Centre for Policy Alternatives

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 11 October, 2007

Voldermort Rising

“Voldermort Rising” – Article written by Sanjana Hattotuwa which appeared in Montage Vol 1 Issue 8, published by Counterpoint.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 11 October, 2007

APPEAL COURT RULES THAT IT HAS THE POWER TO CONSIDER LEGALITY OF THE APPOINTMENT OF TWO MPS

7th
July 2004

The
Court of Appeal today (7th July 2004) ruled that it does have the
power to proceed to consider the legality of the appointment of
RATNASIRI WICKRAMANAYAKE and any others appointed as Members of
Parliament through the UPFA National List, although their names
were not included in the National List published under Article 99A
of the Constitution or in the Nomination Papers of the UPFA.

Justice
Saleem Marsoof, PC, President of the Court of Appeal and Justice
K. Sripavan, made order overruling the preliminary objections to
the Appeal Court hearing two cases filed by the Centre for Policy
Alternatives (CPA) and Rohan Edrisinha, Senior Lecturer of the Colombo
Law Faculty in that regard, which were raised by the lawyers for
the UPFA General Secretary, Ratnasiri Wickramanayake and other respondents.
The Court took the view that some of the issues raised as preliminary
objections were premature while one did not arise.

The
Court of Appeal will now proceed to consider the legality of such
appointments, with these two cases due to be next taken up on 29th
July 2004.

M.
A. Sumanthiran and Viran Corea appeared for the Centre for Policy
Alternatives (CPA) and Rohan Edrisinha, respectively. Dr. Jayampathy
Wickramaratne, PC appeared for the UPFA General Secretary. D.P.
Kumarasinghe, PC appeared for Ratnasiri Wickramanayake. Anil Obeyesekere,
PC appeared for Anuruddha Ratwatte (who was also tipped to be appointed
in this way through the National List) and Ikram Mohommed, PC appeared
for the SLMC General Secretary.

	?
Dr. P. Saravanamuttu Executive Director	?

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 11 October, 2007

CPA’s response to the Editor of the Island and Thinakaran newspapers regarding front page stories of 1st April 2004 and the Editor of Sudar Oli regarding the editorial of 1st April 2004

CPA's
response to the Editor of the Island and Thinakaran
newspapers regarding front page stories of 1st April 2004
and
the Editor of Sudar Oli regarding the editorial of 1st
April 2004

Letter
to Editor of Island regarding front page story of
1st April 2004

Mr.
Gamini Weerakoon
Editor – Island Newspaper,
223 Bloemendhal Road,
Colombo 13.

Dear Sir,

“VOTE
AGAINST TNA IS VOTE FOR FREEDOM
OF POLITICAL CHOICE – CMEV”

I am
writing to you on behalf of the Centre for Monitoring Election Violence
with regard to the above report by Brian Tissera on the front page
of your edition of 1st April 2004.

The
report is of a media conference held by the Centre for Monitoring
Election Violence (CMEV) on 31st March 2004, at which CMEV released
its Interim Report on Election Related Violence in the April 2004
General Election Campaign.

On
behalf of the Convenors of CMEV ? Ms Sunila Abeysekera, Mr
Sunanda Deshapriya and myself ? I write to point out that
the above title is misleading and to clarify the position of CMEV.
Ms. Abeysekera and Mr. Deshapriya would have joined me in signing
this letter but are unable to do so as they are out in the field
on election monitoring work.

CMEV
has monitored all elections since 1997. It has received official
accreditation by the Election Commissioner and at this election,
is one of two local monitoring organizations granted official permission
by the Commissioner to enter polling booths. Its integrity, impartiality
and commitment are fundamental to its monitoring. Any suggestion
of partiality could affect this and have consequences for its monitors
in the field.

At
our media conference we outlined the context in which the election
campaign in the North and East has been conducted. We did not, however,
make any evaluation or prior judgement of the nature, significance
or consequences of voting for or against any party, as the title
of your report indicates.

Given
the subject matter of the report, I would greatly appreciate it
if you would publish my letter in full and accord it the same prominence
in the next issue of your newspaper as the original report of 1st
April 2004.

I am
copying the letter to the appended list and releasing it to the
media.

Thank
you.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
Co-Convenor
CMEV

C.C:
HE The President
Hon Prime Minister
Commissioner of Elections
Chairman – Press Complaints Commission
Hon. Lakshman Kadirgamar
European Union Election Monitoring Committee
Commonwealth Secretariat
PAFFREL
HE The Ambassador – Embassy of the USA
HE The High Commissioner – British High Commission
HE The Ambassador – Royal Norwegian Embassy
HE The High Commissioner – Canadian High Commission
HE The High Commissioner – Australian High Commission
HE The Ambassador – Royal Netherlands Embassy
HE The Ambassador – German Embassy
HE The High Commissioner – Indian High Commission
HE The Ambassador – Japanese Embassy
HE The Ambassador – Swedish Embassy
HE The Ambassador – Embassy of Switzerland
HE The Ambassador – Delegation of the EU
Secretaries – All Political Parties
All Print & Electronic Media Institutions
Members of the Board of Directors of CPA
Mr. S.P. Thamil Selvan

Letter
to Editor of Thinakaran regarding front page story of
1st April 2004

1st
April 2004

Mr
T.S. Senthil Wellawor
Editor in Chief
Thinakaran Newspaper
Lake House
Colombo 10.

Dear Sir,

'IF
NOT A SINGLE CANDIDATE FROM SANKARY OR EPDP ARE ELECTED, WE WILL
BE FORCED TO CONSIDER THAT THE ELECTIONS WERE FRAUDULENT”
– OPINION OF CMEV MONITORING GROUP

I am
writing to you on behalf of the Centre for Monitoring Election Violence
with regard to the above report by Shatheeq Shihan on the front
page of your edition of 1st April 2004.

On
behalf of the Convenors of CMEV ? Ms. Sunila Abeysekera, Mr.
Sunanda Deshapriya and myself ? I write to point out that
the above title and report do not accurately present the views of
CMEV contained in its Interim Report or expressed at the media conference.
I therefore write to clarify the position of CMEV. Ms. Abeysekera
and Mr. Deshapriya would have joined me in signing this letter but
are unable to do so as they out in the field on election monitoring
work.

Your
above mentioned report, contains remarks attributed to me, including
the remark in the title of the report. I wish to state that I did
not make these remarks.

CMEV
has monitored all elections since 1997. It has received official
accreditation by the Election Commissioner and at this election,
is one of two local monitoring organizations granted official permission
by the Commissioner to enter polling booths. Its integrity, impartiality
and commitment are fundamental to its monitoring. Any suggestion
of partiality as in the remarks attributed to me in your report,
could affect this and have consequences for its monitors in the
field.

I am
copying the letter to the appended list and releasing it to the
media.

Thank
you.

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
Co-Convenor
CMEV

Letter
to Editor of Sudar Oli regarding Editorial of
1st April 2004

1st
April 2004

Mr
R.Ratnasingham
Editor – Sudar Oli
85, Mahawatte Rd.
Colombo 14.

Dear
Sir,

EDITORIAL
THURSDAY 1ST APRIL 2004

I am
writing on behalf of the Centre for Monitoring Election Violence
(CMEV) in response to your editorial today (1st April 2004). My
colleagues Ms. Sunila Abeysekera and Mr. Sunanda Deshapriya who
are also Co-Convenors of CMEV along with me, would also have signed
this letter but are unable to do so as they are out in the field
monitoring election related violence.

In
your editorial you allege that CMEV has changed the modalities of
its monitoring in the Jaffna District on account of pressure exerted
on it by certain political parties. Furthermore, you make reference
to the presence of Sinhala Monitors on behalf of CMEV and imply
that we in turn are implying that there are no neutral Tamil monitors
in Jaffna and that this brings ?disgrace? to the Tamil
community. You further allege that such actions are taken in a manner
to ?undermine? the Tamil community and should be ?condemned?.

I wish
to state to you that your editorial is a gross misrepresentation
of CMEV monitoring in general and the Jaffna District in particular.
Moreover, the allegations made in it are false and absurd, especially
given the track record of the individuals and organizations associated
with CMEV, in respect of a commitment to the human rights, dignity,
respect and equality of all communities in Sri Lanka.

CMEV
has monitored all elections since 1997. It has been recognized as
one of the two main election monitoring groups in the country and
in this election, being accorded official permission by the Election
Commissioner to enter polling booths. Impartiality, independence
and integrity are fundamental to CMEV monitoring and the basis on
which it has received accreditation and recognition by the Election
Commissioner. Your editorial containing serious allegations which
threaten to impugn this, could adversely impact on the contribution
of civil society organizations to protect the integrity of the electoral
process as well as have consequences for our monitors in the field.

Given
the nature of the allegations made and the prominence accorded to
them in an editorial, please accord the same prominence to my response
in full, in the next issue of your newspaper.

In
conclusion, I wish to reiterate that CMEV is committed to defending
the right of all citizens of Sri Lanka to monitor elections in any
part of Sri Lanka and in doing so, strengthen the institutions and
processes of democracy in our country.

I am
copying this letter to the list of persons identified below and
releasing it to the media.

Thank
you.

Yours
sincerely,

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
Co-Convenor
CMEV

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 11 October, 2007

Press Release on representations to the Select Committee of Parliament on Electoral Reforms

The
Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and the Centre for Monitoring
Election Violence (CMEV) made their representations to the Select
Committee of Parliament on Electoral Reforms last week. The representations
covered a wide range of issues pertaining to the electoral system
of Sri Lanka including its election laws, constitutional structures
and other relevant political principles. In particular, the representations
concentrated on the following issues:

The need to adopt an electoral system based on the German mixed
system which includes the important ?topping up? principle
which many mixed systems proposed in Sri Lanka between 1995 and
2000 did not feature
The need to ensure that the power of the voter as opposed to
the power of the political party is not reduced in any new electoral
system
The importance of retaining the essence of the system of proportional
representation while changing the particular kind of proportional
representation as enshrined in the Constitution of 1978
The importance of reintroducing the freedom of conscience of
Members of Parliament
Serious shortcomings in the 17th Amendment to the Constitution
with respect to the Elections Commission.

With regard to the 17th Amendment moreover, the CPA and CMEV made
the further point that the scheme and intention of the Amendment
as an instrument of furthering good governance requires its provisions
to be interpreted in that spirit. Therefore, while the CPA and
CMEV accepted that the President may have been right in asking
for a reconsideration of the nominees to the Elections Commission,
to refuse to act on the recommendations of the Constitutional Council
for a second time, and thereby to effectively cripple the setting
up of the Elections Commission, would be contrary to the 17th Amendment.

The CPA and CMEV also stated that the prevalence of widespread
electoral violence and malpractices and the deficiencies of the
procedures and institutions for the conduct of elections were the
primary motivation in promulgating the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.
In that context, it is a sad irony that of the four independent
commissions established under the Amendment, only the Elections
Commission is yet to be set into operation. CPA and CMEV asserted
as a serious concern the prospect of the Elections Commission being
unimplemented before the impending cycle of elections to the Provincial
Councils commencing in February 2004.

Regarding an electoral system for the future, the CPA and CMEV
were of the view that the German mixed system, whereby one half
of legislators are elected on a simple plurality of votes in constituencies,
while the other half are then elected according to the proportion
of votes secured by a political party on the basis of a national
list of fixed rank order, would be a useful model. The possibility
of multi-member constituencies was also canvassed as a way meeting
the concerns of minority communities and smaller parties. The CPA
and CMEV also observed that in their experience of election monitoring,
the preferential vote system, much criticised for exacerbating
intra-party rivalry in the competition for preferences, was not
the principal cause of electoral violence and malpractices. On
the contrary, it was the very intensity of inter-party competition
that seemed to do so. Furthermore, the preference vote had the
advantage of empowering the voter as opposed to the party leadership

The representations
of CPA and CMEV regarding freedom of conscience and of the need
to move away from the uniquely Sri Lankan concept
of ?party democracy? as opposed to the universal principle
of representative democracy, also touched upon the issue of intra-party
democracy. CPA and CMEV identified the lack of intra-party democracy
as an acute problem confronting all political parties, and urged
the Committee to address its mind to this key question in making
its recommendations for transforming the culture of electoral politics
in Sri Lanka.

With regard to the freedom of conscience of Members of Parliament,
the CPA and CMEV argued that such freedom was intrinsic to the
notion of deliberative democracy. Members of Parliament in their
role as representatives of the people in the legislative assembly
of the nation should have the freedom to do so in the best interests
of the people. At times this would require Members to asses the
interests of their constituents in terms at variance with that
of their party. The principle that Members who do so should be
protected is essential if Parliament is to operate as a genuinely
deliberative assembly and not merely as a congress of party ambassadors.
In order to prevent abuse, CPA and CMEV suggested that MPs who
were expelled from their parties for voting or acting according
to conscience should be prohibited from accepting positions in
the executive and should sit as independent MPs for the remainder
of the parliamentary term.

The CPA and CMEV also asked the Committee in making its recommendations,
to bear in mind the broader debate on constitutional reform and
federalism in Sri Lanka. In this respect, CPA and CMEV stated that
a second chamber in the central legislature was a fundamental feature
of successful federations and that the ramifications of bicameralism
should inform the way the electoral system of the country is reformed.

Rohan Edrisinha
Director – Legal

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 11 October, 2007

LANDMARK SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT TO PROTECT SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE

CENTRE FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES and DR. PAIKIASOTHY SARAVANAMUTTU,
AND ROHAN EDRISINHA
VS.
DAYANANDA DISSANAYAKE AND SAMARAWEERA WEERAWANNI
SC 26/27/2002

The Supreme Court in a judgment which has far reaching implications
for the franchise and the protection of the sovereignty of the
People overturned a decision of the Court of Appeal and issued
a writ of certiorari quashing the election of the former Chief
Minister of the Uva Province, Samaraweera Weerawanni as a member
of the Provincial Council. The judgment was delivered by Justice
Mark Fernando with Justices D.P.S. Gunasekera and C.V. Wigneswaran
agreeing.

The
two petitions filed by the Centre for Policy Alternatives and
its Executive
Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, and
Rohan Edrisinha challenged the interpretation given by the Commissioner
of Elections, Dayananda Dissanayake, to Section 65 of the Provincial
Councils Election Act. Section 65 provides that when a vacancy
occurs in a Provincial Council, the Secretary of the party to which
the ex member belonged is entitled to nominate ?a person
eligible for election? to fill the vacancy. If the Secretary
fails to do so then the Commissioner will declare that the candidate
who received the next highest number of preference votes is elected.

The crucial question for interpretation that arose in the case
was whether the Secretary could nominate ANY person to fill a vacancy
or whether the Secretary could nominate only persons who contested
the election and therefore had their names on the nomination list.
The petitioners argued that permitting a Secretary of the party
to nominate ANY person, even a non-candidate, ahead of candidates
who went through the nominations process, campaigned, were subject
to the scrutiny of the voters, and obtained preference votes, was
absurd, and contrary to basic principles of representative democracy
and the exercise of the franchise, undermined the checks and balances
of the Elections Act, and the concept of devolution of power.

When
the case was first filed in the Court of Appeal over four years
ago, the
petitioners highlighted the bizarre consequences
of the Commissioner?s literal and technical interpretation.
Several Members of Parliament had been requested by their respective
parties to contest Provincial Council elections and project themselves
as Chief Ministerial candidates. Many were reluctant to resign
their seats in Parliament, in order to contest, as there was no
guarantee that their respective parties would win sufficient seats
to form provincial governments. They therefore nominated ?dummy
candidates? for purposes of fulfilling the legal requirements
with respect to nominations and campaigning etc. The Members of
Parliament, despite not being candidates, campaigned as their parties? nominees
as Chief Ministers!! After the election, when it was evident that
their parties would be in power within the relevant province, they ?ordered? the ?dummy
candidates? who were elected to resign from the Provincial
Council, they themselves, then, resigned their parliamentary seats,
and thereupon, were nominated by the Secretary of the party to
fill the Provincial Council vacancy. A non-candidate, someone who
was not necessarily subject to the scrutiny of the voters of the
province thus was parachuted in ahead of other candidates who received
preferential votes from the voters of the Province.

The Court of Appeal judgment did not focus on the consequences
that the petitioners argued were contrary to constitutional first
principles, but relied more on the literal rule of interpretation.
Since the Section 65 (2) allowed the Secretary of the party to
fill a vacancy by nominating ?a person? such person
could be ANY person. The Supreme Court by looking at Section
65 read as a whole held that there was an ambiguity and that
in the event of an ambiguity the court can adopt the interpretation
that is consistent with democratic values.

?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?.

Another
significant feature of the judgment was that it challenged the
widely held
myth that under the Sri Lankan Constitution and
the system of proportional representation, the party is supreme
and that this even trumps the will of the People. The Centre for
Policy Alternatives and Rohan Edrisinha have in recent years highlighted
the dangers of the notion of ?party democracy? and
its negative impact on representative democracy, the quality of
deliberation and debate in Parliament and the freedom of conscience
of members of legislatures. They have argued consistently in a
number of cases they have initiated or supported that ultimately
Members of parliament or provincial Councils are representatives
of the PEOPLE not ambassadors of parties. In the Centre for Policy
Alternatives, Saravanamuttu and Edrisinha v Dissanayake and Weerawanni
, the Supreme Court refers to the ability to nominate an outsider
as an anomaly. The Court then observes:

?Can such an anomaly be justified on the basis of the ?supremacy
of the party?(or its secretary)over members and candidates?
In my view it cannot, for this is not a domestic question pertaining
to the party, party discipline, and/or party officials, members
and candidates. What is involved is the right of the electorate
to be represented by persons who have faced the voters and obtained
their support, and that in my view, is the general scheme of the
Act. That is wholly inconsistent with Article 25 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which recognizes
that every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity to
take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through
freely chosen representatives.?

The
significance of the judgment is that it reaffirms the supremacy
of the People
even against political parties and their functionaries.
It attaches meaning to the choice of the people which is after
all the rationale for the much maligned principle of preferential
voting. The People decide, not the party leadership. The party
leadership may have some discretion, but the discretion is circumscribed
by the will of the People. Only persons approved by the People
can fill vacancies in Provincial Councils, not complete outsiders
who may be lackeys of the party leader or secretary but have no
nexus with the people of the province. It is now a matter of considerable
interest to see how parties which have hitherto displayed cavalier
indifference to basic principles of representative democracy in
the name of the spurious ?party democracy,? respond
to the welcome reaffirmation of universal democratic and constitutional
first principles by the Supreme Court in this week?s landmark
judgment.
LANDMARK SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT TO PROTECT SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 9 October, 2007

Peace Support Group (PSG) Statements – 2000 to 2006

A complete list of statements by the Peace Support Group (PSG), from 2000 to 2006. The Peace Support Group included the following members:

Ms. Sunila Abeysekara
Mr. Sunil Bastian
Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy
Mr. Sunanda Deshapriya
Mr. Rohan Edrisinha
Mr. Kethesh Loganathan
Mr. Jehan Perera
Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
Mr. Javid Yusuf
Mr. Jeevan Thiagarajah
Mr. Joe William

The full list of statements are as follows, and are each available for download below:

Call for an end to killings and a return to negotiation for peace in Sri Lanka – 22nd June 2006
PSG calls for talks on ceasefire as a matter of the utmost priority – 9th January 2006
PSG statement to Jakarta Tsunami Relief Donor Conference – 6th January 2005PSG calls for strengthening of human rights and respect for humanitarian standards – 10th August 2004
PSG calls for constructive cohabitation to advance the peace process – 21st November 2003PSG calls for strengthening public faith and confidence in the peace process – 14th July 2003
PSG calls for putting peace process back on track – 27th May 2003PSG Welcomes Commencement of Formal Talks in Thailand – 16th August 2002
PSG calls on all parties to strictly abide by ceasefire Agreement (CFA) and assistSLMM in its monitoring functions – 19th July 2002
PSG Urges Timely Implementation of Ceasefire Agreement and Early Commencementof Direct Negotiations – 27th June 2002
PSG calls for respect for human rights and humanitarian norms in theimplementation and monitoring of cease-fire agreement – 28th February 2002
PSG stresses pivotal importance of human rights – 16th January 2002PSG welcomes cease fire announcements by Government and LTTE- 31st December 2001
PSG claims election verdict is a mandate for peace11th December 2001An open letter to all political parties – An agenda for peace(General Elections 2001) – 30th October 2001
PSG calls on political parties to declare positions on ethnic conflict- 29th October 2001PSG warns of escalation of violence and calls for immediate casefire- 1st October 2001
PSG welcomes PA-UNP dialogue – 24th August 2001PSG calls for ceasefire and re-activitation of the peace process [also releasedas an advertisement in the local newspapers] – 15th August 2001
Peace Support Group calls for an interim government of peace & reconciliation
[also released as an advertisement in the local newspapers] – 18th July 2001
PSG proposal for revival of peace process – 7th June 2001PSG urges government and LTTE to ceasefire and engage in talks – 4th May 2001Statement submitted to the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) at its 57thSession, March / April 2001 – 5th April 2001
PSG calls on government and LTTE to proceed to direct talks – 15th March 2001Call for ceasefire and immiediate negotiations on political solution – 4th January 2001PSG condemns attacks on groups and individuals committed to the peace process- 26th February 2001
Joint Statement for Paris Aid Group meeting – December 2000PSG Calls for Immediate Halt of Hostilities – 04th August 2006 in English, Sinhala

Download all the press releases and statements as a ZIP file from here.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 9 October, 2007

The Draft Bill for the Assistance and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses: Critique and Recommendations

Author: Rosalind Sipos?

The provision of victim and witness protection is fundamental to the credibility of any justice system and to the battle against impunity. Asking victims and witnesses to come forward without the provision of protection may indeed be irresponsible in cases where they face the possibility of being re-victimised or becoming victims in their own right by reason of living up to their duty to provide their evidence. For this reason, the drafting of the Draft Bill for the Assistance and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses (the ?Draft Bill?)2 by the Law Commission of Sri Lanka is a welcome development in the sphere of rule of law in Sri Lanka. With the widespread impunity in Sri Lanka, Parliament must be urged to adopt the Draft Bill as expeditiously as possible.

However, as the Draft Bill reads at the moment, there are serious concerns as whether it would indeed provide the protection required not only to encourage victims and witnesses to come forward, but also to ensure their safety should they choose to do so. With this concern in mind, this paper will consider some of the concerns with the current form of the Draft Bill and present recommendations for how these concerns could be addressed. While the Draft Bill provides both victim and witness assistance and protection measures, only the protection measures will be considered here as the assistance measures appear to be sufficient.

The Draft Bill for the Assistance and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses: Critique and Recommendations

Page 162 of 195
« First
«
...
10
20
30
...
160
161
162
163
164
...
170
180
190
...
»
Last »