Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

Civil Society Presentation By Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu at the Tokyo Conference on Reconstruction and Development of Sri Lanka – 9th – 10th June, 2003

Civil Society Presentation By Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu at the Tokyo Conference on Reconstruction and Development of Sri Lanka, 9th – 10th June, 2003

Civil Society Presentation By Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu at the Tokyo Conference on Reconstruction and Development of Sri Lanka – 9th – 10th June, 2003
Civil Society Presentation By Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu at the Tokyo Conference on Reconstruction and Development of Sri Lanka – 9th – 10th June, 2003

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

Press Release Re: National List Nominations, Constitutional and Statutory Obligations, and Representative Democracy – 7th April 2004

On
Wednesday 7th April 2004, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA)
wrote to the Commissioner of Elections expressing deep concern at
certain newspaper reports that various persons whose names do not
appear in the nomination lists or lists under Article 99A of the
Constitution (i.e., National List) as submitted to the Commissioner
during the nomination period, are to be nevertheless nominated to
Parliament as National List members.

The
letter sought to bring to the Commissioner’s attention that
if a political party or independent group adopts a course as indicated
above, they would be acting in contravention of Article 99A of the
Constitution as amended. That provision seeks to introduce the principle
of nominated Members of Parliament, and in doing so imposes certain
safeguards so as to prevent abuse. Significant in this regard is
the constitutional duty placed upon the Commissioner requiring him
to give notice to the public of persons nominated by parties as
National List candidates, so that voters have access to that additional
information prior to casting their votes.

In
addition to Article 99A of the Constitution, the Parliamentary Elections
Act No. 1 of 1981 also contains certain statutory obligations that
must be followed in replacing vacated parliamentary seats. In particular,
CPA wished to draw the Commissioner’s attention to Section
64 (5) of the said Act, which seems to suggest that upon vacation
of a national list seat, the secretary of a political party or the
leader of an independent group may nominate any member of such party or group to replace the vacancy.

CPA
urged the Commissioner to reject such an interpretation of the Act
which would serve to defeat the will of the people, in that candidates
whose merits the public had not considered in the exercise of the
franchise, would nevertheless be represented in Parliament.

CPA
reminded the Commissioner of the view taken by the Supreme Court
in the recent case of Centre for Policy Alternatives, Saravanamuttu
and Edrisinha v. Dissanayake and Weerawanni (2002) SC 26/27/2002,
where the Court stated:

“When
constitutional or statutory provisions have to be interpreted, and
it is found that there are two possible interpretations, a Court
is not justified in adopting that interpretation which has undemocratic
consequences in preference to an alternative more consistent with
democratic principles, simply because there are other provisions,
whether in the Constitution or another statute, which appear to
be undemocratic.”

In
this context, CPA asked the Commissioner to firmly resist any attempt
made by any political party or group to nominate persons whose names
are not in the district nomination papers or national lists submitted
to him during the nomination period.

Dr.
P. Saravanamuttu
Executive Director		 Rohan
Edrisinha
Director – Legal
 
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

Sri Lankan Draft Media Policy Critiqued – 13 September 2007

13 September 2007: ARTICLE 19 and the Centre for Policy Alternatives today made a Joint Submission to the Sri Lankan Ministry of Mass Media and Information on its Proposed National Media Policy (draft Policy), released on 22 August 2007. From the perspective of international best practice and standards, the two organisations critiqued the draft Policy, which focuses almost exclusively on certain aspects of media responsibility, rather than the obligations of the State to put in place an enabling environment for a free, independent and pluralistic media.

The government released the draft Policy on 22 August 2007 and called for submissions to be provided by 15 September 2007. While the draft does contemplate a limited number of government commitments – for example to provide adequate training and development opportunities for media personnel – it fails to make key commitments which are recognised as international standards of law and practice and which have long been demanded by civil society in Sri Lanka. These include adopting right to information legislation, freeing State media from government control, putting in place an independent system of broadcast regulation and doing away with the many legal rules that unduly restrict the content of what may be published or broadcast in the media. In this context, the two organisations note in particular the recommendations of the Sidath Sri Nandalochana Committee on the broad-basing of ownership of the Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd (ANCL) in 1994 and the R.K.W. Goonesekera Committee on the Reform of Laws Affecting Media Freedom and Freedom of Expression in 1996 which have not been acted upon by successive governments, and which the present draft Policy also ignores. The two organisations also note that the recent statement in response to the draft Policy issued by the Free Media Movement (FMM) and its partner organisations have also alluded to these issues.

Instead of addressing these critical issues, the present draft Policy focuses on the responsibility of the media to serve various social goals such as upholding ‘national identity, unity and harmony’, that is ‘socially responsible and ethical’ and that brings about ‘a well-informed and democratic society’. The idea of a free media is referred to only once and the idea of media independence is completely absent from the draft Policy. It is for the media, not the government, to establish set ethical standards for itself through internal codes of conduct and self-regulatory mechanisms.

We urge the government either to drop entirely the idea of developing a media policy or to restart the process from the beginning through a broad consultation with interested stakeholders to determine what such a policy should contain.

NOTES TO EDITORS

  • The Joint Submission is available for immediate download below, that includes as an Annex the draft Policy proposed by the Ministry of Mass Media and Information, Sri Lanka.
  • For more information, please contact Toby Mendel, Law/Asia Programmes Director, [email protected] or Sanjana Hattotuwa, Senior Researcher, [email protected]
  • 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.
  • ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works around the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

Supreme Court holds Vavuniya pass system violates fundemental rights in CPA sponsored case – 5th September 2003

The
Supreme Court today (5th September) upheld the challenge to the
pass system that was in operation in Vavuniya since 1993. The Petitioner,
Peter Vadivel, a refugee from the Sithamparapuram Refugee Camp,
petitioned the Supreme Court that his fundamental rights were violated
by the requirement to obtain travel passes to travel to Colombo.

The
respondent took up the position that the pass system was implemented
in the interest of National Security, reasonable and necessary in
the situation that the country was in. The court upheld the contention
that the petitioners fundamental right to movement under Article
14(1)(h) of the Constitution was violated and awarded compensation
and costs at a sum of Rs. 30,000 awardable by the State.

M.A.
Sumanthiran with Ms P.S. Bandaranayake, Ms Renuka Senanayake, K
Pirabaharan appeared for the Petitioner. Ms Indika Demuni de Silva,
State Counsel appeared for the respondents.

The
Centre for Policy Alternatives sponsored the case in addition to
carrying out the necessary legal research.

 
Rohan Edrisinha
Director – Legal

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

CPA CHALLENGES 18TH AND 19TH AMENDMENTS

The
Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has filed two petitions in
the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka challenging the constitutionality
of passing both the 18th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution
with a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament. The reasons for the
challenges are quite distinct from those of most of the other petitions.

CPA’s
opposition to the 18th Amendment is premised on its violation of
fundamental first principles of the rule of law. The Constitutional
Council which is a creature of the Constitution must be bound at
least by the chapter on fundamental rights contained in the Constitution.
While the Constitutional Council must have substantial freedom and
autonomy to exercise its important functions, CPA also believes
that the Supreme Court should have the discretion to review decisions
of the Council if they are in flagrant violation of fundamental
rights.

The
Centre for Policy Alternatives, unlike a number of other petitioners
challenging the 19th Amendment, welcomes a constitutional amendment
to remove the President’s power to dissolve Parliament. It also
believes that such an amendment does not require a referendum. However,
CPA strongly disapproves of the specific provisions in the 19th
Amendment that permit a President to dissolve Parliament if the
holder of the office of President and the party that has a majority
in Parliament are the same. The 19th Amendment is, therefore, not
based on the principle that an Parliament should exist free from
the whims and fancies of a powerful Executive President, but rather
is ad hoc, ad hominem and partisan.

Similarly
with respect to the freedom of conscience of Members of Parliament,
CPA believes that Article 99 (13) of the Constitution which has
helped entrench the spurious principle of “party democracy”
should be repealed. At the very least, the principled approach to
constitutional amendment would have required an amendment to permit
an MP to vote according to her/his conscience with respect to ALL
constitutional amendments. The 19th Amendment protects an MP who
defies the party line on only the 19th Amendment itself, from expulsion
from Parliament. Furthermore in a bizarre twist that undermines
freedom of association and the autonomy of political parties, the
19th Amendment even prevents a party from expelling an MP from the
party. Therefore, the misleadingly described “conscience clause”
is itself ad hoc, ad hominem and partisan in nature.

A
short amendment removing the President’s power to dissolve Parliament
and permitting MPs freedom of conscience would have been principle
based, compatible with constitutionalism and, therefore, justifiable.

M.
A. Sumanthiran assisted by Viran Corea and Renuka Senanayake will
represent CPA in the legal proceedings.


 
Rohan Edrisinha
Director – Legal

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 25 May, 2009

Full text of CPA’s response to The Sunday Times article titled “CPA-LTTE-TRINCO” – 15th October 2003

15th October, 2003

Mr. Sinha Ratnatunga
The Editor
The Sunday Times
08, Hunupitiya Cross Road
Colombo 2

Dear Mr Ratnatunga,

SPECIAL
ASSIGNMENT: ‘CPA-LTTE-Trinco’ by Chris Kamalendran
The Sunday Times, Sunday 12th October 2003

I am writing with reference to the above article which appeared in your edition of Sunday 12th October 2003. The article contains
a series of factual inaccuracies and mischievous speculation regarding the work of the Centre for Policy Alternatives. Accordingly, the
publication of this response in full with the same prominence accorded to the article above is greatly appreciated. To facilitate clarity
and brevity, I have quoted below the relevant sections from your article, followed by my corrections in point form.

  • Your reporter states that CPA “…arranged a conducted tour for sections of the media to visit the controversial Manirasakulam
    (Kurangupaanchan) guerrilla camp in the Trincomalee district.”    This visit to Trincomalee constituted the field work component
    of the fourth workshop in a programme of workshops on conflict-sensitive journalism for journalists. Other workshops have focused on the issues of Tamil- Muslim relations in the east and on High Security Zones in the Jaffna peninsula. They have included field visits
    to Muttur, Batticaloa and Jaffna. The visit of the group of journalists to Trincomalee facilitated by CPA included meetings with the armed force commanders in Trincomalee and was not for the exclusive purpose of visiting the LTTE Kurangupaanchan camp alone.
  • Your reporter states that “CPA-LTTE-Trinco was what they themselves termed the project in their e-mail to the newspaper
    offices.”    This is incorrect. The e-mail your reporter is referring to is the one containing pictures sent by CPA to newspapers on Saturday,
    11th October, after the event. “CPA-LTTE-Trinco” is the title of the set of photographs according to the common digital archiving system, which sets out the name of the commissioning person / organisation, the groups involved in the event, and the
    venue / location, followed by a serial number. The caption is for systematic archiving only and does not describe the project.
  • He also states that “CPA representatives were on hand to play the role for the media, in raising loaded questions and
    trying to elicit loaded answers from political and military wing leaders of the LTTE, who were on hand.”    This is simply not true. Journalists were free to ask any questions from the LTTE representatives. It is absurd to state that the role of the media was played by CPA representatives!! Whilst a member of the CPA staff asked a question at the end of this particular meeting and participated in the discussion, it is incorrect to say that the questions were loaded or that particular answers were anticipated.
  • Your reporter further states that “Three people first introduced themselves as from the CPA. They were ‘co-ordinators’ Lionel
    Guruge, Vijaya Shanthan and a Tamil translator Senthil Sivagnanam. The first question at the open air news conference came from Lionel. He produced a copy of the Sunday Times (Situation Report of August 3) where a map marking LTTE camps in the Trincomalee district was published. He said, ‘a leading newspaper in Colombo’ (that was how he referred to The Sunday Times) had published details of LTTE camps established reportedly after the Ceasefire Agreement was signed between the Government and the LTTE. Lionel wanted to know whether this was true.”     There are several factual inaccuracies and distortions here: 1. Senthil Sivagnanam is not an employee of CPA. He is an independent translator commissioned by CPA for this specific programme.2. Lionel Guruge, who coordinates CPA outreach activities, coordinated the programme. The first question was not raised by Lionel Guruge, and he did not produce a copy of any newspaper. The first question in fact was raised by Ravi Chandralal, a freelance journalist. It was he who produced The Sunday Times. The Tamil Net picture reproduced in The Sunday Times report clearly shows this. Your reporter is clearly labouring under a misconception as to Lionel Guruge’s identity, confusing him with Ravi Chandralal. This
    is borne out by other observations in the report where he makes the same mistake, attributing words and actions of Ravi Chandralal
    to Lionel Guruge. Consequently, the report is based on a serious case of mistaken identity.

    3. As part of the programme of conflict-sensitive journalism, newspaper reportage in all three languages, and not just The Sunday
    Times Situation Report, was distributed to the invited journalists as well as to other participants such as military officers, the
    LTTE and civil society groups.

  • Your reporter goes on to say that “[Thilak, the LTTE’s political wing leader in Trincomalee] kept repeating that there
    were no new camps in the Trincomalee district – a statement that was echoed in unison by both Lionel (CPA) and Vijaya Shanthan (CPA). They were duly translated by Senthil (CPA).”    CPA is an independent public policy organisation with a proven record of non-partisan research and advocacy in the areas of governance and peace. CPA representatives did not and had no interest in echoing
    the sentiments of the LTTE spokesperson.
  • “One striking observation I made during the nearly hour-long CPA-LTTE press conference, was that most of the questions were
    asked by CPA representatives and not the media.”    This is simply untrue. The invited participants from the media in the programme were expected to, and did, drive the question and answer session. As stated earlier, CPA employees did ask some
    questions during the discussion, but to say that they asked most of the questions and not the media is grossly incorrect.
  • Your reporter concludes that “As we left the area many of the media personnel including myself had more questions than answers when we came to the controversial camp. One such question was – what is the CPA’s agenda? Is it to cover up
    the truth to help the LTTE, or is there some other game plan? Even the Ministry of Defence that gave permission for the media to
    travel to these areas may not know the answers.”    The mandate and mission of the Centre for Policy Alternatives is clearly
    set out on its web site – www.cpalanka.org. The web site also hosts a wealth of information including public statements,
    research papers and briefing documents on the work of CPA in respect of governance and peace in Sri Lanka. The questions raised above by your reporter can be fully answered by perusing the CPA website.
  • A boxed section of the article entitled “Balanced reporting starts at home”, carries the following statement attributed
    to Mr. Sunanda Deshapriya, Director CPA and Head of the Media Unit: “He admitted that he had failed to contact journalists in The Sunday Times…”    Mr. Deshapriya did inform The Sunday Times that CPA had contacted the Sunday Times, but were unable to speak to Mr Iqbal Athas. On the same occasion, Mr. Deshapriya also explained to The Sunday Times the nature and purpose of the programme on conflict-sensitive reporting, and this information has not been taken into consideration by your reporter.

I look forward to the publication of this response in full with the same prominence accorded to the original article.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
Executive Director
Centre for Policy Alternatives