ACF reveals its humanitarian face

by Gomin Dayasiri

(October 02, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is in the zone of the bizarre to the bewildering. Action Contre la Faim (ACF),the controversial French NGO made a dramatic entry to the sittings of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Human Rights Violations purporting to safeguard the interests of their deceased employees, but soon took to their heels when the relatives of the deceased employees blamed the ACF for negligence, and held their employer answerable for the 17 deaths.

The entry of ACF to the Commission was ushered by a representative of the Eminent Foreign Persons (IIGEPP), who was the official foreign observer at the Commission. The usher, IIGEP departed blaming the Commission before the invitee ACF did likewise. In another vaudeville cartwheel, IIGEPP complimented the Commission for their work. The Government should take blame for opening the floor to such burlesque entertainers.

ACF sneaked out of the Commission nary a word. Was it that they could not stomach the outbursts of the wailing parents? Or they could not face their looming liability? Or were they guilty of negligence, that made them play truant? Or did they desire to escape from their impending strictures?

Walking out of a Commission without an explanation is a contemptuous act. It is more than an ethical nicety to tender an explanation - it is a legal obligation. They had the benefit of both local and foreign legal advisors for assistance. The least they could have done was to tender an explanation through Counsel retained. At least they could have tendered an explanation in writing from faraway Paris. None was forthcoming. The Commission is still unaware of the reasons for their departure, after having obtained the right to representation as the employer of the deceased persons, possibly with a view to safeguarding the interest of their late workers. Can they throw to the winds the obligations they undertook to perform, and take flight to Paris especially when their own conduct was now in question due to evidence of the family members?

Having closed in haste the office in Colombo, remaining insulated in Paris, the ACF circulated worldwide a report condemning Sri Lanka for human rights violations, the Commission and its investigation officers and its Counsel, the Attorney General’s Department and the local judicial system. If they had issued the report from Sri Lanka they would have much to answer in terms of the law of contempt as a party represented at the Commission and having left without permission and an explanation. Now the ACF by their conduct makes itself a necessary party at the Commission as reparations to the next of kin, is mandated in the warrant issued to the Commission.

The Commission has in the circumstances announced that the ACF would be summoned to appear. Rightly so. No party carrying an obligation which was voluntarily undertaken can take refuge by running away. The relatives have claimed that their children were dispatched to Mutur by ACF before making a proper assessment and ascertaining the realities on the ground. Thereupon, a dubious decision was made to hold the workers captive on the orders of the employer in keeping them bonded in the office premises in Mutur. Surely a refugee centre with hundreds of refugees under the control of authorities - both private and official - has better protection than the premises of an NGO, which had lost access and maintained only telephonic contact with its branch sans any protection. The culpability is increased by their knowledge that the adjoining premises (General Hospital-Mutur) was shelled on the first day of the clashes. If the General Hospital is subject to attack, what protection can the neighbouring premises of an NGO expect? Yet the employees were gated in office. For these decisions, ACF officials are answerable on the test of due diligence of an employer.

Notwithstanding the pleas of the deceased workers themselves, and calls from a high ranking public servant and a prominent clergyman asking the workers to leave the premises and move to a refugee shelter, the employer forbade their employees from leaving because of the difficulties they would encounter in collecting them when ACF officials arrive in their vehicles from Trincomalee. ACF was aware that the road to Trincomalee was not open to traffic. To trace the workers in refugee camps was probably thought to be tedious and uncomfortable to those in the NGO community used to comfortable lifestyles when stationed in distant outposts. To an international humanitarian organization, personal inconvenience appears to outweigh the importance of the right to life of 17 poor and destitute natives. The evidence has revealed that at the helm was a recently arrived Frenchman in Trincomalee whose knowledge of local affairs appeared to be scanty. The report of the ACF declares that directions on the Mutur situation were issued from their offices in Colombo and Paris.

The rest of the Mutur residents left the city to safety taking even their poultry with them. However, the ACF with three (3) vehicles at their disposal at the Mutur office with three (3) drivers failed to move a single worker to safety. The evidence on record reveals that the people in Mutur left the city in every available vehicle, while the ACF vehicles remained in the garage.

The parent of a deceased worker in a letter to the ACF has asked the Paris based ACF headquarters: "Is this the manner a so- called humanitarian organization acts in respect of their deceased employees after being responsible for their death? Is this the way, an institution which talks of humanitarian achievements globally, treat employees and give instructions which lead to their death and run away after paying a pittance? They should be made accountable."

The deceased persons’ families were paid around two years’ salary as compensation plus a bonus linked to family status and a consideration of the seniority of the employees within the ACF according to unofficial ACF sources. Is this compatible with European or French standards? Had it been nationals of an European nation that met their deaths in similar circumstances, could ACF have slipped out after paying around US$ 4000? On a comparison of compensation packages by Sri Lankan standards, this is grossly inadequate where there is death resulting during the course of employment.

There is liability under the law of dereliction where there is a lack of care by an employer and in the law of employment for an act caused due to the orders of an employer which the employee obeyed. Have these workers been paid their statutory dues such as provident and trust funds? If not, would ACF be guilty of statutory offences punishable with imprisonment as an errant employer? Is this a case where a humanitarian organization which has closed its office in Sri Lanka and stealthily left without an explanation, without paying proper compensation and damages and informing the relevant supervisory state authorities, of the due discharge of their lawful obligations.

The tragedy is that the Good Samaritans in these humanitarian organizations are well aware that the victims come from humble origins and can be used and disposed, and their families do not have the economic strength or the intellectual fibre or the support of state forces to take issue with them and challenge these organizations in proper forums and unmask these lords of poverty.

Should they succeed in internationally discrediting Sri Lanka’s human rights record, it will give them greater edge in attracting friendly donors to enhance their treasury? It is the NGOs that tell us that we should handle terrorists gently. Here is a classic case of the manner in which an NGO conducts itself when humanitarian considerations end up on its own doorstep. Those who attempted to expose Sri Lanka on human rights now stand exposed themselves. - Sri Lanka Guardian