිපත්තිය” බලාත්මක වුනේ ඒ තීරණය උඩ. යුරෝපීය සම්භවයක් නැති අය ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට ඇතුළු වෙන එක ඒ විදිහට නැවැත්තුවා. එංගලන්තේ හිටිය ජෝෂප් චැම්බර්ලේන් (Joseph Chamberlain) වගේ මහා ප්‍රාඥයෝ පවා මේ පාලනය අනිවාර්යයෙන් ම කළ යුතු සාධාරණ වැඩක් විදිහට සැළකුවා.

එතුමා ඒ ගැන මේ විදිහට කියලා තියෙනවා.

පිටස්තර සංස්කෘතීන්ට අයත්, පිටස්තර ආගම් අදහන, පිටස්තර සිරිත් විරිත් අනුගමනය කරන මිනිස්සුන්ගෙන් අපේ ජනපද ආරක්‍ෂා කරගැනීමේ අධිෂ්ඨානය අපිට තියෙන්න ඕන. ඒක ඒ බිම්වල ඉන්න ජනතාවගේ අයිතියක්.”

මේ විදිහට පාලනය කරපු කාලය තුළ ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවේ ජනගහනය කෝටියකට වැඩි ප්‍රමාණයකින් (ඒ කියන්නේ එක් කෝටි තිස් නව ලක්‍ෂයක් දක්වා) වැඩි වුනා. සුදු ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාව” තහවුරු කරගත්තේ මේ විදිහට.

එතකොට ඔටුවෝ?

1901 පනවපු නීතියත් එක්ක ඇෆ්ගන්නුන්ට ගෙවල්වලට” යන්න සිද්දවුනා. ඉතින් ඒ ඔටුගොව්වෝ ආපහු යන්න ගියේ තමන්ගේ ඔටුවන්ව කැලෑවලට මුදා හැරලා. මේ වෙද්දි කෝච්චි දුවන්නත් පටන් ඇරගෙන තිබුණු හින්දා ඔටුවෝ නැති වෙච්ච එක ගැන ලොකු කම්පාවක් සුදු ඕස්ට්‍රේලියානුවන්ට” තිබුණේ නෑ.

ඒත් මේ නීති විරෝධී සංක්‍රමණිකයෝ – ඒ කියන්නේ කැලෑ වැදිච්ච ඔටුවෝ; සුදු මහත්තුරුන්ගේ වතුර බොනවා. එහෙම කරන්න ඉඩ දෙන්නේ කොහොම ද? ඉතින් දැන් ජල සම්පත ආරක්‍ෂා කරන අලුත් මෙහෙයුමක් ආරම්භ කරලා. අනවසරයෙන් ඇති දැඩි වෙච්ච ඔටුවෝ දහ දාහකට හැරීගේ ඉරණම නියම කරලා.

(මේ කතාව ඉවර කරන්න කලින් තවත් ඔටුවෙක් ගැන කියන්න ඕන. ඒ ඔටුවා හිටියේ අපේ කැම්පස් එකේ. අපිත් එක්ක එකට ඉගෙන ගත්තේ. තමන්ට ඔටුවා” කියන නම දාගත්තේ ඒ ඔටුවා ම තමයි. දැන් අවුරුදු දහයකට පහළොවකට විතර කලින් ඒ ඔටුවාත් තමන්ගේ පවුල පිටින් ම ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට සංක්‍රමණය වුනා. ඒත් ගිය පමාවෙන් ඒ ඔටුවා ආපහු ලංකාවට ආවා. තමන්ට බොන්න විතරක් නෙවෙයි නාන්නත් එක්ක ලංකාවේ වතුර තියෙන බව ඒ ඔටුවා දැන ගෙන හිටියා).

Dr. Daya Hewapathirane

Patience means the ability to endure and tolerate difficult situations in life and to maintain calmness in the face of life’s hardships, frustrations, adversity and suffering. It means the capacity to endure varied vicissitudes of life without being impetuous and hasty. Also, it means the   capacity to accept or tolerate delay, difficulty, or annoyance without getting angry or upset. Patience is essential to daily life and can be a key to a happy one. Patient people enjoy better mental and physical health. They tend to experience less of negative emotions, because they can cope better with upsetting or stressful situations. Studies reveal that people with patience tend to be more content with their lives and less depressed. Patience helps to protect us from the damaging health effects brought about by stress.

People who exhibit impatience and irritability tend to have more health complaints. Frequent and excessive impatience, result in increased blood pressure, bringing  about the release of stress-related hormones such as adrenaline, cortisol and leading to increases risk of heart disease. Stress hormones cause stimulation of platelets which may build up and clog arteries, raising the risk of heart attack. Stress hormones also cause the release of fat from the fat cells into the bloodstream which also causes clogging arteries. In addition, it causes many more unhealthy effects including weight gain and high blood sugar. Frequent and excessive impatience can also result in mental disorders such as anxiety and depression. In addition to harmful health effects, impatience has the potential to ruin relationships one has with his/her friends, family or any other people. People tend to avoid impatient people because they are afraid that they might experience negative feelings in dealing with impatient people. Nothing worthwhile can be gained by being impatient in your life.

In general, patient people have always made progress toward their life’s goals and are satisfied with what they have been able to achieve. In relationships patience becomes a form of kindness. Facing annoying people with equanimity is an important type of patience. Patient people tend to be more cooperative, more empathic, more equitable, more accommodative, and more forgiving. Patience enables individuals to tolerate flaws in others, therefore displaying more mercy, forgiveness, compassion and generosity. Patience involves emphatically assuming some personal discomfort to alleviate the suffering of those around us. Patient people are better friends and neighbors. Patience is one the noblest of spiritual qualities. It is the capacity to face  difficulty when it comes, with a spirit of tolerance, endurance, forbearance, strength and dignity, rather than fear, annoyance, resentment, anxiety and avoidance. No one likes to be oppressed or defeated, yet if we can endure oppression and defeat with strength, without being cranky, we are ennobled by it. Patience makes this possible. 

Religious leaders and philosophers have long praised the virtue of patience. The Buddha considered patience to be one of the mental states that an awakened person has perfected. Patience is an act of compassion toward oneself. It gives rise to equanimity or a sublime state of mind which leads to inner peace and well-being. With such as calm state of mind it is easier to ride life’s ups and downs without being tossed about like a boat in a storm. Patience enables one to be better able to focus on, or to be attentive to, or to be mindful of, whatever situation one finds oneself in, or one is confronted with. In other words, patience helps one to sustain one’s mindfulness. Conversely, being mindful or attentive helps one to develop and sustain overall patience.  Mindful living leads to a more fulfilling and grounded life, being able to understand oneself better. Individuals with more mindfulness or attentiveness have greater resilience, thereby increasing their life satisfaction. Mindful people can better cope with difficult thoughts and emotions without becoming overwhelmed or shutting down emotionally. Mindfulness promotes well-being, also promotes self-compassion, which leads to higher levels of happiness. Increased resilience clearly plays a major role in this beneficial equation.

MINDFULNESS

Mindfulness or sati” is an important part of the Buddhist spiritual tradition.  Mindfulness or sati” is the seventh element of the Noble Eightfold Path which encapsulates the principal teachings of the Buddha. Here, mindfulness involves the detached observation of what is happening within us and around us in the present moment without  reacting to it. In the practice of mindfulness meditation, the mind is trained to remain focused on the present moment and to accept one’s thoughts and responses without judgment. It is a mental mode of being engaged in the present moment without evaluating or emotionally reacting to it. Regular mindfulness practice helps to enhance and strengthen the brains ability to pay attention. It helps to increase one’s attention span, memory power, clear and focused thinking. Mindfulness helps us to respond with greater clarity and with a kind heart to whatever situation we find ourselves. Mindfulness weakens the negative or unwholesome state of mind that causes suffering and confusion and strengthens a wholesome state of mind that lead to happiness. It can help us develop a penetrating awareness that open the mind to full awakening.

Jon Kabat-Zinn founded the first Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program in 1979 and is largely credited with introducing mindfulness to the West. Since then, substantial research has demonstrated that mindfulness really does improve our mental and physical health. Today, the “Mindfulness Movement” is growing in popularity, with hospitals, schools, prisons, the military, and many workplaces using this life-changing practice. People from all walks of life are turning to mindfulness as a way to bring openheartedness and well-being to modern life. In today’s fast-paced society, we can turn to mindfulness as way to not just cope, but really thrive in all aspects of our lives. Mindfulness has been clinically proven to reduce stress, promote feelings of wellbeing, and improve mental and physical health. It’s a powerfully transformative quality that helps us develop greater presence and calmness, reduced emotional reactivity, and greater emotional stability. In short, mindfulness puts us back in charge of our own lives.

In mindfulness meditation, one learns and trains oneself to observe thoughts and emotions patiently, without getting carried away by them. Mindfulness is a way of learning to relate directly to whatever is happening in your life, a way of taking charge of your life, a way of consciously and systematically working with your own stress, pain, illness, and the challenges and demands of everyday life. Mindfulness meditation therefore, can be exceptionally powerful in helping us cultivate a new relationship to impatience and stress and opening the door to a life of greater balance, ease, endurance, tolerance, fortitude and joy.

Dr. Daya HewapathiraneDaya.hewapathirane@gmail.com

උපුටා ගැන්ම ලංකාසීනිවුස්

එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී රන්ජන් රාමනායක මහතා සහ රංගන ශිල්පිනියක් වන ජානකී විජේරත්න අතර වන දුරකථන සංවාදයක් සමාජ ජාලා වෙත මුදාහැර ඇත.

බුදුන්වහන්සේටත් මහාමායා දේවියට, සුද්දෝදන රජුට, යසෝදරා දේවියට ඇතුළු එම පිරිවරට ඉතා අශෝභන ලෙස අසභ්‍ය වචන යොදමින් එහිදී විවේචන ඉදිරිප්ත කරයි.

උපුටා ගැන්ම ලංකාසීනිවුස්

එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී රන්ජන් රාමනායක මහතා සහ මහාධිකරණ විනිසුරු පද්මිණී රණවක අතර සිදු වූ තවත් දුරකතන සංවාදයක් අද මාධ්‍ය වෙත නිකුත්විය.

හිටපු ජනාධිපති ලේකම් ලලිත් වීරතුංග හා විදුලි සංදේශ නියාමන කොමිසමේ හිටපු සභාපති අනූෂ පැල්පිට සම්බන්ධයෙන් පැවති සිල් රෙදි නඩුව මෙන්ම තවත් නඩු කිහිපයක් සම්බන්ධයෙන් මෙහිදී සාකච්ඡා කරයි.

බැසිල් රාජපක්ෂ මහතාට එරෙහිව ක්‍රියාත්මක වූ දිවිනැගුම නඩුව හා උදය ගම්මන්පිල මහතාට එරෙහිව පැවති තවත් නඩුවක් සම්බන්ධයෙන් විශ්‍රාමික විනිසුරුවරිය අදහස් පළ කරමින් කියා සිටින්නේ තමන්ගෙන් එම නඩු ඉවත් කිරීම ගැන කණගාටු වන බවයි.

තමන් එම නඩු දෙකට තමන් තීන්දු දෙන්නේ නම් ඊටත් අන්ත වන බවද ඇය සඳහන් කරන්නීය.

සිල් රෙදි නඩුවේ තීන්දුව ‘ඔක්කොම හෙල්ලිලා ඉන්න’ බවද ඇය එහිදී සඳහන් කරයි.

By Shivanthi Ranasinghe Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

The meetings give the Lankan President an opportunity re-affirm close ties with Russia and China and find common ground with the US.

Colombo, January 13 (newsin.asia): The upcoming week promises to be an unusually interesting one for Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. On January 14, he will be separately meeting two Foreign Ministers, Sergey Lavrov of Russia and Wang Yi China, and the US Assistant Secretary of State, Alice Wells.

With the UNHRC March session around the corner, the challenge before the new President will be to convince the US to be on the same page as Russia and China on the so-called war crimes” issue, which is to come up at the February-March session.

Though the US has left the UNHRC, it still wields much influence among the members. However, with President Rajapaksa’s focal point being cross regional and cross ethnic economic development and poverty elevation in Sri Lanka, he may find common ground with Alice Wells. After all, the US is committed to the very same goals, though it will seek some assurances on human rights and reconciliation mechanisms. It remains to be seen how far Gotabaya Rajapaksa will go along that line.

When discussing relations between Sri Lanka and US, the general view is that during the Mahinda Rajapaksa Administration (2005-2014), the two countries had parted ways over the issue of human rights and alleged war crimes. And that the relationship was reset by the Yahapalana” government led by the pro-West Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. While there is some truth in this, it should be remembered that relations deteriorated only in the latter part of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s nine year rule. Till then, relations were very good and progressive especially in regard to the question of eradicating terrorism in Sri Lanka.

Interestingly, the trust and confidence Sri Lankans had in the US eroded during the Yahapalana government, though it was in popular conception, a pro-West or pro-American government. During the four and half years of the Yahapalana government, Sri Lankans changed their perception about the US to think of the latter as an invader” and not as a friend”.

One of the main factors which dislodged the Yahapalana government in such a short time was the apprehension people began to have of the US’ role in shaping its policies. Though US Ambassador Alaina Teplitz tried to reach out to the Sri Lankan people and assure goodwill, she failed because people felt that the pro-US Yahapalana Government was not representing the interests of Sri Lanka.

Irrespective of the stance any government may take, at the end of the day, it is the people’s perception which counts. Hence, whilst the progressive steps taken by the former Rajapaksa Administration to address the social and economic gap created by thirty years of terrorism may have been seen as inadequate by the West, the people of Sri Lanka felt otherwise.

Even during the Mahinda Rajapaksa Administration, foreign judges and subject experts were invited to ascertain the conduct of the war during the final phase. This did not draw any protests from the people of Sri Lanka as they felt that the process was balanced and fair. In contrast, the Geneva Resolution 30/1 of 2015 was, and is still seen, as the greatest betrayal of the country since 1815, when Sri Lanka was handed over to the British on a platter.

Therefore, to address the concerns of the West, the incumbent Gotabaya Administration needs to be sensitive to the feelings of the Lankan masses. In turn, the West needs to trust the new Administration to do right by its own people. The US, who President Gotabaya had always viewed as a friend, can be a great influencer in this regard in the councils of the world, like the UNHRC.

President Gotabaya’s economic policies hope to bring development right across the country. He will redress the grievances of people not only in the Tamil-speaking North and the East, but also in the other provinces. The US can take the lead among Western nations to invest in Sri Lanka and partner in its progress.

Welcoming Sergey Lavrov Back

President Rajapaksa will have the pleasant task of welcoming Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who started his diplomatic career in 1972 at the Soviet Embassy in Colombo and had even learnt Sinhala. Relations with the then USSR commenced in December 1956. Since then, the two countries have enjoyed a very solid friendship. Bilateral relations had concentrated mostly on economic and technical cooperation.

Through the years the Soviets had assisted Sri Lanka in numerous ways including building a steel mill with a production capacity of 50,000 tons per year, a tire plant and a construction materials plant. Currently, 17 percent of Sri Lanka’s tea exports account for 30 percent of Russia’s tea market. Sri Lanka is also a favorite tourist destination for Russians and with each year recording a significant increase in arrivals from Russia.

During the 30- year terrorist era, Russia continued to believe in and support Sri Lanka. Russia had provided battlefield training to the Sri Lanka Army and had helped equip the Sri Lankan military with MiG-27 and Mi-17 fighter planes; T-54-55 battle tanks and BTR-80 APCs and a Gepard-class frigate.

In the UN, Russia has always stood by Sri Lanka. In 2009, during the final stages of the war against terrorism, European nations, along with Canada and Mexico, brought a ceasefire resolution against the Sri Lankan military, but it was vetoed by Russia and China. The war crimes resolutions against Sri Lanka that were repeatedly tabled by Western nations continued to be opposed by both Russia and China. In turn, Sri Lanka acknowledged that Russia’s concerns over the Ukrainian crisis were justifiable.

With technology transfer and economic development being the paramount objectives of President Gotabaya, the meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister can be expected to be very fruitful in economic terms.

Strong Sino-Lankan Bond

Sri Lanka was one of the first countries to recognize the People’s Republic of China. This was done in January 1950 and diplomatic relations where established within seven years.

In recent years, resistance to China’s rise as a world power had unfortunately affected Sri Lanka. There has been a sinister attempt to create a division between the two historically friendly nations. However this vicious campaign based on blatant falsehoods, has not upset the Sino-Lankan apple cart. It attests to the strength of the bilateral ties.

The world, led by the West, has been making a huge song and dance about Sri Lanka’s getting into a debt trap” because of China-funded projects, particularly the US$ 1.1 billion Hambantota Port project.

But the fact is that China never coerced Sri Lanka to hand over the strategic asset. Some of the Yahapalana government’s financial decisions, such as increasing public sector salaries by Rs. 10,000 ended up costing the government US$ 1.1 billion a year. Taxes were reduced on commodities such as fuel. Reduction of income also contributed to putting the country in the red. Government therefore felt constrained to request China to take over the port in a debt-equity swap. But this was deliberately misinterpreted as a distress sale to a creditor, by those who wanted to portray China as an economic hit man and Sri Lanka an innocent victim.

Be that as it may, it has to be admitted that Sri Lankans are most unhappy that the Hambantota port, a strategic asset, is no longer in their control though it is Sino-Lankan joint venture. As such, the new President is under tremendous pressure to regain the port.

However, to keep China investments coming in, and also to mollify China, which had done a lot for Sri Lanka, President Gotabaya has assured China (and other countries) that their investments in Sri Lanka are secure and a change in government will not harm their investments.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Administration has said that it will honor the commercial aspects of the Hambantota lease agreement. But as China too has agreed, a strategic asset such as a port, should be under the country’s sovereignty. Security aspects, including border control, should be the responsibility of Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka alone.

China has no objection to this line as it has always shown confidence in Sri Lanka’s ability to resolve its internal issues. Likewise, Sri Lanka will respect China’s position with regard to the agitations in Hong Kong and Xinjiang as well as other matters that are essentially China’s internal affairs.

When President Gotabaya meets with Foreign Minister Wang Yi, they will have much to discuss. As in the past, much of the discussions will be on increasing Chinese investments in the Hambantota Economic Zone and the Colombo Port City.

Written by Man Aman Singh Chhina  courtesy The Indian Express

The name of the town of Jaffna has resonated for long in the Indian Army, particularly among the units that fought to capture it from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in October 1987 as part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF).

Brigadier Manjit Singh

Brig Manjit Singh, decorated with the nation’s second highest gallantry award, Mahavir Chakra, for his personal bravery during the dash to link up with Jaffna during Operation Pawan in Sri Lanka, passed away after a brief illness. He was 78.

The name of the town of Jaffna has resonated for long in the Indian Army, particularly among the units that fought to capture it from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in October 1987 as part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF). A stronghold of the LTTE, the battle to wrest Jaffna exacted a high toll on the units of 41 Infantry Brigade, which was commanded by Brig Singh.

Brig Singh’s push towards Jaffna later came in for criticism from his former subordinates as well former divisional commander who did not appreciate the hard handed methods employed by him in command of his brigade. He ended up sacking his Deputy Commander, Brigade Major, OC Brigade Signal Company and two battalion commanding officers.

However, he never regretted his decisions and had scathing comments to make about performance of several officers under his command. An outspoken officer, Brig Singh’s brusque manner tolerated few mistakes.

An alumnus of Khalsa College, Amritsar, Brig Singh had originally been commissioned in the Mahar Regiment. However, years later he was shifted to Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry (JAK LI), an order which he bitterly resented at the time. True to his nature he had had a ‘run in’ with the then Colonel of the Mahar Regiment, Lt Gen KV Krishna Rao, who was at the time GOC-in-C Western Command and later the Army Chief.

The citation for his award of MVC details in brief the courage shown by him in battle for Jaffna.

It reads, Brigadier Manjit Singh while commanding an Infantry Brigade as part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force, was tasked to establish a link-up with Jaffna Fort, along Western Pincer in the face of all-out efforts by the militants to thwart their advance. Brigadier Manjit Singh himself assumed charge of the leading elements. He broke through the desperate cordon of the militants and successfully established a link-up with PARA Commandos operating from Jaffna Fort. His leadership and demonstration of personal valour motivated his command to push back the enemy. Throughout the operation, Brigadier Manjit Singh displayed conspicuous courage and valiant leadership”.

Brig BK Unnikrishnan of the Corps of Signals, who was commanding a sub unit in Jaffna fort during the battle, has described the moment when Brig Singh reached the fort fighting through LTTE strongpoints. The account below gives an idea of how pitched the battle was:

The Brigade had faced very stiff opposition on its way; it was stalled at many places initially and had to stop the advance mid-way due to ambushes and heavy fire. It suffered heavy casualties. However Manjit took a bold decision to move forward with a small group comprising his GSO 3 and two infantry companies. It was a daring move and despite interference from the LTTE, Manjit managed to reach the Fort at night with a few dead bodies and several injured soldiers. Lt Col TPS Brar, CO, 1 MLI received him and took him to the Ops Room. I was present there along with Maj Shankar Murthy, my 2IC. Manjit and I had known each other very well but I found him dazed and unable to respond to my words. His combat dress was full of blood and he was in a terrible state of mind”.

In a statement to LA Times, who’s correspondent visited Jaffna after its capture, Brig Singh said of LTTE, They were stopping us at every place. Every time they checked us, we lost a lot of men. When we tried to move our vehicles, we were hit with land mines.”

In several accounts written by veterans of IPKF, Brig Singh has been criticised for his style of command. It was said that he was close to the then Chief of Army Staff, Gen K Sundarji, who was also originally from the Mahar Regiment and that he had managed to get the command of 41 Brigade due to this proximity.

Brig Singh, on other hand, had told this correspondent some years ago that he had been personally chosen by the Chief because he wanted results on ground. He said he did not regret any action of his and that he did what was the need of the hour.

After being passed over for promotion to the rank of Major General, the mercurial tempered Brig Singh did not stay on in the Army and took premature retirement. After spending many years in USA, he finally settled to his farm in Rahon, near Nawahshahar, where he gradually faded away.

Brig Manjit has presented his Mahavir Chakra to the JAK LI battalion that he commanded.

Courtesy Ada Derana

An audio recording of another conversation between parliamentarian Ranjan Ramanayake and justice Padmini Ranawaka was released to the public today (12).

The audio clip was released at a press conference held by retired Major Attorney at Law Ajith Prasanna.

The recording contains a conversation between the MP and the judge on the verdict on the case of ’Sil Cloth’ distribution campaign against former Secretary to the President Lalith Weeratunga and former Director-General of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) Anusha Palpita.

උපුටා ගැන්ම හිරු නිව්ස්

හිටපු පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී දුමින්ද සිල්වා සම්බන්ධයෙන් වූ අධිකරණ ක්‍රියාවලියට බලපෑම් එල්ල වීමේ සිද්ධියට හිටපු ජනාධිපතිවරයා සහ හිටපු අගමැතිවරයා වගකිව යුතු බව නව සිංහල රාවය සංවිධානය පවසනවා.

එහි මහලේකම් පූජ්‍ය මාගල්කන්දේ සුදත්ත හිමියන් කළුතර ප්‍රදේශයේ අද (12) පැවති මාධ්‍ය හමුවකට එක්වෙමින් මේ බව කියා සිටියා.

මෙහිදී පූජ්‍ය මාගල්කන්දේ සුදත්ත හිමියන් චෝදනා කළේ පාස්කු ප්‍රහාරයට පෙර පොලිස් විශේෂ කාර්ය බලකා බුද්ධි අංශ අකර්මන්‍ය කිරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් එහි අණ දෙන නිලධාරී, ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨ නියෝජ්‍ය පොලිස්පති එම්.ආර්. ලතීෆ් වගකිව යුතු බවයි.

උපුටා ගැන්ම හිරු නිව්ස්

පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී රන්ජන් රාමනායකගේ ක්‍රියා කලාපය සම්බන්ධයෙන් පක්ෂයක් ලෙස ඉදිරියේදී තීරණයක් ගන්නා බව එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී මුජිබර් රහුමාන් පවසනවා.

කොළඹ අද (12) පැවති මාධ්‍ය හමුවකට එක්වෙමිනුයි ඔහු මේ බව කියා සිටියේ.

උපුටා ගැන්ම හිරු නිව්ස්

තනතුරු සහ පෞද්ගලික වාසි උදෙසා තවත් විනිසුරුවරුන් දෙදෙනෙක් දේශපාලනික නඩු තීන්දු ලබාදී ඇති අතර, ඔවුන් පිළිබඳ අධිකරණ සේවා කොමිෂන් සභාව මෙතෙක් පියවර නොගැනීම ගැටළුසහගත බවට මව්බිම වෙනුවෙන් රණවිරුවෝ සංවිධානය චෝදනා කරනවා.

එහි කැදවුම්කරු විශ්‍රාමික මේජර් අජිත් ප්‍රසන්න, රන්ජන් රාමනායක මන්ත්‍රීවරයාගේ තවත් දුරකථන සංවාද සහිත හඬ පටයක් මාධ්‍යයට ලබාදෙමින් මේ බව ප්‍රකාශ කළා.

එහිදී ඔහු වැඩිදුරටත් කියා සිටියේ ගිහාන් කුලතුංග සහ ලංකා ජයරත්න යන විනිසුරුවරුන් එලෙස ලාභ ප්‍රයෝජන අපේක්ෂාවෙන් පක්ෂග්‍රාහීව කටයුතු කර ඇති බවයි.

උපුටා ගැන්ම හිරු නිව්ස්

දුමින්ද සිල්වා ඇතුළු පිරිසට මරණ දඬුවම හිමි කර දුන් මහාධිකරණ තීන්දුවට එරෙහිව සිදුකරන ලද අභියාචනයේ තීන්දුව සම්බන්ධයෙන් පසුගිය රජයේ අමාත්‍යවරුන් දෙදෙනෙකු එවකට අගවිනිසුරු ප්‍රියසාද් ඩෙප් වෙත තර්ජනය කර තිබෙන බවට දිවයින ඉරිදා සංග්‍රහය අද සිය ප්‍රධාන පුවත ලෙස වාර්තා කර තිබුණා.

‘‘දුමින්ද එල්ලන්නැයි හිටපු අගවිනිසුරුට ඇමතිවරු දෙදෙනෙක් තර්ජනය කරලා’’ යන මැයෙනුයි අද දිවයින පුවත්පත සිය මුල් පුවත එලෙස වාර්තා කර තිබුණේ.

ඒ අනුව අදාළ ලිපියෙන් සඳහන් කර ඇත්තේ මහාධිකරණයෙන් දුමින්ද සිල්වා ඇතුළු විත්තිකරුවන් පිරිසට ලබාදුන් මරණ දඬුවමට එරෙහිව සිදුකරන ලද අභියාචනයේ තීන්දුව සම්බන්ධයෙන් එවක අගවිනිසුරු ප්‍රියසාද් ඩෙප් වෙත පසුගිය රජයේ අමාත්‍යවරුන් දෙදෙනෙකු විසින් සිදුකරන ලද තර්ජනයක් සම්බන්ධයෙන් තොරතුරු වාර්තා වී ඇති බවටයි.

පැවති රජයේ ඉහළ බලධාරියෙකු විසින් අමාත්‍යවරුන් තුන් දෙනෙකුට අගවිනිසුරුවරයා හමුවී අවසන් තීන්දුව ඒකමතිකව ලබා ගැනීම සඳහා බල කරන ලෙස පවසා ඇති බවත්, ඒ සඳහා එක් අමාත්‍යවරයෙකු එකඟ නොවීම නිසා අමාත්‍යවරුන් දෙදෙනෙකු විසින් අගවිනිසුරුවරයා වෙත මෙම බලපෑම සිදුකර ඇති බවත් දිවයින මුල් පුවතින් අනාවරණ කර තිබෙනවා.

එමෙන්ම, ‘‘දුමින්ද නිදහස් වූ තීන්දුව රන්ජන්, පද්මිණී සහ ශානි ආපසු හැරවූ හැටි’’ යන ශීර්ෂ පාඨ යටතේ දිවයින පුවත්පත පිටු දෙකක් පුරාවටම තවත් දීර්ඝ ලිපියක් පළ කර තිබෙනවා.

උපුටා ගැනීම

පළමු පටිගතයෙන් ඇසෙන පරිදි ශානි අබේසේකර විසින් රන්ජන්ගේ ගෙදර වළං ඉදුල් හෝදන තැන දක්වා පහළ වැටෙන්නේ දුමින්දගේ නඩු තීන්දුව පිළිබදවය.

දුමින්ද වෙත ලබාදෙන ලද්දේ නෛතික දඩුවමක් නොව සැළසුම් සහගත ලෙස පොලීසිය සහ අධිකරණයේ සමහර නඩුකාරයන් මෙහෙයවා ලබාදුන් තීන්දුවක් බව රටම තේරුම් ගන්නේ මෙම හඩපට ඇසීමෙනි.

ලිපියේ වැඩිදුරටත් මෙලෙස සඳහන් වනවා.

මේ සියල්ල දැන් සැසදිය යුත්තේ රන්ජන් හා තොදොල් තෙපුලනා පද්මිණීගේ දුරකතන සංවාද සමගය.

නඩු දිනයට පෙර ශානි විසින් රන්ජන් වෙත තින්දුව කලින්ම ප්‍රකාශ කරන කාරනයත් සමගය.

ඇත්ත වශයෙන්ම ගත්විට දුමින්ද දඩුවම් විදින්නේ සාධාරණ නඩු තීන්දුවක් මත නොව දේශපාලන බලහත්කාරකමක් මත බව මේ සංවාද ඇසීමෙන් පෙනී යයි.

යුක්තියේ දෙවොල මත කරන ලද මේ පාපතර ක්‍රියාව සදහා යුක්තිය ඉටුවීමට තව බලා සිටිය යුතු නැත.

හැකි ඉක්මනින් මේ ගැන විභාගයක් පවත්වා දුමින්දට සාධාරණයක් කළ යුතුය.

මේ රටේ අධිකරණයට සාධාරණයක් කල යුතුය

අධිකරණය සමග මෙසේ කතා කරන තැනට රන්ජන් බලගැන්වූ බලවේග කවුරුන්ද යන්න රට දැනගත යුතුය.

කට රන්ජන්ගේ වුවත් ඔහු පසුපස සිටි බලයද මේවාට වගකිවයුතු හෙයින් ඒ සදහා නියමිත දඩුවමක් නෛතික ආකාරයෙන් තීරණය කළ යුතුය.

දුමින්ද දැන් නිදහස් වුවද ඒ සදහා කෙතරම් වන්දියක් ඔහුට ලැබුනේ වුවද නිරපරාදේ මරණ දඩුවමක් ලබා ඔහු ගෙවූ කාලය යළි මිලට ගත හැකිද.

ලැබුණු අපහාසල අවලාද සදහා වන්දියක් නියම කල හැකිද.

රන්ජන්ල ශානිල පද්මිණී ආදීන් එකතුවී රටේ නීතියට කරන ලද මේ අපචාරය සදහා ජනතා ප්‍රතිචාරය දැනට ලැබී ඇතත් ඒ සදහා තවම විධිමත් නෛතික ප්‍රවේශයක් ආණ්ඩුව ලබාදී නැත.

එසේ පමාවන යුක්තිය දුමින්දට පමණක් නොව රටටම සිදුකරනා අසාධාරණයක් බව දැනට ලියා තබමි.

උපුටා ගැනීම අවසන්.

මේ අතර, පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී රන්ජන් රාමනායකගේ හඬ පට මගින් අනාවරණ වන අධිකරණයට බලපෑම් සිදුකිරීම් පිළිබදව කරුණු විමර්ශනය කර හිටපු පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී දුමින්ද සිල්වාට සාධාරණය ඉෂ්ඨ කරන ලෙස ඉල්ලා අද උද්ඝෝෂණයක් ද පැවැත්වුණා.

කොළොන්නාව නගර මධ්‍යයේ පැවති මෙම උද්ඝෝෂණයට භික්ෂූන් වහන්සේ, සිවිල් සංවිධාන නියෝජිතයින් ඇතුළු විශාල ජනතාවක් එක්ව සිටියා.

උද්ඝෝෂණයට එක්වූ යථාර්ථය සංවිධානයේ මහලේකම් ශාස්ත්‍රවේදී පූජ්‍ය කිරිඉබ්බන්ආරේ විජිත හිමියන් සඳහන් කළේ හිටපු පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී දුමින්ද සිල්වා සිරගත කිරීම දේශපාලන කුමන්ත්‍රණයක ප්‍රතිඵලයක් බවයි

මෙම උද්ඝෝෂණයට සිංහලේ ජාතික සංවිධානයේ සභාපති ඩෑන් ප්‍රියසාද් සහ බස්නාහිර පළාත් හිටපු පළාත් සභා මන්ත්‍රී එස්.ඒ.ඞී. ජගත් කුමාර ද එක්ව සිටියා.

එමෙන්ම උද්ඝෝෂණයට එක්ව සිටි ප්‍රදේශවාසීන් ද සදහන් කළේ හිටපු පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී දුමින්ද සිල්වා යළිත් කොළොන්නාවට ලබාදිය යුතු බවයි.

KAMALIKA PIERIS

Revised 26.1.20

This essay    deals with two matters, the Report of Consultation Task Force on Transitional Justice and Reconciliation’ (Muttetuwegama Report) and   Yahapalana‘s proposed amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

CONSULTATION TASK FORCE ON TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION’

In January 2016   Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe   appointed an 11 member body styled the ‘Consultation Task Force on Transitional Justice and Reconciliation’ comprising of the following individuals. Manouri Muttetuwegama – Chairperson , Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu – Secretary, Shantha Abhimanasingham PC, Visaka Dharmadasa, Dr. Farzana Haniffa The existing PTA sought to give the government additional teeth to combat offences such as killing, abducting or intimidating specified persons such as politicians, members of the armed forces, police and government servants, the robbery of state property and banks, the collection, possession or manufacture of firearms and explosives or carrying out propaganda promoting the commission of acts of violence or causing religious, or communal disharmony, said Chandraprema.

, K. W. Janaranjana, Prof. Sitralega Maunaguru, Mirak Raheem, Prof. Gameela Samarasinghe, Prof. Daya Somasundaram and Gamini Viyangoda. .

This task force put out a voluminous report. The report quickly disappeared from the public radar, said Chandraprema. However, Chandraprema has seen the report. He says the Report makes the following observations and recommendations.

1. The establishment of a secular state as a starting point for reconciliation.

2. The cessation of military involvement in civilian affairs, economic activities and civil administration.

3. Return of civilian lands acquired by the forces.

4. The release of detainees (LTTE) who have not been charged under the PTA or other laws.

5. The repeal of the PTA

6. A political and constitutional settlement of the conflict as a ‘pivotal’ prerequisite for reconciliation.

7. The ‘occupation’ of land by the military and other state agencies such as the Forest Department, is an impediment to reconciliation,

8. As is the ‘secondary occupation’ of lands and fishing waters by members of other ethnic communities

.9. Symbolic reparations in the form of official acknowledgment and apologies should be made by the state.

10. Monuments to be erected for lives lost in incidents such as massacres or disappearances.

11. Observance of ‘Maaveerar Dinam’ is allowed to continue

.12. Families of deceased LTTE cadres, be permitted to hang a photograph of their son or daughter in LTTE uniform, in their homes

.13. The restoration of burial plots of LTTE cadres to family members and the removal of all buildings subsequently erected on them.

14. The establishment of a Truth, Justice, Reconciliation and Non-recurrence Commission (TJRNRC) as an investigative body that would refer cases of criminal acts to a prosecutorial body.

15. No amnesties would be granted by the Truth Commission.

16. The findings of the Truth etc Commission to be included in school text-books.

17. A Special Court and Prosecutor be set up to try war crimes with the participation of international judges, prosecutors and investigators.

18. No LTTE members should be prosecuted by this Special Court because they have been through rehabilitation or have been prosecuted under the existing judicial system. The focus instead should be on leaders of the LTTE who were allied to the government or LTTE leaders assumed to be living abroad.

19. Phased demobilisation of security forces with an attractive early retirement package which could include pensions, admissions to schools for children, alternative civilian employment etc.

20. A national policy on victim centeredness is recommended and page 152 of the main report stresses the need for victims to ‘own’ the Truth etc Commission.

21. The indispensable role of ‘civil society’ in a transitional justice process be recognized legally.

22. District level State officials are to be instructed to work with ‘civil society’

.23. Funding of the judicial mechanism could be from the UN and the shortfall met through international ‘voluntary contributions’.

Nobody in this country is going to accept that these are views that have been formed after consulting the public.  They are so over the top. This reads more like a wish list written by a group of foreign funded NGO owners in a state of deep intoxication, said Chandraprema.

Chandraprema discusses some of the recommendations. The report says the government should seriously consider establishing a secular state. What they mean by this is the removal of the special place accorded to Buddhism in the constitution.

Sri Lanka has never been a theocracy. The special place accorded to Buddhism in the constitution is an acknowledgement of an age old tradition which is dear to the majority community in this country. Even though Buddhism is accorded a special place in the constitution, the state does not discriminate against other religions in this country. Quite on the contrary, even in an era when religious freedom was unknown in Europe, the Sinhala Buddhist Kings upheld religious freedom in this country, said Chandraprema.

The task force wants land in the north and east to be returned to their owners. What is interesting is the observation that even land ‘occupied’ by other state agencies such as the Forest Department and the Mahaweli Authority impinges on the freedom of the people and is therefore an obstacle to reconciliation. If the observations made by the task force are turned into policy, then Minister Rishard Baithiudeen would have to be given complete freedom to do just as he pleases in the environs of Wilpattu, said Chandraprema.

The task force has also talked about the ‘secondary occupation’ of fishing waters by members of other communities – an obvious reference to fishermen from the South visiting the East coast for seasonal fishing. These are fishermen moving from coast to coast in what has been an age old tradition among the fishing community in this country.

The Task force has recommended that LTTE cemeteries should be restored, the observance of ‘Maaveerar Dinam’ allowed to continue and the families of deceased LTTE cadres permitted to display a photograph of the deceased terrorist in LTTE uniform, in their homes. They also recommend the restoration of the LTTE cemeteries and that permission be granted to commemorate deceased members of the LTTE. These will help to keep the separatist dream alive and lionize the LTTE combatants who fell trying to achieve that goal.

 We are told that these recommendations and observations were prepared after consulting the public. how many members of the public would have asked for the commemoration of deceased LTTE cadres, asked Chandraprema .If anything should be memorialized it is the fact that they were got rid of, he said.

The judicial mechanism on war crimes is only to try members of the armed forces. No members of the LTTE are to be tried because they have been through rehabilitation or have been prosecuted under the existing judicial system. In addition, as a means of promoting reconciliation, all LTTE detainees who have not been charged under the PTA or other laws are to be released forthwith.

Chandraprema made special mention of the fact that apologies should be tendered by the Sri Lankan State to the victims of the armed conflicts that took place in this country. Furthermore, the government is to adopt a victim centered approach.

Following the lead of UNHRC Resolution 30/1, the Task force has also recommended that a war crimes tribunal with foreign participation be set up. But going beyond anything that Resolution 30/1 recommended, they have also suggested that no LTTE members be prosecuted by this body if they have been through rehabilitation or have been prosecuted under the existing judicial system. They have suggested instead that leaders of the LTTE who left the terrorist organization and allied themselves with the government of Sri Lanka should be tried for war crimes!.

 No amnesties should be granted to members of the armed forces suspected of war crimes.  A phased demobilization of security forces personnel with an attractive early retirement package including pensions, admissions to good schools for their children, alternative civilian employment etc. has also been recommended.

The task force has called for full participation of foreign judges and other personnel including defence lawyers, prosecutors and investigators in transitional justice mechanism to address accountability issues, foreign participation was required as those who had suffered during the conflict had no faith in local judiciary, which lacked expertise to undertake such a task. Human Rights Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein had also declared in Colombo in February 2016 that the judiciary here was incapable of undertaking the process. He questioned the integrity of the local judiciary. The above are only a sample of what this task force report contains, concluded Chandraprema

The UN Human Rights Commissioner’s update on Sri Lanka presented to the UNHRC on March 22 was effusive in its praise for the report of the Consultative Task force on Reconciliation Mechanisms and has requested the government to implement its recommendations. Sarath Weerasekera   observed that this Task Force report was welcomed by the Tamil National Alliance and the Global Tamil Forum. A copy of this outrageous report should be archived somewhere, for historical purposes.

DRAFT COUNTER-TERRORISM ACT, 2018

The draftCounter-Terrorism Act was approved by Cabinet on 11September 2018 and tabled in Parliament on 9 October 2018.

 The text is available on  https://www.parliament.lk/uploads/bills/gbills/english/6123.pdf

Interestingly, a meeting had been held between the ambassadors of several EU nations and the Prime Minister to finalize plans to repeal the PTA and to replace it with a new counter terrorism law acceptable to the EU. This meant that Ambassadors of foreign countries were directly involved in the process of drafting public security legislation of this country, observed critics.  

 The meeting had taken place on December 16, 2016 at Temple Trees under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister. The ambassadors present were James Dauris – British HC, Jean-Marin Schuh – Ambassador of France, Tung-Lai Margue – Ambassador EU, Joanne Doornewaard, Netherlands Ambassador, Joern Rohde – German Ambasssador, Paolo Andrea Bartorelli, Italian Ambassador and Victor Chiujdea, Romanian Ambassador.

The proposed Counter Terrorism Bill will encourage terrorists as it was meant to stifle political dissent and the freedom of expression while treating terrorists with the utmost leniency, said Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The draft counter terrorism Bill has encountered opposition from political and media activists because its definition of ‘terrorism’ means that legitimate political and trade union action as well as the dissemination of information and protection of sources by the media   can be labeled as terrorist activity said Mahinda Rajapaksa

Mahinda Rajapaksa has pointed out, inter alia, that the Bill is designed to treat terrorists with the utmost leniency to the extent where its actual effect will be that of protecting and giving encouragement to terrorists – not countering terrorism.

 Our Penal Code prescribes the death penalty for killing just one person, but under the proposed counter terrorism law, a terrorist convicted of killing hundreds of or even thousands of people can only be given a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Furthermore while the Penal Code prescribes the death penalty for aiding and abetting in murder, the penalty for aiding and abetting in mass murder in the proposed law is just fifteen years imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs. one million. How is terrorism to be deterred by giving convicted terrorists lesser punishments than what the ordinary law of the land prescribes for the same offences, asked Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The proposed counter terrorism law also requires the police and the armed forces to treat terrorist suspects with the utmost solicitude. If a terrorist suspect is arrested by the armed forces, he has to be handed over to the OIC of the nearest police station within 24 hours. The latter has to examine him for injuries and present him before a JMO for treatment or a report. The Human Rights Commission has to be informed within 24 hours of the arrest so that they can determine whether the arrest has infringed the fundamental rights of the suspect.

 When a terrorist suspect is arrested, the arresting officer has to reveal his identity to the suspect and the suspect’s next of kin or associates despite a history in this country of terrorists having massacred entire families of armed forces personnel. The next of kin of terrorist suspects have to be provided ‘reasonable’ access to the suspect in a situation where today, the next of kin may well be the next suicide bomber coming to receive instructions. From the time of the arrest, the welfare of the terrorist suspect takes precedence over everything else, continued Mahinda Rajapaksa  .

All arrested suspects have to be produced before a Magistrate within 48 hours and the Magistrate is required by law to personally look into the well-being and welfare of the suspect. A suspect can be kept in detention only for two weeks and if this period can be extended only with the approval of a Magistrate. The total period of detention of a suspect cannot exceed eight weeks. Under the PTA in contrast, a suspect can be kept in detention for three months and this can be extended up to a total of eighteen months.

 A suspect arrested under the proposed counter terrorism law can be held in remand without instituting criminal proceedings for six months and this period may be extended for another six months on an order of the High Court. If criminal proceedings are not instituted within this extended period, the suspect will have to be granted bail.

 Under the PTA however, a suspect can be kept in remand until the conclusion of the trial. The proposed counter terrorism law requires the Human Rights Commission and the Magistrates to make unannounced visits to all places of detention and remand to look into the welfare of terrorist suspects and they have to ensure that the suspects are provided all the basic facilities. If the trial against a person remanded under this Act has not been concluded within one year, the High Court is mandatorily required to release the accused on bail said Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Even at the trial stage, terrorist suspects are afforded special relief. The proposed law states that ‘if death or grievous bodily injury has not been caused’ or ‘if the security of the State has not been seriously affected’ by the suspect’s actions, and he displays contrition by among other things, publicly expressing remorse, providing reparations to victims and participating in a rehabilitation programme, the Attorney General may either suspend criminal proceedings or withdraw the indictment altogether.

 How can a person who has harmed no one and not endangered the security of the State end up being arrested and prosecuted under a counter terrorism law? In practice, it is very difficult to collect sufficient evidence against a terrorism suspect largely because of the unsettled conditions that would be prevailing in the country. If a terrorist suspect is arrested and charged in court but is still incongruously deemed to have ‘not caused any harm to anyone’ or ‘endangered the security of the country’ that would only be due to the lack of evidence and not because he has not committed the crime he is accused of, said Mahinda Rajapaksa .

The proposed counter terrorism law acknowledges this reality by requiring an accused person to express remorse for something he is not supposed to have done and even pay reparations to victims he is not supposed to have harmed, before the Attorney General suspends or withdraws the indictment against him. Such bizarre provisions in the draft counter terrorism law is an acknowledgment of the practical difficulties in prosecuting terrorism suspects under the ordinary law which requires a high evidentiary bar. Most often what can be achieved through anti-terrorist legislation is the suppression of terrorism rather than prosecution and punishment of terrorists, which is why such laws have to be tough enough to enable its primary purpose to be achieved, said Mahinda Rajapaksa  .

Even in sentencing a terrorist after conviction under the proposed counter terrorism law, a reduced sentence can be handed down after considering mitigating factors such as a public denunciation of terrorism, provision of reparations to the victims and a public denouncement of violence etc.

The government’s proposed counter terrorism law is in fact a comprehensive relief package for terrorists. If the proposed Counter Terrorism Bill is passed into law, it will seriously hamper ongoing efforts to suppress terrorism following the Easter Sunday bomb attacks. Since this country is once again confronted with terrorism, the government should be prevented from making any changes to the Public Security Ordinance of 1947 or the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979. Priority should be given to the people’s right to life over the rights of terrorists concluded Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Several civil society activists and organisations raised objection to the definition of terrorism as contained in the Bill, claiming that citizens protesting against state involvement in water pollution (such as Rathupaswela, a state decision to dump garbage in their neighbourhood (such as post Meetotamulla), impact of development projects such as Hambantota development zones and Port City and citizens demanding the release of lands occupied by the military could be treated as ‘offences of terrorism’.

Civil society representatives also raised objections to the Central Data Base for arrests and detention provided for in the proposed Counter Terrorism Act. The draft legislation provides the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) access from the outset and ensures every arrest and detention carried out under the law is logged at every stage.

Activists said that the database could result in information being shared between state institutions and international agencies, with the potential for those merely detained or charged being adversely affected in terms of reputation and freedom of movement.

Centre for Policy Alternatives  on the other hand, finds several improvements on the PTA in the draft, and in many cases has found provisions in the bill to be in line with international law and best practices.

Everything is documented from the moment of detention to prevent people from disappearing, an official familiar with the drafting process said. In the past, there were allegations of people disappearing, after being supposedly arrested under the PTA, these officials explained. With the central database in place, all arrests under the proposed CTA will be documented from the moment of detention and HRCSL will have full access to the information, resulting in safeguards for the suspects.

The CPA report found that provisions that stipulate arrest with privacy, medical examination of suspects, notification of arrests, the board of review for detention orders, the entitlement of the magistrate to visit any place of detention and the dramatic reduction of the maximum period of detention to eight weeks were significant improvements on the PTA.

The power of the magistrate to order a forensic medical examination when there is reason to believe a suspect may have been subject to torture, is a welcome provision, the CPA report on the Counter Terrorism Bill said. The provision is in line with Article 11 of the Sri Lankan constitution and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the CPA said in its report.

Media rights activists urged the Sri Lankan government to withdraw proposed anti-terror legislation, calling it a set of draconian laws aimed at suppressing media freedom and democratic rights. .

C. Dodawatta, convener of the Free Media Movement, a local media rights group, said the proposed act could be used to arrest and detain journalists for “distributing or making available any information to the public.” “But so far the government has failed to repeal the PTA and instead now they are bringing another legislation which seems worse than PTA,” he told reporters.  Dharmasiri Lankapeli, another media rights activist, said the legislation may result in the arrest of journalists for keeping sources secret, and “this would pose a great danger to media freedom and send more journalists to prison.” 

 Rights activist and lawyer Viranjana Herath said the proposed law could also be used to ban such things as taking photographs, making video recordings and making sketches. It also “will affect the freedom of assembly and association and could pose a serious threat to the freedom of expression and media freedom,” Herath said. He said Sri Lanka does not need new laws to combat terrorism, saying there are more than 20 existing laws and legal provisions to deal with offenses on terrorism. “Therefore, bringing new laws could be described as an attempt to suppress the voice of the people,” he said. 

Chandraprema commented at length on the Bill. The new counter terrorism law appears to be tailor made to protect future terrorists not to combat terrorism. Everything that this government does seems to go in a certain direction,  he said

The so called counter terrorism law that the Yahapalana government intends replacing the PTA with is actually not a piece of legislation designed to ‘prevent’ terrorism but to pamper terrorists, said Chandraprema .

 It seeks to provide terrorism suspects with a degree of safety and comfort not available to suspects being tried under the ordinary criminal law. For example, the punishment for the offence of terrorism is restricted to a maximum of 20 years in prison. It is only if deaths have taken place as the result of a certain act that a life sentence can be handed down.

Whereas the ordinary law of the land prescribes the death penalty even for the murder of a single person, any act of mass murder by a terrorist will attract only a life sentence at most. Aiding and abetting in an act of mass murder by terrorist will attract only a sentence of 15 years and a fine. Under the ordinary law even helping a person to commit suicide attracts a death sentence.

Under the proposed counter terrorism law, there is a category of offences called “Terrorism related offences” which include the following: a) committing the death of a specified person. b) committing the death of any person in the course of committing terrorism related offence c) attempting to cause the death of a specified person. d) committing the abduction or wrongful confinement of a specified person. e) taking a specified person  or a member of his family or a person of importance to such person hostage f) committing criminal intimidation of any person.

The list includes 36 other offences including killing witnesses, robbery, destroying state property, digital data theft, recruiting people to join a terrorist movement. Many people would be hard put to figure out how these terrorism ‘related’ offences differ from terrorism per se, continued Chandraprema .

 But these ‘terrorism related offences’ carry an even lighter sentence of a maximum of 15 years, a fine and confiscation of property. In the case of a terrorism related offence too, a life sentence can be handed down only if death occurs as a result of that act. One gets the impression that this category of offences called terrorism related offences has been created only to hand down lighter sentences to terrorist suspects. As for deaths occurring as a result of a certain act, this needs to be proved in court and if the prosecution is unable to prove that a certain person died due to a terrorist attack then the terrorist gets a light sentence.

Many terrorist leaders would be charged with aiding and abetting in the commission of terrorism related offence and this carried only a sentence of 10 years and a fine whereas under the ordinary law aiding and abetting carries the same penalty as the offence itself. Knowing of the commission of a terrorist or terrorist related offence and failing to inform the authorities carries a sentence of three years imprisonment plus fine. The law also stipulates that “Every practicable measure shall be taken to protect such persons from physical harm,”  continued Chandraprema .

When a person is arrested, in addition to issuing an acknowledgement to a person nominated by the arrestee, the arrest has also to be notified to the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission within 24 hours. The IGP has to maintain a central register and database of those arrested under the counter- terrorism law. All suspects arrested have to  be presented before a Magistrate within 72 hours..If not the Magistrate will remand the suspect if the police make the request.

 However to remand a suspect, the Magistrate has to be convinced that the request is reasonable. What this means is that the Magistrate has the discretion to refuse a request to remand a suspect under the proposed law and to personally see the suspect and inquire into his wellbeing and welfare. Such interviews will be held in private in the absence of any police officer investigating the offence.

there is also to be a Board of Review chaired by the relevant Ministry Secretary and two other persons appointed by the Minister in charge of the subject. Any detainee can appeal against his detention to this Board of Review and the latter has to hand down a decision within two weeks. The decision of the Board of review can then be challenged in court if the suspect so wishes it. the obvious intention of such window dressing is to camouflage the laxity and indeed the solicitude this proposed law displays towards terrorists, said Chandraprema .

.The Yahapalana government’s proposed counter terrorism law has an inbuilt amnesty mechanism through provisions for the suspension or deferment of indictment at the discretion of the Attorney General.

The AG can impose conditions such as a public expression of remorse before a Magistrate, the provision or reparations to the victims as directed by the AG, voluntary participation in a programme of rehabilitation, social service or community services and a pledge to refrain from committing similar acts in the future.

 A confession made to a police officer will be valid only if the person who made the confession is presented for a medical examination both before and after the statement is given. The burden of proof will be on the prosecution to prove that such statement was made voluntarily. We see from the above that the purpose of the Yahapalana government’s counter terrorism law is to stand the old PTA on its head, observed Chandraprema .

 Terrorist suspects are to be given more protection and lighter sentences than ordinary criminals committing the same crimes. Prison sentences ranging from five years to life could be handed down for offences coming under this Act. The PTA conferred powers on police officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector to carry out arrests, searches of premises and any vehicle including aircraft and to seize anything related to unlawful activity.

Persons arrested under the PTA have to be presented before a magistrate within 72 hours unless a detention order has been taken out on him. The magistrate can order such person to be kept in remand continuously until the conclusion of the trial. He may be released on bail if the Attorney General consents, said Chandraprema .

There are primarily three areas that are problematic in the so called draft counter terrorism law. These relate primarily to the procedures relating to the arrest, detention and trial of terrorism suspects. It can be seen that the provisions relating to the arrest and detention of terrorism suspects has been designed more with a view to ensuring the welfare of the terrorist suspect than dealing firmly with an extraordinary situation to protect the lives of ordinary people who expect the State to provide them with basic security.

 But the system was by no means as rigid as the one mooted under the proposed counter terrorism law. The executive arm of the state has to have some leeway to identify and arrest people they deem to be dangers to society without being put in a straitjacket of regulations that will afford protection to the terrorist but not to the ordinary people at the receiving end of that terrorist’s actions. Without the executive having that leeway, they will not be able to perform their duty of maintaining law and order, said Chandraprema .

Under the existing PTA, the detention order in the first instance is up to three months and can be extended up to 18 months with no court of law being able to question such detention. But under the proposed law a detention order is valid only for 30 days and cannot be extended beyond six months and if a detention order is to be extended beyond three months, a magistrate has to grant his approval. And the suspect can challenge the magistrate’s ruling in the High Court.

Not only are terrorist suspects to be afforded the maximum protection by putting the security forces in a straitjacket, the new counter terrorism law is to function as a kind of ‘Truth Commission’ for terrorist suspects too. if the terrorist suspect agrees to fulfill one or more of the conditions such as  tendering a public expression of remorse or an apology, provision of reparations to victims as specified by the AG, voluntary participation in a program of rehabilitation, giving a public undertaking not to commit any offence in this act and engagement in specific community service.

.Even when a terrorist is found guilty, the sentencing guidelines proposed in the new counter terrorism law stipulate that publicly denouncing terrorism, expression or remorse, young age or old age at the time of sentencing, coercion or duress under which the offense had been committed, consent on the part of victims to pardon to the terrorist, voluntary provision of reparations by the convict to the victims of the crime, public denouncement of violence and terrorism, genuine commitment to the preservation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka, participation in a program of rehabilitation prescribed by the judge will act as mitigating factors to reduce the sentence said Chandraprema .

This gives even a convicted terrorist a way to avoid long jail sentences. There will be no minimum sentence in the proposed counter terrorism law, so even convicted terrorists will be able to get away with minimal punishment by pretending to be remorseful or undergoing ‘rehabilitation’ or doing any of the other things recommended to win lighter sentences.

The existing PTA sought to give the government additional teeth to combat offences such as killing, abducting or intimidating specified persons such as politicians, members of the armed forces, police and government servants, the robbery of state property and banks, the collection, possession or manufacture of firearms and explosives or carrying out propaganda promoting the commission of acts of violence or causing religious, or communal disharmony, said Chandraprema.

Chandraprema  also observed that it was Minister Sagala Ratnayake who got this proposed counter terrorism law drafted. It was also he who headed the Constitutional Assembly Subcommittee on Police, Law and Order where it was proposed that all police powers (except in relation to a few specified and comparatively rare offences) be transferred to nine provincial police forces which would do their own recruiting from within the province on linguistic and residential criteria without transfers between provinces.

 It was also proposed by this Subcommittee that an unspecified special majority in parliament be required to extend a declaration of emergency and that such declarations and the emergency regulations themselves be subject to judicial review.

 If the changes to the structure of the police force and the restrictions on declarations of emergency envisaged by Minister Ratnayake’s subcommittee are combined with the counter terrorism law he has proposed, there will be no control at all over any terrorist problem that occurs in the North and East because it will be the police in those provinces that will have all powers over terrorists in their areas with the armed forces having to hand over all arrested persons immediately to the local police, concluded  Chandraprema.

Sunday Times carried comments on the Counter Terrorism Act. .The draft ‘Policy and Legal Framework relating to the proposed Counter Terrorism Act of Sri Lanka’ was approved by the Cabinet on Tuesday. It was drawn up over the past one-and-a-half years with select provisions in earlier versions drawing critical comments from rights activists. The latest draft, a copy of which was obtained by the Sunday Times, has addressed many of these concerns.

For instance, some previous drafts made confessions to police admissible in court. The latest version does not. Only confessions made to a magistrate are admissible; that, too, provided the magistrate who took the confession immediately prior to and after recording it causes the person who made the statement to be examined by a Government forensic medical specialist. Such report must be produced by the prosecuting authority during the voir-dire inquiry (a preliminary examination of a witness or a juror by a judge or counsel) that may be conducted for verifying the admissibility of the confessional statement, said Sunday Times.

The bill, once enacted, will replace the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) which gives police a 72-hour window to produce a suspect before a magistrate; allows detention orders to be extended every three months up to 18 months; and confines suspects to remand till the end of their trials, many of which take years to conclude.

It is reported, however, that the Cabinet sanctioned the draft CTA only on the understanding that it will be amended during the committee stage debate in Parliament to bring back admissibility of confessions made to police officers.

The Cabinet has approved a draft Counter Terrorism Act (CTA) that requires suspects to be produced before a magistrate within 48 hours and limits detention orders to a maximum of eight weeks. It also grants a magistrate the discretion to refuse an extension after two weeks and entitles suspects to bail six months after arrest if criminal proceedings are not instituted during that time frame, continued Sunday Times.

.The CTA places an obligation upon the magistrate to personally see the suspect, and look into his wellbeing and welfare through a private interview; and record any comment the suspect may provide”. Any magistrate shall also be entitled, without advance notice, to enter an approved place of detention as well as inspect such place, registers, detention orders and other books and documents and interview persons being held therein.

 Legal analysts pointed to other issues with the proposed law. For instance, the provisions on abetting terrorism make it illegal to gather any confidential information” with the intention or purpose of supplying it to a person who commits an offence or is conspiring, preparing, abetting or attempting to commit and offence under the Act.Confidential information”, as defined by the CTA, would also include any information relating to the police or the armed forces, on the conduct of any official activity, including law enforcement or military measure which is intended to be carried out or is being carried out, or has been carried out”. But the draft law does have a proviso excluding as an offence anything published in good faith with due diligence for the benefit of the public or in national interest in registered print and electronic media, or in any academic publication”  said Sunday Times .

.Another point of concern is a clause authorising Deputy Inspectors General of Police to issue detention orders which activists say confers great discretion on the police. This is problematic given the patterns of abuse of detention orders to coerce money from people,” the analyst pointed out. Technically, there is provision for a board of review but these things don’t work in practice.”On the whole, the new draft contains several aspects deemed welcome by the rights community. While it does contain a long list of offences, the Act strictly provides for identification, detection, apprehension, arrest, taking into custody of, detention, investigation or prosecution only of persons committing offences within the meaning of the Act, added Sunday Times .

the Bill also states: Any action taken by any person in good faith in the lawful exercise of a fundamental right, or in pursuance of, or to give effect to a lawful order given to him, or in accordance with or to give effect to a judicial order, shall not amount to an offence under this Act.”At the time of an arrest, the arresting officer shall inform the suspect the identity of the arresting officers; the offence alleged to have been committed by the suspect; and the right of access of the suspect to an attorney-at-law as provided for in written law.

  Every arrest shall be carried out with due regard to the privacy of the suspect. The next of kin or an adult member of the suspect’s family shall be issued an acknowledgment of arrest and custody within 24 hours. It must include the date, time and place of arrest; reasons for arrest; location of custody or detention; name identification and rank of arresting officer; and so on. The Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the police station wherein the suspect is detained shall within 24 hours notify the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) with all of the above as well as other information. The HRCSL is also entitled to prompt access to the suspect, continued Sunday Times .

The draft CTA mandates the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to establish and maintain a central database and register containing information with regard to each arrest, detention, remanding, grant of bail, discharge, prosecution, conviction or acquittal, and punishment of persons arrested under the Act. It shall include such other information as required to determine the lawfulness of the arrest, custody and detention; lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty of the suspect; and the need for continued detention or remand. The IGP shall provide information included in the database and register to the HRCSL upon request.

No person shall be held in remand for a period exceeding six months from the date of arrest without instituting criminal proceedings. If such proceedings are not instituted within six months, the magistrate shall release the suspects on conditions to be stipulated by the magistrate. A board of review will be set up to grant administrative relief for appeals against detention orders. Rulings must be made within two weeks. Whenever a suspect is released from remand or detention, the HRCSL shall be informed said Sunday Times .

.The police must obtain a judicial order to gain access to information relating to any financial service provided by banks, non-banking financial institutions or designated non-finance business to a suspect; details of any financial transaction carried out by any person; details relating to bank accounts, deposits, remittances and withdrawals and financial services provided by such bank institution or business; details relating to securing of financial services by any person; and a certified statement of any account or other information pertaining to any account or transaction.

Judicial orders are also required for the police to, among other things, intercept, listen or record any postal message or electronic mail or any telephone, voice, internet or video conversation or conference or any communication through any other medium, said Sunday Times .

The draft CTA gives discretion to the Attorney General (AG) to suspend and defer the institution of criminal proceedings on a suspect for a period of not less than five years and not exceeding ten years. In such instance, the AG shall apply to the High Court for the imposition of one or more conditions on the suspect: to publicly express remorse and apology before the High Court using a text issued by the AG; to provide reparation to victims of the offence, as specified by the AG; to participate in a specified programme of rehabilitation; to publicly undertake that such person refrains from committing an offence under this Act; to engage in a specified community or social service; or to refrain from committing any indictable offence or breach of peace. The law also proposes day-to-day trials, other than during weekends, public holidays and court vacations, concluded Sunday Times

Prof. G.L. Pieris,  observed that the proposed Counter Terrorism Bill would encourage those still pursuing a separatist agenda. Instead of countering the threat of terrorism, it would definitely facilitate the terrorism project, Section 72 empowers the Attorney General to delay serving indictment for a period of 10 years. In terms of Section 77, if an indictment was served, it could be recalled right up to the moment of the delivering of a judgment. The provision for the Attorney General to accept an apology or/and offering to do community service in lieu of prosecution is a joke, Pieris said.

Pieris also criticized the need for the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka and the IGP to be informed as regards arrests made in terms of the new law. The new law was meant to mollycoddle terrorists/ However, the proposed law could be applied selectively to target trade unions, student community and even the media, he said.

Sub Section c, d and f under Section 3 could be exploited to prosecute those opposed to the incumbent government. the provision for remanding of a suspect in case he or she declined to answer questions violated the Article 13 Sub Article 5 of the Constitution. The new law challenged the presumption of innocence until proven guilty enshrined in Constitution,  Pieris said.

 Kishali  Pinto Jayawardene  made forceful observations on the Bill. Sri Lanka’s draft Counter Terrorism Act (CTA) is not a curate’s egg of mostly good with a little bit of bad thrown in. Rather, it is the reverse, she said.. The draft Act is a whole lot of bad with some good thrown into the unappealing mixture, she said.

These are ingenious traps set by ‘deep state’ security agents who have learnt to survive Governments and political regimes with consummate ease. Flippant assessments of the gazetted draft CTA are a deadly mistake. Unquestionably this is an aggravation of the existing counter-terror regime, not a reduction, as blissfully believed by some.

Those first drafts of a supposed Counter Terror framework staggered the nation as their contents were preposterous. In analysing the drafts ‘leaked’ to this newspaper at the time, it was pointed out in these spaces that, if this was the cure for the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA, 1979), then ‘the cure was worse than the disease.’ said Kishali.

Granted, the gazetted Bill is without the most outrageous clauses. Some may even suspect that the perversity of those drafts may have been on the calculated assumption that the outrage would subside once the clearly perverse clauses were taken out. what is required is the crafting of a narrowly tailored anti-terror law with tightly drafted clauses limiting themselves to few acts that are not captured by the ordinary law enforcement regime. That, this Bill is not, observed Kishali

There is over-breadth of offences and risks for media, she observed. Merely having an omnibus clause, (Clause 2(2)), that the Act ‘shall be enforced’ only in respect of defined ‘offences’ and not in regard to offences in the Criminal Procedure Code, falls far short of this objective. That clause is rendered largely meaningless for the reason that there is too much overlap between the offences in the Bill and ordinary criminal offences.

 Further, vague and general prohibitions remain. The use of terms such as ‘wrongfully’ compelling the Government to do or abstain from doing any act (Clause 3 (1) (b) as one ingredient of the primary offence is one illustration. There are plenty more  said Kishali .

Another example of obvious over-breadth is the juxtaposition of distinct categories of offences, variously titled ‘other offences associated with terrorism’, ‘specified terrorist acts’ and aggravated criminal acts associated with terrorism.’ These extended categories of various linked offences are defined as acts committed with ‘the intention of, or having the knowledge of, or having reasonable grounds to believe that such conduct has the effect of, adversely affecting the territorial integrity, national security and defence of Sri Lanka or, intimidating or terrorizing a civilian population.

’For the media in particular, there are palpable risks at hand. Clause 10 (g)) of the Bill summons chilling recollections of the harm caused by similar provisions in the past. That Clause defines aiding terrorism as  ‘intentionally and unlawfully distributing or otherwise making available any information to the public having intent to incite the commission of the offence of terrorism or other offence under this Act and to cause ‘the fear of such offence being committed.’ This is specifically ‘notwithstanding that such conduct does not expressly advocate such offence’  noted Kishali.

Read together with the primary offence of terrorism with its vague wording of ‘wrongfully’ compelling the Government to do or abstain from doing any act,’ the threat is explicit. Facing a practical situation, how is an editor or a journalist supposed to assess this ‘fear’ that is so airily referred to?

 Significantly, the conduct in issue need not ‘expressly’ advocate such an offence. This reduces the bar at which the offence of ‘aiding terrorism’ comes into existence. Moreover, use of the term ‘confidential information’ in additional offences specified in these sub clauses raises further concern in the light of the new ‘information regime’ trumpeted by this Government. The ‘good faith’ defence (Clause 10(L) is little protection in this respect. These are legal abstracts that can swing one way or another depending on who the judge is sitting on the Bench, observed Kishali.

.We have seen this peculiar phenomenon innumerable times. Where inflammatory terms such as ‘terrorism’ or national security’ comes into issue, it requires a judge of tremendous mettle and prowess to stand up to the task. Unfortunately we do not have that stern calibre of judges in our courts as a general rule, apart from a few exceptions.

 What is dangerous is that the proposed CTA will be part of the permanent law of the land, not an emergency regulation subject to challenge for fundamental rights violation in the Supreme Court. Consequently, to advocate for the Bill on the basis that only a little ‘fiddling’ is required to make it a preferable alternative to the PTA speaks to a remarkable lack of foresight. Its contents should surely have caused free expression advocates to take a well measured step back, said Kishali.

 Instead, we have a happy hunting pack of proponents of the draft CTA whose consternation at being strongly rebutted is rather amusing. But with the Bill on the perilous cusp of being enacted into law, these games are ill advised. The character and contents of this draft must be fundamentally revised, not just tweaked in parts. Timidly pussy footing around the definitions of terrorism or pruning the clauses relating to proscription orders, as objectionable as those clearly are, will not do.

In the alternative, journalists, dissenters and trade unionists will pay the price, not the ‘privileged’ here and overseas. Our familiarity with the horrors of the PTA will be nothing compared with the nightmarish possibilities implicit in its proposed successor. For there is enough ambiguity left in the draft CTA to make a national security autocrat, whose species we saw in full form during the Rajapaksa years, dance in unholy glee. It is the height of asininity to cheer on a draft such as this in the radically uncertain times that we live in. In fact, it is akin to the merry drunk who dances to the edge of a cliff, little knowing what awaits him on the rocks below. The difference is that here, it will be a nation dancing to disaster concluded Kishali.

Lasanda Kurukulasuriya also commented on the subject. She noted that  the PM urged the swift passage of the proposed Counter Terrorism Act (CTA), claiming that had it been passed the Easter Sunday massacre could have been prevented.

The government’s proposed new Counter Terrorism Act (CTA) has been opposed on the grounds that it could be used to suppress student unions, trade unions, media freedoms and the Opposition. It is also faulted for being lax in respect of terrorists, unlike the existing Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). Critics argue that the government’s real objective is to get rid of the PTA in compliance with the Geneva resolutions. Strangely, in cases where the terror suspect is a foreigner, the new law is said to prohibit action being taken without the consent of the country in which the suspect is a citizen. The consideration that such a provision could help protect ex-LTTE elements or sympathisers domiciled abroad, raises questions as to whether the drafting of this law had external inputs, said Lasanda ( continued)

Dilrook Kannangara

It cannot be a bigger powerplay than this. Very senior representatives of all three superpowers will be in Sri Lanka on the same date obviously to push Sri Lanka to comply with their foreign policy agendas. Needless to say, they rival each other. US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Alice Wells, Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs Wang Yi and Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov will be visiting Sri Lanka next Monday the 13^th.

Their visit is crucial given the happenings around Sri Lanka.

Alice Wells of USA is also visiting India and Pakistan but not before Sri Lanka. That shows the significance of the Lankan trip. According to the US State Department, she will be Lankan to advance the US-India strategic global partnership following the success of their Ministerial Dialogue in December. This is a series of military deals between USA and India. These deals are the following.

1.       US-India Major Defence Partnership (MDP) – to expand military-to-military cooperation and improve the defence and security partnership in the Indian Ocean region

2.       An Information Fusion Centre for the Indian Ocean Region including US military liaison officer at the Centre to monitor maritime security across the region

3.       Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) for the installation of secure communication capabilities between the US and Indian militaries

4.       COMCASA – to enable open communication between US and Indian militaries and sharing of information without restrictions

5.       Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) – geospatial and GPS information-sharing.

6.       Industrial Security Annex (ISA) – to exchange classified military information between the US and Indian defense industries

These are huge military developments that will surely push India away from its sham non-aligned position into the lap of USA. The purpose of the visit is to bring Sri Lanka also into the fold under India. This is very similar to the British strategy for Ceylon from 1833 to 1924. USA is just following it. MCC will be a key discussion point.

Chinese and Russian foreign ministers are obviously aware of this and they will focus on discouraging Sri Lanka from falling into this trap. However, if Sri Lanka goes with US and Indian demands, China and Russia will be compelled to take it tough with Sri Lanka.

If the island nation further veers into the US military camp, China and Russia will have no option than to secure a land mass within the island that goes with them. It means division of the island of Sri Lanka with opposing political and strategic views. Sri Lanka’s northern and eastern provinces and the coastal belt from the northern province south to Beruwala are occupied by pro-US and pro-Indian populations whereas the rest support non-alignment. These are the island’s political and strategic fault lines. The first piece is what USA and India are after. It is a clear case of matching supply and demand, both push and pull factors.

In order to withstand all three world superpowers, Sri Lanka’s leadership needs vision, courage and knowledge.

MCC has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. It is important that we are all aware of the clauses and demands as well as commitments made by Govt and officials and question some of these assurances completely overlooking the concerns of the public & the future interest of the Nation as well as future generations. No agreement can or should be signed overlooking long term repercussions that will impact on future generations and the sovereignty of a nation.

Millennium Challenge Compact signatories are:

US Govt & GOSL

MCC acting on behalf of US Govt

Min of Finance acting on behalf of SL Govt

MCC Agreement has 8 ARTICLES as contents

1. Goal & Objectives
2. Funding & Resources
3. Implementation
4. Communications
5. Termination/Suspension/Expiration
6. Compact Annexes, Amendments, Governing Law
7. Entry into Force
8. Additional Government Covenants

There are 5 Annexes

1. Program Description
2. Multi-Year Financial Plan summary
3. Compact Monitoring & Evaluation Summary
4. Conditions Precedent to Disbursement of Compact CDF
5. Definitions

PREAMBLE

This Millennium Challenge Compact (Compact”) is between the USA, acting through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a US government corporation (MCC”) and the GOSL acting through the Ministry of Finance (the Government”) – Individually Party” and collectively the Parties”.

Comment: Does this mean that all interests of Sri Lanka are to be undertaken by the Ministry of Finance & the Finance Minister?

RECITALS

Recalling that the Government consulted with the private sector and civil society of Sri Lanka to determine the priorities for the use of MCC assistance and developed and submitted to MCC a proposal for such assistance to achieve fasting economic growth and poverty reduction”

Comment: Why didn’t the Ministry of Finance consult line Ministries impacted by MCC in particular the Defense Ministry & the Armed Forces/Police Heads and their senior legal officers as well as land law experts?

ARTICLE 1

Section 1.1 b) to increase the availability of information on private land and under-utilized state lands in order to increase land market activity.

Comment: increase land market activity for whom? Why ‘information on private land’

ARTICLE 2

Section 2.2 Compact CDF

1. Upon the signing of this Compact, MCC shall grant to the Government under the terms of the Compact and in addition to the Program Funding described in Section 2.1 an amount not to exceed thirty-two million five hundred thousand united states dollars (US$32,500) Compact CDF” under Section 609 (g) of the MCC Act of 2003 as amended (MCA Act) for use by the Government to facilitate implementation of this Compact including for the following purposes
   1. Financial management & procurement activities
   1. Administrative activities (staff salaries/administrative support/rent/computers/IT or capital equipment)
   1. Monitoring and evaluation activities
   1. Feasibility, design and other project preparatory studies
   1. Activities to facilitate Compact implementation as requested by Government & approved by MCC

Comment:

MCC is giving the funds to MCA not the GOSL MCC is going to directly administer funds and it is going to be directly audited by US. What is the role of the GoSL in this bilateral agreement?

Section 2.2 f)

Without limiting the generality of Section 2.2 a) the Government agrees that MCC shall directly administer and manage a portion of the Compact CDF for the purpose of undertaking one or more feasibility studies for the Transport Project, as may be agreed in writing by the Parties (MCC Contracted Compact CDF Activities) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Compact or the Program Implementation Agreement, MCC shall utilize applicable United States Government procurement rules and regulations in any procurement it administers and manages in connection with MCC Contracted Compact CDF Activities and shall disburse Compact CDF from time to time for the MCC Contracted Compact CDF Activities directly to the relevant providers upon receipt of value invoices approved by MCC

Comment:

On what basis is the GoSL agreeing to allow MCC to directly administer and manage Compact CDF?

How much is this ‘portion’ which is not mentioned

How compatible is US Govt procurement rules with procurement rules applied by Sri Lanka?

Sri Lanka follows standard FIDIC procurement rules & regulations – is FIDIC compatible with US Procurement or vice versa?

Has Sri Lanka studied US procurement procedures before accepting that US procurement procedures would apply to MCC Compact Agreement?

If Sri Lankan team did study US procurement against FIDIC procurement – where is that report?

What is this Program Implementation Agreement (PIA) – why is that not made available?

How can an agreement be signed without first looking at PIA clauses which may either conflict or incorporate detrimental acts that must first be looked into before signing a bilateral agreement.

Section 2.4 Disbursement

In accordance with this Compact and the Program Implementation Agreement, MCC shall disburse MCC funding for expenditures incurred in furtherance of the Program (each instance a ‘Disbursement’). Subject to the satisfaction of all applicable conditions precedent, the proceeds of Disbursement shall be made available to the Government at MCC’s sole election, by

1. deposit to one or more bank accounts established by the Government and acceptable to MCC (each a ‘Permitted Account’) or
2. direct payment to the relevant provider of goods, works or service for the implementation of the Program. MCC Funding may be expended only for Program expenditure

Comment:

If this is supposed to be a mutual agreement why is it that GOSL has to simply agree to all that the US Govt through MCC private corporation demands – selection of bank / amounts disbursed etc

Why is the money going to a private bank? Why is it not being designated in the Agreement?

US Govt is disbursing this amount directly to MCA Account in a private bank in a foreign country but according to the Agreement the Finance Ministry on behalf of the GoSL has to be accountable though the funds are directly sent by US Govt to the MCA Account.

What is the role of the Central Bank? Is the money coming through the Central Bank of SL?

Page 6: Section 2.6 (a)

Why is GOSL committing to providing ‘all funds & other resources’ and to take all other actions necessary to carry out the Government’s responsibilities when the grant is supposed to cover entire project?

Our Questions:

• What does GoSL imply by agreeing to provide ALL FUNDS?
• What does the GoSL imply by agreeing to provide OTHER RESOURCES?
• What does the GoSL imply by agreeing to take ALL OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY
• What are the GoSL’s RESPONSIBILITIES under taken by MCC?
• Are GoSL’s RESPONSIBILITIES that which the CITIZENS of Sri Lanka requested? The Parliament of Sri Lanka has requested? The Judiciary of Sri Lanka has approved of? Or are these responsibilities that the MCC officials have pushed through various government officials and subject Ministers as well as private lobby groups tasked to somehow push MCC into reality?
• Shouldn’t the GoSL demand the entire program activity and the powers of the new company BEFORE it agrees to consider signing the MCC?
• It doesn’t matter what the Govt in power is – can any Govt consider signing an agreement with a foreign govt WITHOUT examining the DOCUMENTS and CONSIDERING THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS of signing such?

Section 2.7 Limitations to the use of MCC Funding 

The Government shall ensure that MCC Funding is not used for any purpose that would violate United States law or policy, as specified in this Compact or as further notified to the Government in writing, including but not limited to the following purposes:

1. for assistance, or training of, the military, police, militia, national guard or other quasi-military organization or unit
2. for any activity that is likely to cause a substantial loss of US jobs or a substantial displacement of US production

Comment:

This means that MCC or the United States Government over a period of 5 years in which the Compact is valid can issue demands in writing to which the Government of Sri Lanka is bound to adhere but does not know…can GoSL sign such an open-ended agreement?

Though 2.7a) says that MCC funding cannot be used for National Army/Police etc it is contradicted in the Transport project details where GoSL has to compensate

As per 2.7 b) GoSL (that is the tax payer) has to end up paying for loss of US jobs and US production and it is not even specified how many jobs lost or how much of loss of production!

Section 2.8 Taxes:

1. Unless the Parties specifically agree otherwise in writing, the Government shall ensure that all MCC Funding is free from the payment or imposition of any existing or future taxes, duties, levies, contributions, or other similar charges (but not fees or charges for services that are generally applicable in Sri Lanka, reasonable amount and imposed on a non-discriminatory basis) (Taxes”) of or in Sri Lanka (including any such Taxes imposed by a national, regional, local or other governmental or taxing authority of or in Sri Lanka).

Specifically, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, MCC Funding shall be free from the payment of

1. Any tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, export taxes and other similar charges on any goods, works, or services introduced into Sri Lanka in connection with the Program
2. Sales, tax, value added tax, excise tax, property transfer tax, and other similar charges on any transactions involving goods, works or services in connection with the Program,
3. Taxes and other similar charges on ownership, possession or use of any property in connection with the Program
4. Taxes and other similar charges on income, profits or gross receipts attributable to work performed in connection with the Program, and related social security taxes and other similar charges on all natural or legal persons performing work in connection with the Program, except in the case of this clause (iv): 1) natural persons who are citizens or permanent residents of Sri Lanka & 2) legal persons formed under the laws of Sri Lanka

c)  If a Tax has been paid contrary to the requirements of Section 2.8 a) or Annex V, the Government shall refund promptly to MCC (or to another party as designated by MCC) the amount of such Tax in US dollars or the currency of Sri Lanka within sixty (60) days in writing (whether by MCC or MCA-Sri Lanka) that such Tax has been paid. Failure to refund such amount within the specified time shall result in interest accruing on the unpaid amount in accordance with Section 5.4

Comment:

Our understanding is that MCC is giving $480m to improve our land and transport system. While it is natural that a grant amount is not charged any taxes/levies why is there such an in depth detail that Sri Lanka shall ensure that MCC Funding shall be free from payment of a series of taxes once signed as well as in the future?

So far every clause has restrictions/limitations only on GoSL

Though this Agreement looks simple enough what about the other Cabinet papers passed all linked to the MCC pre-conditions ex: $160m Parcel Fabric Map? Land Surveying given to Trimble Navigation US firm for $154m – there are likely to be many more cabinet approved projects already rolled out as part of MCC preconditions which the public are not privy too. The former Prime Minister/ Minister of Finance has to be held responsible for these secret provisions using tax payers money.

Why is 2.7

c) MCC’s Environmental Guidelines also mentioned in limitation to MCC Funding (Does MCC funding not fund environmental issues)

d) under limitation to MCC Funding referring to paying for abortions (why should such be included?)

ARTICLE 3 IMPLEMENTATION

Section 3.1 Program Implementation Agreement:

The Parties shall enter into an agreement providing further detail on the implementation arrangements, fiscal accountability and disbursement, and use of MCC Funding, among other matters (the Program Implementation Agreement” or PIA”) and the Government shall implement the Program in accordance with this Compact, the PIA, any other Supplemental Agreement, and any Implementation Letter.

Comment:

This means the MCC Agreement is not an exclusive agreement but is linked with 3 other sets of agreements

* Program Implementation Agreement

* Other Supplemental Agreements

* Implementation Letters

Does the GoSL know what these separate Agreements & their contents are?

why are the contents of these not made public?

Section 3.2 Government Responsibilities

1. The Government has principal responsibility for overseeing and managing the implementation of the Program. The designation of MCA-Sri Lanka to act on behalf of the Government contemplated by Section 3.2 b) below does not relieve the Government of any obligations or responsibilities hereunder or under any related agreement, for which the Government remains fully responsible.

• With the prior consent of MCC, the Government shall designate an entity, to be established as a company limited by guarantee under Sri Lanka’s Companies Act No7 of 2007 as the accountable entity to implement the Program and to exercise and perform the Government’s right & obligation to oversee, manage, and implement the Program, including without limitation, managing the implementation of the Projects and their Activities, allocating resources, and managing procurements. Such entity shall be referred to herein as MCA-Sri Lanka” and shall have the authority to act on behalf of the Government with regard to all Program activities. Any provision of this Compact obligation MCA-Sri Lanka to take any action or refrain from taking any action, as the case may be means that the Government shall cause MCA-Sri Lanka to take such action or refrain from taking such action, as the case may be. The Government hereby also designates MCA-Sri Lanka to exercise and perform the Government’s right & obligation to oversee, manage, and implement the activities described in the Amended and Restated Grant & Implementation Agreement, date June 18, 2018 as amended between the Government and MCC (CDF Agreement). MCC hereby acknowledges and consents to the designation in this Section 3.2b)

d)   The Government shall take all necessary or appropriate steps to achieve the Project Objectives during the Compact Term (including without limiting Section 2.6(a) funding all costs that exceed MCC Funding and are required to carry out the terms hereof and achieve such objectives, unless MCC agrees otherwise in writing.

Comment:

This reads like a Treasury operating within a Treasury wherein Sri Lanka’s Finance Ministry is giving full power-of-attorney to a US governmental company registered as a company in Sri Lanka which is superior to a sovereign government or rather the sovereign government is abdicating sovereignty to a US governmental company in Sri Lanka.

Is this not a violation of Article 1, 4, of the Constitution?

Where is this 28 June 2018 Agreement? What are the changes in that agreement?

How can MCA-Sri Lanka a company be given authority to act on behalf of a Government?

According to 3.2 d) the GOSL has to even fund anything exceeding the MCC Funding – and how is GoSL going to generate any income if everything coming into Sri Lanka and going out of Sri Lanka under this project is tax free and without levies while State land ends up privatized leaving GoSL no source of income from sovereign land?

Section 3.3 Policy Performance

In addition to undertaking the specific policy, legal and regulatory reform commitments identified in Annex 1, the Government shall seek to maintain and to improve its level of performance under the policy criteria identified in Section 607 of the MCA Act, and the selection criteria and methodology used by MCC.

Comment:

What is this Section 607 of the MCA Act – who in the GoSL or Ministry of Finance has seen this before agreeing to sign any Agreement?

Section 3.5 Implementation Letters:

From time to time, MCC may provide guidance to the Government in writing on any matters relating to this Compact, MCC Funding or implementation of the Program. The Government shall use such guidance in implementing the Program. The Parties may also issue jointly agreed-upon writings to confirm and record their mutual understanding on aspects related to the implementation of this Compact, the PTA, or other related agreements. Both type of writings are referred to herein as Implementation Letters”.

Comment:

So in other words MCC Agreement is an open-ended agreement because GoSL has to be dancing to the tune of something called ‘Implementation Letters’ which binds the GoSL to act upon them whether these Letters” come daily – weekly – monthly we do not know!

Section 3.6 Procurement and Grants

1. The Government shall ensure that the procurement of all goods, works and services by the Government or any Provider to implement the Program shall be in accordance with MCC’s Program Procurement Guidelines (MCC Program Procurement Guidelines”. Accordingly, neither the Government Procurement Guidelines (2006) nor any other laws or regulations of Sri Lanka regarding procurement shall apply to procurements to implement the Program.

Comment:

What are MCC Program Procurement Guidelines are they the same as US Govt Procurement Guidelines that Sri Lanka was asked to follow in an earlier clause

Why should Sri Lanka Govt Procurement Guidelines be totally abolished simply to satisfy a grant project?

How can Sri Lanka have parallel Procurement Procedures?

Section 3.7 Records: Accounting: Covered Providers: Access

1. Government Books & Records. The Government shall maintain and shall use its best efforts to ensure that all Covered Providers maintain, accounting books, records, documents and other evidence relating to the Program adequate to show, to MCC’s satisfaction, the use of all MCC Funding and the implementation and results of the Program (Compact Records). In addition, the Government shall furnish or cause to be furnished to MCC, upon its request, originals or copies of such Compact Records.
2. Accounting: The Government shall maintain, and shall use its best efforts to ensure that all Covered Providers maintain, Compact Records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles prevailing in the United States, or at the Government’s option and with MCC’s prior written approval, other accounting principles, such as those (i) prescribed by the International Accounting Standards Board or (ii) then prevailing in Sri Lanka. Compact Records must be maintained for at least 5 years after the end of the Compact Term or for such longer period, if any, required to resolve any litigation, claims, or audit findings or any applicable legal requirements.

• Access: Upon MCC’s request, the Government, at all reasonable times, shall permit or cause to be permitted, authorized representatives of MCC, the Inspector General of MCC (Inspector General”) the United States Government Accountability Office, any auditor responsible for an audit contemplated herein or otherwise conducted in furtherance of this Compact, and any agents or representatives engaged by MCC or the Government to conduct any assessment, review or evaluation of the Program, the opportunity to audit, review evaluate or inspect facilities, assets and activities funded in whole or in part by MCC Funding.

Comment:

a) If MCC is setting up a Company in Sri Lanka where funding is directly coming – shouldn’t this Office be keeping a track of all matters related to its Program & Funding? Why should MCC private company have any right to look into Government books?

b) What is this ‘accepted accounting principles prevailing in the United States’ & do these contradict with Sri Lanka?

c) Why should the GoSL permit a private company to inspect its facilitites?

d) If MCA is delegated powers why should MCC appoint a ‘Inspector General of MCC” – how can a US state entity be broaching through records of a sovereign country?

Section 3.8 Audit Reviews:

1. Government Audits: Except as the Parties may agree otherwise in writing, the Government shall, on at least a semi-annual basis, conduct or cause to be conducted, financial audits of all disbursements of MCC Funding covering the period from signing of this Compact until the earlier of the following March 31 or September 30 and covering each six-month period thereafter ending March 31 or September 30, through the end of the Compact Term as well as the one hundred twenty (120) day period following the expiration of the Compact Term. In addition, the Government shall ensure that such audits are conducted by an independent auditor approved by MCC and selected in accordance with MCC’s Guidelines for Financial Audits Contracted by the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s Accountable Entities (the Audit Guidelines”. Audits shall be performed in accordance with such Audit Guidelines, and/or other processes and procedures directed from time to time by MCC. Each audit must be completed and the audit report delivered to MCC no later than ninety (90) days after the applicable audit period, or such other period as the Parties may otherwise agree in writing. Any changes to the period to be audited shall be included in an audit plan developed and implemented by MCA-Sri Lanka in accordance with Audit Guidelines and Program Implementation Agreement and as approved by MCC (the Audit Plan”

• Audits of Other Entities: The Government shall ensure that MCC financed agreements between the Government or any Provider, on the one hand and i) a US non-profit organization on the other hand, state that the US non-profit organization is subject to the applicable audit requirements contained in the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, issued by the US Office of Management & Budget; ii) a US for-profit Covered Provider, on the other hand, state that the US for-profit organization is subject to audit by the applicable US Government agency, unless the Government & MCC agree otherwise in writing; and iii) a non-US Covered Provider (whether a for-profit or nonprofit organization) on the other hand state that the non-US Covered Provider is subject to an audit in accordance with Audit Guidelines.

d)    Audit by MCC: MCC shall have the right to arrange for audits of the Governments use of MCC Funding

e)   Cost of Audits, Reviews or Evaluations: MCC Funding may be used to fund the costs  

      of any audits, reviews or evaluations required under this Compact.

Comment:

a) How can a private company demand how a sovereign government chooses as auditor? Have the Sri Lankan negotiators looked and studied the Audit Guidelines & Program Implementation Agreement before agreeing even in principle to the project? What are these Audit Guidelines and do they conflict with the Government audit guidelines?

b) Why so much of US audit guidelines when money is being disbursed not to GOSL but to MCA Sri Lanka a private company? Have all these areas been studied and looked at by Sri Lankan officials? Well the National Economic Council have made it clear that the Sri Lanka Government should not sign the MCC for socio-economic & political reasons.

d) If MCA is set up to channel funding why should MCC arrange audits of the Government?

e) How much of MCC Funding is allocated for audits and what is the likelihood of GoSL having to pay additionally for audits from its pocket – since it has to be a US approved auditor?

Page 12 & 13 were missing from document released to public. Two pages have later been inserted and improper alignment shows that it is not part of original document.

Page12

Section 3.9         Intellectual Property:

The Government grants to MCC a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide, fully-paid, assignable right and license to practice or have practiced on its behalf (including the right to produce, reproduce, publish, repurpose, use, store, modify or make available) any portion or portions of Intellectual Property as MCC sees fit in any medium, now known or hereafter developed, for any purpose whatsoever.

Comment:

Are we insane to give a foreign our entire intellectual property right – current and future?

Article 5 : TERMINATION-SUSPENCION-EXPIRATION

(ALSO PART OF MISSING PAGE 12)

Section 5.1 Termination: Suspension

1. Either party may terminate Compact without cause by giving the other party 30 days prior written notice. MCC can terminate Compact or MCC Funding without cause in part by giving GoSL 30 days prior written notice
2. MCC may after written notice to GOSL suspend or terminate Compact or MCC Funding in whole or part and any obligation related due to but not limited to the following

i) GoSL failure to comply with obligations and commitments under Compact or any other agreement in relation to Compact or Program

ii) If the GoSL has made any incorrect or misleading data in the Compact/PIA or Supplemental Agreement

iii) an event or series of events that shows Project Objectives are not going to be achieved during Compact term or that the GoSL is not able to perform its obligations under Compact.

iv) MCC Funding violating US Policy

v) GoSL or any other person receiving MCC Funding acting against national security interests of US

vi) If Sri Lanka is ineligible for foreign assistance due to Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

vii) If Govt is engaged in activities inconsistent with MCA Act

vIII) If Govt or person or entity receiving MCC funding is convicted of narcotic offences or engaged in drug drufficking

Comment:

a) While it says either party can terminate Compact giving 30 days written notice – MCC only can terminate giving 30 days notice.

b) Why is all the obligations and commitments on the part of Sri Lanka only?

Section 5.2 Consequences of Termination: Suspension : Expiration

1. If Compact or MCC Funding is suspended or terminated in whole or part – provisions of PIA shall govern the post-suspension, post-termination or post-expiration treatment of MCC Funding – any related Disbursements & Program Assets. If Compact, MCC Funding, PIA, or any other Supplemental Agreement is not suspended or terminated it remains in full force & effect.
2. MCC may reinstate any suspended or terminated MCC Funding

Comment:

This means Sri Lanka if terminating or suspending any MCC related agreement it must ensure all docs are terminated otherwise those agreements remain in force. What are the provisions in the Programme Implementation Agreement – why has this not been made public?

Section 5.4 Late Payment Interest:

If the Government fails to pay any amount under this Compact or the Program Implementation Agreement when due (including amounts under Section 2.8 (c) and 5.3 (a) the Government shall pay interest on such past due amount. Interest shall accrue on such amount at a rate equal to the then current US Treasury Current value of Funds Rate, calculated on a daily basis and a 360-day year from the due date of such payment until such amount is paid in full. Any such payment shall first be credited against interest due and once the interest due amount is extinguished, then payments shall be credited against outstanding principal.

Comment:

Firstly, we are all under the impression that this $480m was an absolute grant with no strings attached. A gift horse we are told – but now Section 5.4 says otherwise. This is what the US envoy told the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce in June 2019 the United States has offered the government and people of Sri Lanka a $480 million grant.  A gift, not a loan, but a gift from the people of the United States.  This is not a loan that might mortgage the future of the country”

https://lk.usembassy.gov/remarks-of-ambassador-alaina-b-teplitz-at-3rd-agm-of-the-ceylon-chamber-of-commerce-sri-lanka-usa-business-council/

What is this amount the Govt is due to give under MCC Compact/PIA?

Section 2.8 c) says MCC Funding cannot be used by the Govt that violates MCC Environmental Guidelines (what are these Guidelines – have the Govt looked at these before agreeing to them)

Section 5.3 a) says if MCC Funding / interest or earnings / any Program Asset is used for any purpose in violation of terms of Compact, GoSL may have to repay MCC in USD the value of misused MCC Funding, interest, earnings or asset plus interest in accordance with Section 5.4 within 30 days after MCC makes formal request from the GoSL. MCC Funding or Program Asset cannot be used to make such payment.

Section 5.5  Survival

This section lists out Govt’s responsibilities which also covers Sections 2.7 (Limitations on use of MCC Funding) Section 2.8 (Taxes), Section 3.7 (Records, Accounting, Covered Providers, Access) Section 3.8 (Audits, Reviews) Section 3.9 (Intellectual Property), Section 5.2 Consequences of Termination, Suspensions or Expirations), Section 5.3 (Refunds, Violation), Section 5.4 (Late Payment Interest) and Section 6.4 (Governing Law)

The Govt is thus bound by Section 6.4

Comment:

Section 6.4 says this Compact is an international agreement & shall be governed by international law. What does this mean? Does Sri Lanka need to amend its laws to be on par with all international laws? There’s a list of international treaties that US has not signed or ratified. Are US laws compatible with international laws if not which applies in case of MCC vis a vis Sri Lanka?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties_unsigned_or_unratified_by_the_United_States

Section 6.4  Governing Law

MCC Agreement is an international agreement and shall be governed by international law

Comment: MCA Sri Lanka the company to be set up after signing MCC is to be legally immune from all wrong doing – but Sri Lankan Government is not immune!

(MCA Sri Lanka can go to courts against Sri Lanka Govt/Citizens but Sri Lankan Govt/Citizens cannot take MCA Sri Lanka to court)  

How can a locally registered company not be subject to Sri Lankan laws but international laws simply because an agreement states so?

There is all possibility of Sri Lanka being taken to international court/tribunal if MCC is signed and GoSL backs out of any commitments or assurances given most of which are revealed earlier are unclear & undisclosed”.

Should any Govt be allowed to commit Sri Lanka to such future international arbitration which will be borne not by Govt making the mistake or by officials signing but ordinary tax payers footing millions of dollars as compensation?

When international law is being applied and Sri Lanka by signing MCC commits to that – no amount of political drama and theatrics will allow Sri Lanka’s government to renegade from the agreement. It will be subject to international law and Sri Lanka if going back on its word will end up in an international court and charged heavily. Do we want to go through with all this just for a paltry $480m when we are likely to end up paying millions more after realizing the dangers or rather facing the dangers once MCC is signed?

Section 6.6 References to MCC Website

References in Compact, PIA or any other agreement entered into in connection with Compact – document, information notified by posting on MCC Website shall be deemed reference to such document or information as updated or substituted on MCC website from time to time.

Comment:

Does this mean that Sri Lanka will have to place someone 24×7 to be looking at the MCC website to see what updates have been placed as that is deemed as latest updated information!

Section 6.8 MCC Status

MCC is a US govt corporation acting on behalf of the US Govt in its implementation of this Compact.

MCC & the US Govt assume no liability for any claims or loss arising out of activities or omission under this Compact. The Govt waives any and all claims against MCC or the US Govt or any current or former officer or employees of MCC or the US Govt for all loss, damage, injury or death arising out of activities or omissions under this Compact and agrees that it shall not bring any claim or legal proceeding of any kind against any of the above entities or persons for any such loss, damage , injury or death. The Govt agrees that MCC or the US Govt or any current or former officer or employees of MCC or the US Govt shall be immune from the jurisdiction of all courts and tribunals of Sri Lanka or any claim or loss arising out activities or omissions under this Compact.

Comment:

Section 6.8 clearly establishes that MCC is a US govt entity and forming MCA would be allowing US to open a US govt office in Sri Lanka allowing it to even audit Sri Lankan Govt. What’s more as per this section MCC & US Govt are immune from all liabilities including loss, damage, injury or death in any court or tribunals in Sri Lanka.

So where is the law of reciprocity as applicable under international law which Section 6.4 refers to?

This immunity taken together with immunity given to US troops, personnel and contractors under ACSA and SOFA mean that US can do anything in Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka cannot take any legal action against it. For $480 is this worth it?

http://www.neelakandan.lk/Compendium%20of%20Law/Laws%20of%20Property%20and%20Contracts.php

see Unfair Contract Terms Act 26 of 1997 imposes limits on the extent to which civil liability for breach of Contract or for negligence or other breach of Duty can be avoided by Means of Contract terms and otherwise.  

Article 7 ENTRY INTO FORCE

7.1 Domestic Procedures:

The Government shall proceed in a timely manner to complete all of its domestic requirements for this Compact and PIA to enter into force. The Parties understand that, consistent with Sri Lankan law, prior to the Government sending the letter described in Section 7.3, this Compact is to be submitted to and enacted by the Parliament of Sri Lanka.

Comment:

We are under the impression $480 is a gift by US to the people of Sri Lanka, if so why does the GoSL have to complete all of its domestic requirements to enforce Compact & PIA. What are these ‘domestic requirements’?

What is this letter that the GoSL has to send described in Section 7.3?

If MCC is giving a gift of $480m why should the MCC Agreement have to be enacted by Parliament?

According to the Congressional Notification Transmittal Sheet dated 25^th April 2019 requests funds to be made ready in 15 days – this was days after Easter Sunday terrorist attacks.

$480m is to be given across 5 years

Land Project: The Government has prepared two draft legislative acts that seek to (1) convert permits and grants to State Lands to absolute land grants that allow permit-holders to sell or lease their land or use it as collateral with few restrictions, and (2) create a data base that gathers information on State Lands and facilitates investment in underutilized State Lands. Prior to enactment of these acts, the Government must address legislative gaps focused on decentralizing authority for the approval of absolute land grants, simplifying procedures, and ensuring gender equality in the issuance of absolute land grants, among other issues.”

Clearly indicates what MCC plan is

https://assets.mcc.gov/content/uploads/cn-042519-sri-lanka-intent-to-sign.pdf

Further observations is the circulated map of an economic corridor which had been part of a MCC Presentation shown by MCC in Temple Trees where in the said economic corridor (5miles to left & 5 miles to right of railway line gives extent of 1.2million acres (200miles x 10miles) is to cover the very districts that the MCC is proposing to digitalize and where the State is said to be currently rolling out accelerated title registrations in. With railways leased out via State Land Bank Act through the megapolis ministry the MCC or US allies can lease area for 100 + 100 years. The previous government has already given 1million title deeds to people and in their poverty and loan hardship the opportunity and risk to sell their lands to foreign investors is a threat to Sri Lanka’s national security, agriculture and livelihood.

Leaving all of the detrimental clauses and concerns aside, what is even more worrying is Sri Lanka’s own land laws still subject to colonial statutes, sudden and impulsive cabinet changes, circular approvals, provincial council malpractices etc all of which are undermining Sri Lanka’s ability to uphold its sovereignty vis a vis foreign agreements that seek to establish ventures in Sri Lanka. Should Sri Lanka not address these internal issues first before going and landing up with bigger issues and international litigation ignoring such.

Shenali D Waduge

07/01/20 Lord Naseby in the Queens Speech debate in the UK House of Lords

My Lords, for 23 years, I was a Member of Parliament for the marginal seat of Northampton South. What a joy it is to see the majority in that marginal seat move from 1,000 to 4,400—it quadrupled. The reason for that was not just what was done on the ground but a reflection of the British people’s faith in the determination and leadership of our Prime Minister. I pay particular tribute to him for what he has done for our country.

It is also 23 years that I have been in your Lordships’ House, on the Back Benches. In that time, I have taken an interest in south Asia and a specific interest in a country that I first worked in when I had nothing to do with politics, which was then called Ceylon. It is a great friend of this country. Thousands of its people were killed over the two world wars. It was one of the few countries to speak up in our favour over the Falklands. It faced a huge problem of a quasi 30-year war against the Tamil Tigers, which became a real war on 1 January 2009, covered by the international humanitarian law conditions, and lasted until 18 May. I have in my possession the heavily redacted reports from Colonel Gash describing what happened on the ground.

A year after that, the UN decided to set up a three-man mission to investigate. It did not take evidence on the ground in Sri Lanka but asked for submissions to be made. Those submissions have never been made public and are covered by a 30-year rule, so nobody knows what they really were. However, the UN slowly took a greater interest in what was happening in Sri Lanka and the net result was that, in March 2012, it set up a body under the UNHCR that is chaired today by the United Kingdom. Its role is to promote reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka—I make no argument about that. However, this has to happen in the context of the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.

It started in March 2012 and here we are, eight years further on. Has Sri Lanka co-operated? Yes. Some 90% of the land that was used by the military during the war has been given back to the private sector. De-mining has nearly ended, with a big thank you to all involved. Around 300,000 people have been rehoused since the war. Infrastructure has been restored, and so on.

I have one further point. There are complaints about torture. I have seen the ICRC three times and asked it whether it has seen torture in Sri Lanka. Every time, the answer has been clear: no. It is fake news. Today, there is a shadow. That is the claim that the UN started with—of 40,000 killed.

I have spent 10 years looking at the reports by Gash and the Tamil university teachers, at the census and at all the coverage I could find. The net result is about 6,000 people killed, of which a quarter are Tamil Tigers. Despite all this, we now find that the UNHCR has decided that it wants to try to get war crimes pinned on the Sri Lankan army. Yet the reports of Colonel Gash made it clear that that army behaved admirably and looked after the civilians. If it had wanted to knock them off, then over 295,000 would not have been safely brought across the lines, would they? I believe that the time has come for the March review, when it takes place, to be the wind-up time for that phase of life in Sri Lanka.

We now have two new leaders: one here in the UK full of drive, determination and commitment; there is an almost identical philosophy in the newly elected Gotabaya Rajapaksa, a man of proven leadership and ability, with an agenda to keep the peace and have an inclusive policy for minorities, et cetera. I see huge opportunities for trade. My noble friend Lord Sheikh raised some of them and I concur. There is a huge opportunity, but only if the UNHCR project is wound up. I say to this House and to my noble friend on the Front Bench that this is the year for the UK to have faith in Sri Lanka and its newly elected executive President.”

In the same Queens Speech debate, Lord Mohamed Sheikh: 

“I have spoken on several occasions, and led a debate in your Lordships’ House, on the importance of the Commonwealth. I shall speak particularly on one Commonwealth country: Sri Lanka. Britain has vibrant Sri Lankan communities which have made enormous contributions to this country. Sri Lanka’s location at the heart of the Indian Ocean means it is uniquely positioned to serve as a regional centre for trade and services. The World Bank has recently classified Sri Lanka as an upper middle-income country. FTAs are in place with India, Pakistan and Singapore. Comprehensive trade agreements are also being negotiated with China, Thailand and Bangladesh. It is worth noting that businesses based in Sri Lanka can market their products and services to 3.5 billion people on preferential terms. Through the Port City Colombo project, Sri Lanka is creating a new international financial centre that will function under its own jurisdiction. Will the Government be providing expertise or facilitating the adoption of an English legal framework for this region? I would like to see us investing more in Sri Lanka and expanding our trade with that country.”

උපුටා ගැන්ම මව්බිම

විසිඑක්වැනි සියවසේ දෙවැනි දශකය නිමාවී තෙවැනි දශකය උදාකරමින් 2020 අප රටට උදාවූයේ, ශ්‍රී ලංකා ජනරජයේ ‘ව්‍යවස්ථාදායකය’, ‘විධායකය’ හා ‘අධිකරණය’ යන තුන් අෑඳුතු බලාධිකාරියේ ‘ව්‍යවස්ථාදායකය’ හා ‘විධායකය’ යන ද්විත්වයම පුපුරුවා හරිමින් ‘ව්‍යවස්ථාදායකය (පාර්ලිමේන්තුව) හරහා පැමිණ විධායකයේ බලගතු තනතුරු දැරූ හිටපු ඇමැතිවරුන් දෙදෙනකුම අධිකරණය විසින්ම දෙන ලද නියෝග මඟින් බන්ධනාගාර සිර භාරයට පත්වෙමිනි. ඒ ඉකුත් සතියේය. 

මේ සතිය උදාවූයේ තුන් අෑඳුතු බලාධිකාරියේ ඉතිරිව තිබූ ‘අධිකරණය’ද පුපුරුවා හරිමින් විනිසුරුවරියක් හා විනිසුරුවරුන් කිහිපදෙනකුම හිටපු නියෝජ්‍ය ඇමැතිවරයකු සමඟ සිදුකරන දුරකථන සංවාද මඟින් ප්‍රතිවාදී කඳවුරේ දේශපාලනඥයන් හිරේ – විලංගුවේ දැමීම සඳහා සිදුකෙරෙන කතා බහ ඇතුළත් හඬපට අතරින් කිහිපයක් ජනතාව අතරට පැමිණීමත් සමඟමය.

විනිසුරුවරුන්ගේ රෙදි ගැලවේ” වැනි ශීර්ෂ පාඨ සහිතව ඒ පිළිබඳව පුවත් පළවීමට තරම් තත්ත්වය අවාසනාවන්ත වීම ගැන අධිකරණ  ක්ෂේත්‍රයන් සමඟ සමීප සබඳතාවක් පවත්වන මා බොහෝ සෙයින් කම්පා වන්නේ සිය ධුරයේ ගෞරවය රකිමින් අධිකරණයේ පරම පූජනීයත්වය රකින බහුතරයක් විනිසුරුතුමන්ලා හා තුමියන්ලා හට මෙමඟින් සිදුවූ අපහසුතාව පිළිබඳව හදපත්ලෙන්ම හටගන්නා වේදනාව නිසාවෙනි. 

හිටපු පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රිවරයකු වන දුමින්ද සිල්වා වරදකරු කරන තීන්දුව ලිව් විනිසුරුවරිය හා රන්ජන්ගේ කතාබහ ඇතුළත් හඬපටය ඉමහත් ආන්දෝලනයට ලක්වී තිබේ.

මහාධිකරණ විනිසුරුවරියක් වූ පද්මිණී රණවක හා පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රි රන්ජන් රාමනායක අතර පැවැති දුරකථන සංවාදයෙන් බිඳක් මෙන්න. 

විනිසුරුවරිය – හෙලෝ

රන්ජන් – හෙලෝ මැතිනිය කොහොමද?

විනිසුරුවරිය – ඇමැතිතුමා සොරි, මම දැනුයි ගෙදර ආවේ.

රන්ජන් – අනේ මම ජනාධිපතිතුමා ළඟ ඉඳගෙනයි ඒ කතා කළේ.

විනිසුරුවරිය – අනේ ඇත්තමද?

රන්ජන් – පාර්ලිමේන්තු ගිහිල්ලා එතුමත් ආවා. රූම් එක ළඟ ඉඳලා කතාකළේ. හෙටත් හම්බ වෙනවා. අගමැතිතුමත් හම්බ වෙයි. ඔබතුමිය කියන්නේ අගමැතිතුමාට කියන එක වඩා හොඳයි කියල නේද?

විනිසුරුවරිය – මම මෙහෙම වැඩක් කළා. අපේ එක්කෙනෙක්ට කියලා මම අග්‍රවිනිශ්චයකාරතුමාට ලියුමක් ඇරියා. මම රිටයර් වෙනවා ඩිසෙම්බර්, මම අවුරුදු 28ට නිවාඩු අරන් තියෙන්නේ දවස් 02ක් විතරයි කියලා. මගේ වැඩ ගැනත් කියලා. මගේ උසස්වීම ගැන.

මම ඒකෙ කොපි එකක් මෛත්‍රිපාල සිරිසේන මැතිතුමාටත් යවනවා. 

රන්ජන් – කවුද ශ්‍රී  පවන්ද ඉන්නේ?

විනිසුරුවරිය – නෑ. නෑ. ඩෙප්, එයාටත්, ඒකෙ පිටපතක් රෙජිස්ටර් පෝස්ට් ඇරියා.

රන්ජන් – ආ. රයිට් රයිට් ඒක අගමැතිතුමාටත් යවනවා නේද?

විනිසුරුවරිය – අගමැතිතුමාට යවන එක හරි නැහැ නේද? එයා කවුන්සිල් එකේ ඉන්නවා නේ. 

රන්ජන් – ආ රයිට්, රයිට්, හොඳයි හොඳයි. විනිසුරුවරිය. එයාට කටින්ම කියන එක හොඳයි නේද?

රන්ජන් – මටත් එහෙමනම් කොපියක් එවනවාද?

විනිසුරුවරිය – කොපි එක කොහොමද එවන්නේ?

රන්ජන් – මගේ ඊමේල් එකට දාන්නකෝ.

විනිසුරුවරිය – නෑ. එහෙම දාන්න හොඳ නෑ. මම කොපි එකක් මගේ මහත්තය අතේ එවන්නද?

රන්ජන් – හරි හරි එවන්න. මාදිවෙල මන්ත්‍රි නිවාසයට ඇවිල්ල මට අතටම දෙන්න කියන්න. මම ඒකත් අරගෙන ගිහිල්ලා අගමැතිතුමාට කතා කරන්නම්. 

විනිසුරුවරිය – මාදිවෙල මන්ත්‍රි නිවාස?

රන්ජන් – මාදිවෙල කෝට්ටේ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රි නිවාස

විනිසුරුවරිය – එතකොට අංකය?

රන්ජන් – අංක 5 ඒ

විනිසුරුවරිය – කොයි වෙලාවෙද ගෙදර ඉන්නෙ?

රන්ජන් – මට මේ නම්බර් එකට කෝල්කරලා ලෑස්තිවෙලා එන්න කියන්න. මං කොහොමහරි අතට ගන්නම්. අද පුළුවන්ද මැතිනියට ඒක?

විනිසුරුවරිය -අද ද?

රන්ජන් – හෙට උදේ මම ජනාධිපතිතුමා හම්බ වෙනවා.

විනිසුරුවරිය – අද ගෙදර ඉන්නවාද?

රන්ජන් – හෙට දුන්නත් කමක් නෑ.

විනිසුරුවරිය – මහත්තය කිව්වා අද දෙන්නම් කියලා. මං එන එක හරි නෑ නේ?

රන්ජන් – ඔබතුමිය පේන්න එන්න එපා!

විනිසුරුවරිය – ඒක තමයි.

රන්ජන් – මහත්තයා නැතිව ඩ්‍රයිවර් එව්වත් කමක් නැහැ.

විනිසුරුවරිය – ඩ්‍රයිවර් – ඉතිං මං තමයි ගෙදර ඉන්නෙ. මං කොහොම හරි මේක එවන්න බලන්නම් කොපි එකක්. සිරිසේන ජනාධිපතිතුමාගෙ එකත් එහෙනම් ඔබතුමාටම දෙන්නද?

රන්ජන් – ඒක රෙජිස්ටර් පෝස්ට් කරන්න. ඒක යවන ගමන් මගේ අතට දෙන්න ඒකෙ කොපියක්. 

විනිසුරුවරිය – සී.ජේ.ට යවපු එකේ කොපියකුත් දෙන්නද? කොපි කීයක්ද ඕන? දැන්  ඕන එකක්ද දෙකක්ද?

රන්ජන් – ඔබතුමිය හිතන්නේ අගමැතිතුමාට දුන්නොත් හොඳ නැද්ද?

විනිසුරුවරිය –  කමක් නැද්ද දුන්නට?

රන්ජන් – දෙන්න, දෙන්න, ඔබතුමිය වැරදි වැඩක් නෙවෙයිනේ කරන්නේ. ඔබතුමිය ලංකාව වෙනුවෙන් ශේ‍ර්ෂ්ඨ තීන්දු ගත්ත කෙනෙක් නේ.

විනිසුරුවරිය – මම ඒ තීන්දු දෙකක් ලිව්වා. මං මෙහෙම දුන්නා. චන්ද්‍රිකා මැඩම්ගේ එකත් දුන්නා කියලා මම ලිව්වා. 

රන්ජන් – වෝටර්ස් ඒජ් එකයි. දුමින්දගේ එකයි ලිව්වා නේද?

විනිසුරුවරිය – භාරත ලක්ෂ්මන්ගෙ එකයි. ඒ දෙක ලිව්වා. මම අර පාරමී කුලතුංග ඒවා නම් ලිව්වේ නැහැ. ‘නෝ ලිමිට්’ බෝම්බ ගහපුවා. ඒවා ලිව්වේ නැහැ. ‘හයිකෝට්’ එකේ කරපු වැඩ ටික විතරයි ලිව්වේ. ඉතින් කවුරු එයිද දැන් අධිකරණයටද?

රන්ජන් – තලතා එයි කියල තමයි බලාපොරොත්තුව

විනිසුරුවරිය – තලතා, එයාට පුළුවන්ද?

රන්ජන් – ඒක තමා වැඩේ. හැබැයි ටෆ් ගෑනි බය නම් නෑ.

විනිසුරුවරිය – ඇත්තද

රන්ජන් – එයාගේ, ෆොරීන් එම්ක්ලොයිටන්ට් කරන්නෙ

විනිසුරුවරිය – එයා හොඳයිද?

රන්ජන් – නැත්නම් ජයම්පති වික්‍රමරත්න, තාම අපි දන්නෙ නෑ කවුද කියල.

විනිසුරුවරිය – කවුරුහරි හොඳ කෙනෙක් ආවොත්, හොඳට ඔක්කොම හරියනවා නම් තමයි හොඳ?

රන්ජන් – විජයදාස මහත්තය නම් ඩබල්ගේම් එකක් නේ ගැහැව්වෙ.

විනිසුරුවරිය – ඔව්. ඒක තමයි. හරි වැරදියි ඒවා නම්. ඇත්තට මම ටික දෙනා එක්කයි කතා කරන්නෙ. ඔබතුමා ඒ එක්කෙනෙක්.

රන්ජන් – අනේ බොහොම ස්තූතියි. 

විනිසුරුවරිය – බයයි. මට විශ්වාසයකුත් නෑ අනෙක් අය

රන්ජන් – ලොකු කේ‍රඩිට් එකක් ඒක

විනිසුරුවරිය – හුඟක් අය විශ්වාස කරන්නත් බෑ. එදා මං චුට්ටක් සැරට කතා කළාට සමාවෙන්න.

රන්ජන් – අනේ නෑ. නෑ. කොහෙද සැරට කතා කළේ?

විනිසුරුවරිය – මගේ හිතේ අමාරුවට, අපට වෙන අසාධාරණය නිසයි මං එහෙම කතා කළේ?

රන්ජන් – ඒක ඇත්ත. ඒක ගණන් ගන්න එපා!

ඊළඟ දිනයේ සංවාදය

විනිසුරුවරිය – ඇමැතිතුමා, කතා කරන්න පුළුවන්ද?

රන්ජන් – පුළුවන්, මම මේ මඩුපල්ලි ඇවිත් ඉන්නෙ

විනිසුරුවරිය – මට හරි අසාධාරණයක් වුණේ. මම දැන් ගෙදර යනවා. දෙසැම්බර් මාසේ මම ඉන්නේ ලිස්ට් ඒකේ 9 වැනියට මේකයි, අභියාචනාධිකරණයට තමයි යන්න ඕන. දැන් වේකන්සි එකක් තියෙනවා. මෙතන අපේ අසාධාරණය කවුරුවත් කතා කරන්නේ නෑ. අපිට හරි අසාධාරණේ. අපි වැඩකරන  ජජ්ස්ලට හරියට හොයල තනතුරු දෙන්න කියන්න. ඒ ඇති. මං මොනතරම් සර්විස් එකක් කළාද? ඇයි මට අභියාචනාධිකරණයට යන්න හදා නොදෙන්නේ. මං අද හරි හිතේ අමාරුවෙන් කතා කරන්නේ. අවුරුදු 27ක් මගේ සර්විස් එක. 

රන්ජන් – විජයදාස රාජපක්ෂ විශ්වාස කරන්න අමාරුද?

විනිසුරුවරිය – නෑ. එයාට මම කිව්වා. එයා කියනවා අනේ කොහොමද කරන්නේ කියලා. එයාට ජජ්ස්ලාට ආසම නැහැ. එයා ඩිපාර්ට්මන්ට් එකටම තමයි කත් ඇද්දෙ. එහෙන් පුළුවන් තරම් පැටෙව්වා මේකට. අපි පල්ලෙහාට ගියා. නැත්නම් මම මෙලහටත් අභියාචනාධිකරණයේ ඉන්න ඕන. ඇත්තටම මමත් දුමින්දව නිදහස් කළා නම් මොකද වෙන්නේ. ඇත්තටම බලන්න අපේ නඩුව විතරයිනේ ඉවරකළේ. ඒකත් මගේම උනන්දුවෙන්නේ ඉවර කළේ. මේ ආණ්ඩුව ආවට පස්සේ තාජුදීන්ගේ නඩුවවත්’ මොකවත් ඇහුවේ නැහැනේ?

රන්ජන් – නූරිවත්තේ අතකොටාගේ නඩුව ඉවර කළා නේද?

විනිසුරුවරිය – නෑ. මම ඒක කළේ නෑ. මම කළේ චන්ද්‍රිකා බණ්ඩාරනායකගෙ අර ටවුන්හෝල් බෝම්බ බ්ලාස්ට් කේස් එකයි, දුමින්දගෙ කේස් එකයි තමයි මං කළේ. චන්ද්‍රිකාගේ නඩුව කවුරුවත් ඇහුවේ නෑ බයට. ගිය ආණ්ඩුවෙන් තමයි ගත්ත ගමන් අහලා ඉවර කළේ. අපි එහෙම වැඩ කරලා නිකං ගෙදර යනවා. 

රන්ජන් – ඔබතුමිය රිටයර් වෙන්න තියෙන්නෙ නොවැම්බර්ද?

විනිසුරුවරිය – මම දෙසැම්බර් 1 වැනිදා ගෙදර යනවා. ඒ කියන්නේ නොවැම්බර් 30 රිටයර් වෙන්නෙ. දැන් වේකන්සි එකක් තියෙනවා. අයෙත් වේකන්සියක් එන්නේ නොවැම්බර්. අඩුගණනේ මගේ රිටයර්මන්ට් එක බලලා මට දෙන්න කියන්න. 

රන්ජන් – මේ වේකන්සියට ඉඩක් තියනවාද?

විනිසුරුවරිය – වේකන්සි එකක් තියෙනවා. මොකද සුප්‍රීම් කෝට් වලින් එක්කෙනෙක් ගියා. ඒ වේකන්සියට අභියාචනාධිකරණයේ එක් කෙනෙක් දාලා එතැනට මාව අනේ පුළුවන් නම් දාලා දෙන්නකෝ.” අනේ පුළුවන්නම් මට ඒක අරන් දෙන්න කෝ.”

රන්ජන් – හොඳයි මම එච්.ඊ.”ට කියන්න ඕනෙ අභියාචනාධිකරණයේ වේකන්සියක් තියෙනවා ඒකට පද්මිණී රණවක ගුණතිලක මැතිනිය දාලා දෙන්න කියලා කිව්වම හරිනේ?

විනිසුරුවරිය – අනේ මම කිව්ව කියලනම් කියන්න එපා. වැඩ කරපු හැටි බලන්න කියන්න. ලෝයර්ස්ලා දන්නවා මම කොච්චර වැඩ කරනවද කියලා. මං හිතේ අමාරුවටයි අද කතා කළේ. සොරි කරදර කළාට.

රන්ජන් – මැඩම් අසනීප වෙන්න එපා. මං මේක භාරගත්තා. මම එච්.ඊ.” ළඟ ඉඳගෙන මේක කතා කරනවා. 

විනිසුරුවරිය – පුළුවන්නම් රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහට කියන්න එච්.ඊ.” නම් විශ්වාස කරන්න බෑ මට නම්.

තවත් හඬ පටයක ඇතුළත්ව තිබූ කොටසක්

විනිසුරුවරිය – හලෝ

රන්ජන් – හෙලෝ, මැතිනිය ඇහෙනවද ෆෝන් එක?

විනිසුරුවරිය – ඇහෙනව ඇමැතිතුමා කියන්න

රන්ජන් – ජනාධිපතිතුමා කිව්වා ‘අනේ පොඩි ළමයෙක් වගේනෙ කතා කරන්නේ’ කියලා.

විනිසුරුවරයා – මං හොඳමට බයත් වෙලා හිටියේ. මට පුරුදුත් නැහැ. අනෙක් එක කොහේදි හරි ජනාධිපතිතුමා කිව්වොතින් එහෙම මම මෙහෙම කිව්වා කියලා මගේ අවුරුදු 28ම කළ සේවය ඉවරයිනේ.

රන්ජන් – නෑ නේද? ඉතින් වරදක් නෙමෙයි නේ ඔබතුමිය කරන්නේ. ආයෙ සේවයක් කරන්න නේ ඉල්ලන්නේ. මේක ක්‍රයිම් එකක්වත්, හොරකමක්වත්, වංචාවක්වත් නෙමෙයිනේ.

විනිසුරුවරිය – මට කියාගන්න බැරිවුණා හරියට. දැන් මම මහත්තයට කිව්වම මට එයා හොඳටම බැන්නා. අවුරුදු 28ක් සේවය කළා ලබන මාසේ රිටයර් වෙන්නයි ඉන්නේ කියලා කියන්න මට කටට ආවේ නෑනේ. 

රන්ජන් – දැන් හොඳම දේ ආයෙත් එක දිගට කන්ටැක්ට් තියාගන්න. මං හොඳට පෝර දාලා වැඩේ හැදුවා. ඒකට ෆවුන්ඩේෂන් එක. 

රන්ජන් – මම කිව්වෙ ඔබතුමිය කුඩුකාරයා ගැන තීන්දුව දුන්නු නිසා ඔබතුමියගේ පුතාටත් තර්ජන තියෙනවා. ඒ හින්දා ඔහුට ආරක්ෂාවක් දෙන්නත් ඕනෑ කියලා.

විනිසුරුවරිය – ඇත්තටම කුඩුකාරයන්ගෙන් තර්ජනයක් වුණේ නෑනේ. පුතාට මරණ තර්ජනයක් කරලත් නැහැනේ.

මගේ ළඟ තමයි තිබ්බේ‘දිවිනැඟුම’ නඩුවයි, ගම්මන්පිලගෙ නඩුවයි. මිනිහට ලක්ෂ 5ක් ඇප නියම කළා කියල මිනිහා මට හොඳටම බැනලා ජජ් දුන්නේ ලක්ෂයයිනේ. ඔය දෙකම ජනවාරියෙ ඉඳලා අහන්න දාලා තිබ්බේ. මාව ට්‍රාන්න්සර් කළානේ. මම ඇහුවනම් දෙන්නේ ඔයිටත් අන්ත තීන්දුවක් තමයි. 

රන්ජන් – මං ගියේ වෙන වැඩකට ජනාධිපතිතුමත් එක්ක කතා කරන්නයි. ඔබතුමිය ගැන මතක් වෙලා ලියාගෙන ටක් ගාලා කිව්වා. මොකද හොඳ මූඩ් එකේ තමයි හිටියේ. යූඑන් එකට දැම්මනේ අපි එක්කොමලා කට්ටියම තුන්වැනිදා.

දැන් හොඳම වැඩේ තමයි කොහොම හරි මැතිනිය ඕක වුණාට පස්සේ මේවා වෙලා වැඩක් නෑ කියල තවත් කල් ඇර ඇර ඉන්නෙ නැතුව දැන්ම ඉඳලාම එතුමා එක්ක කන්ටැක්ට් තියාගන්න. ආයේ සිංහලෙන් ලියුමක් ලියලා කියන්න ඔබතුමා එක්ක දුරකථනයෙන් සාකච්ඡා කළ පරිදි මම මේ වගේ නඩු තීන්දු ගණනාවක්ම දුන්නා, අවුරුදු 28ක්ම සේවය කළා. මම කැමැතියි දිගටම මගේ සේවය රටට ලබාදෙන්න කියලා. අපි ලියුමක් යවමු.

විනිසුරුවරිය – හා: හා..

රන්ජන් – මේක ලැජ්ජ වෙන්න දෙයක් නෙවෙයි. රටේ ප්‍රධාන පුරවැසියාටනේ අපි ලියන්නේ. අපි ගෙයක් ඉල්ලනවා නම් වැරදියි. 

විනිසුරුවරිය:- මං මේ අවුරුද්දටම එකම එක නිවාඩුවයි යන්නේ. දිගටම මිනීමරුම් නඩු තීන්දු දීගෙන යනවා. ඔබතුමා හොයලා බලන්නකෝ.

රන්ජන්:- ඔබතුමියගෙන් මං අහන්නයි හිටියේ. කොහොමද අර සිල්රෙදි නඩුවේ තීන්දුව දුන්න ඒ මනුස්සයා කියලා.

විනිසුරුවරිය :- හරි ෂෝක්. හරි හොඳයි. එයා මටත් කතා කරලා ස්තුති කළා.

මට හරියට දුක හිතුණා, මගෙන් ගියාට බැසිල්ගෙයි ගම්මන්පිලගෙයි නඩු දෙකම. ඒ දෙකම තිබුණෙ මං ගාව.

රන්ජන් :- හොඳයි මැතිනිය මොනවා හරි තිබුණොත් කතාකරන්නකෝ. 

විනිසුරුවරිය :-අනේ බොහොම ස්තූතියි කරන උදව්වලට. පරිස්සමෙන් මං ගැන කියනකොට. 

තවත් සංවාද දෙකක්

තවත් විනිසුරුවරුන් 2 දෙනකු සමඟ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රි රන්ජන් රාමනායක දුරකථන ඔස්සේ පවත්වන ලද රහස් සංවාද දෙකක්ද මාධ්‍ය හරහා අනාවරණය වූයේ ඊළඟ පැයේදීය.

රන්ජන් :- හලෝ!

හේමපාල විනිසුරුවරයා :- ගුඩ් මෝනිං.

රන්ජන් :- කරදර කරනවාට සමාවෙන්න. 

විනිසුරු :- අනේ නෑ නෑ කියන්න කියන්න. මට ඔබතුමත් එක්ක කතා කරන්න ඕන. ඒත් අපිට කල් තියෙනවා ඒකට.

රන්ජන් :- නොවැම්බර් 8

විනිසුරුවරයා:- ඊට ඉස්සෙල්ලා අපි හම්බවුණා නම් වඩා හොඳයි නේද?

රන්ජන් :- ආණ්ඩුවම බේරාගන්න පුළුවන්. ඔබතුමාට කියන තැනකට වඳින්නම්. ඕන උදව්වක් අරන් දෙන්නම්. පුළුවන් නම් මුළු ආණ්ඩුවම බේරන්න. කවුරුත් නෑ නේද ඔතැන. 

විනිසුරු :- නෑ.නෑ. මම මගේ වාහනේ හරවන ගමන් උසාවියට. අපි මෙහෙම කරමු.

රන්ජන් :- පැයක් ඇතුළට දැම්මත් ඇති. පුළුවන්ද ප්‍රතිපාදන තියෙනවාද?

විනිසුරු :- අපේ මැඩම් අතේ තමයි තියෙන්නේ. පොඩි දෙයක් තියෙනවා සහතිකයක් දමා ගන්න.

රන්ජන් :- මැඩම්ට  කතා කළා මම දැන්.

විනිසුරු :- අන්න හරි. අන්න හරි.

රන්ජන් :- එයා අතේද තියෙන්නේ වැඩේ? 

විනිසුරු :- එයාම ඇවිල්ල ඉල්ලීම කළා නම් තමයි හොඳ. මොකද ඒ අය ඇවිත් කියනවා ඇප දීමට විරුද්ධ නෑ කියලා. එතකොට ඒ විධියට පැමිණිල්ලෙන්ම කියනකොට ඇපදීමට විරුද්ධ නැහැ කියලා එහෙම කියපු හැටියෙ මං අසරණ වෙනවා.

ඉතිහාසයේම එහෙමයි වෙන්නේ. ගෝඨලාගේ එකෙක් වුණේ කෙළින්ම නීතිපති එකෙන් ඇවිත් කියනවා. ‘අපි ඇප දීමට විරුද්ධ නෑ’ කියලා. 

රන්ජන් :- අන්න ඒකනේ වැඩේ. වෙනත් පාර්ශ්වයකින් බැරිද ඒක කරන්න?

විනිසුරු :- අපි චුට්ටකට මේ ගැන කතා කරගමු. කොහොමද මේක අපි ඔක්කොමලා බේරිලා අධිකරණෙත් බේරන්නත් එපැයි මට. මොකද මේ ආයතනයට තියෙන මහජන විශ්වාසය ගැනත් හිතන්න එපායැ. අනෙක් ඒවාට ඇප දීම කරනවා නම්, ඇයි මේකට විතරක් මෙහෙම කළේ කියලා හිතනවා. එතකොට ආණ්ඩුවෙ වුවමනාවට තමයි කළේ කියලා හිතනවා. ඒක ආණ්ඩුවටත් හොඳ නැහැ නේ. එකපාරටම මිනිස්සුත් කණපිට පෙරළෙනවා.

රන්ජන් :- ඒක ඇත්ත. ඒක ඇත්ත.

විනිසුරු :- ඒ හින්දා ඒක සියලුදෙනාම බේරෙන විධියට, පැමිණිල්ලෙන් ඇප දීමට විරුද්ධ වෙන හේතුව මෙන්න මේකයි කියලා ඒගොල්ලට කියන්න ඕනෑ.

රන්ජන් : ඔව්. මේගොල්ලො දිගටම ගහන්නේ අපි පළිගන්නවා කියලනේ. මෙයා පොඩ්ඩක් එහෙම දැම්මොත් අපි ඔක්කොම බේරිලා.

විනිසුරු :- හරි මට තේරෙනවා. මට තේරෙනවා. 

රන්ජන් :- මොකද එතකොට පළිගැනීමක් පේන්නෙ නෑනේ. මොකුත් කියන්න බෑ. කට්ටියත් හිර කරලා. 

විනිසුරු :- එහෙනම් කරන්න ඕනේ අපේ මැඩමුයි ඔබතුමයි, මායි චුට්ටක් අපි කොන්ෆරන්ස් හරි දාලා අපිට කතා කරන්න පුළුවන්නේ. අන්න එහෙම එකක් හරි කරමු.

රන්ජන් :- මට මොනවද කරන්න පුළුවන්. මම එන්නම් ඉස්සරහට. මට බයවෙන්න දෙයක් නැහැනේ?

විනිසුරු :- හරියට හරි, ඔබතුමා අන්න ඒ වගේ දෙයක් කළා නම් ඇවිල්ලා.

විනිසුරු :- එතකොට පැමිණිලිකරු නේද? ඔබතුමානේ පැමිණිලිකරු?

රන්ජන් :- පැමිණිලිකරු නෙවෙයි, මම ඕන නම් මම මේ ටිකේ ගිහින් දමන්නම් පැමිණිල්ලක්. මං ලොක්කිගෙන් අහලා ඔයාට කෝල් එකක් දෙන්නම්.

විනිසුරු :- අන්න රයිට්, ඒ පැත්තෙන් කතාකරලා මට පුෂ් එකක් දෙන්න.

රන්ජන් :- හොඳයි. හොඳයි ඕකේ. 

රන්ජන් රාමනායක පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රිවරයා සහ තවත් විනිසුරුවරයකු වූ ගිහාන් පිලපිටිය අතර දුරකථන ඔස්සේ සිදුවූ තවත් සංවාදයක කොටසක් මාධ්‍ය හරහා ජනගත වූයේ මෙසේය.

එම කතාබහ සිදුව ඇත්තේ ඔහුට එරෙහිව ශේ‍ර්ෂ්ඨාධිකරණය හමුවේ විභාග වුණු අධිකරණයට අපහාස කිරීමේ නඩු විභාගයක් පිළිබඳව බැව් පැහැදිලි වේ.

රන්ජන් :- දැන් ඔබතුමා හිතන්නෙ මොකක්ද මේ ගැන. ඇතුළෙන් එන ආරංචි මොනවද ඔබතුමාට. මාව හිර කරයිද?

පල්ස්වලට දැනෙන විධියට මාව ඇතුළට දාලා ඒ ගොල්ලො අනාගනියිද? නැත්නම් අවවාදයක් දීලා ෂේප් කරලා දායිද?

විනිසුරු :- වෝන් කරයි වගේ නේද? ප්‍රසිඩන්ට් පොඩ්ඩක් කිව්වා නම් හරි නේද?

රන්ජන් :- ප්‍රසිඩන්ට් හම්බ වුණා. 

රන්ජන් :- ප්‍රසිඩන්ට් හම්බවෙලා. මං ඇහුවා මොකක්ද කරන්න කියන්නෙ ඔබතුමා කියලා. එතකොට කිව්වා ‘උඹ කිව්වෙ ඇත්තනේ, මුන්ගෙන් බාගෙට බාගයක් හොරුනේ. ඒක වෙනස් කරන්න වෙනවා. පස්සට අඩිය තියන්න එපා කියලා. 

ඊට පස්සේ මම ආයෙත් ඇහුවා දැන් සර් මොනවාද කරන්නේ අධිකරණයට අපහාස කරලා කියලා සුප්‍රිම් කෝට් එක තීන්දු කළොත් මොනවද කරන්නේ කියලා.

ටිකක් බලන් ඉඳලා කිව්වා ඉතිං මට මූ එළියට ගන්න වෙනවානේ” කියලා. හැබැයි උඹ ස්ත්‍රී දූෂණ කේස්, කුඩුකේස් දාගන්න එපා. ඒවාට එළියට ගන්නේ නෑ මම” කියලා. 

මේකට මම උඹට ගැසට් එකක් මේව කරන්නම්. මම ප්‍රයිවෙට් උඹට මේ කියන්නේ” කියලත් කිව්වා.

විනිසුරු :- එයා කියන එක නම් අහන්නේ නැතිලු සර් චීප් ජස්ටිස්.

විනිසුරුවරුන් සමඟ පවත්වා ඇති දුරකථන සංවාදවලට අමතරව අපරාධ පරීක්ෂණ දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවේ අධ්‍යක්ෂවරයා වශයෙන් කටයුතු කරමින් සිටි ජේ‍යෂ්ඨ පොලිස් අධිකාරි ශානි අබේසේකර සමඟ පවත්වා ඇති සංවාද කිහිපයක්ම අඩංගු ‘හඬපට’ ද මාධ්‍ය හරහා විකාශනය වන්නට පටන් ගත්තේද මේ අතරතුරදීමය. 

ශානි:- සර්.

රන්ජන් :- කොහොමද?

ශානි:- සර් හදිසියක් කතා කරන්න පුළුවන්ද?

රන්ජන් :- පුළුවන්.

ශානි:- සර් වඳින්නම් නඩුවේ සිද්ධිය ගැන කිසිම කෙනකුට කතාකරන්න එපා? ලොකු ප්‍රශ්නයක් වෙනවා ඒක. 

රන්ජන් :- ඇත්තද?

ශානි:- වැඳලා කියන්නම් සර්. කිසිම තැනක සර්ගෙ කටවත් අරින්නෙපා. දැන් හොඳම තත්ත්වයට ඇවිල්ලා ඇවිල්ලා තියෙන්නේ.

රන්ජන් :- හා … හා…

ශානි:- සර්. කතාකරපු එකක් ලොකුවට පත්තුවෙලා යන්න හදන්නේ. අපි දැනට ඒක බැලන්ස් කර ගන්නම්. වඳින්නම් කිසිම කෙනකුට කතාකරන්න නම් එපා. සර් දන්න දෙයක්වත් කියන්න යන්න එපා.

රන්ජන් :- රයිට්, රයිට්, මං කාටවත් කිව්වේ නැහැ. අද ජනාධිපතිතුමා හම්බ වෙනවා පහමාරට. 

ශානි :- එපා. එපා. සර් වඳින්නම් මොකුක්ම කියන්න එපා. දැන් ප්‍රශ්නෙ ඔක්කොම හරි.

රන්ජන් :- ප්‍රශ්නෙ හරිද?

ශානි අබේසේකර :- ප්‍රශ්නෙ හරි.

ශානි :- හැබැයි සර් වඳින්නම් පද්මිණි රණවක මැඩම්ට කෝල් දීලා මොකුත් කියන්න එපා. ලොකු ප්‍රශ්නයක් වෙනවා අපි ඔක්කොටම.

රන්ජන් :- ඇත්තද? ඔතැන කවුරුවත් නෑ නේද?

ශානි :- නෑ… නෑ…

රන්ජන් :- මම කතා කරලා කිව්වා. මොකද එදා ඔයා හිතේ අමාරුවෙන් කතා කළානේ. මට කතා කළාම එවෙලේම මම එහෙම්ම ගත්තා එයාට. මම කතා කරලා කිව්වා අනේ මැතිනිය මම මේ බලපෑමක් කරනවා නෙවෙයි. මුළු රටම බලන් ඉන්නවා මේ 9 වැනිදා දුමින්දගේ නඩු තීන්දුව ගැන. එතකොට ඔව් රන්රන් මොකක්ද ප්‍රශ්නෙ” කියලා එයා ඇහුවා.

මං කිව්වා මුළු රටම බලන් ඉන්නවා මැඩම්. එතකොටම ආ රන්ජන් කට්ටියක් ඇවිල්ලා මං පස්සේ ගන්නම් කියලා කිව්වා.” 

ශානි :- එච්චරයි නේ සර්?

රන්ජන් :- එච්චරයි වෙන මොකුත්ම නෑ.

ශානි :- ඔය ඇරෙන්න වෙන මොකුත්ම?

රන්ජන් :- නෑ වෙන මොකුත්ම නෑ.

ශානි :- සර් ආයෙ එහෙම මැඩම්ට කතා කෙරුවොත් ඒ ගොල්ලොත් ඔක්කොම අනෙක් පැත්තට හැරිලා අරයාගේ තීන්දුවට එකඟ වෙයි.

රන්ජන් :- දැන් ශානි ඔයයි මමයි යාළුවෝ. අපි කාලෙක ඉඳලා දන්නවා. දැන් මගෙන් මොනවා හරි මිස් ෆයර් එකක් වෙලා තියෙනවා නම් කියපන්කෝ. 

ශානි :- ඔව්. ඔව්. සර් පද්මිණී රණවක මැඩම්ට කතා කරපු එක ලොකු ප්‍රශ්නයක්. 

රන්ජන් :- ඇයි එයා මගේ යාළුවනේ. 

ශානි :- ඔව්. හරි සර්, නමුත් සර් වඳින්නම්., තවත් නම් කතා කරන්න එපා මේ නඩුව ගැන මැඩම්ට. දැන් ඔක්කොම හරි ගානට සෙට් වෙලා තියෙන්නේ. හොඳ පැත්තට පෙරළිලා තියෙන්නෙ. 

රන්ජන් :- දැන් කොහොම හරි හොඳ පැත්තට හැරිලානේ. අනේ දෙයියන්ගේම පිහිටයි. 

ශානි :- සර්ට මම ගෙනත් පෙන්වන්නම් මම ඔය තීන්දුව ගන්න දාපු සටහන්. සර්ට කියන්න මං කරපු ගොඩක් දේවල් තියෙනවා. 

තවත් හඬ පටයකින් හෙළිවූ රහස් සංවාදයක් මෙසේය. 

ශානි :- ගුඩ් ඊවිනිං සර්. මම ශානි අබේසේකර. 

රන්ජන් :- මම නම්බරය දාලා තියෙන්නේ. අපිට ගුඩ් නිව්ස් එකක් එයිද? බෑඩ් නිවුස් එකක් එයිද? 

ශානි :- ගුඩ් නිවුස් එකක් එනවා අනිවාර්යෙන්ම. 

රන්ජන් :- අනේ ඒක ඔයා ආයෙ වෙනස් කරන්න එපා. ආයේ අපේ හීන කඩන්න එපා. 

ශානි :- නෑ සර්, ඒකෙ ආයෙ දෙකක් නෑ. හැබැයි මැද එක්කෙනා නිදහස් වෙන්න ලියන්නේ. 

රන්ජන් :- අම්මට සිරි. මැද එක්කෙනා කියන්නේ? 

ශානි :- ඒක ප්‍රශ්නයක් නැහැ. අපිට දෙන්නෙක් ඉන්නවා. 

රන්ජන් :- එතකොට පත්මා සුප්‍රීම් කෝට් යවනවද? 

ශානි :- කොහොමත් සුප්‍රීම් කෝට් යැවෙනවානේ. 

රන්ජන් :- පද්මිණී හරිනේ. 

ශානි :- ඒ ඔක්කොම හරි. 

රන්ජන් :- එතකොට මං එන එක හරිද? ඒක හොඳද? 

ශානි :- සර් හැම දූෂණ වැරැදි වැඩවලටම ඉන්නවා නම් ඕකට මොකද? සර් එන්නකෝ. ඒක හයියක්. 

රන්ජන් :- තිරෙන් පිටුපස ඉන්නවද අපි. ෂුවර් නේද?

ශානි :- ෂුවර්ම තමයි. අයේ දෙකක් නෑ. 

රන්ජන් :- ආයේ හෙට උදේට වෙනස් වෙන්නේ නෑ නේද? 

ශානි :- හරියටම හරි. 

රන්ජන් :- හොඳයි හොඳයි දෙයියන්ගේ පිහිටයි එහෙනම්. ඔය වගේම තාජුඩීන් වැඩෙත් කරලා දෙන්න. 

ශානි :- දැන් බොහොම ළඟ ඉන්නේ. 

රන්ජන් :- කවුද? 

ශානි :- අපි ළඟ ඉන්නේ. 

රන්ජන් :- කැමරාවේ වැඩේ මොකද වුණේ? 

ශානි :- ඒක මෙගා පික්සල්  ගාණ අඩු එකක්. 

ඒකට කමක් නෑ. ඊට වැඩිය මැටීරියල් තියෙනවානේ. ආනන්ද සමරසේකරත් අනිවාර්යෙන්ම ඇතුළට යවනවා. 

රන්ජන් :- මරු මරු. 

ශානි :- රස පරීෂක කෙනකුත් යයි. 

රන්ජන් :- හරියට හරි. ඒක තමයි වෙන්න ඕනෑ. 

රන්ජන් රාමනායකගේ මන්ත්‍රි නිල නිවසේ තිබී අත්අඩංගුවට ගත් රහස් දුරකථන සංවාද එක්ලක්ෂ විසිඑක්දහසක් (1,21,000ක්) පමණ ඇතුළත් වූ ඩී.වී.ඩී.(DVD)  තැටි 162ක්ද  දෘඪාංග 

( Hard Disks)  09 ක්ද, පරිගණකයක්ද නුගේගොඩ මහෙස්ත්‍රාත්  අධිකරණයට කොළඹ අපරාධ විමර්ශන කොට්ඨාසය විසින් ( 09වැනි දින) ඉදිරිපත් කරනු ලැබූ අතර මහෙස්ත්‍රාත්වරයා නියෝගකොට ඇත්තේ ඒ සියල්ල රජයේ රස පරීක්ෂකවරයා වෙත ඉදිරිපත් කොට වාර්තාවක් ලබාගන්නා ලෙසටය.

මෙකී රහස් දුරකථන සංවාද ඇතුළත් හඬපට පොලිසිය සොයා ගැනීමත් සමඟම එකී  හඬපටයන්හි තවත් පිටපත් 14ක් පමණ මේ වන විටත් විවිධ මාධ්‍යයන් හරහා සංසරණය වෙමින් තිබේ.

අධිකරණයේ විනිසුරුවරුන් වන ධම්මික හේමපාල, ගිහාන් පිලපිටිය, විනිසුරුවරියක් වන පද්මිණි රණවක, අපරාධ පරීක්ෂණ දෙපාර්තමේන්තු අධ්‍යක්ෂවරයා  වශයෙන් කටයුතු කරමින් සිටි ශානි අබේසේකර, රජයේ සොලිසිටර් ජනරාල්වරිය වශයෙන් හා අල්ලස් හෝ දූෂණ විමර්ශන කොමිසමේ අධ්‍යක්ෂ ජනරාල්වරිය වශයෙන්ද කටයුතු කරමින් සිටි දිල්රුක්ෂි ඩයස් වික්‍රමසිංහ , හිටපු අමාත්‍ය වජිර අබේවර්ධන හා හිටපු පොලිස්පති පූජිත් ජයසුන්දර යනාදීන් හා සම්බන්ධ සංවාද ඇතුළත් එකී  හඬපට  රට පුරා සංසරණය වෙමින් පවතී.

මේ සමඟම රට තුළ උද්ගතව ඇත්තේ විවිධ තනතුරුවල හා විවිධ තරාතිරම්වල පුද්ගලයන්,  ප්‍රභූ කාන්තාවන්, පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරියන්, නිළියන්, රාජ්‍ය නිලධාරීන් හා නිලධාරිනියන්ද පොලිසියේ විවිධ තරාතිරම්වල නිලධාරීන්ද තම තමන්ගේ කටහඬවල්ද මේ රහස් සංවාද ඇතුළත්  හඬ පට තුළින් ජනගත වේදෝයි  යන බියෙන් තැතිගෙන ඇති ආකාරයකි.

ගයාන් කුමාර වීර­සිංහ  උපුටා ගැන්ම  සිළුමිණ 

පසු­ගිය එක්සත් ජාතික පෙර­මුණු ආණ්ඩුවේ කියුම් කෙරුම් රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­ර­යාගේ හඩ­පට ගොන්නෙන් එකි­නෙක එළි­යට එමින් පවතී. එම හඬ­පට මේ වන විට ඇත්තේ පොලී­සිය සතුව පම­ණක් නොවේ. ඒවා සමාජ ජාල වෙබ් අඩ­වි­වල උණු උණුවේ හුව­මාරු වෙයි.

අපේ රටේ දේශ­පා­ලන සූදුවේ තරම කියා පාන රන්ජන් රාම­නා­ය­කගේ දුර­ක­තන සංවාද එළි­යට ඒමේ කතා­වද අපූරු එකකි. බස්නා­හිර පළාත් උතුරු දිසා අප­රාධ කොට්ඨා­සය සඳ­හන් කරන ආකා­ර­යට එදා ජන­වාරි 05 වෙනි­දාය. වේලාව රාත්‍රී 7.30 ට පමණ ඇත. කෝට්ටේ පාගොඩ පාරේ පිහිටි බස්නා­හිර පළාත් අප­රාධ කොට්ඨා­ස­යට ගොඩ වන්නේ ත්‍රිරෝද රථ රිය­දු­රෙකි.

පැල­වත්තේ පදිං­චි­ක­රු­වකු වන ඔහු පොලිස් නිල­ධා­රීන් අතට පත් කරන්නේ නිල් පැහැති සිප­ර­යක් සහිත ඩයරි කව­ර­යක් සහ ඒ තුළ දමා වසා තිබුණු පරි­ග­ණ­ක­ව­ලට පිට­තින් සවි­ක­රන හාඩ් ඩිස්ක් එකකි. මාදි­වෙල පිහිටි මන්ත්‍රී නිල නිවාස ඉදි­රි­පි­ටින් නුගේ­ගො­ඩට යෑමට යැයි කියා තම ත්‍රිරෝද රථ­යට ගොඩ වුණු පුද්ග­ල­ය­කුට ඒවා අම­ත­කව ගොස් ඇති බව ඔහු කීවේය. අඳුර වැටී තිබුණු මොහො­තක වූවත් එම පුද්ග­ලයා අවු කන්නා­ඩි­යක් පැලඳ තොප්පි­යක් දමා­ගෙන සිටි­යේය. නුගේ­ගො­ඩට යන්නට යැයි කියා ගොඩ­වූ­වත් ඔහු බැද්ද­ගාන ක්‍රීඩාං­ග­ණය අස­ලින් බැස ගිය බවත් ඔහු යම් කල­බ­ල­ය­කින් සිටිනු දක්නට ලැබුණු බවත් රිය­දුරා අප­රාධ කොට්ඨා­ශ­යයේ නිල­ධා­රීන්ට පවසා තිබිණි.

ත්‍රිරෝද රථ­යට ගොඩ වූ මොහොතේ සිට ඔහුට දුර­ක­තන ඇම­තුම් ලැබුණු බවත් රන්ජන් ඇමති සත­ප­හ­කට වැඩක් නැහැ. අපි­ටත් කැත වැඩක් කළේ යැයි පව­සනු තමන්ට ඇසුණු බවද රියැ­දුරා කීවේය. නුගේ­ගොඩ ගමන අතර මග නතර කර­මින් ත්‍රිරෝද රථ­යෙන් ඔහු හදි­සි­යේම බසි­න්නේද දුර­ක­තන ඇම­තු­ම­කට අනුව බවද රියැ­දුරා කීවේය.

ඒ මහ­ත්තයා බැහැලා ගියාට පස්සේ මම නුගේ­ගොඩ පැත්තට යන­කොට වාහ­න­යක් ඉස්සර කරන්න හැදුවා. එක­පා­රම බ්‍රේක් එක පෑගුණා. ඒත් එක්කම පිටි­පස්සේ සීට් එක ළඟින් දඩාස් ගාල ශබ්ද­යක් ඇහුණා. මං ත්‍රීවීල් එක අයි­න­කට කරල බැලුවා. එත­කො­ටයි දැක්කේ නිල් පාට කව­රෙක දාපු යමක් පිටි­පස්සේ බිම වැටිලා තියෙ­නවා. ඒක මාදි­වෙ­ලින් නැග්ග මහ­ත්ත­යාගේ බව මට හිතුණා. මං ත්‍රීවීල් එක හර­වා­ගෙන ඒ මහ­ත්තයා බැස්ස තැනට ගියා. මහ­ත්තයා හිටියේ නැහැ. ත්‍රීවීල් එක හර­වා­ගෙන ආපහු නුගේ­ගොඩ පැත්තට යන­කොට පොලී­සියේ බෝඩ් එක දැක්කා. මට හිතුණා පොලී­සි­යට දුන්නොත් ඒක ඒ මහ­ත්තයා අතට ලැබෙයි කියලා ත්‍රිරෝද රථ රිය­දුරා පොලිස් නිල­ධා­රියා අතට ඒ හාඩ් ඩිස්ක් එක පත් කර­මින් කීවේ එවනි කතා­වකි.

පොලී­සිය කියන්නේ ත්‍රිරෝද රථ රිය­දුරා ළඟ තබා­ගෙන එම හාඩ් ඩිස්ක් එක පොලී­සියේ පරි­ග­ණ­ක­යෙන් පරී­ක්ෂා­වට ලක් කළ බවය. එහිදී පෙනී යන්නේ ඒ තුළ ඇත්තේ දේශ­පා­ලන රහස් ගොන්නක් බවකි. එම හාඩ් ඩිස්ක් එක අත­හැර ගිය පුද්ග­ලයා කවු­රු­න්දැයි පැහැ­දිලි නැතත් එහි තිබුණේ හිටපු රාජ්‍ය ඇම­ති­ව­ර­යෙකු වූ රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මහතා විවිධ පුද්ග­ල­යන්ට ලබා­ගත් ඇම­තුම් සහ ඔහුගේ ජංගම දුර­ක­ත­න­යට ලැබුණු ඇම­තු­ම්වල පටි­ගත කිරීම් බව පෙනී ගියේය.

සංවේදී පොලිස් විම­ර්ශ­න­ව­ලට මෙන්ම අධි­ක­ර­ණයේ විභාග වන නඩු කට­යු­තු­ව­ල­ටත් රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මහතා මැදි­හත් වන අයුරු එම හඬ­ප­ට­ව­ලින් පැහැ­දි­ලි­වම පෙනී යන්නට වූ බැවින් බස්නා­හිර දකුණු දිසා අප­රාධ කොට්ඨා­සයේ නිල­ධා­රීන් ඒ ගැන කියන්නේ තමන්ගේ ඉහළ නිල­ධා­රී­න්ටය. එහිදී උප­දෙස් ලැබෙන්නේ ත්‍රී රෝද රථ රිය­දු­රාගේ ප්‍රකා­ශ­යක් සට­හන් කර හාඩ් ඩිස්ක්එක පොලිස් භාර­යට ගන්නා ලෙසය.

එම හාඩ් ඩිස්ක් එකේ ඇති හඬ­පට ප්‍රමා­ණය ලක්ෂ එක හමා­ර­කට අධි­කය. එම හඬ­පට විශ්ලේ­ෂ­ණ­යේදී බස්නා­හිර දකුණු දිසා අප­රාධ කොට්ඨා­සයේ නිල­ධා­රීන්ට පෙනී යන්නේ ජාතික ආර­ක්ෂාව සම්බ­න්ධ­යෙන්ද බොහෝ දේවල් එහි අන්ත­ර්ග­තව ඇති බවය. එහි ඇති බර­ප­තළ තත්ත්වය වට­හා­ගත් පොලිස් ප්‍රධා­නීන් ඒ ගැන ඉහළ බල­ධා­රීන්ද දැනු­වත් කර­මින් තීර­ණය කරන්නේ එම හඬ­පට සම්බ­න්ධ­යෙන් පුළුල් විම­ර්ශ­න­යක නිරත වන්න­ටය. රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­ර­යාගේ මාදි­වෙල පිහිටි නිල නිවස සෝදිසි කර­න්නට අධි­ක­ර­ණ­යෙන් වරෙ­න්තු­වක් ලබා­ගන්නේ ඒ අනු­වය.

සිය නිවස පොලී­සිය සෝදිසි කරන්නේ ඇයි දැයි මන්ත්‍රී­ව­රයා දැන සිටි­යත් ඒ ගැන ඔහුට වගේ වගක් නොවීය. ෆේස් බුක් සමාජ ජාල ඔස්සේ ඔහු ඊටද ප්‍රචා­ර­යක් දුන්නේ රටේ සිය­ලුම මාධ්‍ය ආය­තන නියෝ­ජි­ත­යන්ද එහි ගෙන්වා ගනි­මිනි. ඒ අතර ඔහු තමන්ට හිත­වත් පාර්ලි­මේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී­ව­රු­න්වද එහි කැඳ­ව­න්නට වග බලා ගත්තේය.

අප­රාධ පරී­ක්ෂණ දෙපා­ර්ත­මේ­න්තුවේ ඉහළ නිල­ධා­රීන් , අල්ලස් හෝ දූෂණ විම­ර්ශන කොමි­සමේ ඉහළ නිල­ධා­රීන් සහ මූල්‍ය අප­රාධ කොට්ඨා­සයේ ඉහළ නිල­ධා­රීන් සමඟ එව­කට විප­ක්ෂයේ සිටි මහින්ද රාජ­පක්ෂ ආණ්ඩුවේ දේශ­පා­ල­න­ඥ­යන්ට එරෙ­හිව නඩු කට­යුතු සහ විම­ර්ශන සිදු විය යුතු ආකා­රය ගැන කෙරෙන කතා­බහ ඇතු­ළත් සංයුක්ත තැටි ගොන්නක්ම හමු­වන්නේ එවි­ටය. සොයා­ගත් ඇතැම් සංයුක්ත තැටි අතර අසභ්‍ය චිත්‍ර­පට කිහි­ප­යක්ම තිබිණි.

පොලිස් නිල­ධා­රීන් පුදු­ම­යට පත් වන්නේ ඒ කිසි­වෙ­කින් නොව, අප­රාධ පරී­ක්ෂණ දෙපා­ර්ත­මේ­න්තුව කළ සංවේදී විම­ර්ශන ගොනු කිහි­ප­ය­කම පිට­පත් එහෙම පිටින්ම එහි තිබී හමු­වී­මෙනි. රගර් ක්‍රීඩක වසීම් තාජු­ඩීන්, මාධ්‍ය­වේදී ප්‍රගීත් එක්නැ­ලි­ගොඩ සහ ද නේෂන් පුව­ත්පතේ සහ­කාර කර්තෘ කීත් නොයාර්ට පහ­ර­දී­මට අදාළ විම­ර්ශන ගොනු ද ඒ අතර විය.

සෝදි­සි­යේදී පොලිස් නිල­ධා­රීන්ගේ විශේෂ අව­ධා­න­ය­කට යොමු වන්නේ නිවස තුළ තිබුණු ගිනි අවි­යක් කෙරෙ­හිය. එම අවිය මන්ත්‍රී­ව­ර­යෙකු ලෙස ඔහුට රජ­යෙන් නිකුත් කර තිබූ­වකි. එහෙත් ඒ වන විටත් එම අවියේ බල­ප­ත්‍රය වසර කිහි­ප­ය­කින්ම අලුත් කර නොති­බිණි. එම අවිය සමඟ ඊට යොදන පතො­රම් 127ක්ද එහි තිබිණි. මන්ත්‍රී­ව­ර­ය­කුට ගිනි අවිය සමඟ නිකුත් කරන්නේ පතො­රම් 20ක් වූවත් පතො­රම් 127ක් තිබීම ගැන පොලී­සි­යට ඇති වන්නේ සැක­යකි. රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­රයා අත්අ­ඩං­ගු­වට ගැනී­මට පොලී­සිය තීර­ණය කරන්නේ ඒ නිසා ය.

මේ වන විට සමාජ මාධ්‍ය ජාල­වල සංස­ර­ණය වන්නේ පොලී­සි­යට හසුවූ ලක්ෂ ගණ­නක් වූ රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­ර­යාගේ හඬ­ප­ට­ව­ලින් කිහි­ප­යක් පමණි. එම හඬ­ප­ට­ව­ලින් යහ­පා­ලන ආණ්ඩුවේ රාජ්‍ය ඇම­ති­ව­ර­ය­කුව සිටි රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මහතා අප­රාධ පරී­ක්ෂණ දෙපා­ර්ත­මේ­න්තුවේ විම­ර්ශ­න­ව­ලට මෙන්ම අධි­ක­ර­ණයේ නඩු කට­යු­තු­ව­ලට කළ බල­පෑම් ගැන රහස් ගොන්නක්ම හෙළි වන්නට පට­න්ගෙන තිබේ.

එක් හඬ­ප­ට­යක ඇත්තේ රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­රයා කොළඹ මහේ­ස්ත්‍රාත් අධි­ක­ර­ණයේ විනි­සු­රු­ව­ර­යෙකු සමග කෙරෙන කතා­බ­හකි. එයින් පෙනී යන්නේ එක්සත් ජනතා නිද­හස් සන්ධා­නයේ කොළඹ දිස්ත්‍රික් පාර්ලි­මේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී ඒ.එච්.එම්. ෆවුසි මහ­තාගේ නඩු­වක් සම්බ­න්ධ­යෙන් එම කතා­බහ සිදු වන බවකි. එම ඇම­තුම විනි­සු­රු­ව­ර­යාට යොමු වන විට විනි­සු­රු­ව­රයා සිටින්නේ අධි­ක­ර­ණ­යට ගමන් කර­මිනි. එම නඩුව රජයේ වාහ­න­යක් අව­භා­විතා කිරී­මක් සම්බ­න්ධ­යෙන් අල්ලස් කොමි­සම විසින් ෆවුසි මන්ත්‍රී­ව­ර­යාට ගොනු කරනු තිබූ­වකි. රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­රයා විනි­සු­රු­ව­ර­යා­ගෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටින්නේ ෆවුසි හිරේ දමන ලෙසය.

ආණ්ඩු­වම බේර­ගන්න පුළු­වන්. ඔබ­තු­මාගේ කියන තැන­කට වඳි­න්නම්. ඕනේ උද­ව්වක් කර­න්නම්. පැය­කට ඇතු­ළට දාලා දෙන්න රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­රයා ගෝඨා­භය රාජ­පක්ෂ මහතා හිර­ගත කර­න්නට විනි­සු­රු­ව­රයා සමඟ කතා­බහ කරන්න අයුරු තවත් හඬ­ප­ට­යක ඇතැයි පොලිස් තොර­තු­රු­ව­ලින් කියැ­වෙයි

එහිදී විනි­සු­රු­ව­ර­යාගේ පිළි­තුර වන්නේ තමන් ඉල්ලා සිටින ලෙසට පැමි­ණි­ල්ලක් කළ­හොත් ඒ දේ ඉටු කර දිය හැකි බවය.

රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­රයා දුර­ක­තන සංවාද පවත්වා ඇත්තේ එම විනි­සු­රු­ව­රයා සමඟ පම­ණක් නොවේ. ඔහු විනි­සු­රු­වන්ට බල­පෑම් කර ඇත්තේ එව­කට විප­ක්ෂය නියෝ­ජ­නය කළ රාජ­පක්ෂ ආණ්ඩුවේ දේශ­පා­ල­න­ඥ­යන් සිර­ගත කර­න්න­ටය. ඒ කියැ­වෙන නම් අතර බැසිල් රාජ­පක්ෂ, උදය ගම්ම­න්පිල, ජොන්ස්ටන් ප්‍රනාන්දු, නාමල් රාජ­පක්ෂ නම් ඇත්තේ ඉදි­රි­යෙනි. උදය ගම්ම­න්පිල මන්ත්‍රී­ව­ර­යාව සිර­ක­ර­න්නට කතා­බහ ඇති වන්නේ පොලිස් විශේෂ විම­ර්ශන ඒක­කයේ නිල­ධා­රි­යෙකු සම­ඟිනි.

මර­ණීය දණ්ඩ­න­යට නියම වී සිටින හිටපු පාර්ලි­මේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී දුමින්ද සිල්වා මහතා සිර­ගත කිරීම මෙන්ම මර­ණීය දණ්ඩ­න­යෙන් දඬු­වම් ලබා­දීම පිළි­බඳ ද එම හඬ­ප­ට­වල කතා පවතී. ඒ සඳහා අප­රාධ පරී­ක්ෂණ දෙපා­ර්ත­මේ­න්තුවේ නිල­ධා­රීන් මෙන්ම දුමින්ද සිල්වා මහ­තාට මර­ණිය දණ්ඩ­නය නියම කළ මහා­ධි­ක­රණ විනි­සු­රු­ව­රි­ය­ක­ගේද සම්බ­න්ධ­යක් ඇති බව හඬ­පට ඔස්සේ පැහැ­දි­ලි­වම හෙළි වෙයි.

අප­රාධ පරී­ක්ෂණ දෙපා­ර්ත­මේ­න්තුවේ එව­කට සිටි අධ්‍යක්ෂ ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨ පොලිස් අධී­කාරී ශානි අබේ­සේ­කර මහ­තාගේ නමද ඇත්තේ එම කුම­න්ත්‍ර­ණ­ක­රු­වන්ගේ ලැයි­ස්තු­වේය. විනි­සු­රු­ව­රිය සිටි­න්නේද ඒ ගොන්නේ­මය. මේ වන විට සිටින්නේ විශ්‍රාම ගොස් සිටින මේ විනි­සු­රු­ව­රිය අධි­යා­ච­නා­ධි­ක­රණ විනි­සු­රු­ව­රි­යක ලෙස විශ්‍රාම ගන්නට උත්සාහ දරා ඇති බව එම හඬ­ප­ට­ව­ලින් පැහැ­දිලි වන කරු­ණකි. ඇයට ඒ සඳහා බාධා­වක් වී ඇත්තේ ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨතා ලේඛ­නයේ ඇය සිටියේ නව වැනි තැනේ වන බැවිනි. ඇය සිය උසස් වීම වෙනු­වෙන් රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මහ­තාට බැගෑ­පත් වන්නේ දුමින්ද සිල්වාව පෝර­ක­යට යැවීමේ තීන්දුව ලබා­දී­මෙන් අන­තු­රු­වය. එම හඬ­ප­ට­යට අනුව සැක පළ වන්නේ ඇයට උසස් වීමක් පෙන්ව­මින් දුමින්ද සිල්වා පෝර­ක­යට යව­න්නට යම් කුම­න්ත්‍ර­ණ­යක් සිදු වී ඇති බවකි.

2016 සැප්තැ­ම්බර් 18 වැනිදා දුමින්ද සිල්වා මහතා ඇතුළු භාරත ලක්ෂ­මන් ඝාත­නයේ චූදි­ත­යන් 13 දෙනාම අධි­ක­ර­ණ­යට එන්නේ සිනා­මුසු මුහු­ණිනි. ඒ අධි­ක­ර­ණය ගැන ඒ තර­මට විශ්වා­ස­යක් ඔවුන්ට තිබුණු බැවිනි. සිදු වන්නේ අන­පේ­ක්ෂිත ලෙස දුමින්ද සිල්වා මහතා ඇතුළු පස් දෙනෙ­කුට මර­ණීය දණ්ඩ­නය නියම කර­මින් සෙසු චූදි­ත­යන් නිද­හස් කිරී­මය.

එප­ම­ණක් නොව, බුද්ධි අංශ නිල­ධා­රීන් සිර­ගත කිරීම් ගැනද ශානි අබේ­සේ­කර සහ රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­රයා අතර අද­හස් ගොන්නක්ම හුව­මාරු වී ඇත. හමුදා බුද්ධි අංශ ප්‍රධා­නි­යාව සිටි බ්‍රිගේ­ඩි­යර් සුරේෂ් සලෙයි මහතා හමුදා බුද්ධි අංශ­යෙන් ඉවත් කිරීමේ කුම­න්ත්‍ර­ණය දියත් වන්නේ ශානි අබේ­සේ­කර සහ රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­ර­යාගේ සැල­සු­ම­කට අනුව බව හඬ­ප­ට­ව­ලින් පැහැ­දිලි වෙයි.

සන්ඩේ ලීඩර් කර්තෘ ලසන්ත වික්‍ර­ම­තුංග, ඇව­න්ගාඩ් පාවෙන අවි ගබ­ඩාව සහ භාරත ලක්ෂ­මන් ඝාත­නය සම්බ­න්ධ­යෙන් මූලික විම­ර්ශන එකල සිදු කරන්නේ එව­කට අප­රාධ පරී­ක්ෂණ දෙපා­ර්ත­මේ­න්තුවේ පොලිස් පරී­ක්ෂ­ක­ව­ර­ය­කුව සිටි මෙරිල් රන්ජන් ළමා­හේවා මහ­තාය. ශානිගේ සැල­සු­ම්ව­ලට අනුව ඔහු එදා ඒ විම­ර්ශන සිදු කර­න්නට ගියේ නැත. දුමින්ද සිල්වා මහතා නිද­හස ලබ­න්නට නිය­මිත ව තිබුණේ ඔහුගේ විම­ර්ශන මුල් කර­ගෙ­නය. එසේම ලසන්ත වික්‍ර­ම­තුංග ඝාත­න­යට සැක කරන්නේ කාගේ ආර­ක්ෂ­ක­ය­න්දැයි මුලින්ම සොයා ගන්නේද මෙරිල් රන්ජන්ගේ විම­ර්ශන ඔස්සේය. මෙරිල්ට වැඩි කලක් විම­ර්ශන කර­න්නට ඉඩක් නොවීය. ඔහුව නමට පම­ණක් තබා­ගෙන වෙනත් නිල­ධා­රීන් යොදා තමන්ට වුව­මනා ලෙස ශානි අබේ­සේ­කර එම විම­ර්ශන සිදු කළේය. ඒ ගැන සිය විරෝ­ධතා දක්වන විට මෙරිල්ව යාප­න­යට මාරු කළේය. මෑතක දී ඔහුව අත්අ­ඩං­ගු­වට ගැනී­ම­ටද සූදා­නම් වන්නේ ලසන්ත ඝාත­නයේ කරුණු වසන් කළේ යැයි චෝදනා නඟ­මිනි. එය ගැස්සෙන්නේ අප­රාධ පරී­ක්ෂණ දෙපා­ර්ත­මේ­න්තුව ඔහු කැඳවා කෙරුණු ප්‍රශ්න කිරී­ම්ව­ලදී ලසන්ත ඝාත­නයේ සැක­ක­රු­වන් කවු­රු­න්දැයි ඔහු තමාගේ කට­උ­ත්ත­රයේ ලියා ගන්නැයි කී විටය.

දෙබ­රට ගල් ගැසු­වාක් මෙන් අප­රාධ පරී­ක්ෂණ දෙපා­ර්ත­මේ­න්තුවේ ලොක්කන් ඇවි­ස්සෙන්නේ ඒත් එක්ක­මය. මෙරිල් අත්අ­ඩං­ගු­වට ගැනීමේ සැල­සුම වෙනස් විය. ලසන්ත ඝාත­නයේ සැක­ක­රු­වන් ගැන මෙරිල් කී කිසි­වක් සට­හන් නොවීය. ඔහු නිද­හස් කර යැව්වේය. එ් බවක්ද දැන් රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­ර­යාගේ හඬ­පට ගොන්නේ ඇති ඇතැම් හඬ­ප­ට­ව­ලින් තහ­වුරු වෙයි.

එම හඬ­ප­ට­වල ශානි අබේ­සේ­කර මහතා සිය තන­තු­රද හෑල්ලු­වට ලක් කර­මින් රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­ර­යාගේ නිවසේ වළං හෝද­න්නට පවා එන බව කියාද තිබේ. ඒත් එක්කම මෙතෙක් ඔහුගේ මෙහෙ­යැ­වී­මෙන් කළ අප­රාධ විම­ර්ශන පවා මේ වන විට අභි­යෝ­ග­යට ලක් වී තිබේ. එම හඬ­ප­ටයේ ආන්දෝ­ල­නා­ත්මක බව ශානි අබේ­සේ­කර මහ­තාගේ වැඩ තහ­නම් කිරී­මට ජාතික පොලිස් කොමි­සම තීර­ණය කරන තැනට පත් විය. වැඩ­බ­ලන පොලි­ස්පති සී.ඩී. වික්‍ර­ම­රත්න මහ­තාට පොලිස් කොමි­සම දැනුම් දෙන්නේ ශානි අබේ­සේ­කර මහතා සම්බ­න්ධ­යෙන් සති දෙකක් තුළ වින­යා­නු­කූල විම­ර්ශ­න­යක් පවත්වා වාර්තා­වක් ලබා­දෙන ලෙසය. ඒ අනුව නියෝජ්‍ය පොලි­ස්පති මුදිත පුස්සැල්ල මහතා යටතේ මේ වන විට ශානි අබේ­සේ­කර මහතා සම්බ­න්ධ­යෙන් විනය පරී­ක්ෂ­ණ­යක් ක්‍රියා­ත්මක වෙයි. එහි අධී­ක්ෂණ නිල­ධා­රියා වන්නේ ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨ පොලිස් අධි­කාරී දේශ­බන්දු තෙන්න­කෝන් ය.

විනය පරී­ක්ෂ­ණ­යට අම­ත­රව දැන් එම හඬ­පට ගැනද පුළුල් විම­ර්ශ­න­යක් කොළඹ අප­රාධ කොට්ඨා­සයේ අධ්‍ය­ක්ෂක පොලිස් අධි­කාරී ජී.ජේ. නන්දන මහතා යටතේ සිදු වෙයි. එම විම­ර්ශන අව­සා­න­යේදී ශානි අබේ­සේ­කර මහතා ඇතුළු කිහිප දෙනෙක්ම අත්අ­ඩං­ගු­වට පත් වීමට ඇති ඉඩ­කඩ බොහෝය. ඒත් එක්කම හඬ­ප­ට­ව­ලින් හෙළි වන විනි­සු­රු­ව­රුන් ගැනද විශේෂ විම­ර්ශ­න­යක් අධි­ක­රණ සේවා කොමි­සම මඟින් සිදු­වනු ඇත.

ඇතැම් හඬ­ප­ට­වල යහ­පා­ලන ආණ්ඩු­වේම මැති ඇම­ති­ව­රුන් හිරේ දම­න්නට රන්ජන් කතා­බහ කරයි. ළාබාල ගණි­කා­වන් ගැන ද කතා වෙයි. එජා­පයේ තරුණ මන්ත්‍රී­ව­ර­යකු ඇම­තුම් දෙමින් එම මන්ත්‍රී­ව­රයා ඇසුරු කර ඇති කාන්තා­වන්ගේ ගණන පවා විම­සන හඬ­ප­ට­යක්ද ඒ හඬ­පට ගොන්නේ ඇති බව සඳ­හන්ය.

මෙතෙක් විම­ර්ශ­න­යට ලක් වී ඇති හඬ­පට ගොන්නේ වැඩි පුරම ඇතැයි පැව­සෙන්නේ රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­රයා එජා­පයේ තරුණ මන්ත්‍රී­ව­රි­යක සමඟ කෙරෙන කතා­බ­හය.

රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­රයා පටි­ගත කර ගබඩා කර තිබී ඇත්තේ දුර­ක­තන සංවාද පම­ණක් නොව, පාර්ලි­මේ­න්තුවේ රැස්වීම් පැවැ­ත්වෙන විට මැති ඇම­ති­ව­රුන් අස­ලට යමින් කෙරෙන කතා­බ­හද ඔහු පටි­ගත කර ඇත්තේ වීඩියෝ පටි­ගත කිරීම් ලෙසිනි. මැති ඇම­ති­ව­රුන් කොමිස් ගන්නා හැටි ගැන මෙන්ම ඩීල් දමන හැටිද ඒ කතා­බහ තුළ අඩං­ගුය. එම වීඩියෝ පටි­ගත කිරී­ම්ව­ලින් සමාජ මාධ්‍ය ජාල ඔස්සේ එළි­යට විත් ඇත්තේ එක් වීඩි­යෝ­වක් පමණි. රන්ජන් රාම­නා­යක මන්ත්‍රී­ව­ර­යාගේ හඬ­පට සමාජ මාධ්‍ය ජාල වල ප්‍රසිද්ධ වෙන ආකා­රය දෙස බැලී­මේදී වැඩි කල් නොගොස් ඒ සෑම හඬ­ප­ට­යක්ම මෙන්ම වීඩියෝ පට­යක්ම සමාජ ජාල මාධ්‍ය ඔස්සේ ප්‍රසිද්ධ වීම පුදු­ම­යක් නොවනු ඇත.

By C. A. Chandraprema Courtesy The Island

*  Cabraal’s explosive allegation of a major cover-up
*  CBSL forensic audit biggest red herring in SL history
* Bond scammers not brought to book despite multiple investigations

Former Central Bank Governor and present Advisor to the Prime Minister Ajith Nivaard Cabraal’s latest book, “The Great Bond Scam Cover-up: The Mother of all cover-ups” released a week ago, is set to send shockwaves through the corridors of power and high finance. If those who have been following the news regarding the bond scam over the past few years had the feeling that something was not right, but they could not really put their finger on it, this is the book that puts the finger on what exactly was wrong. This is the book that connects the dots.

Sri Lanka’s biggest financial scam, which took place in February 2015 and March 2016, has been investigated and reinvestigated by multiple agents over five years, but nothing seems to have happened in terms of bringing the culprits to book. As we pen these words, the whole country is waiting to see what the forensic audit into the CBSL bond issues reveals, little realizing that the much spoken of ‘voharika vigananaya’ has absolutely nothing to do with the bond scams that took place in February 2015 and March 2016; it is only a red herring that has been thrown across the trail to deflect attention from the main issue.

There is no Sri Lankan who has not heard of the Central Bank bond scam. What everyone in this country recognizes as the bond scam are the glaring irregularities that have been revealed in the issue of Treasury bonds that took place on the 27th February 2015, just weeks after the so-called Yahapalanaya government came into power. What happened there was that the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) announced to the market that it would be issuing Rs. 1 billion worth of 30-year Treasury Bonds on 27th February 2015, carrying an interest rate of 12.5%. The CBSL received Rs. 20  billion bids for this issuance, with Rs. 15  billion or 75% of the bids being received from one primary dealer Perpetual Treasuries Ltd.,  owned by the son-in-law of the then Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran. On the day of the bond issue, Governor Mahendran personally visited the Public Debt Department (PDD) of the Central Bank and directly instructed the Superintendent to increase the amount to be borrowed to Rs. 20 billion. When the Central Bank officials protested, he instructed the PDD to borrow Rs. 10.0 billion. Governor Mahendran, justified the increase stating that a further Rs. 9 billion was urgently required by the government.

One-half of that Rs. 10 billion issue ended up in the hands of PTL. The information that the issue was going to be increased was not available to other primary dealers but it had been made available to PTL and that was why it had placed bids amounting to Rs. 15 billion for what was supposed to be a Rs. one billion bond issue. If Governor Mahendran’s attempt to increase the issue to Rs. 20 billion had succeeded, that would have resulted in all 15 billion of PTL’s bids being accepted. Since the issue was restricted to Rs. 10 billion due to resistance by CBSL officials, PTL managed to get only Rs. five billion worth of bonds. PTL had placed bids worth Rs. 2 billion in its own name, and a further Rs.13 billion bids via the state-owned Bank of Ceylon. All bids by PTL and BOC were placed at an unusually high interest rate because they knew that those bids were going to be accepted. Rs. 13 billion in bids had been made on behalf of PTL by the Bank of Ceylon which had extended credit to PTL for the purpose by some mysterious arrangement not available to any other primary dealer.

 Even as the controversy regarding this highly irregular bond issue raged, had been inquired into by a committee appointed by the Prime Minister and was in the process of being investigated by a COPE sub-committee, the same wrongdoers pulled off yet another scam which if anything was even more brazen than the first. PTL bought Rs. 42 billion worth of bonds at the auctions held on 29 and 31 March 2016 and obtained the funding to purchase these bonds from the Central bank itself. The way this was done was that PTL participated in the Open Market Operations auction to borrow Rs. 22 billion at 8% and used the Intra Day Liquidity Facility to borrow a further Rs. 20 billion. They were unable to provide the required security for Rs. 11 billion of the funding from the Open Market Operations and were fined Rs. Rs 7.6 million. They were unable to settle Rs. 11 billion of the Intra-day liquidity facility and they were fined a further Rs. 13.7 million in order to legitimize the transaction. PTL thus bought Central Bank bonds using the money of the Central Bank itself after paying a small fine to the CBSL when they were unable to meet their commitments. The government related primary dealers like the EPF, the Bank of Ceylon, Peoples Bank and National Savings Bank had been specifically ordered not to bid at the auctions of 29th March 2016 and 31st March 2016 so that PTL would be able to corner the market. Later, the EPF purchased these bonds from PTL at a higher cost.

 Multiple investigations that

got nowhere

These two transactions of 27 February 2015 and 29 and 31 March 2016 are what Sri Lankans identify as the bond scam. None of those involved have yet been brought to book for what they did. Investigation followed investigation from 2015 onwards, each revealing more damning information than the one preceding, but none of this has led to the prosecution of those concerned. As the scandal hit the headlines, the Prime Minister appointed a three-member committee of lawyers comprising of Gamini Pitipana, Mahesh Kalugampitiya and Chandimal Mendis, on 10th March 2015, to probe the controversial bond issue. This committee was condemned by the Opposition as a group of UNP lawyers tasked with whitewashing the bond scam. Unsurprisingly, this three-member committee stated, in its final report, that Governor Arjuna Mahendran had no direct role in what had taken place, despite glaring evidence to the contrary. However, even this committee of pro-UNP lawyers concluded that the bidding pattern of PTL was unusual and warranted further investigations. They also recommended that the Bank of Ceylon should seek explanations from its chief dealer and others on the ad-hoc decision relating to the Rs. 13 billion lent to PTL at short notice.

On 27 March 2015 three good governance activists Chandra Jayaratne, Dr. G. Usvatte Aratchi and Dr. A. C. Visvalingam,  filed a Fundamental Rights Petition in the Supreme Court with the plea that the SC declare that the CBSL Governor, Senior Deputy Governor and Superintendent of Public Debt have not discharged their duties in a manner that is necessary for the preservation of public trust, that the Monetary Board be directed to carry out an independent inquiry into the allegations relating to the controversial bond issue under the supervision of the Court, and to direct the Monetary Board to formulate new systems, processes, rules and regulatory frameworks which assure transparency and best governance practices in public debt issuance. Cabraal states, in his book, that many legal experts were to later admit that given the contents and pleas of the petition, this petition had been prepared in such a manner so that it was very likely to be denied leave to proceed by the Supreme Court. He alleges that the petitioners were themselves known to be associated with the UNP and that the objective was to use the dismissal by the Supreme Court to convince the general public that nothing untoward had happened in the bond Issue of 27th February 2015.

A Supreme Court bench comprising of Chief Justice K. Sripavan, Justice Priyasath Dep and Justice Rohini Marasinghe rejected this petition on the grounds that the procedures of the Central Bank had not been transgressed and no law had been violated by any of the respondents. President Counsel Romesh de Silva, PC., appearing on  behalf  of Governor Arjun Mahendran, is reported to have argued in court that ethics were not a matter for the Court and that Court should consider only whether there were any violations of legal provisions or not. Cabraal views this FR petition as another part of the cover-up exercise orchestrated by the governing party of the time. In fact, when this writer interviewed Arjuna Mahendran just before he was denied reappointment as Governor of the CBSL, he did claim that the Supreme Court had cleared him of all wrongdoing. On 22nd May 2015 Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa appointed a Sub Committee of COPE Chaired by D. E. W. Gunasekera to probe the bond scam. This 13-Member Committee was supported by the Auditor General. When the report of this COPE sub-committee was to be presented to the Speaker on 26th June 2015, President Maithripala Sirisena dissolved Parliament and suppressed it, for good, as all Committees of Parliament became defunct with the dissolution.

The draft interim report of the D. E. W. Gunasekera-led COPE sub-committee had concluded that Arjuna Mahendran and his son-in-law Arjun Aloysius were involved in a related party transaction. The sub-committee observed that the PTL, which before the 27th February 2015, had bid in amounts ranging from 125 million to 250 million, suddenly began bidding in billions from the 27th February 2015 onwards, with the bid on 27 February being a staggering 15 billion. It was further observed that PTL had been a very passive player in the Government Securities market from the time of its founding in 2013 and during the year 2014 but from 27th February 2015 onwards, the Company had become very active dealing in billions.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was vehemently opposed to the draft COPE Report by its Chairman D. E. W. Gunasekara, and on 7th July 2015, he held a press conference, where he said the interim report presented by the Chairman of COPE D.E.W. Gunasekara was illegal and breached the Parliamentary Privileges Act.

After the August 2015 Parliamentary election, a new 25-Member COPE Committee was appointed with JVP Parliamentarian Sunil Handunetti as its Chairman and they launched their own investigation into the bond scam using the evidence unearthed by the D. E. W. Gunasekera subcommittee. The Handunnetti Committee concluded that former Governor of the Central Bank, Arjuna Mahendran, had made an intervention and influenced the issuing of bonds at the transactions held on 27 February 2015. Tracing the manner in which PTL had obtained credit from the Bank of Ceylon to buy those bonds the Handunetti Committee revealed that PTL had instructed the Bank of Ceylon through an e-mail at 10.48 am on 27th February 2015 (12 minutes before the auction closed) to bid Rs. 3.0 billion at 12.5%, Rs.5.0 billion at 12.75% and Rs. 5.0 billion at 13% at the auction on behalf of PTL. The Bank of Ceylon duly carried out such instructions from PTL and the BoC’s bids were accepted by the CBSL at 10.57.22, 10.57.41 and 10.57.57 respectively, just 9 minutes after receiving instructions from PTL, and about 3 minutes before the bids for the auction closed. The Handunetti Committee further observed that the abrupt decision of Governor Mahendran in changing the existing bond issuing system to an auction only system had completely changed the borrowing pattern of the CBSL after 27th February 2015, causing a severe increase in the borrowing cost to the government while also opening an easy path for primary dealers who have inside information to earn phenomenal profit. As Chairman of COPE, Handunetti held Governor Mahendran directly responsible for the controversial bond transaction and urged that legal action be taken against those involved.

However, nothing happened and the controversy dragged on. The UNP MPs on COPE, acting as an organized group included their dissenting views in the footnotes to the Handunnetti COPE Report thus compromising its findings. On 27 January 2017 President Maithripala Sirisena appointed a Commission of Inquiry to investigate and inquire into and Report on the Issuance of Treasury Bonds during the period 01st February 2015 to 31st March 2016. The Commission comprised Supreme Court judge K.T. Chitrasiri – Chairman, and Supreme Court judge Prasanna Jayawardena, and retired Deputy Auditor General Kandasamy Velupillai. This Commission concluded sittings on 31st December 2017.

The Commission was received well by the public because of the sensational revelations that regularly emanated from its hearings. Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake was forced to resign his portfolio and spend some time in the wilderness as a result of those hearings. Throughout the year 2017, the UNP led government was taken to the cleaners by the Bond Commission and this kept the vociferous and active Joint Opposition also happy. However, even while the Bond Commission was in session, certain disturbing signs were apparent and these were commented on in the media at that time.

The great red herring

The Commission accorded Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe special privileges by sending him questions in writing and allowing him to reply by way of an affidavit. When he appeared before the Commission it was only to clarify any issues arising from the answers given. Governor Arjuna Mahendran was able to obtain assurances of a respectful attitude towards him before he turned up to be questioned. Mahendran’s son-in-law Arjuna Aloysius was allowed to abstain from being questioned. In fact, none of those actually responsible for the bond scam was given the kind of grilling that Ravi Karunanayake got. Cabraal has drawn attention to the manner in which Aloysius’ Personal Assistant Steve Samuel, who had many text messages in his mobile phone which referred to ‘Honorable PM’, ‘RK’ & ‘AM’, was allowed to come before the Commission and confidently swear under oath that he did not know what those abbreviations meant. While the Bond Commission was in session, there was some disquiet due to the revelation that the daughter of one of the Commissioners the late Prasanna Jayawardene was working as an intern in the Ministry of National Policy and Economic Affairs, which came under the Prime Minister. Even though Justice K. T. Chitrasiri was the Chairman of the Commission, Cabraal states that it was the late Prasanna Jayawardene who appeared to take the lead in the proceedings and it was he who had conflict of interest issues which are outlined by Cabraal in his book.

Be that as it may, the Bond Commission concluded that Arjuna Mahendran had acted improperly and wrongfully by intervening in the bond issue procedure and instructing the PDD to accept Bids to the value of Rs.10 billion and, therefore, PTL obtained bonds worth Rs. 5 billion at low bid prices and high yield rates. Since Mahendran had perused the Bids Received Sheet prior to issuing his instruction to accept bids to the value of Rs. 10 billion, he knew that, PTL would succeed in obtaining the bonds at high yield rates. Mahendran directed that bids to the value of Rs. 10 billion be accepted for the improper and wrongful collateral purpose of enabling PTL to obtain a high value of Treasury bonds at low bid prices and high yield rates. PTL had inside information that a very large amount of bids would be accepted at that auction. PTL acted upon inside information when it placed Bids for Rs. 15 billion though only Rs. 1 billion had been offered. Mahendran was the source from which PTL obtained this inside information. Mahendran had thus acted wrongfully, improperly, mala fide, fraudulently and in gross breach of his duties as Governor of the CBSL.

Having said that, the Bond Commission, which was appointed to look into the bond issues that took place from the 01st February 2015 to 31st March 2016, then went into unrelated matters such as investments made by the EPF (which is run by the CBSL) in the Stock exchange in 2010 and 2011, and the purchase of Greek bonds worth Euro 30 million by the CBSL in 2011. There is no doubt that if any irregularities had occurred in the investments made in the stock market by the CBSL in 2010 and 2011 and in the purchase of Greek bonds in 2011, those should be investigated separately. The task of the Bond Commission of 2017 was to look into the CBSL bond issues that took place on the 27th February 2015 and on the 29th and 31st March 2016. This was what the public was interested in, and what the media covered when the Bond Commission was in session. However, when the report of the Bond Commission was written, extraneous matter which should have been examined in separate investigations were deliberately brought in, obviously with the purpose of smearing the Rajapaksa government with the same brush and thereby minimizing the negative impact on the UNP. If in 2017, the public had become aware that the Bond Commission was trying to dilute what the UNP government had done by conducting parallel investigations into allegations against the previous Rajapaksa government there would have been an immediate public outcry. However, the digressions are more apparent in the report than they were in the media reports on the public hearings of the Commission. The biggest and most unforgivable digression made by the Bond Commission was to recommend that a forensic audit be done into bond issues that had taken place before 2015.

Today, when any talk of the Bond scam comes up, the first thing that comes into mind is this forensic audit. Even the former COPE Chairman Sunil Handunneththi keeps talking about the ‘voharika vigananaya’. Almost everyone who hears this term assumes that this much-talked of forensic audit has something to do with the Bond scams which took place on 27 February 2015 and on the 29th and 31st March 2016. But in reality, it has nothing to do with those bond scams and is a red herring thrown across the trail to deflect attention from the matter at hand. Cabraal has argued very convincingly, that if an independent audit was being carried out into the bond issues that took place before 2015, it should have been commissioned by the Auditor General and paid for by a special vote by the government. However, in this case, it was the Monetary Board of the CBSL that commissioned the forensic audit and paid for it. The amount paid to the auditors is also said to be a staggering Rs. 1.5 billion spent for no other reason than to throw a red herring across the trail to deflect attention from the culprits of the bond scams of 27th February 2015 and 29 and 31 March 2016. As such the forensic audit is in itself a major scam.

The CBSL bond scam must be the most investigated offence in Sri Lankan history. First there was the Pitipana Committee appointed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on 10th March 2015. Then there was the COPE Subcommittee inquiry headed by D. E. W.Gunasekera from June 2015 to August 2015. This was followed by the COPE Inquiry headed by Sunil Handunnetti from January 2016 to July 2016. Then there was the Bond Commission from January 2017 to December 2017. In addition to all this there was an investigation by the Commission to Inquire into Allegations of Bribery and Corruption. The police inquiry was carried out by the CID and yet nothing has happened by way of bringing the culprits to book. As these words are being penned everyone is waiting for the release of a forensic audit report which has nothing to do with the bond scams of 2015 and 2016. As Cabraal says in his book this is indeed the mother of all cover-ups.

Courtesy The Island

The Police have submitted the tape recordings of telephone conversations between UNP MP Ranjan Ramanayake and some  officials, Ministers, MPs and a judge  during the previous government to  the Government Analyst for an authenticity check.

The Police confirmed yesterday that the confiscated tapes had been handed over to the Government Analyst the previous week.

A UNP spokesperson, while calling for an impartial inquiry into the allegations against Ramanayake, said that some of the telephone conversations had not been initiated by him.

There was also an attempt to blame the entire  previous  Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government for the tapes in question, but that was not correct, the spokesperson added.

Courtesy The Daily Mirror

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has appointed two commissions to probe alleged political victimization that took place from 2015 to 2019 and on alleged financial irregularities of the Edirisinghe Trust Investment (ETI) Limited.

The Presidential Commission appointed to look into the alleged political victimization during the previous government’s tenure is chaired by retired Supreme Court Judge Upali Abeyratne. The other members of the commission are retired Court of Appeal Judge Daya Chandrasiri Jayatilleke and retired IGP Chandra Fernando.

Accordingly, the Commission has been empowered to look into the alleged political revenge on government officials, employees of state corporations, members of the armed forces and the police during the period from January 8, 2015 to November 16, 2019.

Meanwhile, the Commission to inquire into the alleged irregularities and malpractices of the ETI is chaired by retired Supreme Court Judge K.T. Chithrasiri and the other members are retired Solicitor General Suhada Gamlath and Senior Banking Officer D.M. Gunasekara.

The Commission has been mandated to look into ETI Finance Ltd’s misconduct when the Central Bank intervened to settle the funds of the depositors by selling assets and ETI’s decision to sell a media company to several foreign companies in violation of domestic laws.

The extraordinary gazette notification issued by the President in this regard enumerated that ETI’s assets include Swarna Mahal Financial Services, EAP Broadcasting, EAP Films and Theaters Limited, Hotel Sapphire, Swarna Mahal Jewelers and ETI Finance.

The President has ordered the Commission on ETI to submit its report within three months. (Lahiru Pothmulla)

උපුටා ගැන්ම හිරු නිව්ස්

ප්‍රගීත් එක්නැළිගොඩ සිද්ධිය සම්බන්ධයෙන් සිදුවූ දුරකථන හඬ පටයක් පිළිබඳ මව්බිම වෙනුවෙන් රණවිරුවෝ සංවිධානයේ කැඳවුම්කරු විශ්‍රාමික මේජර් අජිත් ප්‍රසන්න මහතා අද හෙළිදරව්වක් සිදුකළා.

උපුටා ගැන්ම හිරු නිව්ස්

එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී රන්ජන් රාමනායක හා පොලිස් මූල්‍ය අපරාධ විමර්ශන කොට්ඨාශයේ හිටපු ප්‍රධානී, විශ්‍රාමික ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨ නියෝජ්‍ය පොලිස්පති රවී වෛද්‍යලංකාර අතර සිදුවූ දුරකථන සංවාදයක හඬ පටයක් නව සිංහල රාවය සංවිධානය අද මාධ්‍ය වෙත අනාවරණ කළා.

එහිදී අමාත්‍ය ජොන්ස්ටන් ප්‍රනාන්දු රක්ෂිත බන්ධනාගාර ගත කරවීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් රන්ජන් රාමනායක මන්ත්‍රීවරයා අදහස් පළ කරන අතර, කොළඹ අද පැවති මාධ්‍ය හමුවකදී ඒ පිළිබඳව හෙළිදරව් කළේ නව සිංහල රාවය සංවිධානයේ මහලේකම් පූජ්‍ය මාගල්කන්දේ සුදත්ත හිමියන් විසින්.

මේ අතර, සිංහල රාවය සංවිධානය ද පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී රංජන් රාමනායක සහ ස්විස්ටර්ලන්තයට පලා ගිය අපරාධ පරීක්ෂණ දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවේ හිටපු පොලිස් පරීක්ෂක නිශාන්ත සිල්වා අතර සිදුවූ දුරකථන සංවාදයක් ඇතුළත් හඬ පටයක් අද මාධ්‍ය වෙත අනාවරණ කළා.

උපුටා ගැන්ම ලංකාසීනිවුස්

පසුගිය යහපාලන රජයේ ඉහළම ප්‍රබලයන්ගේ පුතාලා බෑණාවරුන් සහෝදරයන් හා හිටපු ප‍්‍රබල ඇමතිවරුන් ගණනාවක් තමන්ගෙන් ඉතාමත් අයුතු ලෙස ලබාගත් කෝටි ගණනාවක් කප්පම් මුදල් වහාම ආපසු ගෙවන ලෙස ඇවන්ගාඩ් ව්‍යාපාරයේ සභාපති නිශ්ශංක සේනාධිපති මහතා දැනුම් දී තිබේ.

දැනට රක්ෂිත බන්ධනාගාර ගතව සිටින ඒ මහතා ගේ සුව දුක් බැලීමට ගිය ජනප‍්‍රිය භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේ නමක් අත ඒ බව දන්වා ඇත.

තමන්ගේ බිරිඳ සහ දරුවා රක්‍ෂිත බන්ධනාගාරගත කරන්නේ යයි තමන් භීතියට පත් කරමින් ලබා ගත් මිලියන 500 ක් පමණ වන මුදල ඔහු නම් ගම් සහිතව හෙළි කර ඇති අතර එම කප්පම් මුදල් ඉල්ලීම සඳහා තමන්ට ලබාදෙන ලද දුරකතන ඇමතුම් සියල්ල ද පටිගත කර ඇත.

තමන්ට නැවතත් දෙවන රන්ජන් රාමනායක කෙනෙක් වීමට වුවමනා නැති බවත් තමන් ජීවිතයේ ආචාරධර්ම අනුව ජීවත් වන බවද පවසා ඇති ඔහු තමන් සාධාරණ ව්‍යාපාරයෙන් උපයා ගන්නා ලද මුදල කප්පම් ලෙස ගෙවීමට සූදානම් නැති බවත් සදහන් කර තිබේ.

නමුත් එ්වා ආපසු ලබා නොදුනහොත් තමන් දෙවරක් නොසිතන බවත් ඔහු සඳහන් කර තිබේ.

මේ වන විටත් පසුගිය අණ්ඩුවේ හිටපු ප‍්‍රබලයෙක් සේනාධිපති මහතාගෙන් ලබා ගත් කප්පම් මුදලෙන් කොටසක් ගෙදරට ගෙනවිත් දී ඇති අතර ඉතිරි කොසටද වහා ගෙවන ලෙස ඔහුට දන්වා ඇත.

සේනාධපති මහතා විසින් එවකට අල්ලස් කොමිසමේ හිටපු ප‍්‍රධානී දිල්රුක්‍ෂි ඩයස් වෙත ලබා දෙන ලද ඇමතුමක්ද ඔහු විසින් මෑතකදී අන්තර්ජාලයට මුදා හැරි අතර එය මහත් ආන්දෝලනයක් රටතුල ඇති කල අතර ඇයට සේවයෙන් ඉවත් වන්නටද සිදුවිය.

උපුටා ගැන්ම ලංකාසීනිවුස්

එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී රන්ජන් රාමනායක මහතා සහ රහස් පොලිසියේ ප්‍රධානීන් ලෙස කටයුතු කළ ශානි අබේසේකර මහතා අතර සිදු වූ දුරකථන සංවාදයකින් ප්‍රදීප් එක්නැලිගොඩ ඝාතනය සම්බන්ධයෙන් වැදගත් තොරතුරක් හෙළිවී ඇති බවත් විශ්‍රාමික මේජර් අජිත් ප්‍රසන්න මහතා සඳහන් කළේය.

එක්නැලිගොඩ අතුරුදහන් වූ දිනයේදීම දයා රත්නායක නම් පුද්ගලයකු අතුරුදහන් වූ එය සිදු කර ඇත්තේ එකම කණ්ඩායමකින් බවත් ශානි අබේසේකර විසින් රන්ජන් රාමනායක මහතාට එම හඬපටයේදී සඳහන් කරයි.

දයා රත්නායක යනු චම්පික රණවක මහතාගෙන් ළඟම හිතවතෙක් බවත් රණවක මහතාගේ පුද්ගලික ජීවිතයේ සියලු දේ දන්නා පුද්ගලයෙක් බවද අජිත් ප‍්‍රසන්න මහතා පැවසීය.

දයා රත්නායකගේ මිනීමරුවාද චම්පික රණවක යැයි චෝදනා කල අජිත් ප‍්‍රසන්න මහතා ප්‍රදීප් එක්නැලිගොඩ හා දයා රත්නායක යන දෙදෙනාගේම මිනීමරුවා චම්පික රණවක යයි බිය නැතුව පවසන්නේද කියා සිටියේය.

කොළඹදී පැවැති මාධ්‍ය හමුවකදී ඔහු මෙම අදහස් පල කලේය.