The presentation of the Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’ will take place at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on 20 March 2019. Some of the recommendations contained in this report are contentious ones. They will not be viewed favourably by the majority of people in Sri Lanka. One of these calls for the setting up of a hybrid court to look into war crimes allegations. Such hybrid courts, which include international judges, are set up where the justice system (and the country itself) has largely collapsed, which is not the case in Sri Lanka. Another recommendation calls on the international community to apply the principle of universal jurisdiction on Sri Lankans accused of crimes such as torture, enforced disappearance and war crimes.
Political Commentary
The report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights would give an indication of the forthcoming decision of the UN Human Rights Council with regards to its resolution on Sri Lanka. The report is primarily a fact based one. Almost every assertion made is backed by evidence. Particularly damning are the large number of cases given in which serious human rights violations and crimes took place, but which have got stalled somewhere or other in the legal system. Examples would be the murder of Wasim Thajudeen, Sri Lanka’s Rugby captain, and Lasantha Wickrematunge, the editor of the Sunday Leader newspaper. There are some assertions however that can be contested. One such is the assertion that the security forces, when they withdraw from land they have occupied, destroy the buildings of the people and leave behind only a flattened landscape for the people to return to.
Although decisive presidential elections are only nine months away political mobilization is not taking place at the mass level at the present time. This accounts for the fact that the main sideshow for the past several weeks is about the detection of large consignments of narcotics and the arrest of drug dealers, most of whom appear to be the agents of others who have still to be apprehended. There is the added distraction of a parliamentarian going public and alleging that several of his fellow parliamentarians are themselves taking drugs. Instead of mass mobilization for political victory, the political meetings being organised are on a small scale and meant for party cadres who will take the propaganda messages to the people when the time comes.
The commencement of the UN Human Rights Council session this week has prompted the government to give renewed attention to post-war issues to which the international community has given its attention. President Maithripala Sirisena has said that Sri Lanka is considering withdrawing its co-sponsorship of the October 2015 resolution at the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council which wants the government to address accountability issues, including alleged violations of human rights during the final phase of the military operations to defeat the LTTE. The president had earlier promoted the idea prior to attending the UN General Assembly last September that Sri Lanka should withdraw from its commitments to the UNHRC resolution that was co-sponsored by the government. On the other side of the divide, a hartal and shutdown of Tamil areas in the North and East is taking place to protest against the government’s delay in implementing its Geneva commitments.
President Maithripala Sirisena has been joined by former president Mahinda Rajapaksa and by other opposition members in denouncing the institution of the Constitutional Council and the independent commissions established under the 19th Amendment. They have attributed many ill effects as flowing from these institutions. These include repeatedly defying the president’s wishes, being corrupt, creating chaos, being partial to members of minority religions and even of being culpable for the death of Sri Lankan soldiers on a peacekeeping mission on behalf of the UN. Underlying these criticisms is their frustration that the power of elected politicians is being restricted.
One of the fallouts of the political crisis that occurred towards the end of last year in October was the mobilization of civil society groups that engaged in discussion and debate about the constitutional propriety of the president’s decision to sack the prime minister and dissolve parliament. As the new prime minister and his government took swift action to take control and oust their rivals from all official positions, the president’s decision seemed irreversible in political terms, but was reversed by the judiciary through reference to the constitution. This created a new interest in the constitution and its importance in the governance of the country. This interest continues four months later.
Sri Lanka enters its 71st year of Independence with political uncertainty in the air. The only certainty is that 2019 will be a year of elections. Presidential elections have to be held in November. There is a likelihood that provincial and general elections will be held either before or soon after the presidential elections depending on the calculations of the government that is in power.
The issue of the Leader of the Opposition’s position once again came to the fore when it was brought up in parliament last week by TNA leader R Sampanthan. This issue seem to have been resolved when Speaker Karu Jayasuriya issued a ruling earlier this month that the UPFA’s Mahinda Rajapaksa would be the opposition leader. Parliament, the media and majority opinion seem to have taken this decision in their stride as the right and proper one. Certainly the UPFA is much larger in numbers than the TNA, both in parliament and outside parliament, and more vociferous in their opposition to whatever the government is doing.
In March this year Sri Lanka will report back to the UN Human Rights Council on its implementation of Resolution No 30/1 which it co-sponsored in October 2015. This is not going to be an easy session for the country as there is a considerable amount of international dissatisfaction with the slow pace of progress. This report back will be important as it will determine whether or not international scrutiny of the country on human rights issues will continue or come to an end. However, during the past three and a half years the government has implemented several of the commitments it made in terms of the resolution it co-sponsored. These include establishing an office of missing persons, legalizing the international conventions against torture and enforced disappearances and returning military occupied land to the civilian population.
The east is a part of the country where the price paid by the people where the ethnicisation of politics is still a dominant factor is visible. The main road runs through Tamil and Muslim settlements which are often consecutive with a Tamil-majority area followed by a Muslim-majority one and vice versa. The difference in the level of physical development of these towns and villages becomes more evident as a result. One set is bustling and energetic, and at night the streets and shops are well lit, while the other is less so.
The failure of public opinion to function in a manner that considers all sections of society equitably can be seen in the matter of journalists who have been victims of human rights violations. There was a time when Sri Lanka was known to be one of the most dangerous places for journalists to work. Today the situation has changed significantly so that Sri Lanka is described as the best destination for international tourists to visit. That change occurred four years ago with the change of government. But ironically, all the perpetrators of the crimes against journalists remain at large.
The dispute over the position of the Leader of the Opposition is not attracting much attention. It is taken for granted by most people that the Leader of the Opposition should be from the party in opposition that is largest, which is clearly the UPFA which has 95 members of parliament. During the recent political crisis, the UPFA and its allies were able to consistently show as many as 103 MPs on their side. Therefore, it is not surprising that following the withdrawal of the UPFA from the government alliance by President Maithripala Sirisena, the Speaker Karu Jayasuriya should have selected former president Mahinda Rajapaksa to be Leader of the Opposition. By way of contrast, the former Leader of the Opposition, R Sampanthan of the TNA, is currently able to muster the support of only 14 MPs.
Speaker Karu Jayasuriya’s announcement in parliament that the new Leader of the Opposition would be former president Mahinda Rajapaksa has been controversial. Following criticisms Speaker Jayasuriya, who had earlier played a key role in resolving the political crisis in the country, told parliament that he would soon make a statement with regard to the position of the leader of the opposition. Making a special statement in Parliament TNA leader R Sampanthan said the Speaker had not removed him from the opposition leader’s post though he had announced the appointment of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa as opposition leader. This is reminiscent of the fate that befell Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe when President Maithripala Sirisena replaced him with former president Mahinda Rajapaksa but without informing him beforehand.
The social media got a boost like no other during the past seven weeks of political crisis that enveloped the country. On October 26 itself no sooner was former President Mahinda Rajapaksa sworn in as prime minister the stormtroopers of his political alliance entered state media organisations and took control. Thereafter they began to give only pro-government news and views to the nation. Most of the privately-owned media also succumbed voluntarily to the menace of the new dispensation and to the unlimited patronage they could potentially offer those who fell in line. Consequently, dissenting opinion had to take to the alternative media of websites, facebook and twitter to get the other side of the matter. Those who wished to get news and analysis that was not pro-government also had to follow suit and go to the social media.
The country being on the verge of imminent division due to envisaged constitutional reform was one of the main justifications of the backdoor seizure of power of October 26 by members of the hitherto opposition who are now members of the government. The threat they alleged came from the constitutional reform process. This is a process that has been continuing since the former government got elected in 2015, though it is now at a standstill due the political crisis. The key elements of this constitutional reform process, which was envisaged to culminate in a new constitution, have been to change the executive presidential system, obtain a new electoral system to replace the current one which is based on proportional representation, and to ensure a more effective devolution of power as a solution to the grievances of the ethnic minorities in general and to the Tamil people in particular.
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision to issue a stay order on the president’s dissolution of parliament, the constitutional are nearer to being resolved. The reconvening of parliament after the stay order has seen the newly appointed government repeatedly defeated in votes in parliament. Two no-confidence motions against Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa have been passed and two motions to halt the allocation of funds to government ministries have also been passed. The government’s inability to muster sufficient numbers in parliament to outvote the opposition has led to the unprecedented situation, at least in Sri Lanka, of the government itself boycotting parliament.