Crime’s a crime in Diyawanna House or in Wanathamulla’s ghetto grime
Rajapaksa and his MP gang raise the extraordinary defence that the Penal Code holds no sway in Parliament’s sanctum
If clear evidence was wanting, if further proof was required, as to the impudent manner Lanka’s members of parliament hold themselves as sacred cows above the law of the land, it came this month in unambiguous clamour when some UPFA members called upon the Speaker to turn a blind eye to the violent scenes that occurred on November 15 last year: when some fifty-odd members went berserk and held violence to be the sole means to give expression to their views in a chamber once famed for its eloquence in speech.
It came the day after the Supreme Court had salvaged Democracy’s moribund corpus from the flames the Executive had engulfed it in, with a seven-judge bench unanimously holding President Sirisena guilty of violating the Constitution by dissolving Parliament 16 months before its due expiry date, transgressing the 19th Amendment he himself had claimed as architect.
The Supreme Court decision, of course, spoilt the best laid plans of the Rajapaksa Pohottuwa party which had banked on a different and more favourable verdict to flow from Hulftsdorp Hill. Already Sirisena had sacked Ra nil Wickremesinghe from his constitutionally guaranteed and rightful position as Prime Minister and Rajapaksa had usurped his seat all done with a view to dissolve parliament and force elections before its shelf life had expired.
With hopes thus dashed, thus began the two-day siege on Parliament. But if the scene had been horrid on Thursday November 15, Parliament was plunged into hell fire on Friday when a violent Joint Opposition Pohottuwa Parliamentary mob turned the bleak House to a house of bedlam, in their attempt to gain, through mayhem and brute force, what had been denied to them unequivocally by the apex court of the land. Their ambitious plan had been foiled.
And if the Supreme Court had ruled that dissolution was illegal and thus by that landmark judgment opened Parliament’s doors for the voice of the people to be heard in its inner sanctum this brigand of JO thugs seemed determined to foil the ruling by making it impossible for Parliament to function again. Their actions may have not only been in contempt of Parliament but the question is that by preventing the desired results the supreme law lords hoped would flow, did it tantamount to contempt of the Supreme Court as well?
And on that ugliest day in the annals of Lanka’s Parliamentary history when violence became the means of expression, what were the criminal offences the Pohottuwa Platoon seem to have committed?
The offence of assault which is to create an apprehension of fear in the victim
The offence of battery which is the actual injury
The offence of intimidation
The offence of obstructing the police in the lawful course of their duties – police who had been invited by the Speaker, considering the violence that was already taking place in the House over which he lorded supreme, to grant him protection as he made his way to occupy the Speaker’s chair and conduct the business of the House.
The offence of causing damage to public property in the chamber when some MPs engaged in destroying parliamentary electronic equipment
The offence of voluntarily causing deleterious hurt to the human body by means of a corrosive substance as specified in section 315 of the Penal Code when they threw chili powder mixed in water upon two senior UNP front ranking members which hit their eyes
And all of these despicable criminal acts captured on Parliamentary CCTV cameras as well on television news footage, providing the law enforcement authorities with not only eyewitness accounts but compelling video evidence of the criminal acts committed that day – evidence not even the Attorney General can afford not to take into account when considering criminal prosecution.
Thirteen days later, the Speaker of the House Karu Jayasuriya – who himself had been a victim of assault – announced in Parliament on November 29 that the police were already investigating the incidents that had taken place on the floor of the House on 14th, 15th and 16th November 2018. And added that in ‘addition to the police investigations, I have also appointed a committee to conduct a broad internal investigation into the disorderly conduct in the House’.
Perhaps that was unnecessary. It was like gilding refined gold, adding another hue to the rainbow, but given the circumstances of the prevailing political satiation, he proffered to demonstrate his own nonpartisanship in the violent affair to add extra caution for comfort by seeking refuge in establishing a committee to forward to his office a report on the matter.
The committee was chaired by the Deputy Speaker MP Ananda Kumarasiri and comprised former Speaker MP Chamal Rajapaksa, MPs Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Chandrasiri Gajadheera, Bimal Ratnayake, and Mavai Senathirajah. The Speaker did the wise thing to show his neutrality in the matter, to be ennobled to take action against the culprits that had dared violate with violence the august sanctity of the House of the people’s representatives. The matter was a criminal one and the jurisdiction lay beyond the banks of the Diyawanna. In the province of the criminal law of the land.
The committee forwarded its findings to the Hon Speaker on 22 January.
While the police dragged their feet and the Attorney General stood inert, perhaps overawed by the majesty of Parliament, the Speaker’s Committee charged with the task of probing the event submitted its findings to the Speaker’s office on January 22nd. Four weeks passed after the submissions when the Deputy Speaker Ananda Kumarasiri let out a squeak and commented on the report on February 19.
He told the media that the Speaker would then refer the report to the Parliament Ethics and Privileges Committee headed by Minister Thilak Marapana. He added that the report has not yet been forwarded to the Attorney General and that the Speaker awaits the recommendations of the Ethics and Privileges Committee in that regard.
What? Criminal offences, collaborated by both eyewitness accounts and video footage, had been committed in Parliament, violence had wreaked the peace of the august House and the whole sordid ugly affair that had blackened the Parliamentary Hansard and rendered impotent the Parliamentary Mace, were to be held in limbo while the parliamentary Committee’s report was to be tabled before the special parliamentary Committee. And, thereafter, as the Deputy Speaker announced, “the Speaker would then refer the report to the Parliament Ethics and Privileges Committee headed by Thilak Marapana.”
He further said the report has not yet been forwarded to the Attorney General and that the Speaker awaited the recommendations of the Ethics and Privileges Committee in that regard. The 10-member Ethics and Privileges Committee has scheduled a meeting on Wednesday afternoon to take up the report.
The Deputy Speaker also said the CID investigation into the incident has also been expedited and is being carried out independently. Expedited? What’s the delay then three months after the incitement the nation still waits for results? Was the CID made a scapegoat accused of tarrying when the evidence was available to all on a platter to at least form the base of a prima facie case against the thugs in Parliament?
And what did the Parliamentary Committee find? They recommended action against 59 MPs guilty of various offences. In their report they stated: ‘the committee which probed the unruly incidents that occurred in Parliament on November 14, 15 and 16, had recommended taking action against 59 MPs (54 UPFA MPs, four UNP MPs and 1 JVP MP) for acts of misbehaviour inside the Chambers. The report of the six-member committee chaired by Deputy Speaker Ananda Kumarasiri also observed that the immunities and privileges of MPs do not obstruct taking legal action against MPs misbehaviour in the House.
That same day, addressing a news briefing at the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) office, MP Chandrasena said the Speaker was wrong for attempting to take legal action against their MPs.
He said: “We saw how the Speaker himself behaved when these incidents were taking place, violating parliamentary traditions as well as the constitution. We heard that our names are also among the list of wrongdoers. The Speaker should look at what takes place in parliaments in other countries as well. In Brazil, MPs once smashed heads but no one was taken to court. Such incidents had occurred in our old parliament too. It is not like we attacked each other with chairs. Therefore, taking these aspects into consideration, we request the Speaker to consider if it’s justifiable to take our MPs to court.”
If that was the first charge of the light brigade in the defence of its wrongdoers, on Friday, UPFA saw the heavies spring into action. Leading the charge was veteran politician, the cub of the famed Boralugoda lion, Dinesh Gunawardena who mouse-like roared in defence of his colleagues and claimed the acts of violence committed in the House were covered by Parliamentary privilege.
He said: “Matters of Parliament should remain within the House and the police should not be allowed. Highlighting the provisions of the Parliament. We are interested in the privileges of the MPs. We are under the Privileges Act and the rights of the MPs should be protected. If the police can summon the MPs for an incident that took place inside the Chamber, then there is no meaning in our privileges.”
To his credit, displaying once again his stubborn will not to be swayed by partisan speech, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya stood his ground and upholding the honour of the Speaker’s chair and bracing the mace, rejected the UPFA lawmakers’ request to stop police investigations into the brawl that took place on the Chamber floor in mid-November 2018 during the sittings of Parliament and the conduct of lawmakers.
He said: “A separate investigation was conducted by the police. I am unable to get involved in the investigations on MPs attacking the police. I can’t be responsible if somebody gets killed here in Parliament. So, the police will continue their own independent investigations.” How true. Karu Jayasuriya is only the Speaker of the House. He is not the Sheriff.
Then it was the turn of the Grandmaster and now Master Puppeteer, the then fake Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, who, on that dramatic November day calmly sat in his seat watching his minions making a criminal ruckus without saying a word. One shrill whistle from him would have shooed his hounds and prevented them from mangling Parliament’s respect but he stayed silent, he stayed aloof making no woof or growl and made a swift exit after the Speaker, under heavy police guard, managed to take a vote and adjourned Parliament thereafter.
In the best traditions of chivalry, he rose to defend his troops he had sent to battle; cadres who were willing to sacrifice their repute and risk a prison sentence to restore power to the Mahinda Rajapaksa clan and thus ensure that the sceptre, the crown will one day pass smoothly to the still unannounced heir when he assumes the throne -- as papa’s fond dreams hold.
What he had to say on the matter was that ‘it was not appropriate to allow an external body such as the police to investigate the incident that occurred in parliament last November as it happened inside the chamber.’ He told Parliament the Speaker had powers to take action against the MPs involved in the incident and added that it was not proper to allow the police to intervene.
Not proper for the Hon. Speaker to allow the police to intervene and probe criminal offences within the chamber of the House of Parliament?
There was worse to come. Mahinda Rajapaksa went on to say: "This happened in the chamber. If it happened outside, I will have a different opinion."
This was a shocking statement coming from a former president, twice elected, that two laws existed in the land: one for the people they represented who will be summoned to the dock and be sentenced and jailed; and another law which made immune him and his parliamentary ilk who represented the people who could commit the most heinous crime and escape the consequences of their criminal acts. Parliament, according to him, was an oasis where crime never meted punish- ment. Perhaps it was another privilege members of Parliament enjoyed. What if there was murder in the House? What if on that squalid day that blackened the pages of Lanka’s Parliamentary history which no chemical can bleach, resulted in the killing of an MP, a stenographer, a parliamentary clerk, the sergeant at arms, a member of the public, a journalist, a peon: then
WOULD UPFA member Chandrasena still say “The Speaker should look at what takes place in parliaments in other countries as well. In Brazil, MPs once smashed heads but no one was taken to court. Such incidents had occurred in our old parliament too. It is not like we attacked each other with chairs. Therefore, taking these aspects into consideration, we request the Speaker to consider if its justifiable to take our MPs to court, or WOULD, to go a notch higher, UPFA senior spokesman Dinesh Gunawardena say: “Our members are being called by police and have been asked to come in relation to this report. We are under the Privileges Act and the rights of the MPs should be protected. If the police can summon the MPs for an incident that took place inside the Chamber, then there is no meaning in our privileges.” or WOULD, upon reaching the summit, one find the former twice elected president Mahinda Rajapaksa saying: “‘it was not appropriate to allow an external body such as the police to investigate the incident that occurred in parliament last November as it happened inside the chamber. The Speaker has powers to take action against the MPs involved in the incident and it is not proper to allow the police to intervene” The folly they seem to appear to make is not out of ignorance of the infinite ambit of the criminal jurisdiction but in the relentless pursuit of political power. Exploiting the extravaganza of a people’s ignorance.
The only law that does not apply to parliamentarians is the law of defamation, provided the slander is hurled within the chamber of the House. The person defamed has to bear the robbing of his character worth far more than the stealing of his purse and can do naught to reclaim and seek recompense in a court of law for the damage suffered to irrevocable damage to his good name and standing. The freedom of the wild ass to libel anyone is done in the name of free speech and is covered by the doctrine of absolute parliamentary privilege. But no such luck when it comes to violating the criminal law of the land.
While the civil branch of the law imposes time limitations in bringing a suit to court, the criminal branch has none, no time frame and its jurisdiction sweeps through every nook and cranny in the land and even the Pagoda set in a lake is not inviolate of its intrusive arm and reach as it makes its way through mud and water to reach slime.
Instead of trying to safeguard the blackguards of his brigand who brought violence into the House on November 15th, Mahinda Rajapaksa should have condemned the incident, even though it was staged for his benefit: a pipe dream that did not materialise. For him and his kin to maintain the position that the criminal law does not apply within the hallowed chamber of the people’s House of Representative is a blatant attempt to fool the masses.
To put it its bluntly: If the chair that Pohottuwa member Johnston Fernando threw at the police cordon surrounding the Speaker Jayasuriya had hit the Speaker on his head and killed him, would Rajapaksa and his cronies still cling to the notion that a select committee would suffice to find out who was responsible? That the Ethics and Privileges Committee could be dependent upon to ban the member from attending Parliament for a month whilst the gallows awaited his neck?
Such thinking must surely rank as an example set at the zenith, how Lanka’s MPs think no end of themselves and consider themselves as sacred cows above the law, when in the people’s perception they are no more than unholy bulls not even fit to furrow the land.