Finds faults with Sunday Times report: Political Editor stands by story
there are certain media persons who get a pleasure in scuttling something good that is to be done.
“A paper like the Sunday Times has earned the respect of the people. I need not confront journalists. The readers will decide in future if newspapers which publish news like this should be read or purchased. I would request you Speaker to at least inform the Editor not to publish news that misleads the country.”
Just seven days earlier, Dr Rajapakshe, a Doctor of Philosophy and Buddhism from the Kelaniya University, also raised a privilege issue. This was over a complaint about reporting in the parliamentary lobby column. He said: “The Sunday Time is a newspaper read by all of us. It also has earned a good name in the field of media. I don’t want to blame the Editor or others. I do not want to inconvenience the journalists by raising a privilege issue. But at least parliamentary reportage should be done accurately. "
On both occasions, Minister Rajapakshe did not extend the basic courtesy of informing the Sunday Times if he had any reservations about accounts published. He has simply sought recourse to take umbrage under parliamentary privilege to state his own version of things which regrettably were not all accurate or true. If he did, the need for this lengthy account could have been obviated.
Iqbal Athas, Political Editor of the Sunday Times, responds: The reference is to last Sunday’s political commentary headlined Constitutional Council: The crisis continues. The account contained most of a three-page document Dr Rajapakshe had sent the President’s Office on “the rules of the Constitutional Council (CC) ….” This was immediately after a 56-page set of draft rules, was withdrawn after it was sent by Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, who chairs the CC, to the Government Printer. In other words, the learned legal luminary wanted his draft rules to be accepted where the Constitutional Council failed. He seems piqued that it did not happen.
It is a travesty of the truth to say I telephoned Dr. Rajapakshe. I DID NOT. However, I wanted to ensure that the political commentary contained Dr Rajapapakshe’s response too. At 10.43 a.m. on Friday (December 8) I sent him a WhatsApp message. I asked, among other matters, whether his draft rules have been accepted. He did not respond. This notwithstanding, a quote from him the next day (Saturday) to a colleague was incorporated to show that he had been given an opportunity to express his views. All what he said has appeared in print.
It is also a travesty of the truth for him to say, “he mentions here in the newspaper that the proposal given by me has been rejected by the Attorney General as it contravenes the Constitution.” If Minister Rajapakshe took the trouble to read my report, he will realize I have NOT said such a thing. This is what the introductory paragraphs in question had to say:
“The tussle continues between the executive and the legislature over rules for the discharge of the duties and functions of the Constitutional Council.
“The latest to join in is Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe with his own three-page draft rules to President Ranil Wickremesinghe. The Attorney General’s Department, the Sunday Times learns, has pointed out that some provisions in them reportedly contravened provisions of the Constitution….”
So where is this claim of a “rejection” from the Attorney General of all the draft rules as he tries to make out? No such thing has been reported. Minister Rajapakshe has quite clearly coined that sentence which is far from the truth. Only he would know the reason.
I wish to state categorically that the Attorney General’s
Department DID receive a copy of Justice Minister Rajapakshe’s draft rules. Thereafter, they responded to the President’s Office that some provisions in them, in their opinion, amounted to the usurpation of the President’s powers enshrined in the Constitution. That is the unvarnished truth. A fuller study is now under way. For reasons of confidentiality and to protect sources, I cannot elaborate. Suffice to say, again categorically and with responsibility, that in the light of these developments, the draft rules of Minister Rajapakshe, like the 56-page draft rules from the Constitutional Council (CC), will not be adopted in that form. It is a matter of time before this becomes public. President Ranil Wickremesinghe is of the view that the CC is part of the executive – a position which most opposition parties do not share.
It is not clear on what basis Justice Minister Rajapakshe has concluded that last week’s account “underestimates” the Constitutional Council. That is a yardstick that only he seems to know. I hold the CC and its members in high esteem. They have an important public role. His claim that “there is no crisis” in the Constitutional Council is laughable. Why then did he send a three-page draft rules after a 56-page one from the CC was withdrawn. Why then is President Wickremesinghe wanting to appoint a Parliamentary Select Committee to resolve matters that have reached a controversy at the CC?
As for Minister Rajapakshe’s assertion that there are media persons who “get a pleasure in scuttling something good that is to be done,” the less said the better. I assure him that I seek no pleasure in scuttling what is good or bad. Nor do I seek any pleasure over a failure or disenchantment of a Minister. I am only performing my duty of keeping our readership informed as truthfully as possible. That is in the public interest. In most instances, as Charles Haddon Spurgeon said, a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. My reportage has averted such situations though abuse in different forms is a norm. That will not end.
Justice Minister Rajapakshe is lamenting that he could not “do something” which according to him is “good.” The fault does not lie in me or the media. Unfortunately, he has exposed his helplessness. I agree with him that on all issues, the discerning readers of the Sunday Times will decide. And their opinion is not coloured by misleading distractions fuelled by a lack of awareness.