|
by Kithsiri Wijesinghe
( December 5, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Guardian) Jayasuriya Chrishantha Weliamuna - better known as JC Weliamuna - is
a leading constitutional and human rights lawyer, who has been active in the
field of human rights for almost two decades. He is the former Executive
Director of the Sri Lankan chapter of the Transparency International (TISL) -
the global coalition of civil society organisations working against corruption.
As the head of the TISL, he drew the wrath of the government for exposing
serious corruption scandals and appearing in highly sensitive cases involving
human rights violations. In September 2008, he and his family survived a grenade attack on
his residence in Colombo.
Speaking to
JDS, he shruged off threats as a less important matter. 'I rose from humble
beginnings in rural down south to become a professional. It's my duty to stay
and fight' he says.
In 2010, he was elected to the Board
of Directors of the Berlin based Transparency International.
Currently he serves as a convener of the Lawyers for Democracy (LfD), apart
from playing an active role at the forefront of the human rights movement in
the island.
Excerpts from the interview follow:
JDS: The continuous attacks on judiciary,
including the physical attack on Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission
(JSC) can be seen as an open manifestation of a cold war brewing between the
judiciary and the Executive. Despite such views, the government has
categorically denied any such involvement in the attack. Any comments on
government's denial?
J.C.
Weliamuna: In my opinion, it was quite obvious who and what paved the way to
this ugly scenario. There is no point of trying to sweep the obvious evidence
under the rug. For example the physical attack was undoubtedly a result of the
differences emerged between the Judicial Service Commission and the Executive.
The Executive president himself accused the Secretary of the JSC as the main
culprit responsible for fanning such differences and then within days he got
beaten up. You don't need to be a genius to put two and two together if you
have the basic intelligence to figure out the the way politics work in Sri
Lanka. When the Executive president of the country threw unsubstantiated
accusations at JSC Secretary for committing various 'malpractices', the
consequences can be easily predicted. President's comments clearly indicated
that there is an open desire to tame and subjugate the entire judicial system.
Before the secretary was attacked, the assailants have asked whether he is the
'JSC guy'. The message hidden behind this question was absolutely clear: it
simply means 'don't mess with us!'
JDS: Nonetheless, the stand off between
the judiciary and the government didn't last long and it even appeared as if
the judiciary itself wanted to sweep the issue under the rug. Why the
reluctance?
JCW: I don't
think it has entirely died down yet. This sort of fluctuations are quite common
to many other struggles as well. Sometimes, we are compelled to act according
to conditions laid down by specific situations. It doesn't mean that we have
abandoned the struggle. But, here we need to realize one important fact. Just
like people involved in other professions, the legal professionals also have
their own political loyalties. There are people who are politically close to
the president and the government, despite their involvement in the legal field.
Such political differences can create inevitable obstacles and delay certain
actions. But relatively speaking, a whole lot of legal professionals have have
agreed to act in unison as a result of the worsening situation.
JDS: What about the Bar Association
(BASL)? Why so much foot dragging without taking any concrete steps, if the
source of the threat is so obvious?
JCW: I think
the BASL has stated its position. For example, following the attack on
Secretary of the JSC, the BASL took a clear stand by demanding to finish the
investigation within one month. Apart from the BASL, there are other groups of
lawyers, who are independent. They also have taken a tough position with
respect to the rising tide of repression and intimidation. The government is
desperately trying to cover up the whole scandal by all means possible. They
cannot unnecessarily prolong the investigation just like they use to do on
other cases, since this is a clear violation of the independence of the
judiciary and the legal profession.
JDS: The whole controversy centred around
the judiciary provides ample evidence of the ongoing political manipulation and
the true state of rule of law. What lies ahead?
JCW: When
you say 'Rule of Law' it contains a conceptual as well as a legal sense to it.
Rule of law primarily means a system where everyone will be governed by the law
and not by the rulers. And it also means that there can't be any room for
impunity. That is most general and fundamental interpretation of the concept of
rule of law. In Sri Lanka our experience is that there is a certain group of
people who do not come under any law and live beyond the authority of any law.
Their actions are never subjected to any investigation or judicial inquiry. One
can be assured of enjoying such a privilege if he or she is politically close
enough to the regime. There is a clear ability to either completely prevent or
to manipulate any investigation in favour of such people. They can be
politicians or even criminals. But if they are loyal to the regime, they can
get away without facing the consequences of their criminal acts. In the same
manner, there is also a possibility to initiate bogus investigations based on
false accusations against any person government dislikes.
Take the
example of the independence of the police. Most of the countries with strong
democratic traditions, normally have the police force under a civil authority
while the military will be activated in a time of war or an emergency.
Otherwise the military will be confined to barracks. In Sri Lanka, we all know
that hasn't been the way the things are done. The military doing policing work
exposes the true state of rule of law - because the proper implementation of
rule of law requires these two institutions to be separated. The absence of such
fundamental conditions shows the level degeneration.
JDS: Apart from the situation involving
the judiciary, what is your impression of the current state of human rights in
general?
JCW: During
the last 5 to 6 years, the government's record on human rights has
significantly worsened. Even though many expected certain improvements, at
least after the war, in reality it has further deteriorated. What we can see
now is the changing of the dimensions of the violations. Earlier the violations
were always related to abductions, minority rights violations, curtailing
freedom of expression etc. Now the violations continue in a different form. On
the top of that, the other disturbing development is the increased
militarization of civil administration. If we consider the freedom of
expression, for example, despite the fact that so many journalists have been
abducted or killed and media institutions attacked, no single investigation was
conducted, simply because the government is not keen to investigate. As a result,
some of the journalists were compelled to leave the country and those who
remained in the country have to do their writings under enormous restrictions
and limitations in order to avoid being branded as traitors. Therefore, in
general I would say the rights environment has further degraded and none of us
can see a single sign to believe that there would be any positive improvement.
Such positive improvement seems absolutely impossible when the government view
the concerns for human rights as an obstacle to implement their agenda.
JDS: Regardless of such allegations, the
government keep denying any violation or wrong doing. On the contrary, they
keep insisting on the remarkable post war achievements spreading to every
aspect of public life, which include establishing effective mechanisms to
safeguard human rights. How would you respond?
JCW: To say
the least, the rights record has not improved at all. Nevertheless, the
government would say that there are no human rights violations taking place,
because the government is mindful of the fact that Sri Lanka has become a
target of severe criticism due to government's own misconduct. Therefore,
for obvious reasons, they are determined to block such adverse publicity and to
promote their image. Such objectives become essential when they expect to
achieve a rapid growth in foreign investment and to reset their diplomatic
relations with other members of the international community. But anybody who is
going to believe such propaganda would inevitably end up being complicit to
ongoing right violations.
As people
who live inside the country, we know what the ground reality is. In my view,
even right at this moment, the dissenting voices are absolutely unsafe. The
fact that few courageous people are still determined to take up issues does not
mean the dissent is allowed and safe. Furthermore, actions of such exceptional
people does not mean, that every one in the society can take up such issues in
the same manner and their safety can be guaranteed. The truth of the matter is
that the entire state mechanism is basically organized to crush any sort of
dissent.
JDS: As you said, there appears to be a
considerable attention towards Sri Lanka on the international level, which has
been interpreted by the government as an international conspiracy against a
sovereign state. At the same time though, such international powers seem to be
promoting government's own prescriptions, such as the recommendations of
Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and thereby providing a
certain legitimacy to such mechanisms. This was reflected even in the
recent resolution passed during Geneva human rights council sessions. Do you
think that the LLRC recommendations have the potential to resolve the deep
seated political issues?
JCW: The
LLRC recommendations are basically dealing with two things. The first set of
recommendations deal with the last phase of the war to some extent, focusing on
accountability and similar issues. Secondly, they deal with the issues
concerning the rule of law and governance. I think the reason the government
seems to be quite hostile towards the recommendations is mainly due to the
latter aspect of them. Because the government knows well that if they are to
implement those recommendations, the government will fall. Because they cant go
on with their manipulation and repressive actions if they act according to the
recommendations.
The
difference is this: the first set of recommendations concerning the
accountability issues goes beyond the jurisdiction of the country and anyone
who understand the human rights law would know it. But if we want to discuss
the Geneva resolution, we need to understand that the whole process did not
happen overnight. It has its' own history. About one year ago, a Cabinet
Sub-committee was appointed to look into the interim recommendations of the
LLRC. But it didn't go beyond that as the government virtually didn't take any
concrete steps to implement them, even though they kept promising the
international community that they would take necessary measures. Generally
speaking, Rajapaksa government is quite keen on giving promises nationally as
well as internationally, despite the fact they don't have any intention at all
to fulfil them. The Geneva resolution was a consequence of such broken
promises. In my opinion, the resolution has far reaching consequences both
nationally and internationally. The government's response to the resolution is
two fold. On the one hand the government maintains a position insisting that
the resolution threatens the sovereignty of Sri Lanka and therefore unlawful.
On the other hand they argue, the resolution should not have been brought at
all, since it negatively affects the Sri Lanka's ongoing reconciliation
efforts.
Now the
legality of the issue is very clear. If you are a party to any international
convention, you are bound to act accordingly. It's a legal obligation which is
based upon certain provisions of international law. Second thing is, whether
such a resolution will provide any help to the implementation of the LLRC
recommendations - I believe it would certainly do so. The fact that now there
is a third party watching over the whole process cannot be simply dismissed as
insignificant. The government has not demonstrated any genuine willingness to
push the reconciliation process as far the war affected population in the
north-east is concerned. The best example is the land issue in those areas,
which is now quite well known. The government has a clear political agenda
which has nothing to do with resolving the ethnic conflict.
JDS: In that context, do you believe that
besides rule of law aspect, the LLRC recommendations do not address the root
causes of the conflict which it claims to be dealing with?
JCW: I have
a different view on the LLRC report and I totally accept your right to hold a
different opinion. Given the history of the ethnic conflict - at least when you
consider the last 10 to 15 years - I think this is 'the' most important
document. Although the government is trying to disassociate itself with the
content of the report, it came from a commission which was appointed by the
government. When it comes to the last phase of the war, of course they have not
gone into detailed recommendations for obvious reasons. I know that they
have said that the military is not involved in abductions, killings and so on.
Nevertheless they have emphasized the need for an investigation. Therefore to
that extent I think the commission has put forward some positive
recommendations and increased the pressure on the government to hold an
independent investigation. We all know that the government is highly reluctant
in taking any such step, as far as an independent investigation is concerned.
But still I think more pressure should be exerted on the government to initiate
some form of independent investigation where the framework and the method of
investigation cannot be manipulated.
JDS: Although the serious issues you raise
concerning democracy, rule of law, fundamental rights etc. have become more and
more important, mainly the Sinhala masses living in the south of the island
remain indifferent and apathetic. There seems to be a huge gap between the
gravity of such issues and the public awareness. Any comments?
JCW: It's a
political issue. The way it must be handled can depend on the specific
situations and it also differs from country to country and from region to
region. However, as far as Sri Lanka is concerned we know that the government
is extremely sensitive to any criticisms regarding such issues, even though they
have now got two third majority in the parliament. The reasons are quite
obvious. They know all these debates and public challenges can threaten their
very survival. Therefore the government has effectively prevented any such
discussions reaching the general public by controlling the free flow of
information. They are doing it not only through state media - which are totally
dependent on manufactured lies - but they also manoeuvre most of the
privately owned media as well. Furthermore, they have prevented some of the
civil society organizations working in rural areas, getting involved in any
sort of political activity, so that such issues will never be discussed.
In the same
manner, the government has blocked any sort of public awareness campaigns,
including human rights education for public servants, in any part of the
government. Any such activity will be closely monitored by the police and
intelligence agencies. At the same time, they have planted political stooges at
every important position that can influence the public thinking. This includes
everyone from the vice chancellors of the national universities to heads of
important public institutions and even principals of prominent schools.
Appointing ex-military personnel as well as serving officers to important civil
administrative positions is also part of this strategy. By doing so, the
government has quite effectively prevented any public debate or discussion on
human rights, democracy, corruption, rule of law etc.
The answer
lies in the ability to wage collective action. Also it should be noted that the
collective action should not be limited to the national activities. Instead,
the actions outside the country should also be coordinated with internal
actions to make it more effective and powerful.
JDS: You have continuously become a
target of state sponsored hate campaigns apart from facing serious physical
threats in the past. Regardless of such threats, you have been increasingly
involved in civil and political activities through out the recent past. How do
you cope with growing threats?
JCW: It is
important to realize that the most effective battle can be fought on the battle
ground. In the same way, for me, the most effective way to fight for democracy
is to put up a fight on the ground. When you keep resisting, the governments
will also be compelled to change their aggressive strategies. As there are
certain political realities the government cannot ignore, they too have to
consider pros and cons of their actions. That is why some of the activist have
not been so far intimidated despite their increasing involvement in raising
political awareness among the public. This does not mean that the government is
willing to change their way of thinking. But there are unavoidable realities
that they should also take into account.
Despite
being threatened and intimidated, the reason I decided to stay and fight is
because I see it as a social responsibility as well as a moral duty. As a
beneficiary of the free education system in the country which helped people like
me to become professionals, we don't have a right to stay silent when the
fundamental rights of the people are being gravely violated. We need to create
a country which is worth living in, not only for us, but for the future
generations too.
Kithisiri Wijesinghe worked as a journalist attached to
several Sinhala language weekly newspapers and periodicals including
Ravaya, Mawbima and Diyesa journal. In March 2008 - while working for the
news website Outreachsl.com - he was arrested by the Terrorism Investigation
Division (TID) along with senior journalist J.S.Tissainayagam, and
detained. He now lives in exile in Europe. | Photo courtesy: Kalpa Rajapaksha
 Jayasuriya Chrishantha Weliamuna - better known as JC Weli...){kind=link}