Centre for Policy Alternatives on 2 February, 2018

Civil Society Statement on the Office on Missing Persons

2nd February 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka: We the undersigned wish to express our deep disappointment in the process through which the legislation on the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) was enacted and the Office operationalised. Following the co-sponsoring of UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1 in 2015, the Government of Sri Lanka made firm promises to establish the OMP by law, appoint credible and competent members to it and allocate adequate resources for its functioning. We appreciate the enactment of the OMP Act in August 2016. However, we have been concerned about the protracted delay in operationalizing the Office as well as the flawed process through which the OMP Act is being implemented.  We are also disturbed by the lack of transparency in the appointment of the OMP members.

From the very outset, the Government of Sri Lanka adopted a flawed process with respect to the enactment and operationalization of the OMP Act. It appointed a Consultation Task Force to consult the public on the proposed transitional justice mechanisms, including the OMP; yet, to the disillusionment of those who made representations to the Task Force, the government enacted the OMP Act before the publication of the Final Report of the Task Force. Despite this initial rush in enacting the OMP Act, the President took nearly a year to assign the Act to a particular ministry. The President’s decision to assign the Act to himself in his capacity as Minister of National Integration and Reconciliation, despite serious doubts raised regarding the constitutionality of his decision, is also cause for concern. To date, the OMP members are yet to be appointed with no public information on the process of selection.

We wish to express further concerns regarding this appointment process. The Constitutional Council called for applications, and recommended seven names to be appointed by the President in terms of section 4 of the OMP Act. We observe that the President is bound under section 5 of the Act to appoint the chairperson and OMP members within fourteen days of receiving the Constitutional Council’s recommendations. However, while this delay has lapsed, the names of the OMP members have not been publicly released. Furthermore, the overall appointment process has thus far lacked transparency, contrary to what was specifically recommended by the Consultation Task Force.

The operationalization of the OMP is the first significant step taken by the Sri Lankan government to fulfil its promises with respect to the broader reconciliation agenda which it committed to, including through the co-sponsoring of UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1. As such, compliance with due process and transparency requirements is essential to ensure affected families’ and civil society’s trust in the government’s commitment to implement resolution 30/1.  Indeed, the protracted delay in the establishment of the OMP compounded with procedural flaws observed thus far have contributed to eroding affected families’ confidence in the institution.

We hereby call upon the Constitutional Council and the President to fully abide by the principle of transparency and publicly disclose the list of OMP members, including the chairperson, and the process through which such members were selected. Finally, we call upon the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure that such appointments are fully compliant with the spirit and letter of the OMP Act. In particular, specific attention must be paid to the credibility, experience and expertise of the members.

Download the statement and list of signatures. 

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 1 February, 2018

Human Rights Commitments made by the Government of Sri Lanka and Ways Forward

2018 is a significant year for Sri Lanka. The country marks the 70th anniversary of its independence on the 4th of February. Long overdue and much anticipated local government elections will take place under a new electoral system a week later on the 10th of February. These elections will be the first under the government elected in January 2015; the first to be conducted by the independent Election Commission established under the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in April 2015; and the first with a historic 25% allocation of seats for women. They will be followed by Provincial Council elections later in the year and depending on constitutional reform, a Presidential Election in 2019, and a General Election in 2020. The results of these elections will impact the course of constitutional reform and transitional justice, the latter half of the Sirisena presidency and the future of the National Unity Government. Limited steps towards improving human rights have been taken by the current government, but the pace of progress has slowed substantially, with persistent regressive moves imperilling human rights. Further, there is widespread concern about the status of promised constitutional reforms and transitional justice processes. Consequently, the government’s commitment to the broad reform agenda it was elected on is in serious doubt.

This year is also a crucial year in the context of a number of important deadlines established through Sri Lanka’s participation in international human rights mechanisms. Of these, UNHRC Resolution 30/1 of 2015 remains a key document concerning human rights, transitional justice and reconciliation in the country, committing the government to enact a comprehensive set of measures by the extended deadline of March 2019. Sri Lanka’s human rights record was also reviewed in the third cycle of the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process in November 2017, where the country made 12 voluntary pledges and supported 177 recommendations thereby accepting a diverse range obligations. Additionally, Sri Lanka’s re-entry into the European Union’s (EU) GSP+ scheme in 2017 provides trade concessions from the EU on condition of improving compliance with 27 international conventions. This expansive body of international commitments is reaffirmed domestically by the National Human Rights Action Plan 2017-21 (NHRAP). Additionally, recommendations made in the report of the Consultation Task Force as well as benchmarks created by civil society actors create a substantive framework and timeline for progress on human rights in Sri Lanka.

In the context of these key milestones and deadlines there must be reflection on present human rights commitments, the status of their implementation and specific timeframes for their possible implementation. The Centre for Policy Alternatives has prepared this report as a reflection of the commitments and action that is possible within particular time periods with the purpose of encouraging their full implementation.

Download the report in English.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 1 February, 2018

Civil Society Statement – 70 Years of Independence

February 4th 2018 marks 70 years of Sri Lanka’s independence. The upcoming anniversary will be celebrated, similar to the years before, by the state and some sections of society with pomp and pageantry. However, despite Sri Lanka being a formal functioning democracy with enviable social welfare indices, our post-independence history has been punctuated by struggles for justice and equality and armed insurrections against the state. These were met with brutal state repression, restrictions placed on civil liberties and violations of human rights. Tens of thousands were killed or unaccounted for and many more displaced and disappeared. The State’s failure to recognize and uphold individual and collective rights has resulted in a deficit in democratic governance and a deeply divided society. Thus, it is imperative that Independence Day celebrations are tempered by a sincere attempt to reflect on post-colonial failings and our aspirations for a more just, fair, peaceful, and inclusive society.

Despite seven decades of independence, grievances among victims and affected communities are many, as attested to at present by continuing protests across the country on a number of issues including militarization, the occupation of land, enforced disappearances and prisoners’ rights. On a daily basis, communities face the
challenge of a deeply entrenched security state, a pervasive military presence with ongoing violence, threats, surveillance, and ineffectual law enforcement. Progress on releasing political prisoners has been slow and unsatisfactory. Human rights defenders and journalists continue to face threats, intimidation, and other restrictions. Impunity for crimes committed by state agents or politicians is rampant and truth, justice and redress for victims remain elusive in many cases. Discriminatory laws, practices and violence on account of religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disabilities or gender are common place and we continue to witness attempts to curtail civil liberties through flawed attempts at replacing legislation such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

The change in January 2015 was projected as a victory for democracy with the ambitious promise of a new political culture, a vindication of civil society struggles in this regard. A new constitution, mechanisms for transitional justice, a government free of corruption and committed to good governance, were promised. But we continue to be faced with numerous challenges including financial scandals, weak and politicized institutions that impede accountability and transparency and challenges to coexistence and reconciliation. While legislative and constitutional reforms—such as the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Right to Information Act—and some confidence building measures must be welcomed, further reforms are necessary if independence is to be truly enjoyed by all citizens.

Whilst we mark this important milestone in Sri Lanka, we take the opportunity to reiterate our demands for a political solution to the National Question, respect for human rights and civil liberties, protection of all numerical minorities, upholding the rule of law, ending impunity and discrimination and ushering in genuine peace, reconciliation and sustainable development.

See a list of signatures on this statement here.

Download this statement in English, Sinhala and Tamil.

#

The following persons can be contacted for any questions or comments regarding the statements-

Dr. P. Saravanamuttu- 0777731458
Juwairiya Mohideen- 0777284058
Ruki Fernando- 0773874160
Brito Fernando- 0772072540
Bhavani Fonseka- 0777239593

Watch a video compiling the key issues highlighted in the statement below.

Sri Lanka at 70 from Centre for Policy Alternatives on Vimeo.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 23 January, 2018

Two Fundamental Rights Petitions Challenging Excise Notification No 4/2018

Violation of Rights Guaranteed under the Constitution of Sri Lanka

23rd January 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka: Two Fundamental Rights Petitions were filed challenging the validity of Excise Notification No 4/2018 of the Gazette Extraordinary No. 2054-42 issued by the Minister in charge of the Ministry of Finance and Media on 18th January 2018. The effect of Excise Notification No 4/2018 is to reintroduce:

  • The prohibition on women above the age of 18 to manufacture, collect, bottle, sell or transport liquor.
  • The prohibition on women above the age of 18 from being employed for manufacturing, collecting, bottling, sale or transport of liquor.
  • The prohibition on “giving” liquor to “a woman within the premises of a tavern”.

The two Petitions were filed on the basis of the violation of specific rights guaranteed under the Fundamental Rights Chapter in the Constitution of Sri Lanka. The position of both Petitions is that regardless of whether a woman actually engages in these activities, her constitutional right to make that choice for herself should be respected to the same extent as that of a man.

The first Petition was filed by five women on their own behalf and in the public interest. They are Bhavani Fonseka, Sumika Perera, Anusha Coomaraswamy, Shreen Saroor and Minoli de Zoysa. The five petitioners assert that Excise Notification No 4/2018 is a violation of their rights guaranteed under Article 10 [freedom of thought], Article 12(1) [equal protection of the law], Article 12(2) [non discrimination] and Article 14(1)(g) [freedom to engage in a lawful occupation, profession].

The second petition was filed in the public interest by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr P. Saravanamuttu. The petition alleges that the prohibition violates the rights guaranteed under Article 10, 12(1) and 12(2) of women above the age of 18 who constitute a significant segment of the People of Sri Lanka.

International and Domestic Commitments

In addition to the violation of certain rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the prohibition is contrary to a range of commitments made by the Government of Sri Lanka including at a minimum the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW fundamentally makes all forms of discrimination against women a breach of international law. Two key recommendations made in the CEDAW Committee’s 2017 report to Sri Lanka were to ensure the de facto prohibition of discrimination against women, and to review all legislation for conformity with CEDAW. It was also recommended that the state

accord statutory recognition to the right to equality and non-discrimination, and ensure that all CEDAW provisions are enforceable.[1]

The National Human Rights Action Plan 2017-21 (NHRAP), which provides a detailed plan for human rights protection in Sri Lanka, includes gender equality as a key theme. The NHRAP affirms that “the government is currently working towards achieving gender equality through the enactment of gender sensitive laws, formulation of policy and through action plans.”

Furthermore, in May 2017, Sri Lanka regained inclusion into the European Union’s (EU) Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP+). The scheme vastly reduces duties on exports to the EU on the condition of improving compliance with 27 international conventions, including CEDAW.

Finally, Sri Lanka also adopted the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in September 2015.[2] In particular, Goal 5 seeks to “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”. This includes commitments to end all forms of discrimination (5.1) and ensure that policies and enforceable legislation promote gender equality and empowerment (5.c). The GOSL has highlighted its commitment to the goals in a range of domestic processes, including the NHRAP and government policy, and will be subject to international follow-up and review of the SDG commitments in coming years.

[1] CEDAW Country Report 2017 para 12.

[2] United Nations Resolution A/RES/70/1

#

Download this statement in English Sinhala and Tamil.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 11 January, 2018

CPA Statement in Response to Supreme Court Reference 01/2018

11 January 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) made representations today on behalf of itself and its Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, intervening in the reference made by President Maithripala Sirisena to the Supreme Court regarding his term of office as President.

On 8 January 2018, media reports indicated that President Sirisena had sought an opinion from the Supreme Court under Article 129(1) of the Constitution asking:

“Whether, in terms of Provisions of the Constitution, I, as the person elected and succeeding to the office of President and having assumed such office in terms of Article 32(1) of the Constitution on January 9 2015, have any impediment to continue in the office of President for a period of six years from January 9 2015, the date on which the result of my election to the office of President was declared”

The case was listed for 11 January 2018, and the Supreme Court’s opinion is to be communicated to the President on 14 January 2018.

CPA’s position on the 19th Amendment to the Constitution is very clear. The Amendment makes express provision that the President’s term is limited to five years:

Article 30(2) of the Constitution: The President of the Republic shall be elected by the  People, and shall hold office for a term of five years.

Further, the Amendment’s transitional provisions explicitly state that this five-year term limit applies equally to the sitting President:

Section 49(1)(b) of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution: For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that … the persons holding  office  respectively,  as  the President  and  Prime  Minister  on  the  day  preceding April 22, 2015 shall continue to hold such office after  such  date,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the Constitution as amended by this Act. (emphasis added).

Furthermore the 19th Amendment to the Constitution clearly states which parts of the amendment do not apply to President Sirisena as the incumbent President and the reduction of the term of office is not such a provision (Section 51 of the 19th Amendment). Accordingly, President Sirisena’s term must be understood as being for five years from 9 January 2015 (i.e. until 9 January 2020) and not for six years (i.e. until 9 January 2021).

CPA notes that in the lead up to the enactment of the 19th Amendment in 2015, President Sirisena himself noted that the reduced Presidential term of five years will apply to himself. CPA hopes the President is mindful of his earlier assertions. CPA also urges constitutional and political actors to act in a manner that upholds the spirit of the 19th Amendment.

CPA appreciates that the Chief Justice and the other judges of the Supreme Court facilitated and permitted interventions from members of the public to make representations in this instance. CPA notes that there have been previous occasions wherein only the Attorney General was heard during similar proceedings. CPA has consistently stated that the process in Article 129 (1) of the Constitution relating to a reference could lead to a lack of transparency. As such CPA respectfully calls on the Supreme Court to ensure that the ensuing Advisory Opinion is made public.

###

Download a PDF of this statement in English, Tamil and Sinhala.

View the Written Submissions of Intervenient-Petitioners here.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 3 January, 2018

Participation of Maldivian journalists, bloggers, or social media activists at the Global Voices Summit held in Colombo, December 2017

Groundviews was the local partner for the Global Voices Summit 2017, that saw journalists, bloggers, media experts, researchers and artists from over 60 countries meet in Colombo to discuss global and regional media issues as well as brainstorm for future collaborations and endeavours.

With the support of the Canadian High Commission in Colombo, Groundviews and CPA were able to host five activists and journalists from the Maldives to participate in the Global Voices Summit. They represented several civil society and media organisations, and were able to share first-hand realities of the closing space for democracy in the Maldives, as it nears an election in 2018.

Outcomes

Increased awareness amongst the Global Voices community of the issues facing journalists and the media in the Maldives, through networking and sharing sessions during the Summit.

Networks established in Sri Lanka with media and civil society for these journalists/activists to access when restricted within their home country. 

Activities of the Global Voices Summit

The Summit featured several panels, roundtables, discussions and workshops on wide-ranging topics with regard to digital journalism and activism. There were small group discussions that focused on regional topics, opening up the floor to more speakers, and there were also panels that featured executives from globally renowned digital initiatives.

Knowledge-sharing and networking were the main takeaways from the Summit, as the 300+ crowd in attendance comprised of activists, educators, media experts, researchers and artists from over 60 countries. 

Engagement and contribution of Maldivian participants

The five participants were engaged in sessions throughout both days of the Summit. They contributed as speakers and to the discussion of two sessions in particular, seeing as how the topics discussed were pertinent to the prevalent media landscape in the Maldives. The titles of these were The Rise of Online Religious Nationalism in South Asia and Threatened Journalists in South Asia & Their Rights.

Next steps

Through the networking sessions with global media voices at the Summit and the meeting with diplomatic representatives at Canada House, the participants have established links with allies who will be able to take their activism and messages forward. Groundviews has arranged to publish content, in a manner that protects anonymity of the Maldivian sources, when necessary and should the need arise.

The engagement with the diplomatic community in Sri Lanka, at Canada House, helped in a greater understanding of ground realities in the Maldives. In light of subsequent measures by the Maldivian government to clamp down on meeting with senior diplomats, condemned by the US and UK Ambassadors, it was vital that this face to face connection was established. Future situation reports and updates from the ground from the five participants in particular, and the larger Maldivian activist networks in general, will have to be over electronic means – and the discussion around growing network surveillance was also topical and timely in this regard.

The Maldives had one of the biggest delegations at the Global Voices Summit. The Canadian High Commission funding allowed five leading voices to shape the conversations, and also allowed a leading figure like Ethen Zuckerman to participate at the meeting with the Maldivians at Canada House, raising the profile of their situation amongst a group of global journalists.

Additionally, the five participants also met with the Foreign Correspondents Association of Sri Lanka, in what was a well-attended meeting of all the major wire news services covering the South Asian region.

The impact of this exposure cannot be under estimated.