Audited accounts from December 2010.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 29 September, 2011 Centre for Policy Alternatives on 29 September, 2011 Centre for Policy Alternatives on 23 September, 2011 CPA Statement on the new Regulations under the Prevention of Terrorism Act
23 September 2011, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) condemns the government’s decision to perpetuate a number of the most widely used Emergency Regulations, such as those relating to detainees, purported ‘surrendees’ and local authorities, in the form of regulations under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). We believe that the reintroduction of regulations of this nature, just over a week after the President declared that the need for the state of emergency no longer exists, is dishonest and wholly incongruent with the President’s promises to Parliament. Further, it will lead to disillusionment among the public who were led to believe that the end of emergency meant the country would now function “democratically under the ordinary law.”
The replacement of Emergency Regulations by the expedient method of PTA regulations confirms the concerns expressed by civil society over a long period that unless and until the PTA is repealed, the termination of the state of emergency offers no genuine promise of improvement in the protection of human rights, especially for minorities and those in the North and East of the country. The fact that the PTA regulations took effect at midnight on 29th August – twenty four hours before the state of emergency lapsed – is a worrying but telling indicator of the fact that the government never intended to relax emergency laws when it announced the termination of the state of emergency.
CPA notes that Section 27 of the PTA, which enables the making of regulations by the Minister of Defence, should not permit the kind of expansive executive rule-making power, which the new PTA regulations have required. Since the PTA is not even remotely concerned with many of the matters dealt with in the new regulations, such as those concerning local authorities, and the manner in which the application of previous Emergency Regulations are sought to be extended without regard to what is permitted under the PTA, these regulations appear to be illegal.
CPA therefore calls on the government to rescind forthwith the PTA regulations promulgated on 29th August, release detainees and surrendees held under lapsed Emergency Regulations, desist from interfering with the administration of local authorities, and take steps to repeal the PTA. CPA also calls on the government to remove forthwith all restrictions relating to areas that were previously demarcated as High Security Zones under lapsed Emergency Regulations, given that there is no continuing legal basis for such restrictions.
Download PDF of press release in English here. Download it in Sinhala here.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 21 September, 2011 A Short Guide to ‘Regulating the Activities Regarding Management of Lands in the Northern and Eastern Provinces’ Circular: Issues & Implications
Download the full report as a PDF here or view it online here.
###
The Government recently unveiled a policy regarding land in the North and East through the introduction of a Cabinet Memorandum (memo) titled ‘Regularize Land Management in Northern and Eastern Provinces,’ which was subsequently followed by a Land Circular (circular) titled ‘Regulating the Activities Regarding Management of Lands in the Northern and Eastern Provinces’ (Circular No: 2011/04) issued on 22nd July by the Land Commissioner Generals Department in Colombo in order to operationalise the memo.
Since then, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has been informed that notices and forms have been issued in areas of the North and East for people to register their land under the Bimsaviya project to ensure title registration of their property.[1] At the time of writing, it was unclear whether this specific process was the same as the one set out under the circular. Contradictory information was received from the different divisional secretariat units (DSs) where the forms were distributed; increasing confusion regarding the process and the rights of those owning and claiming land in the North and East.
The memo and related circular mentioned above are the most recent policy initiatives undertaken by the Government with regard to land in the North and East.[2] This short note attempts to map out some of the key elements in the circular and provide recommendations. This short guide by CPA is part of a wider advocacy campaign on land issues in the context of man-made and natural disasters undertaken by CPA for over a decade.
This current policy initiative if implemented will have far-reaching implications for key issues including how land claims can be decided, how land is to be alienated, and types of ownership and control that can be provided, which in turn will impact the process of post-war normalisation and development projects. The focus is on state land but the policy initiative will have implications for private land.
Given the complexity of land issues in the North and East and the fundamental importance of land to multiple processes including reconstruction of permanent houses, rehabilitation of war-affected families, return to one’s land, development and strengthening co-existence, there is an urgent requirement for the Government to provide a policy framework to deal with the issue of land taking on board the rights, vulnerabilities and needs of affected communities and in line with legal obligations and human rights standards. While some of the land issues such as lack of awareness relating to ownership, competing claims, loss of documentation, secondary occupation of land by other civilians or state actors, including the military, may not be unique to the North and East, the context of the war resulted in complicating and increasing the scale of these problems.[3]
Key Concerns: CPA recognises the necessity to formulate policies and processes to address the complex land issues in conflict-affected areas and thus welcomes the overall aim of this current initiative. CPA is, however, concerned with the present circular that contains certain provisions, which are problematic and unclear and may exacerbate fear and apprehension among affected communities. Some of the key concerns include:
- The policy aims to advantage the land claims of those who left during the war, but the circular does attempt to recognise the rights of other civilians who secured control over these lands and have developed them land. In such situations the circular suggests that alternate land can be provided for the original claimants. However, given that the circular also recommends that land transaction taken during the period of the war be ruled void as it was under “terrorist influence” the status of these claims is by no means clear. Thus, there is a risk that landowners and claimants, including some of whom secured government documentation for ownership, may be dispossessed.
- The involvement of the military in the different committees set out in the circular is particularly problematic.
- The policy fails to reference the National Land Commission that has not yet been established as per the Thirteenth Amendment.
- The lack of information on this process, both among government officers who are meant to take this process forward and to the general public, is a fundamental problem. The Government’s failure to develop a public awareness program has intensified the confusion and apprehension among the general public in the North and East. The memo does make reference to the Diaspora; hence, the publicity strategy for the circulation needs to be both national and international.
- There is a lack of clarity on who needs to apply for this process or whether all land owners and claimants in the entire North and East should comply.
- Lands acquired for national security and development purposes are exempt from the process laid out under the circular. Hence, there is lack of clarity on how the land rights of affected families will be guaranteed and how they will be compensated and restituted.
- There are stipulated brief time periods for applications of land claims and appeals, which may prove inadequate.
- There was limited consultation of actors from the two provinces during the planning stages, and mainly limited to government officers. It is not clear whether the process is flexible to address problems that may crop up during the implementation.
[1] CPA has been informed that forms titled- ‘Bimsaviya: National Programme on Land Title Registration’ were distributed in areas in the North in August 2011, subsequent to the issuing of the Land Circular in July 2011. Information collected from the areas indicate that actors in the area including some government officials are unclear whether the form is issued under the Land Circular or the Bimsaviya project. These are separate programmes but both coming under the Ministry of Lands in Colombo.
[2] For more information of policy and other initiatives related to land, refer to- ‘Land in the Eastern Province: Politics, Policy and Conflict’- Bhavani Fonseka and Mirak Raheem, Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2010; forthcoming report on land issues in the North (to be printed in October 2011)
[3] Mass displacement of civilians, challenges to government administration, the involvement of a variety of armed and political actors, and the destruction of land records are some of the key factors that contributed to this situation.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 2 September, 2011 The Centre for Policy Alternatives Vs. Gotabaya Rajapaksha and others (SC FR 453/2011)
This public interest case was filed by CPA in September 2011. The petition challenged the introduction of new regulations under Section 27 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Temporary Provisions) Act No.48 of 1979. The Petitioner argued that the Regulations which reproduced many of the provisions in the lapsed Emergency Regulations such as those relating to detainees, purported ‘surrendees’ and local authorities, were ultra vires of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
CPA drafted a short document related to this case and conducted advocacy on legal issues and implications. CPA is presently preparing for follow up work on this case and related issues including monitoring the implementation of the PTA regulations.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 28 August, 2011 CPA Statement On The Termination Of The State Of Emergency
27th August 2011, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) welcomes the announcement made by the President to Parliament on 25th August 2011 that the government will not be seeking an extension to the state of emergency when it lapses by operation of law in September. Since the end of the war in 2009, the need for an expeditious termination of the state of emergency has been a key concern of civil society. For a generation of Sri Lankans, the state of emergency has been the norm rather than the exception, and this has had a debilitating impact on democracy, governance and the enjoyment of freedom.
It is pertinent to recall here the deeper political problems that resulted in extra-institutional and armed challenges to the authority of the state since the 1970s, which in turn necessitated the use of these powers for protracted periods. Terrorism and other violent methods, while wholly deplorable, need to be understood in the context of their causes, and in post-war Sri Lanka we are yet to overcome the political challenges of securing peace, unity and diversity through a more equitable sharing of power and through a consolidation of democracy under the rule of law. We are firmly of the view that without addressing these underlying issues relating directly to the democratic legitimacy of the state, conflicts necessitating the reintroduction of states of emergency are likely to arise again. The positive aspects of the termination of the state of emergency therefore need to be viewed against a broader historical, political and constitutional context, and of particular importance in this regard is the urgent need for a new post-war constitutional settlement that can ensure that the causes of past conflict are not reproduced in the future. We call upon the government to approach this fundamental challenge with sincerity, magnanimity and seriousness of purpose, and with a more tolerant appreciation of Sri Lanka’s plural society than has characterised its efforts in this regard so far.
The relaxation of the state of emergency is also an opportunity to revisit the serious deficiencies of the constitutional and legal framework in relation emergency and anti-terrorism powers that we have experienced in the last four decades. The present procedural and substantive framework of emergency powers is set out in Chapter XVIII of the Constitution and in the Public Security Ordinance. This framework fails to meet contemporary international standards and fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law in a number of respects. These include: the undefined nature of a state of emergency; the lack of legally established preconditions for a declaration of an emergency; the preclusion of judicial review over several aspects of emergency decision-making and executive action; the absence of statutory substantive controls such as proportionality on the exercise of emergency powers (including Emergency Regulations which override all law except the constitution); the weaknesses of the procedure for extension of a state of emergency and the general failure of parliamentary and judicial oversight; and the weaknesses of the constitutional bill of rights which allow restrictions on fundamental rights without adequate safeguards consistent with democratic standards. All these specific deficiencies in relation to the legal regime of emergency powers need also to be understood in the broader context of the present constitution and culture of governance, in which the executive presidency is given a constitutional pre-eminence at the cost of the separation of powers and checks and balances. Successive parliamentary oppositions have also failed to exercise their role of scrutiny and accountability, and this has contributed to the erosion of the regulatory framework.
In addition, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), which has been an instrument of repression ever since it was enacted, continues to be in force. It not only fails to meet even basic standards of procedural protection for the individual in relation to criminal responsibility through its provisions on extended detention and admissibility of evidence, but also empowers restrictions on a wide number of other democratic liberties including the freedom of expression. It has been empirically established that the PTA directly facilitates torture and other abusive practices in Sri Lanka. The PTA has no place in a democratic society, and CPA reiterates the call for its repeal and replacement with legislation that balances anti-terrorism powers with democratic freedoms more consistently with established standards, including our own constitutional values.
The continuation in force of the state of emergency for extended periods of time during the past four decades, as well as conflict conditions necessitating extensive recourse to the PTA and Emergency Regulations, have had a pervasive influence on the practices and culture of governance in Sri Lanka. It is not only the executive, but also Parliament, the courts, and indeed society as a whole, that have become accustomed to being governed under extraordinary powers, and without legal restraints that are central to constitutional democracy. Notwithstanding the welcome relaxation of the state of emergency, therefore, the reversion of our culture of government to a more democratic mode will require continued commitment. Unfortunately, however, recent actions of the government such as the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the post-war expansion of the role of the military and defence establishment into civilian life and civil administration, especially in the North and East, give rise to serious concerns and belie the rhetoric of the President’s statement to Parliament.
CPA also notes that the President’s parliamentary statement did not include details about the alternative arrangements that are contemplated by the government in relation to the matters hitherto regulated by Emergency Regulations, which will lapse together with the state of emergency. These include the detention of alleged LTTE ‘surrendees’, the framework for their rehabilitation, aspects of high security zones still in existence, and other matters. In view of the implications for post-war reconciliation of many of these matters, it is imperative that the measures the government intends taking are made public. More generally, we would also call upon the government to adopt a transparent and consultative approach to any legislation it may bring in relation to national security and terrorism in the future.
While welcoming the long overdue termination of the state of emergency, therefore, CPA would strongly reiterate the critical need for continued commitment on the part of the government to legal and constitutional reforms that are imperative if, in addition to the government’s priorities of economic development, democracy, peace, order and good government are to form the basis of Sri Lanka’s post-war future.
###
Download press release as PDF here.
Download the press release in Sinhala here.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 18 August, 2011 Topline survey report: Democracy in post-war Sri Lanka
18 August 2011, Colombo, Sri Lanka – According to a new survey conducted by Social Indicator, the survey research unit of the Centre for Policy Alternatives, Sri Lankans are divided in opinion on the topic of reconciliation – about whether the government has done enough with regard to addressing the root causes of the conflict.
Download the top line report here. Download Sinhala Press Release here. Download Press Release in Tamil here.
32.3% of people from the Tamil community have stated that the government has done nothing while 41.1% of people from the Sinhala community have said that the government has done a lot. 44% from the Up Country Tamil community and 52% from the Muslim community believe that the government has done a little, but not enough in addressing the root causes of the conflict.
The survey, ‘Democracy in post-war Sri Lanka’ sought to record public perspectives on democracy in Sri Lanka today – what it means to people, how they participate in it, their perceptions of and confidence in governance frameworks and key institutions. Some of the key sections in the survey include economy and security, views on and consumption patterns of Sri Lankan media, perceptions about politics, assessment of freedom, assessment of political leaders, government performance, corruption and development.
The survey, carried out in all 25 districts of the country, interviewed 1993 people from the four main ethnic groups. The selection of respondents was random across the country except in certain areas where access was difficult. Fieldwork was conducted from March to June 2011.
With regard to a political solution for Sri Lanka’s ethnic issue, 29.7% of Sinhala, 59.1% of Tamil, 30.8% of Up Country Tamil and 53.5% of Muslim communities think that the Constitution should be changed based on recommendations made by an all party committee to produce a political solution to the country’s ethnic problem. However, 17.6% Sinhala, 4% Tamil, 11.1% Up Country Tamil and 14.2% Muslim communities said that there is no need for a political solution as the LTTE was completely defeated militarily.
People from all four communities are united in opinion about what they would like to see from the current development process, with a reduction in the cost of living being the top priority for all. For the Sinhala community, improved infrastructure is the second result they would like to see from the current development process while for the other three communities it is addressing unemployment and the creation of more jobs.
65% of Sri Lankans, mostly from the Sinhala community, do not think that corruption can be ignored even if the country is developing apace. Furthermore, it is among the police that most respondents from all four communities believe that corruption is most prevalent.
In their assessment of the economy, most of the respondents from all four communities believe that the government is doing a good job. However, 26.2% of Sinhala, 24% of Tamil, 18.4% of Up Country Tamil and 29.2% of the Muslim respondents said that the government has not been doing a good job in managing the economy.
10.7% of Sri Lankans said that the general economic situation in the country has got a lot better while 38% said that it has got a little better. However, 19.7% said that it has got a little worse while 16% said it has got a lot worse. It appears that when it comes to the financial situation at the household level, for most people it has not got better in the past two years. Only 3.7% of Sri Lankans believe it has got a lot better, while 27% said it has only got a little better. 58.3% of Up Country Tamil respondents said that the financial situation in their households has a got a lot worse in the past two years.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 18 August, 2011 Press Release: Emergency Regulations and Local Government Elections
August 16, 2011, Colombo, Sri Lanka: CPA notes the decision of the Elections Commissioner to hold elections in October to twenty-three local authorities, after elections to these authorities were effectively postponed for more than a year through the use of Emergency Regulations. The Commissioner’s decision was made while a number of cases, including one filed by CPA’s Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu challenging the failure of the Commissioner to hold elections, were pending before the Supreme Court.
Whilst we are relieved that elections will finally be held, we wish to reiterate our outrage over the continued use of Emergency Regulations to interfere with the functioning of local authorities. In this respect, we are extremely concerned over the promulgation on 8 August 2011 of ‘The Emergency (Administration of Local Authorities) Regulation’, No. 7 of 2011. This Emergency Regulation vests the administration of the affairs of the local authorities for which elections are to be held in Competent Authorities selected by the President.
We have on previous occasions highlighted the illegality and danger of using Emergency Regulations to interfere with the functioning of local government and local government elections. We are of the view that the use of emergency powers in day-to-day governance in peacetime is an abuse of Presidential powers and unacceptable in a democracy. In a statement issued on 11 May 2011 we raised our concerns in the following terms:
The use of emergency regulations to execute the presidential fiat in relation to local government is not only plainly illegal and beyond the scope of the powers conferred by the Public Security Ordinance, but it is also a partisan usurpation of and interference with the democratic structures that are closest to the people. This evinces not only the dangers of the continuation in force of the state of emergency and the normalisation of these extraordinary powers in civil administration, but also the government’s tendency to centralisation and executive unilateralism.
While CPA calls upon the government to end emergency rule and formally rescind extant Emergency Regulations – specifically those that interfere with the franchise -we also call on all citizens of Sri Lanka to diligently and relentlessly safeguard their civil liberties by expressing their outrage at any attempts to undermine those freedoms.
###
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) was formed in the firm belief that there is an urgent need to strengthen institution- and capacity-building for good governance and conflict transformation in Sri Lanka and that non-partisan civil society groups have an important and constructive contribution to make to this process. The primary role envisaged for the Centre in the field of public policy is a pro-active and interventionary one, aimed at the dissemination and advocacy of policy alternatives for non-violent conflict resolution and democratic governance. Accordingly, the work of the Centre involves a major research component through which the policy alternatives advocated are identified and developed.
Download as PDF here.