Ent factory fiasco at time of 20A

with government leaders.”

Unlike on the previous occasion, the Government is doing its utmost to prevent a countrywide lockdown and a resultant curfew. This is in the light of growing indications that the Government has got a grip of the situation. Most contact tracing has been concluded with only a few more cases to go and what we need is strict enforcement of preventive measures, said a source closely associated with the health campaign. They have established that the vast majority of the cases were the result of inflictions at Brandix and containment measures were effective.

Thus, both the health authorities and enforcement agencies want to ensure public guidelines are strictly followed. This is another reason why government departments that draw large crowds, like for example the Motor Traffic Department, have been shut down temporarily. So are the Department of Immigration and Emigration and the Inland Revenue Department. This is also the reason why scholarship examinations are being conducted.

20A AND THE BATHIUDEENS

It was President Rajapaksa who denied accusations made by Colombo’s Archbishop Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith that the government had worked a ‘deal’ with Rishad Bathiudeen and his All Ceylon Makkal Congress. It came amidst speculation that Rishad’s brother, Riyaj, a businessman had been released from detention after five months as part of a deal so their support was forthcoming for 20A. Riyaj was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). He was produced before the Fort Magistrate and first detained for three months. The period was further extended by another three months.

On April 15, the Police spokesperson SSP Jaliya Senaratne told a ‘special news conference’ that Riyaj had direct links with the Muslim extremists. He said “Riyaj Bathiudeen had close links with the suicide bombers. He had met with one suicide bomber at a reputed hotel. That meeting was held prior to the attack on April 21. Five other suspects, including lawyer Hejaz Hizbullah, were arrested along with him. Suspects have allegedly invested in companies owned by some suicide bombers, established charity organisations, and held posts in them. There were question also on whether they had donated land to them.

“There is evidence to investigate him over Easter Sunday attacks,” he declared. Thereafter, Riyaj had been released on September 29 without the glare of any publicity. It is known that an aide to his brother, Rishad, telephoned newsrooms in some newspapers and urged that the story be not carried. The news of Riyaj’s release remained a secret until a media outlet questioned former Minister Rishad. It was on October 2, when SSP Senaratne held a news conference that the question was posed to him. He admitted that Riyaj had been released from custody since there was “insufficient evidence to charge him.” How does the existence of sufficient evidence suddenly become insufficient? After all, it came at a time when 20A was to become an addition to the country’s constitution.

In the wake of this development, Nuwan Wedisinghe, the Senior DIG in charge of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), the Sunday Times learnt was moved out. Asked for his response, Wedisinghe claimed, “There is no link with my departure from the CID and the release of Riyaj Bathiudeen. I was not the officer who carried out the investigation. I left the CID on my own will. I am now the DIG in charge of Western Province (North) which covers Gampaha, Kelaniya and Negombo divisions.” Also moved out was Police spokesperson SSP Senaratne. Taking his place was DIG Ajith Rohana who had earlier held the position.

Throwing more light on the issue, which caused serious concern for the Government, was Internal Security State Minister Chamal Rajapaksa. He told Parliament: “During the course of this probe, investigators did not find any evidence linking the suspect to the bomb attacks or of aiding and abetting them. There was also no evidence indicating his involvement in terrorist activities. As such, documents necessary for the revoking of the detention order against the suspect were finalised and submitted to the Ministry of Defence on September 29, 2020. He was thereafter produced before the Judicial Medical Officer and released.

“A special unit has been established to investigate this case. They have analysed 17 phone calls (between the suspect and the Easter bomber), all of which had been made using ministry phones. It is now believed that these phone calls relate to business dealings. The last phone conversation had taken place three months prior to the attacks.

“He has been released as there is no direct evidence to link him to the attacks. This, however, does not mean he is innocent. The police are conducting further investigations into this. The probe has not been stopped. If new evidence is uncovered against him, he will be arrested again. We cannot keep people in detention without charge. The only people who will be happy over such a situation are the people who made the complaint against the suspects, but it will be a great injustice to the suspects and their families. Nevertheless, a new DIG has now been appointed to take a fresh look at this case.”

In another development, 79 government MPs in a signed petition urged President Rajapaksa to investigate the circumstances under which Riyaj Bathiudeenn released. “We request an investigation to be held to inquire on actions carried out by the CID, following that Riyaj Bathiudeen should be re-arrested and legal action must be taken against him,” they said.

The question that begs answer is whether SSP Senaratne can be wholly blamed for pronouncing that there was evidence against Riyaj and later recanting. It would be more than reasonable to assume that this information was fed to him by the CID. Who did that? What was the reason for first touting what was claimed to be evidence and later retracting it? A retired senior Police officer quite familiar with the working of CID remarked that “the CID is now like the MO (Minor Offences) branch of a Police station.” The rapid deterioration had begun from the previous Yahapalana government with persons from outside having strong political clout getting involved at higher levels in different investigations. The roles of then Senior DIG Ravi Seneviratne (now retired) and former Director Shani Abeysekera, now under interdiction, are still being probed.

Former Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe was asked by the Commission of Inquiry probing the Easter Sunday incidents about the difference in the conduct of the Police at present and during the Yahapalana government. Later, Rajapaksha told reporters outside the Commission office: “I explained that the conduct of the police during both periods was the same. If there are matters related to powerful people, they will act according to the dictates of invisible hands. When they engage in such activities, they take decisions by avoiding the courts and the Attorney General’s Department.

“The police only strictly enforce the law against innocent and weak people. I also gave an example; I told them that people were killed as a result of the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks. At that moment, the most senior and high-ranking officer responsible said that they had strong evidence on Riyaj Bathiudeen that he worked with the terrorist group.”

There is no gainsaying that the government should give high priority to cleaning up the Police. Their performance is one of the main yardsticks by which the public measure their standing. That includes spokespersons whose knowledge of hearts-and-minds operations are literally nil except in the media. It is no secret that most citizens are hesitant to walk into Police stations.

Why the Riyaj Bathiudeen issue assumed so much importance is in the light of speculation that his brother Rishad Bathiudeen had reportedly worked a deal with leaders of the Sri Lanka Podujana Nidahas Sandanaya (SLPNS) government. A high-ranking source familiar with the developments said yesterday that Bathiudeen had made several attempts to reach out to Basil Rajapaksa, the key strategist, to initiate a dialogue. However, the absence of a response had put paid to the efforts. SLNPS leaders, nevertheless, have reached understanding with three MPs from Bathiudeen’s party to extend support for the passage of 20A. They have also done so similarly with three others from a smaller party.

The SLPNS leaders believe that in the most unlikely event of any of their own members deciding not to vote, they would still have the numbers. One of those who voiced dissent last Monday, in a letter to President Rajapaksa, was Colombo district parliamentarian Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe. Among other matters, he said, “I would like to point out that the ‘Rata Hadana Saubhgayaye Dakkma’ Manifesto did not have any mentioning about abolishing the laws and regulations introduced by the 19th Amendment.

“The Parliament of Great Britain and other democratic countries were created to stop the executive from governing the state funds and to secure the independence of the judiciary. This was confirmed by the Magana Carta agreement in 1215. In 1689, the Monarchy of King Wiliam III and Queen Mary was considered after they promised that they would not control parliamentary funds and act in a way that affects the independence of the judiciary.

“According to Article 148 of the constitution, the sole power and authority over state funds are vested in Parliament. In such an instance removing the state institutes from state auditing process and parliamentary supervision is a breach of sovereignty of the people which is secured by Articles 3 and 4 of the constitution. There is was some fairness in reasoning that the Government should approve such changes by calling for a referendum. “During such a situation as a Parliament member who represents the sovereignty of the people, I am deeply concerned as well as puzzled whether I could vote in support of the 20 Amendment according to my conscience. It seems that this would also breach the oath given as parliament members that we would follow the constitution and protect it. Even if we hypothesise that the 19th Amendment is the most evil constitutional provision, still if it was not enacted you would never be the President or the presidential candidate. You know it better than me and also, would know that according to your conscience. Even though I believe that during your tenure you would not use the power centralised with the President through the proposed 20th Amendment, I believe this would lead to issues during the tenure of a president appointed in future.” Strangely, Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe was conspicuous by his silence when the parliamentary group at a special meeting on Friday discussed 20A.

PARLIAMENTARY GROUP DISCUSSES 20A

Both President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa were at a special meeting of the government parliamentary group on Friday at ‘Temple Trees’ where 20A came up for discussion. This followed a request from MPs at their October 6 meeting jointly chaired by Ministers Dinesh Gunawardena (Leader of the House) and Johnston Fernando (Chief Government Whip). Both, the President and the Premier did not attend this meeting.

The more than three-hour meeting saw ministers Ali Sabry and G.L. Peiris make presentations lasting some half an hour each. They also circulated among MPs a document explaining provisions in 18A, 19A and the proposed 20A. The essence of the argument by both ministers, interesting enough, was over governance issues during the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government. Both highlighted them. Former President Sirisena, who was present, remained silent but seemingly disturbed, said a few MPs. The two Ministers said he (Sirisena) had not been able to govern. They also made the point that there was nothing new in 20A. Only three provisions from 19A, which were good, were being retained. A video was also screened. That showed voice cuts from Sirisena complaining that he was not able to govern due to the deficiencies in 19A.

There were several speakers who aired their views thereafter. Gevindu Kumaratunga (National List) from Viyath Maga was to say that 20A amounted to bringing back J.R. Jayewardene’s constitution. What is required, he said, was a new constitution and the current amendments were not acceptable. President Rajapaksa intervened at this stage to exhort that “you are the ones who have messed this up. You have not understood the provisions correctly and are making misleading statements.”

President Rajapaksa asserted that it was his prime objective to deliver. There were people who were without their basic needs like electricity or water. During his recent visit to a village in Haldumulla, when he gave instructions, an official had got up and asked that he send a circular. “This officer was scared. I said I am the President and asked him to take my word,” he pointed out. The President made several responses when MPs spoke on different aspects. After his first intervention, when Gevindu Kumaratunga rose to speak, he was shouted down by a chorus of voices shouting, “sit down, sit down.” One MP said he was new to politics and should travel to villages and learn life there.

Rajapaksa said there would be several progressive steps when the new constitution was adopted. He kept repeating the word, “I want to deliver” several times during interventions.

Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara raised the issue of the rescinding the provision which debarred dual citizens from contesting elections. He argued that if such a person was to become a Minister, there was the possibility of his influencing government deals in favour of the other country. Minister Pavithra Wanniarachchi intervened and declared that the current provision in the Constitution was mala fide. It had been framed purely to keep the Rajapaksas out from contesting elections. Nanayakkara was to say that despite expressing reservations, he would vote for 20A. “I do not want the opposition to gain mileage,” he declared.

Minister Wimal Weerawansa said that some 20A provisions had to be looked at carefully. Noting that they were there because of the trust the people had placed in them, conferring more powers on one person would have to be done carefully. He, however, said his party would vote in favour. Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) General Secretary Dayasiri Jayasekera declared that they would back 20A in Parliament. Interesting enough, the SLFP has held back a statement it was to release raising objections to four different provisions in 20A. Another significant feature at Friday’s meeting was the view expressed by a number of MPs that the President should be empowered to dissolve Parliament after one year. At present, in terms of the committee stage amendments proposed, it is two and half years.

There were strong indications on Friday that almost all government MPs would vote for 20A though Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe has created an element of doubt. The Government would only need 149 votes since the strength of Parliament at present is 223. The United National Party (UNP) and the Apey Janabala Pakshaya are yet to name their candidates as MPs for bonus seats.

So come the month’s end, Sri Lanka will have a more powerful President who says he has vowed to deliver. A nation awaits.