9 November 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is disturbed and condemns two reported recent incidents adversely impacting governance – the Police attack on the Diploma students and what transpired in Parliament over the Avant Garde investigation.

In the case of the former, CPA unreservedly condemns the Police attack.  In any functioning democracy it is the responsibility of the Police to protect citizens exercising their fundamental rights rather than brutally attack them in actions reminiscent of the recent authoritarian dispensation. Was it the case that orders were given to the Police to use force in the manner they did and by whom or was the Police acting on its own accord and reverting to what may have been orders and/or standard operating procedures sanctioned by the previous regime?  CPA notes that there are a number of investigations ordered into the attack including by the Prime Minister and the Human Rights Commission.  We believe that these investigations should be brought to a thorough and speedy conclusion, the reports made public and those responsible brought to justice without fear or favour.

The second incident relates to the debate in Parliament on the Avant Garde case and the defence of that organization by none other than the Minister for Law and Order as well as adverse criticism by him of the role of the Police in the investigation – an institution under his purview. In addition, there was the statement by the Minister of Justice to the effect that he acted to prevent the arrest of the former Secretary of Defence in this regard.  There are accusations pertaining to the interference in this investigation by another minister as well. Media reports state that following the debate in Parliament there was further, intense discussion of the issue at Cabinet with some ministers threatening to resign over the statements made in parliament by their colleagues.  The Cabinet will meet yet again regarding it.

The issue at stake in the investigation is as to whether there are grounds for prosecution in this case and under which law, thereby determining as to whether prosecution should be criminal or civil.  The Attorney General has opined that there is no case that can be filed under the Fire Arms Ordinance or the Prevention of Terrorism Act.  The two ministers concur. Most importantly though at the heart of what transpired is the issue of the declared conflict of interest on the part of the Minister for Law and Order who appeared for Avant Garde before he took up his ministerial portfolio, his use of parliamentary time and privilege to defend his former client and his criticism of the Police. His statement in Parliament smacks of a cavalier disregard for conflict of interest as a key and integral element of governance in government and flies brazenly in the face of any pretension of fostering a political culture of governance since the historic election of January this year and its reinforcement seven months later in August.

CPA calls for the resignation of the Minister of Law and Order and a clear public statement, without delay, from the Minister of Justice as to what precisely his role was in the investigation.

The citizens of this country voted twice to reject the previous dispensation and its wanton and systematic erosion of governance in government.  Almost a year now since the election of President Sirisena in January, there is a cynicism abroad that those at the helm of the establishment of governance in government are wanting in terms of either willingness and/or ability, that all politicians are the same and that “deals’ will always be struck.  Were this perception allowed to become widespread in the absence of government action to reverse it through renewed, demonstrable commitment to governance and declared “zero” tolerance of corruption, the gains of January and August 2015 could be fatally compromised and reforms in general needlessly de-railed.  The government is responsible for this situation. Not the opposition.

Swift and decisive action is needed. Perception matters in politics. Principle always does.  The balance of political power could shift and quickly, not because the previous dispensation and its torch bearers in active politics are looking good and providing an attractive alternative, but because the government is too soon appearing to be wanting on principle and performance.

###

Download as PDF in English here and Sinhala here.

October 1, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) welcomes the adoption of the resolution titled ‘Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka’ at the 30th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. In a paradigm shift from past positions, the Government of Sri Lanka co-sponsored the resolution with Macedonia, Montenegro, United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia, Japan, Sierra Leone, Albania, Norway, Switzerland and several others. This signifies a major change in position with regard to acknowledging the violence and systematic failures in the past, and the need for credible initiatives aimed at addressing the truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence. CPA acknowledges this bold move and notes the challenging work ahead in implementing the government’s own commitments, and the political will required for accountability and reconciliation.

The resolution signals one of the key steps in a transition towards a new Sri Lanka mandated by two historic elections in 2015. CPA sees the present resolution as providing a framework for the government to initiate a comprehensive transitional justice policy and package involving both judicial and non-judicial initiatives with the constructive participation of international actors. The resolution calls for the establishment of several entities including a special court and a truth telling commission, action on Sri Lanka’s significant caseload on disappearances, and specific legal reforms. The resolution also notes several other commitments including a political settlement and the devolution of political authority. In addition, the resolution encourages the government to take several significant steps towards transitional justice and building the confidence of all the peoples of Sri Lanka, including the introduction of security sector reforms, to accelerate returning land to rightful civilian owners, and conducting independent investigations into a range of attacks.

The government’s recent commitments relate to a larger reform agenda in Sri Lanka, with the promised constitutional reforms and transitional justice processes likely to shape a new Sri Lanka. While moving forward with reforms, it is also critical to reflect on the findings of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) report, which documents horrific violations amounting to international crimes. The report also notes past failures and structural flaws with accountability measures and protection issues. In dealing with this past, it would be necessary to revisit the findings and recommendations of the OISL report, including its call for the establishment of a hybrid court, effective witness and victim protection, and genuine consultations with victims and all other stakeholders.

In the coming weeks and months, there must be space to discuss and debate without fear of reprisals the findings of the OISL report, the resolution, and government’s own commitments. It is also a time for collective introspection by all, so that the full potential of this unique opportunity to achieve peace and reconciliation may be realised. The resolution hopefully signifies an end to a dark chapter in Sri Lanka. The government must act swiftly and decisively to demonstrate its willingness and commitment to follow through with its promises. As citizens, we must seize this historic moment and continue to actively partake in shaping our future, recalling that it is the robust political participation of all of Sri Lanka’s peoples that mandated the democratic change of direction for our country in the two elections of 2015.

Those who oppose the resolution in particular and the more constructive new course of our relations with the world in general rely on hyperbolic and misleading arguments about a loss of state sovereignty. Aside from the obsolescence of these conceptions of sovereignty and the contemporary international order, they forget that the belligerent and uncooperative foreign policy of the previous regime increased rather than ameliorated the international community’s scrutiny of Sri Lanka. Most importantly, they seem to disregard the underlying fact that the current reform measures, including those that are embodied in the resolution, are democratically mandated not once but twice by all of Sri Lanka’s peoples coming together to forge a new and united future for our country based on constitutional democracy, pluralism, truth, justice, and reconciliation. Sovereignty means nothing if it does not mean that a democratic country has the capacity to determine its future according to its own wishes. The crucial importance of purposefully carrying through these fundamental reforms, and dealing meaningfully with the past, therefore lies in the unavoidable need to address and transcend the violence and deep divisions of the past. Only then can we establish the fundamentals of the political consensus based on freedom and tolerance that lies at heart of every successful pluralist democracy.

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