IIEGP Antics - A penny for your thoughts!

by I. P. C. Mendis

(May 13, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) was invited by the President to observe proceedings of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate and inquire into alleged violations of human rights and to make suggestions. The country and the international community, particularly the latter, which is keenly interested in the outcome of this Presidential Inquiry, did not, as far as it is known, have occasion to report any pitfalls in the procedures or the working of the Commission till its withdrawal.

Nor were there any visible signs of any discomfort among the members of the IIGEP in performing the tasks to which they were mandated. Nay, even the disclosure by Gomin Dayasri, Counsel for the Army about an issue of conflict of interests relating to one of the members of the Udalagama Commission ( Dr. Devanesan Nesiah) , was strong or important enough to move them to interpret their role of ensuring transparency of the Commission to relate it to its fundamental function and take it up in issue. Dr. Nesiah is a respected retired public officer and he may genuinely have felt he could personally deal with his connection with the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and the issue of the 17 aid workers of the ACF separately and distinctly without mixing the two. That would have been based certainly on his own assessment and that of those who know him personally both in the public service and outside for his integrity and related qualities. (I respect him myself).

The point is that the work of the Commission is of a quasi-judicial nature and the basic principle in law follows the dictum that "justice should not only be done but it must manifestly seem to have been done". The best course of action, therefore, was for Dr. Nesiah to step down on his own, even before Counsel Dayasri thought it fit to question his role, if in fact he had anything to do with CPA which was a plaintiff (which to my knowledge he did not deny).

The latest allegation of Dr. Nesiah chatting to a witness during an adjournment as reportedly disclosed again by Counsel Dayasri compounds the issue. Justice Bhagawatti ( retired Chief Justice of India) who heads the IIGEP does not have to be educated on the basic principle in law as aforesaid but very unfortunately there had apparently been no comment by the IIGEP on the Nesiah issue.

Much later they, in their wisdom, sought to withdraw from their assignment on the pretext of the so-called absence of political will on the part of the government even without the courtesy of a prior discussion with the President who appointed them, They chose to have recourse to the media. If as they say there is no political will on the part of government, it is a matter of great import to be justified and they are professionally duty- bound to quote chapter and verse to convince the President, the country and the international community instead of making airy comments.

The independent observer, of course, is entitled to question the timing and the co-incidental nature of the withdrawal of the IIGEP considering that the drama enfolded soon after evidence was led that the 17 aid workers of ACF had been restrained from moving out of Mutur on the orders of the Head of ACF who was enjoying air-conditioned comfort in JAIC Hotel, Colombo.

The ACF conveniently withdrew after this disclosure, followed sometime later by the IIGEP perhaps realizing the futility of their continuing, particularly if some of them were working on a certain agenda. The table has been turned on the pro LTTE NGO wallahs and anti-government forces who are now clinging on to the last straw of "human rights" issues on the part of government keeping a stoic silence on the atrocities of the LTTE and even loading the government forces with LTTE sins.

Now that the aid workers issue has boomeranged, the IIGEP has had to climb down from the kitul tree and disappointedly exclaim there is no grass up there! Justice Bhagawatti also appears to be daggers drawn with Attorney General C.R. de Silva and complaining about intemperate language. Perhaps, it is difficult for him to wean himself away from the rights and privileges of his substantive appointment as Chief Justice of India and expects the same degree of deference sitting judges, particularly a Chief Justice and the highest Court expects by tradition and rule. AG C.R. de S is a time-tested, experienced lawyer who is trained and nurtured in the fine art of Court craft and demeanour.

His language could not have been possibly be unacceptable to a a foreign team of observers specially invited by the President though not of the identical mannerisms displayed in Court which is a different kettle of fish Hard-hitting choice of words, particularly where a situation demands, cannot be interpreted as intemperate. C.R. de S knows it too well and needs no education on that score.. Justice Bhagawatti need not have mixed up his substantive and current roles and if, however there was in fact cause for complaint, it should have been brought to the notice of H.E. the President or the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry without finding excuses after withdrawing and running to the media. Something intellectually, professionally and morally better was expected of a group which called itself " International Independent Group of Eminent Persons!
- Sri Lanka Guardian