Connect with us

news

SJB lawmaker claims 19 A architects sought political asylum

Published

on

… Jayampathy denies having fled

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Former lawmaker and constitutional affairs expert Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne yesterday (28) denied having fled the country following the change of government. Wickramaratne said that he had not received any threats from anyone over his involvement in the enactment of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

 One-time LSSP stalwart said so when The Island sought his response to a recent claim by Samagi Jana Balavegaya lawmaker Rohini Kaviratne that he had fled the country and was granted political asylum in Switzerland.

Dr. Wickramaratne said he was abroad over some consultancy work.

“Then, I got an opportunity to conduct research on a comparative basis which I am using to work on the third edition of my PhD thesis ‘Fundamental Rights in Sri Lanka’.  Over the past few years, I was asked by judges, lawyers and academics to revise it. The second edition was in 2006 and a revised edition has been long overdue.”

 Dr. Wickramaratne said that he would definitely be back once he finished the assignment.

The LSSPer turned UNP MP in the last parliament functioned as the constitutional affairs advisor to then President Maithripala Sirisena before being accommodated on the UNP National List following the 2015 general election in terms of the agreement between the LSSP and the ruling party.

 Dr. Wickramaratne quit his seat in January 2020 to take up an overseas assignment.

Addressing a public gathering at Wilgamuwa on Tuesday (25), Kaviratne alleged that architects of the 19th Amendment, Dr. Wickramaratne and J.C. Weliamuna, PC, who had been Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner at the time of the change of government had become political refugees in Switzerland and Australia, respectively.

As Weliamuna is yet to return in spite of being recalled, The Island raised the issue with the Foreign Ministry whether the government took it up with Australia and whether the envoy and his family had sought political asylum there. The Foreign Ministry has sent us the following response: “The Foreign Ministry is presently unaware whether the former High Commissioner and his family have received political asylum in Australia. He was a non-career diplomat and his services were terminated on 31.12.2019. His stay in Australia after termination of service, is not facilitated by the Government of Sri Lanka and once the diplomatic passport is surrendered the Ministry had no reason to take up the matter with the Australian authorities.”

 Lawmaker Kaviratne alleged that if the new government succeeded in abolishing the 19th Amendment, the entire country would achieve refugee status overnight.

 Kaviratne, who had been in the previous parliament that overwhelmingly voted for the 19th Amendment said that the abolition of the people-friendly law would fast-track intended authoritarian administration. She explained how the enactment of the 19th Amendment at the onset of the yahapalana administration transformed the country. Declaring that those who fought for democratic rights of the people couldn’t be deprived of their freedom, the lawmaker empahsised the responsibility on the part of the Opposition to oppose government project.

 At the onset of her hard hitting speech, Kaviratne vowed that progressive of lawmakers wouldn’t give dictatorial powers to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the expense of Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa by doing away with the 19th Amendment. The lawmaker explained how the 19th Amendment ended dictatorial power to dissolve parliament within one year after the first sitting. Now Justice Minister Ali Sabry was on record as having said that the law would be amended to enable the President to dissolve parliament when he wanted to so, Kaviratne said.

 Kaviratne, who switched allegiance to Sajith Premadasa having represented the UNP in the parliament, said that the SJB would fight both in and outside parliament to protect the 19th Amendment.

 She emphasized that contrary to reports, the SLPP never secured a two-thirds majority at the recently concluded general election and they wouldn’t allow reversing democratic gains made during the previous administration.

 The lawmaker alleged that the government was seeking to deprive the public of basic rights. The abolition of the 19th Amendment would be the beginning of that despicable operation.


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

news

AG not bound by its recommendations, yet to receive report

Published

on

PCoI on Easter Sunday attacks:

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC is not bound by recommendations made by the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (P CoI) into the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, or presidential directives in that regard, according to authoritative sources.

They said that the AG couldn’t under any circumstances initiate legal proceedings until he had received the full PCoI report.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa received the PCoI report on Feb 1. The President’s Office delivered a set of PCoI reports to Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena on Feb 23, a day after the report was presented to the cabinet of ministers. The Island raised the matter with relevant authorities in the wake of a section of the media reporting the PCoI recommending punitive measures against former President Maithripala Sirisena, Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando, IGP Pujitha Jayasundera, Chief of State Intelligence Senior DIG Nilantha Jayawardena, Chief of National Intelligence retired DIG Sisira Mendis and All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) leader and Samagi Jana Balavegaya MP Rishad Bathiudeen et al over the Easter Sunday carnage.

Sources pointed out that due to the inordinate delay in sharing the PCoI report with the AG, the department hadn’t been able to take preliminary measures required to initiate the proceedings. Sources said that a team of officers would take at least six weeks or more to examine the report before tangible measures could be taken.

With the AG scheduled to retire on May 24, 2021, even if the AG Department received the P CoI it would be quite a tough task to initiate proceedings ahead of retirement, sources said. However, in terms of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution enacted in last October, both the AG and the IGP could receive extensions beyond 60 at the President’s discretion.

 

Dappula de Livera received an Acting appointment as the AG a week after the Easter Sunday carnage whereas his predecessor Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, was elevated to Chief Justice.

Responding to another query, sources said that the Attorney General two weeks ago requested Secretary to the President for a copy of the P CoI. However, the AG was yet to receive one, sources said. In spite of the AG not receiving a P CoI copy, the AG had instructed the IGP to obtain a copy of the report when he requested the police to complete investigations into the Easter Sunday carnage. The AG issued specific instructions after having examined police files pertaining to the investigations.

The IGP, too, hadn’t received a copy so far though some sections of the report were in the public domain.

Agriculture Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage displayed at a live political programme on Derana a copy of the P CoI report he received at the cabinet meeting earlier in the day.

Sources said that the Attorney General’s Department couldn’t decide on a course of action in respect of the Easter carnage on the basis of a section of the report. In terms of the Commission of Inquiry Act (Section 24), the AG enjoyed significant powers/authority in respect of investigations; sources said adding that the Department urgently required both the P CoI report and police investigations report. The Attorney General’s Department has raised the delay in receiving a P CoI report amidst the Catholic Church attacking the government over the same issue.

Sources said that ministerial committee appointed to study the P CoI report couldn’t decide on how to proceed with the recommendations and the matter was entirely in the hands of the AG. Sources pointed out that the delay on the part of the government to release the report had received the attention of sections of the international media, including the New York Times. Public Security Minister retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera having met Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith at the Bishop’s House on Dec 8, 2020 said that the AG would get a copy of the P CoI report once the President received it. Minister Weerasekera said that the CID had handed over the relevant files after having completed investigations into eight blasts. Referring to the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) report on the Easter Sunday carnage, the former Navy Chief of Staff said that all such documents would have to be brought to one place and considered before initiating legal proceedings. Acknowledging that there could be delays, lawmaker Weerasekera said that on the instructions of the Attorney General a 12-member team of lawyers was working on the case. The minister vowed to expose the mastermind behind the Easter Sunday attacks. Investigations continued while some of those wanted were overseas, the minister said.

The minister acknowledged that the Attorney General couldn’t proceed without the P CoI report. Minister Weerasekera reiterated that once the President received the P CoI report, it would be sent to the Attorney General. The minister said that there were documents two to three feet high that needed scrutiny. The minister assured comprehensive investigation. The minister said that investigations pertaining to eight blasts had been completed and the reports handed over to the AG. However, the Attorney General had found shortcomings in those investigations.

Continue Reading

news

JVP picks holes in PCoI report

Published

on

By Saman Indrajith

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry on the Easter Sunday bombings had failed to identify the mastermind of , the JVP said yesterday.

Addressing the media at the party headquarters in Pelawatte, JVP Propaganda Secretary MP Vijitha Herath said that the PCoI report had levelled accusations against former President Maithripala Sirisena, former IGP and head of intelligence for their dereliction of duty, shirking of responsibilities and not taking action to prevent the attacks and negligence. There were reference to the causes of the terror attacks and actions to be taken to avoid such attacks and the influence of extremist organisations. “However, there is no mention of the mastermind of the attacks, the handlers of the attackers and those whose interests the carnage served. It is also not mentioned whether there has been any foreign or local organisation behind those attacks. As per the PCoI report the attack took place as a result of culmination of extremism.

“According to the PCoI the extremist activities were a result of the prevailing political situation then. The entire nation was waiting to see who was responsible and who masterminded those attacks. The PCoI has failed to identify the true culprits responsible for the terror attacks. The report says that the leader of the suicide cadres killed himself in the attacks and it was a puzzle. That means those who are actually responsible for the attacks are still at large. The report does not provide exact details of the sources of the attacks. The PCoI had sittings for one year and five months. It summoned various persons and got their statements but it has failed to shed any light on the terror attacks. Everybody knows that the top leaders of the government and heads of security and intelligence establishments failed in their duties. Ranil Wickremesinghe was the second in command and he too is bound by the responsibility but the PCoI report fails to identify him as one of the persons against whom legal action should be instituted. The PCoI has treated Wickremesinghe and former President Maithripala Sirisena differently. We are not telling that this report is a total failure but we cannot accept this as a complete report. The PCoI handed over its report to the President on Feb 1. After 23 days it was sent to Parliament. Now, a copy of the report is there in the parliamentary library for the perusal of MPs.”

Herath said that the PCoI did not have powers to take punitive action. “It only has powers to name those responsible and recommend action to be taken against those named.

Continue Reading

news

TNA MP faults govt. for delay in answering questions, gets under Johnston’s skin

Published

on

By Saman Indrajith

It did not matter whether the MPs were wearing pressed clothes or had travelled long distances when their questions were answered, Chief Government Whip Johnston Fernando told Parliament yesterday.

 The Minister said so in response to a complaint by Batticaloa District TNA MP Shanikyan Rasamanikkam, who expressed his dismay for government taking time to answer a question raised by him.

 MP Rasamanikkam has raised a question whether the Minister of Health is aware that the Dikkodai ospital, located in the Batticaloa district is not used for public purposes and the patients who visit the hospital for receiving services, face inconveniences, owing to that. On behalf of the Minister of Health, the Chief Government Whip and Minister asked for additional two weeks time.

 MP Rasamanikkam: I come to parliament from Batticaloa, which is 422 km away. To attend Parliament we take great care including pressing our clothes. After taking so much trouble to come there braving the pandemic threat we do not get answers. There is a Health Minister and Acting Health Minister and neither of them is here. I saw Minister Dr Sudarshini Fernandopulle in the House this morning. She too has gone out. I travel more than 800 km. We could attend to many other problems. It is because the government does not give answers we are conducting protest marches, but when we do so we are hauled up before courts.

Chief Government Whip Minister Johnston Fernando: Every MP comes here wearing pressed clothes. But that has nothing to do with questions and answers here. I have been requested by the subject minister to ask for two weeks’ time. The MPs have a right to ask questions and in the same way the ministers have the right to ask for time. On the other hand, whether you cover 400 km to reach parliament does not matter. The majority of MPs travel 200 to 250 kilometers to come to Parliament. It is for that purpose they contest elections and get elected. Once elected the distance is not an issue you have to come to Parliament. The government has answered all your questions. This is the first time the Minister has asked for additional time. It is unfair for you to level charges. A more responsible conduct is expected of you as an upcoming political leader.

Continue Reading