Counter terrorism law- Confessions no longer admissible at trial: Sampanthan

Counter terrorism law- Confessions no longer admissible at trial: Sampanthan 2018-10-13 14:22:24 9 3092 Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan said confessions would no longer be admissible at the trial of a person charged with an offence under the new Counter Terrorism law and the same position should be applied to those already charged based on confessions. He said if the new counter terrorism Law accepts that position, then the Government is obviously accepting the position that there can be no conviction, not even a charge based upon the confession. Mr. Sampanthan said this in Parliament on Thursday. “If that be so, the persons in custody, even persons who have been convicted, must be dealt with on the basis that they have been convicted on the confession which was the only available evidence, there being no other evidence against them, which the Government accepts now as a matter of policy is inadmissible, is invalid, is something that which Government policy would not permit to accept and is not in keeping with international norms. If that be the position Sir, I would appeal to the Government to take steps for the release of all these persons who are in custody based purely on their confession. Whether they have been convicted or charged and not convicted does not matter, but if the only evidence against them is a confession, then I would submit that they must be released and the Office for Reparations can play a role, in my view, should play a role, in ascertaining the truth in regard to this matter and taking steps with the Government to have these persons released,” he said. Mr. Sampanthan said the persons handling the Office of Missing Persons, were doing their very best to be as effective as they can and we are grateful for that. “I would like to make a few comments in regard to this matter because the ascertainment of truth, the delivery of justice, the issue of accountability, reparations and non-recurrence are all fundamental components of the transitional justice process; process to bring about reconciliation on the basis of truth, justice and accountability in the country which has gone through several decades of armed conflict. This Bill is a very welcome feature, Sir, but it must not be used to sideline truth and justice. Truth and justice must always prevail. Even the issue of missing persons or the issue of reparations must be dealt with on the basis of truth and justice. The Office on Reparations should be able to formulate policies based upon truth and to ensure justice to all victims. That is fundamental. "I find certain provisions in the Bill which will enable the Government to play a role in regard to the implementation of whatever policies are formulated by the Office for Reparations. This must not be a matter that comes under the control of the Government, Sir. The Office for Reparations must have the freedom to act independently in this matter to formulate the required policies and be able to find avenues to offer reparation to persons who have been victimized. Youth have been victimized in a very large manner. What are the reparations that can be given? They must be empowered to acquire skills that will enable them to carry on their life in the future independently and as best as they can. There will be reparation that must be given to youth. People need to be economically empowered. People have been impoverished as a result of the war. There needs to be economic empowerment to the people to enable them to lead their life without deprivation or denial,” he said. (Yohan Perera)

Expectations for the Office for Reparations in Sri Lanka

Expectations for the Office for Reparations in Sri Lanka 14 October, 2018 0 Facebook Twitter Email Facebook Messenger BY BHAVANI FONSEKA Opinion Parliament of Sri Lanka this week, passed into law the ‘Office for Reparations Bill’ (the Bill), the second mechanism promised within the transitional justice agenda. Though the noise on the Bill was somewhat muted unlike the lead up to the enactment of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) Act, polarised positions were still evident in the statements made by several in Parliament. This should come as no surprise considering the divisive statements made earlier by some in Cabinet when proposals were presented to provide compensation to former cadres. This deep polarisation, narrow notions of victimhood and the politicisation of processes that are meant to promote reconciliation are all deeply troubling in a country that has witnessed decades of cyclical violence affecting all communities. The Office was promised in 2015 when it was included in the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1 which was co-sponsored by the Government of Sri Lanka. In 2017, the Government requested for more time to implement the commitments contained in the Resolution and received a further two year extension. In June this year there was a rush to introduce the Bill with just one consultation session organised in Colombo for select civil society members. The civil society made calls for broader consultations and shared proposals for potential amendments, but these were ignored and the Bill hastily gazetted and tabled in Parliament. In the enthusiasm to rush the Bill, limited attempts were made by the authorities to genuinely engage with victims and affected communities and to raise awareness among the public as to what reparations are, and how a future Office could function. This was confirmed recently when I spent a few days in the North of Sri Lanka where the lack of awareness on the new law was evident. This lack of awareness was apparent during the Parliament debate where, barring a few, many MPs were not fully aware of what reparations are and how they can be beneficial for their own constituencies. In the absence of information and constructive debate, divisive positions have been emboldened. Some of the statements made by politicians also highlighted the lack of understanding of a Bill that was in the public domain for a few months, now. Either due to this lack of understanding or in an attempt to create mischief, false assertions were made during the debate which could exacerbate tensions and create mistrust among affected communities. It also highlighted the critical need to understand what reparations are and their potential impact in postwar Sri Lanka. Reparations are one of the four pillars of transitional justice, the others being, truth, justice, and non-recurrence. Reparations complement the other pillars and should not be treated as a separate entity. Leader of the Opposition R. Sampanthan in his speech during the debate recently, reiterated the need for truth and justice, and underscored why reparations are not a substitute to these. This is an essential point. The new law provides for individual and collective reparations and can also assist victims by way of providing material and symbolic support to assist with rebuilding their lives. If implemented in a comprehensive manner, reparation can directly and comprehensively benefit victims and affected communities across Sri Lanka. Reparations are a critical component for societies that have experienced past abuses. Reparations are a way of recognising the grievances of individuals and communities and providing them with appropriate remedies. They can also allow victims to be recognised and be treated as rights holders. Reparations as provided in the new law will be available to all victims of past abuses and are not meant for a select few. Reparations are not new to Sri Lanka. Successive governments have provided various aspects of reparations with institutions such as, the Rehabilitation of Persons, Properties and Industries Authority (REPPIA) and others being tasked with administering these forms of reparation. REPPIA has had its own challenges, from a narrow scope to limited funds. We have also witnessed the lack of uniformity in how reparations are dealt, with multiple actors being involved with compensation schemes in relation to different disasters and conflicts in the past. This has inadvertently resulted in victim hierarchies where some victims receive greater compensation than others. The Office can address these anomalies by bringing the different reparation schemes and programmes within one entity and ensuring there is coherence and consistency in the future. The Office is meant to be an independent entity to define and implement reparations for all Sri Lankans. This means anyone across Sri Lanka can go before the Office. But, several worrying sections remain in the recently enacted law. One is the dependency on the Cabinet for the approval of policies and guidelines formulated by the Office (section 11(1)(g)). Recent debates demonstrated particular views held by some in Cabinet which can possibly colour any future approval process and ultimately impact the work of the Office. Second is the role of Parliament. Section 22(4) provides that any policies and guidelines authorising the disbursement of funds require Parliament’s approval. This adds an additional layer of approval to what is meant to be an independent entity, potentially leading to delays and resulting in policies and guidelines being changed to address concerns raised by politicians. The Office will have its own fund with identified funding sources which will be audited by the Auditor General. A lesson to learn from existing reparations schemes is to ensure that the Office has sufficient funds to provide reparations. Limited funds will negatively define reparations programmes, shutting out some victims and leading to the creation of victim hierarchies and divisions within victims and communities. Reparations, however, are more than mere compensation and every effort must be taken to design and implement comprehensive reparation policies, guidelines and programmes which address all dimensions of the suffering endured by victims. It is hoped, the process of appointment provided in the law will ensure that the five members to be appointed to the Office will be those with expertise and knowledge and be independent. The OMP took an unduly long time to be operationalised and one hopes the Office does not face the same fate. Equally important is the recruitment of staff with necessary expertise and skills, and ensuring regional representation so that people across Sri Lanka are able to access the Office. Further, communication is a critical area that requires considerable strengthening in order to educate the public as to what reparations are, the mandate of the Office and other relevant information. A concerted effort must be made on raising awareness and engaging with victims, affected communities and the larger public. Time is of the essence. This month, the President promised to return state-occupied lands to their owners by the end of the year. The OMP has produced an interim report which contains several important recommendations requiring attention. Numerous victims of violence and conflict are still awaiting financial and social assistance. Challenges in memorialisation remain for many who lived through the war. All these and more come within the purview of reparations. We now have the law to provide for an Office. The coming weeks and months will tell if the Office is able to deliver and whether it goes beyond mere rhetoric to one that truly facilitates in genuine transformation.

The need for #HumanRights was an outcome of the marauding religious zealots of the Inquisition & the Crusades,where non believers were massacred "En-Bloc".Pity,

The need for #HumanRights was an outcome of the marauding religious zealots of the Inquisition & the Crusades,where non believers were massacred "En-Bloc".Pity, the Cardinal always seems to get things wrong in trying to be a populist. Mangala Samarawira Minister tweeted.

Human rights is the latest religion among Western nations: Archbishop

Human rights is the latest religion among Western nations: Archbishop 2018-09-23 18:33:01 18 9404 Archbishop Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith today said that the human rights had become the religion among the Western nations. He said so attending the morning service of the St. Matthew’s Roman Catholic Church in Ekala. He said that the human rights were introduced recently but Sri Lankans inclined its through religion for centuries. “Human rights was found recently. If we can live in a correct manner there is no need for human rights. Those who do not practice religion are the ones who hang on human rights. We should not deceive by these charms. We should act wisely,” he said. He also added that though the Western nations attempt to teach lessons on human rights to Sri Lanka it has a multireligious society that practice human right through religion for centuries. (Thilanka Kanakarathna) Daily Mirropr

Sirisena Wants All World Leaders To “Emulate” Nelson Mandela But He Himself Wants Another Term.

Sirisena Wants All World Leaders To “Emulate” Nelson Mandela But He Himself Wants Another Term FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share President Maithripala Sirisena, who used photographs of former South African leader Nelson Mandela in advertisements throughout his election campaign and promised a similar rule, yesterday called upon all world leaders to emulate Mandela. However, Sirisena, over three and a half years into presidency, has earned severe criticism in his own country for backtracking on the election promises and moving away from the so-called ‘Mandela policies’. “I wonder how many of the leaders have the qualities displayed by Nelson Mandela and I feel that it is for the leaders to emulate Mandela and enter the correct path (sic),” Sirisena said, Addressing the Nelson Mandela Peace Summit held on the sidelines of the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly yesterday. “Mandela was a leader who showed how to use power for the benefit of the people and give up power without any greed,” sirisena added. The Plenary Session of the Mandela Peace Summit will also adopt a Political Declaration covering policing guidelines for a gamut of areas including peace, democracy, rule of law and human rights. Sirisena made this statement just a week after he ordered the Police not to arrest his highest military commander, Chief of Defence Staff Admiral Ravindra Wijegunaratne, over his alleged involvement in the abductions and killings of 11 youth. Sirisena also promised not to seek re-election upon the completion of his first team. However, he has now made it clear that he will run for presidency again in 2020. Despite his promises to step down from presidency after five years, Sirisena also unsuccessfully sought the opinion of the Supreme Court whether he could continue in office one extra year, until 2021

Comments for Archbishop's homily given on 23rd Sept.2018.

Ceylon Today-30-09-2018. By Theresa D’Silva. In a homily given at St. Matthew’s Church in Ekala on 23 September, Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, Archbishop of Colombo and head of the Roman Catholic Church in Sri Lanka, decided to take a political stance. For a religious leader to use his or her pulpit to pronounce on politics is not unusual, and, indeed, the faithful often look to their clergy for advice on how to understand and interpret the public sphere. The challenging note of this homily, however, was its content. Cardinal Ranjith argued that the “field” of human rights has become the latest Western religion to be imposed on the non-Western world, urging Sri Lankans to not be “deceived” by such tricks, but to follow the religious inclinations that the country has followed for centuries. A modified quote of this homily runs as follows: “The latest religion in the West is the religion called human rights. Human rights were discovered only recently. It is being regarded as a wonderful new discovery which is being held aloft and we are being relentlessly lectured about it. If we adhere to a religion we don’t need human rights. Those who are dependent on human rights are those who have no religion. We must not be misled by these chimeras. We must look at this intelligently.” Outraged reaction These comments sparked bewildered and outraged reactions from civil society and political commentators. Saliya Peiris, head of the Office of Missing Persons stated that the Cardinal seemed “absolutely ignorant of the concept of human rights” and compared the Cardinal negatively against the progressive Pope Francis. Most high profile was the reaction of Minister Mangala Samaraweera who stated that the Cardinal was simply trying to be a “populist”, in clear reference to the fact that Cardinal Ranjith seemed to be aping the popular anti-Western discourse being encouraged and buttressed by the Rajapaksa camp. Indeed, Cardinal Ranjith received immediate and enmasse support for his words from former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Catholic MPs in the Joint Opposition, as well as different Joint Opposition related groups. These last were quick to make their support public via social media. It should also be added that although more social justice oriented Catholic clergy and lay associations were outraged by the Cardinal’s comments, a cursory examination of Facebook feeds and Roman Catholic groups on social media show that the Cardinal’s anti-Western commentary has strong and wide-ranging support. Shortly after the remarks from Minister Samaraweera, the Cardinal issued a clarification of his remarks via the Daily Newspaper, insisting that his intent was to preach to his particular flock and to remind them that “If religion is truly practiced it could take us to achieve levels of justice, going even beyond the expectations of human rights and thus need not be such an issue for our Catholic community. But I do accept that with regard to the essentially non-religious nature of the State, human rights as a common platform has its own role to play. Replacing religion with human rights is not what is to be done but human rights should be further strengthened through the good practice of faith.” Far removed The clarifying statement stands, in many ways, at quite a remove from the remarks made in the September 23rd homily, where his intent seemed to underscore human rights as a ‘Western’ discourse and also to praise the religion that has been “guiding Sri Lanka for centuries”. If you were to guess that he meant Catholicism, you would be incorrect, as, a statement the Cardinal made on 27 September at a prize-giving when he noted that those who had been shaped by Buddhist civilization do not violate human rights and that human rights can effectively be preserved through adherence to Buddhist teaching. He went on to say that the “rights of all people in this country are safeguarded when Buddhist culture is safeguarded. Human rights are safeguarded in our country much more than what is prescribed (sic) by the UN in Sri Lanka because of the Buddhist environment.” The statement led some on the social media site Twitter to wonder if the Cardinal wished to switch his red hat for the robes of an Anunayaka. The Cardinal’s statements are emblematic of his long-term and very explicit political position; he has for long been seen as an ardent supporter of the Rajapaksas’ and the ‘anti-Western’ messaging of the Joint Opposition. What is troubling with his commentary is his appropriation- a tactic often deployed by right wing populists the world over of critical, left wing thinking on universalizing discourses such as human rights. There is robust and very valid concern, for example, within postcolonial and decolonial studies that highlight the civilizing mission embedded in human rights discourse. Postcolonial critics argue that universal human rights are expressive of Western cultural particularity and contest the idea of rights as universally applicable. The debate often turns on the idea that, though rights are said to have universal validity, they originate in the West and in some sense express Western interests. From this, however, such scholarship opens up debate to ask for more fuller histories of how rights and freedoms have been understood globally, and, also to highlight the nuances of a focus on individual rights (seen as more a European discourse) over collective or community based rights ( seen as a more globally rooted understanding). There is little space in this article to break down the different and complex arguments associated to this discussion but the reader is encouraged to look up the work of Gurminder Bhambra, Judith Butler, Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Stuart Hall, A. Sivanandan and Edward Said and many others, who have exhaustively examined this topic. Profound impact Another challenge arises also, when a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church highlights the ‘Western-ness’ of human rights discourse. Much academic and theological commentary that analyzes human rights thinking is quick to note the profound impact that Christian morality and ethical thinking on freedom and responsibility that percolate throughout human rights discourse, and the history of different attempts at drafting and maintain a ‘code’ of human conduct, connected implicitly to the Christian idea that freedom and free will comes from the Divine. Additionally, Catholic Social Thought has, for decades, enjoyed a close and reciprocal relationship with human rights discourse. As academics such as Mary Glendon and Meghan Clark often note, Catholic social doctrine has appropriated, and even championed, human rights ideas. At the same time their historical study of the development of human rights also highlights instances such as how ideas from Catholic social thought were brought into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by Latin American delegates to the early UN, and Pope Benedict’s 2008 UN speech that provided future directives for the human rights movement. Christianity is deeply imbricated in human rights thinking and discourse, and, perhaps the ‘religiosity’ that the Cardinal sees is because of this symbiosis. So let us look at this intelligently, as the Cardinal asks us to. Is he seriously asking for Sri Lanka to work on a ‘home grown’ set of human rights, and for there to be intelligent and robust apolitical debate in the country with regards to how we move forward in this political moment? Are we witnessing a conversion moment where he is deeply troubled by the universalization of Christian morality and seeks a more ‘grass rooted’ theology, or indeed his own changing of scarlet robes to saffron ones? Or, is he simply being a political shill for those who spout anti-Western hysteria to whip up the masses?

Monitoring Key to Successful Implementation of National Audit Act - TISL

Monitoring Key to Successful Implementation of National Audit Act - TISL The passage of the National Audit Act in July marked a significant watershed for the public service in Sri Lanka, introducing a legal framework to promote fiscal accountability amongst those serving in the public sector. However, Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) wishes to re-iterate that as with the Right to Information Act which preceded it, implementation from the early stages of the roll out of the National Audit Act is crucial towards ensuring that the stated objectives of the law are met. Whilst recognising the fact that the Audit Service Commission (ASC) has been in operation for almost two months, TISL wishes to highlight to the public the extent of the power vested in the Commission through the National Audit Act. The Act empowers the ASC to report the amount of loss or deficiency in a transaction to the Chief Accounting Officer where the ASC has reasonable grounds to believe that transaction has been made contrary to law and that the loss resulted from fraud, negligence, misappropriation or corruption. Upon receiving the report of the ASC, the Chief Accounting Officer is obliged to impose a surcharge on the public official. TISL Executive Director Asoka Obeyesekere highlighted that “the chief accounting officer retains the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances and reduce the surcharge. The use, and potential abuse, of this power will require close monitoring”. Prior to the adoption of the Act, TISL compiled a legislative brief on this crucial legislation, through which TISL sought the strengthening of the surcharge appeals process, the strengthening of the investigative powers of the Auditor General, improving transparency in decision making under surcharging powers and the protection of the fundamental right to information as recognized in the constitution. The legislative brief was shared with all 225 members of parliament and the recommended amendments were debated extensively in the house, with a few committee stage amendments being incorporated. Obeyesekere added, “Providing the necessary financial and material resources for the Commission to execute its duties and functions is of the utmost importance at this juncture. TISL encourages all stakeholders to continue to advocate for fiscal accountability in the public sector, especially in light of the upcoming 2019 Budget”.