By Veeragathy Thanabalasingham
Colombo, April 3 – A series of controversial events in Sri Lankan politics recently has once again brought to the forefront issues related to human rights violations and accountability.
These include former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s interview with Al Jazeera, the government’s submission of the report of the Batalanda Commission to the parliament, the detention of suspended police chief Deshapandu Tennakoon, and the sanctions imposed by Britain on some former Sri Lankan military leaders.
Former President Wickremesinghe’s interview with Al Jazeera’s “Head to Head “programme in London in February was broadcast on March 6. For Wickremesinghe, who is over confident and cocky about his political experience, knowledge and astuteness, the event in the presence of a hostile audience was indeed a disaster. It is a pity that Wickremesinghe felt compelled to tell Al Jazeera’s interviewer Mehdi Hassan that he had entered politics before Hassan was born. Almost all who commented on the interview in Sri Lanka said that he should not have agreed to participate in the event in the first place.
The manner in which Mehdi Hassan interviewed Wickremesinghe was inappropriate. It is by no means an acceptable media practice to interrupt the interviewee in a cavalier manner and speak to veteran political leaders in a tone that smacks of an interrogation. Wickremesinghe accused Al Jazeera of deliberately deleting key parts of his interview, which was recorded for two hours, and broadcast only for an hour.
But it was the former President’s slipshod response to a question on the detention and torture camp in the Batalanda (Gampaha district) during the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna’s second insurgency (1988-1990) that finally gave the National People’s Power (NPP) Government the courage to dust off the 27-year-old Battalanda Commission report and present it to parliament.
It is doubtful if the Commission’s report would have been submitted if the Al Jazeera interview had not been broadcast. Appointed by President Chandrika Kumaratunga in September 1995, the commission handed over its report to her in 1998. But neither Ms. Kumaratunga nor her successors showed ny interest in implementing its findings and recommendations.
But, while the Commission’s report (in English and Sinhala) had already been circulated among thousands of people at home and abroad, Wickremesinghe asked ” Where is the commissions report? ” when Mehdi Hassan broached the issue.
When Francis Harrison, a former BBC reporter in Colombo, showed him a copy of the report, the former president retorted that it had not been submitted to parliament. Only a sessional paper was tabled in the House, he said.
Later, Wickremasinhge issued a media statement saying that the report had only accused him of not following due procedure as the then Minister of Industries in allowing the officers of the law enforcement agencies to use the housing complex belonging to the Sri Lanka Fertilizer Corporation in Batalanda.
A few days ago, in an interview with Hyde Park 24 of the Ada Derana TV he said he will not talk about Batalanda anymore. The commission report is going to be debated in Parliament next week.
Since the commission’s report also mentions the atrocities committed by the JVP during the second uprising, the NPP government is expected to face a problem about what steps to take after the parliamentary debate.
There is no doubt that the government has rushed through the report in the hope that it would be able to give Wickremesinghe some problem. Some government politicians even said that he should be stripped of civil rights.
An important question is what position the government, which has taken a keen interest in the report, is going to take on the reports of the various commissions that investigated violations during the war in the North and East.
These reports are of the Udalagama Commission appointed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2006 on 15 specific incidents of rights violations; the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) appointed by President Rajapaksa in 2011 after the end of the war; the Maxwell Paranagama Commission appointed in 2013 to look into the disappearances; and the report of the Nawaz Commission appointed by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in 2021 to review the reports of all previous commissions.
It seems that the NPP government has taken the report of the Batalanda commission in a ‘selective manner’ motivated by political expediency. This government cannot be expected to have the political courage to take into account reports of all previous commissions.
Meanwhile, 115 members of parliament from the ruling party have submitted a motion to the speaker of parliament to remove the inspector general of police, Deshabandu Tennakoon, who has been placed under remand custody after surrendering to the court. There are 23 charges against him. The motion also stated that Deshbandhu had brought disrepute to the office of the Inspector General of Police and the police department through his unbecoming conduct.
President Wickremesinghe had appointed Deshabandu as the police chief in the middle of last year after the Constitutional Council gave its approval. It is noteworthy that there was a controversy at that time about the Speaker’s vote in the Council.
While the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear nine fundamental rights petitions filed against Deshbandhu’s appointment early next month, the motion for his removal is already in the parliamentary order book. Notwithstanding the pendency of cases in the Supreme Court, it seems that the government wants to get parliament tocak him.
In another development, Britain imposed sanctions on three former Sri Lankan military leaders and former LTTE eastern commander Karuna Amman alias Vinayagamoorthy Muralidharan. The military leaders against whom sanctions have been announced are former army chief Shavendra Silva, former navy chief Wasantha Karannagoda and former army commander Jagath Jayasuriya. Sanctions include a travel ban and asset freeze.
Announcing the sanctions on March 24, the Minister of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs David Lammy said “The UK government is committed to ensuring that human rights are protected in Sri Lanka, including through accountability for human rights violations and abuses committed during the civil war.”
This is not the first time that the West has imposed sanctions against Sri Lankan political leaders and military officials. The US State Department had already imposed sanctions against Silva in February 2020. He and his immediate family members cannot enter the United States. Similarly, Canada imposed sanctions on former Presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa on January 10, 2023, under its Special Economic Measures Act.
The Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry, which has objected to the sanctions imposed against the three military leaders, said such unilateral actions by foreign countries would not help the process of national reconciliation in Sri Lanka, but would only complicate the process. Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath has conveyed Sri Lanka’s position to British High Commissioner in Colombo Andrew Patrick.
Herath said the government is engaged in the process of strengthening the internal mechanisms of accountability and reconciliation and any human rights violations of the past must be dealt with through the internal mechanism. It seems that NPP government’s position on accountability and reconciliation is not going to be any different from that of the previous governments. This was clear from Herath’s statement at the recent session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC ) a few weeks ago.
There have been strong protests from Sinhala nationalist political forces, as on previous occasions when Sri Lankan political leaders and military officers were sanctioned by some countries. Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who has always prided himself on courageously providing political leadership to the war, questioned how the United Kingdom could punish former Sri Lankan military leaders who ended the war on terrorism.
As usual, hard line Sinhala nationalist politicians such as Wimal Weerawansa, Sarath Weerasekara and Udaya Gammanpila have strongly condemned Britain. It is well known that nationalist forces, which suffered a major setback in the wake of the popular uprising three years ago and last year’s national elections, will once again use such opportunities to re-emerge using nationalist sentiments.
Those side lined in the country’s political landscape, especially politicians linked to the past regimes are keen in using this issue to regain relevance. Wimal Weerawansa has accused the government of not strongly condemning Britain.
Now the government has decided to appoint a ministerial committee to submit a report on the sanctions imposed by United Kingdom. The cabinet spokesman Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa told the weekly media briefing last Wednesday, that the committee will comprise Foreign minister Vijitha Herath, Justice minister Harshana Nanayakkara and Deputy of Defence Anura Jeyasekara. The committee will submit a report with recommendations to the cabinet of ministers on further measures to be taken after studying the facts regarding the issue, he added.
Even former President Wickremesinghe, who claims to have close ties with the West, has strongly condemned the international community, particularly the United States and Western European countries, for their ” “double standards “on human rights issues. He accuses the West of not condemning Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza. Wickremesinghe wants Sri Lanka’s withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council. He asks why Sri Lanka could not leave the council if Donald Trump could.
Wickremesinghe, once regarded as Sri Lanka’s leading liberal democrat, says in a strange way that his country should follow US President Trump at a time when the whole world is looking with disgust at his actions over the past three months. It seems that Wickremesinghe is now beginning to follow the usual trend of southern Sri Lankan politicians who embrace nationalism when they lose influence in politics.
At this juncture, a very important question inevitably arises as to how far the sanctions imposed so far have been effective in bringing about accountability for rights violations. But what is clear is that the sanctions will create an opportunity for nationalist forces to re – emerge.
No government in Sri Lanka is ever going to allow its soldiers to be punished for committing rights violations during the civil war. If pressures intensifies from abroad, the possibility that the NPP government will move towards a more strident nationalist stance cannot be ruled out. Government leaders do not talk about a political solution to the national question in order to ensure that they do not come under pressure from southern nationalist forces.
Based on the experience of the last sixteen years since the end of the civil war, one cannot but ask as to whether the Tamil people of Sri Lanka should continue to chase the mirage, when it comes to political solutions to the ethnic problem and accountability for rights violations.
(The writer is a senior journalist based in Colombo)
