Sunday Times (Sri Lanka)

Crackdown on MR a

President says ‘JO’ members jubilant over Karunanaya­ke resignatio­n, but its leaders will soon know what awaits them; quips of appointing even 10 Commission­s Another blow to UNP a not be postponed; 20th

- By Our Political Editor

It was like the old Sinhala adage of falling from the tree only to be gored by a bull or a double whammy as they say in the West. The United National Party (UNP), battered and bruised by the Ravi Karunanaya­ke saga, was in for more embarrassm­ent. The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) Central Committee decided unanimousl­y Thursday night that elections be conducted to Provincial Councils (PCs) in Sabaragamu­wa (term ends on September 26), the Eastern Province (term ends on September 30) and the North Central Province (term ends on October 1) this year.

It was at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday (August 1), just nine days ago, that ministers gave approval to a recommenda­tion by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesi­nghe to put off Provincial Council elections on the grounds that “an undesirabl­e socio-political environmen­t has emerged in the country.” He won approval to introduce an amendment to the Constituti­on -the 20th Amendment -- to make provision to enable elections to all PCs to be conducted in one day. Such a move, it was clear even then, would not pass muster since a two thirds majority vote was required. There were rumblings among members on both sides.

Moreover, the ‘Joint Opposition’ and public interest groups were making preparatio­ns to challenge the draft constituti­onal amendments in the Supreme Court. “We will not vote for amendments to put off PC elections. In fact, we are awaiting the tabling of these amendments in Parliament on August 22 to seek the interventi­on of the Supreme Court”, Dinesh Gunawarden­a, leader of the ‘JO’ in Parliament, said yesterday. “Any move to put off elections is anti-democratic and goes against the will of the people, their right to franchise. We will totally oppose it,” he added.

The Sunday Times learnt that Elections Commission­er Mahinda Deshapriya has also written to President Sirisena not to put off the PC polls. He has said that such a move would be in violation of the Constituti­on.

Now that the SLFP Central Committee has decided unanimousl­y that the PC polls should be conducted as scheduled, the Cabinet of Ministers is expected to rescind its earlier decision. The matter is expected to come up on Tuesday. This will mean the Elections Commission will be able to go ahead with its originally planned date for nomination­s for these three PCs to be held on October 3. It is likely the elections will be on a date in November.

The justificat­ion for holding PC polls in one day, according to Premier Wickremesi­nghe, was “more logical, reasonable and appropriat­e” for four reasons: (1) Efficient utilisatio­n of state resources on

elections (2) Eliminatio­n of undue disruption­s to day-today life of the general public and state service deliveries. (3) Dissipatio­n of energies and resources of Political Parties throughout the Country, minimising election-related violence and state resources utilisatio­n by some candidates, and (4) Accurate using of public perception as a barometer to evaluate the conduct of the incumbent government, enabling it to take corrective measures, if needed. However, SLFP Central Committee members, including ministers who were present at the Cabinet meeting, were highly critical. Among the most outspoken was Disaster Management Minister Anura Priyadarsh­ana Yapa, a Kurunegala District MP. Others who were strong in their opinion were Ministers Susil Premjayant­ha and John Seneviratn­e. Yapa said for no reason should elections be postponed -- a view that was endorsed by many of his colleagues including other SLFP ministers. Some speakers threatened to vote against the Constituti­onal amendments if their appeal is not accepted. It was ironic that they did a volteface within just three days of a collective Cabinet decision.

President Sirisena, who declared he would heed their request made a disclosure that became the talking point among those present at the CC meeting. He noted ‘Joint Opposition’ members were jubilant over the events related to Foreign Minister Ravi Karunanaya­ke’s resignatio­n. He warned that their euphoria would be short lived. Speaking in Sinhala, he said, “I know what is going to happen to them by next week.” Sources close to the Presidency said Sirisena had hinted about the investigat­ions that had gone on in high profile cases -- those relating to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and members of his family. Since admonishin­g the UNP leadership at a Cabinet meeting last month for colluding with those concerned to stall the probes, Sirisena has personally taken initiative­s to expedite some important probes. Further impetus came when the UNP leaders, under pressure after the Karunanaya­ke episode, began to make public comparison­s about the bigger volume of bribery and corruption under the previous regime. Some even said so in Parliament, notwithsta­nding the fact that the UNP was accused of delaying them.

Those remarks only drew sarcastic retorts from former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Referring to the Karunanaya­ke saga, he declared, it was nothing but divine retributio­n for the accusation­s made against him and his family. Yet, he was conscious that a crackdown against him and the family was imminent. Commenting to a group of ‘JO’ members on the Karunanaya­ke episode (before his resignatio­n and statement in Parliament), he said the Foreign Minister quitting the Cabinet would lead to other developmen­ts. To ‘make things equal,’ Rajapaksa told them the Government could arrest him or his family members and urged that the ‘JO’ should be mindful of this. They would produce them in Courts and launch a propaganda drive, he said.

Adding to the unease of the UNP was another developmen­t. Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe in different public comments and in newspaper interviews, strongly criticised the Concession Agreement between the Government and the Chinese company for the Hambantota Port project. Rajapakshe, known for wallowing in controvers­y, said it was his commitment to take back the Hambantota Port one day from Chinese hands. If it was clearly a violation of collective responsibi­lity since the Cabinet of Ministers had approved the Concession Agreement, which is a legally binding document, it was to spark anger amongst UNP backbenche­rs. On Thursday, they began a signature campaign for a Vote of No Confidence on Rajapakshe. The thrust of their accusation­s was on violating collective cabinet responsibi­lity.

However, the identities of most backers to the motion also laid bare another possibilit­y. They were closely associated with then Minister Karunanaya­ke and believed the Justice Minister was the cause for some uncomforta­ble moments when he appeared before the Commission of Inquiry – an accusation which Rajapakshe has dismissed. They felt this was again retaliatio­n for Karunanaya­ke raising issue at a Cabinet meeting over Rajapakshe’s close associatio­n with Avant Garde Maritime Services Ltd., a company which is under several probes now for allegedly amassing enormous wealth providing private security for cargo vessels from sea pirates active in the seas off Sri Lanka. Premier Wickremesi­nghe was to summon key movers and direct that no such motion should be forwarded. He had said that such a step would require discussion and approval at the Working Committee, the main policy making body of the party and from him as the leader. Eka deng kunu koodeyta daanna oney or we must dump it in the waste paper basket, declared a Deputy Minister who was one of the movers.

Neverthele­ss, a UNP minister and one of four Government official spokespers­ons Rajitha Senaratne chastised Rajapakshe. Speaking at the briefing that follows weekly ministeria­l meetings, he said his colleague had breached the Cabinet’s collective responsibi­lity principle. His (Rajapakshe’s) utterances, Senaratne said, will be taken up for discussion at the next ministeria­l meeting on Tuesday. Whether Senaratne should publicly accuse a ministeria­l colleague of misconduct is debatable, but he was quite clearly using his position as official spokespers­on to express personal views creating the public impression that the remarks were coming from the Government. Another instance was over the conduct of officials of the Attorney General’s Department, particular­ly senior counsel assisting the Commission of Inquiry probing the Central Bank bond scam. Senaratne charged that they had ignored files related to Mahinda Rajapaksa and his family members and were concentrat­ing on “smaller cases” like the one related to Karunanaya­ke.

Senaratne also told a news conference that followed the ministeria­l meeting that “My question was, what the Commission is investigat­ing here? This incident involves the house and phones of a party suspected of involvemen­t in the Treasury bond issue and their friends. Even if all phones had been obtained, I asked if this could prove whether a fraud took place during the bond auction. They also keep asking for three month extensions. My question was, is the Commission asking for extensions to probe the bond scam or things like this? What we want is for the Commission to get to the truth of the bond issue and submit a report to us. That report should be of an advisory nature.” It is clear even to the most dim witted that Senaratne is uttering those words as the official Spokespers­on of the Government, an abuse of his position and an affront to President Sirisena who has appointed the Commission. That he uses the weekly media briefing as a platform to air his own views, creating the feeling that they were official, thus causing embarrassm­ent to the Government, is all too well known. That was why the SLFP put in its own official spokespers­on in Dayasiri Jayasekera to offset Senaratne’s solo flights on behalf of the Government. This signalled that the SLFP was not necessaril­y on the same page as Senaratne.

Similar sentiments were also expressed by UNP backbenche­rs who rushed to make personal accusation­s. Collective­ly, they were giving a strong message -- it was to intimidate counsel in the AG’s Department and thus force them into the graveyard of silence. Aggressive questionin­g to elicit the truth from any accused or witness has remained the prerogativ­e of a counsel either from the state or the private bar. Advocacy is adversaria­l. What was now being sought, it appears, is for the state prosecutor­s to be nice to those in the Government and hostile to others who are opposed to them. To replace such a time honoured practice with a process akin to how a Montessori teacher would ask questions from a child is not only condemnabl­e but goes against the very spirit of good governance or yahapalana­ya which the coalition leaders boast of pursuing. UNP MPs used parliament­ary privilege to attack the state counsel who grilled Ravi Karunanaya­ke while claiming the minister’s

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Sri Lanka