Press Statement
regarding International Bar Association Issue
Following
the detection of inaccurate information contained in the visa applications of
the 4 member delegation representing the International Bar Association (IBA),
which had unilaterally scheduled a visit to Sri Lanka, regrettably the
Government of Sri Lanka was constrained to withdraw visas issued through the
ETA system for 3 applicants and the other by a diplomatic mission.
It
may be noted that the Business Visa category which had been applied for in the
case of 3 persons were issued on the basis of the purpose of the visit being
reflected as Conferences, Workshops and Seminars, while the 4th
person had been issued a gratis visa and the purpose of the visit being cited
as Private.
Subsequently,
it came to light that the stated purpose for the visit in the applications was
not in conformity with the actual nature of the visit. In fact, there
were media reports to the effect that this is an international fact finding
delegation with a mandate to probe and prepare a report on the recent
impeachment of the former Chief Justice. Further, one of the delegates is
on record stating that the delegation would be interviewing, in this regard,
members of the Judiciary, Government functionaries, Members of Parliament and
the local community. This demonstrates that the visit was not for the
purpose of attending Conferences, Workshops and Seminars but undertaking
activity surreptitiously which is of an intrusive nature to the sovereignty of
Sri Lanka.
Considering
the prestigious reputation of the IBA, it would be expected that the
organization would scrupulously adhere to the rules and regulations governing a
country’s visa regime. Further, intimidatory behavior on the part of one
of the IBA delegates directed at the Sri Lanka High Commission in London is
unbecoming. In keeping with the Government of Sri Lanka’s interest in
transparency, bona-fide applications for visits of this nature are processed
with objectivity. However, in keeping with universal practice,
appropriate action would be taken in the event there is a misrepresentation of
information by a visa applicant.
Ministry of External Affairs
Colombo
03rd
February, 2013
05/02/2013
IBAHRI seriously concerned by decision of Sri Lankan government to
block entry of high-level delegates
The International Bar Association’s
Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) expresses serious concern at the Sri Lankan
government’s decision to deny entry to Sri Lanka to senior international
figures, including a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India,
Justice J S Verma.
Dr Mark S Ellis, Executive Director of
the International Bar Association stated: ‘It is disappointing that the Sri
Lankan authorities have missed the opportunity to cooperate on a visit by
respected foreign members of the legal system. It will suggest to the
international community that the Sri Lankan authorities are fearful of having
independent eyes on the issues of interest to the legal profession.’
The IBAHRI wholly refutes the assertion
made by the Sri Lankan External Affairs Ministry that information contained in
the online visa applications was inaccurate.
The Sri Lanka online visa application
process provides four options to indicate the ‘purpose of visit’. Option one
was selected, to ‘participate in conferences, workshops and seminars’, the
category which best fits the intentions of the delegation, which were to hold a
range of consultations and seminars with various participants. The alternative
options were to participate in ‘art, music and dance’, ‘business meetings and
negotiations’, and ‘short training courses’. The online visa application
process does not allow applicants to provide further information on the purpose
of their trip.
A visa had been issued to one member
of the delegation, facilitated through the relevant national diplomatic
channels on 18 January 2013 but was revoked on 29 January. Approval to enter
the country was suspended on 29 and 30 January in the cases of the other
delegates, who had applied and been approved for entry to Sri Lanka through the
online application process on 21 January 2013.
The visit was planned from 1–10
February 2013 to meet members of the legal profession, and representatives of
government, media and civil society.
Following the suspension and
revocation of the visas the IBAHRI was assured that the Sri Lankan High
Commission in London would cooperate in the investigation and resolution of the
matter. To date, no further information has been forthcoming. However, we
remain hopeful that the Sri Lankan government will wish to remain open to
international engagement and will reinstate the visits accordingly.
ENDS
Notes to Editors
The IBAHRI has previously conducted
two fact-finding missions to Sri Lanka in 2001 and 2009.
The 2001 IBAHRI fact-finding mission
to Sri Lanka was specifically convened in response to parliamentary attempts to
impeach the then Chief Justice. The 2001 mission report found serious threats
to the independence of the judiciary in Sri Lanka and called for constitutional
reform to strengthen the rule of law.
The 2009 IBAHRI mission to Sri Lanka
concluded that many of the problems identified in the 2001 report continued to
affect the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law in Sri
Lanka and that in some respects the situation had deteriorated significantly.
The 2009 report specifically outlined concerns regarding attacks against
lawyers and severe tensions between the executive and judicial branches.
Both the 2001 and 2009 IBHARI reports
on Sri Lanka recommended that the procedure for impeachment proceedings should
be reviewed and amended to ensure judicial, not parliamentary, supervision over
judicial conduct. Both reports noted that existing impeachment procedures are
subject to significant politicisation and undue executive interference that
severely compromise the independence of the judiciary and rule of law.
The International Bar Association’s
Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) undertakes regular fact-finding missions to a
wide range of countries to investigate issues related to the rule of law and
the legal profession. The IBAHRI has conducted more than 40 since 1995 and has
only ever previously been refused entry to one other country, Fiji in 2008.
Fiji was later suspended from the Commonwealth in 2009.
Romana St. Matthew - Daniel
Press Office
International Bar Association
4th Floor, 10 St Bride Street,
London EC4 4AD
Mobile: +44 (0)7940 731 915
Direct Line: +44 (0)20 7842 0094
Main Office: +44 (0)20 7842 0090
Fax:+44 (0)20 7842 0091
E-mail: romana.daniel@int-bar.org
Website: www.ibanet.org
http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=785d2595-46be-4221-810c-4571b6ab02cf
01/02/2013
Forced postponement of IBAHRI high-level delegation visit to Sri Lanka
An International Bar
Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) delegation has been forced to postpone a planned visit
to Sri Lanka to assess the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary
due to the last minute withdrawal of permission to enter the
country.
The IBAHRI delegation consisting of
distinguished jurists was scheduled to visit Sri Lanka from 1st to 10th
February 2013. A visa had been issued to one member of the delegation on 18th
January 2013 and was revoked on 29th January 2013, while approval to enter the
country was suspended in the cases of other delegates on 29th and 30th January
2013.
The high-level delegation had intended
to conduct meetings and consult a wide diversity of stakeholders in regard to
the development of the legal profession, the rule of law and the independence
of the judiciary in Sri Lanka, including members of the legal profession,
government, media and civil society.
The IBAHRI has expressed its serious
concern to the Sri Lankan High Commission in London regarding the revocation
and suspension of entry approval for its high-level delegates and looks forward
to working together with the relevant authorities in ensuring a speedy and
satisfactory resolution.
ENDSRomana St. Matthew - Daniel
Press Office
International Bar Association
4th Floor, 10 St Bride Street,
London EC4 4AD
Mobile: +44 (0)7940 731 915
Direct Line: +44 (0)20 7842 0094
Main Office: +44 (0)20 7842 0090
Fax:+44 (0)20 7842 0091
E-mail: romana.daniel@int-bar.org
Website: www.ibanet.org
http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=a282d954-2b80-4599-b45f-e195827f0596
Did Sri Lanka's growing stability come at the cost of human rights?
Feb 5, 2013 | The National
PERALIYA, Sri Lanka //Sixty-five years
after Sri Lanka gained independence from Britain, the
spring in the step of the president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, and his supporters
has turned to something of a swagger.
The recent history of the island,
known as India's teardrop because of its shape and location off the southern
tip of the subcontinent, helps to explain the self-satisfaction.
The deadly tsunami of 2004, when an
estimated 40,000 Sri Lankans died, is not forgotten. But closer, now, to loyal
minds is the defeat four-and-a-half years later of the Tamil Tigers, ending
nearly three decades of bloody civil war.
Sri Lanka claims this made it the
"the first country to eradicate terrorism" on its own soil. The
president preaches harmony, presenting his country as a model of growing
stability.
There is another view, equally robust,
that acknowledges the strides made while lamenting that human rights have been
trampled in the process.
While western critics are routinely
dismissed by government supporters as hypocritical meddlers, even some moderate
Sri Lankans question the methods used to maintain a flawed peace. They also
express dismay at rampant nepotism they detect in the profusion of relatives
and friends of the president in positions of power or influence.
Moreover, rising tension between
elements of the large Buddhist majority and Muslims challenges cosy notions of
a post-conflict era based on one-nation values.
And last month's impeachment of the
chief justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, for alleged financial and judicial
impropriety, reinforced suspicions that modern Sri Lanka is prepared to resort
to undemocratic and irregular solutions to inconvenient problems.
Could it be that the truth lies
somewhere between the polarised positions?
The government insists its hard-won
battle to crush violent Tamil insurgency in northern and eastern areas had been
followed by "genuine" action to implement recommendations from an
ambitiously titled Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation committee.
One minister complained that remnants
of the Tamil Tigers, including "sections of the diaspora supporting LTTE
(Tamil Tiger) terrorism", seize on any opportunity to damage Sir Lanka's
image.
On community relations, ministers
pledge in public utterances at least to combat the abuse of any religious
groups.
A government committee is to
investigate an alleged "hate campaign" against Muslims, who represent
less than 10 per cent of the population of 20 million.
Mainstream Buddhist leaders distance
themselves from monks who demonstrated last month with placards denigrating
Islam in the northwestern town of Kuliyapitiya, besieged a Muslim-owned shop in
Maharagama, 44 kilometres away, and posted offensive material on the internet.
Whatever the president's concerns on
religious intolerance, his government is markedly less conciliatory when
discussing the impeachment and human rights.
A delegation from the International
Bar Association's human rights institute was refused entry last week on a
mission to assess the country's rule of law relating to the insurgency. The
external affairs ministry said it planned activity "of an intrusive nature
to the sovereignty of Sri Lanka".
Mr Rajapaksa was dismissive of a US
delegation's similar visit: "People come and go. No doubt they may work to
an agenda."
The pro-government Daily News trumpeted a declaration by the
International Council of Jurists, currently under Indian chairmanship, that the
chief justice's impeachment was "absolutely in accordance with the
prevalent Sri Lankan laws" - a view sharply at odds with hostile reaction
from the UN, Commonwealth, EU and the island's own supreme court.
Opponents suspect a link with a series
of judgments against the government. But the president says Ms Bandaranayake's
impeachment and removal from office was "good for the country".
In his independence day speech
yesterday, he promised "equal rights to all communities" while ruling
out further autonomy for Tamils.
For many ordinary Sri Lankans, the plight of the deposed chief justice and even the country's reputation abroad matter less than everyday concerns. The government says 1.8 million people are living below the poverty line, itself only 3,611 rupees (Dh105) a month, but has set 2016 as a target for eliminating the problem.
Most still recall with horror the
tsunami, a natural disaster that featured relatively little in the rhetoric
surrounding the build-up to independence commemoration.
At Peraliya, south of the capital
Colombo, a giant Buddha donated by Japan stands on the coast road in silent
tribute to victims of the world's worst rail disaster on December 26, 2004.
Some 1,270 people, according to the engraving at another monument nearby, died
when waves engulfed the train. Other estimates put the figure as high as 1,700.
More than 200 villagers were also
swept to their deaths. Homes, restaurants and other business were ravaged,
leaving flattened sites and stumps where buildings once stood.
"For a long time, people would
not return to live here," said Prabash Mendis, 26, a driver who lost five
of his own relatives. "They swore they could hear the cries of the
dead."
But it is the fate of others that will
dominate debate at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva next month.
More than 12,000 names are cited in UN
council's list of "enforced or involuntary" disappearances between
1983 and 2009 as a result of action by security forces. More than half are
dead, even on official accounts.
Sri Lanka is preparing for a rocky
ride, aware that the country is seen by some as descending into international
pariah status.
Perhaps the most striking summary of
the competing assessments came from the newspaper.
Historically the loudest of opposition
voices, the paper feels a special right to comment: its founder and former
editor, Lasantha Wickramatunge, was murdered in 2009 during the final stages of
the civil war and no one has been prosecuted. His successor, Frederica Jansz,
claims she was threatened by the president's brother and defence minister,
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, before being dismissed last September.
A recent editorial said Sri Lanka
found itself in the dock of world opinion and declared: "The Mahinda
Rajapaska government has been outstanding in fighting terrorism at home but has
fared disastrously in diplomacy."
Sri
Lanka slams foreign lawyers over impeachment probe
(AFP) – 1 day
ago
COLOMBO — Sri
Lanka on Sunday accused a London-based group of lawyers of undermining
Colombo's sovereignty and said a four-member team probing judicial independence
was barred from entering the island.
The external
affairs ministry said it revoked visas issued to members of the International
Bar Association (IBA) because they "misrepresented" the objective of
their visit to Sri Lanka.
The ministry in a
statement said the four-member mission was going to undertake "activity
surreptitiously which is of an intrusive nature to the sovereignty of Sri
Lanka".
The IBA on
Saturday expressed "serious concern" over the withdrawal of visas for
lawyers from its Human Rights Institute who were due to visit Colombo for 10
days starting Friday.
The panel was
going to study Sri Lanka's sacking of chief justice Shirani Bandaranayake, the
first woman to hold the nation's highest judicial office.
The government
dismissed Bandaranayake despite two Sri Lankan court rulings that the
impeachment was illegal and unconstitutional.
Sri Lanka insists
it followed proper legal procedures in firing Bandaranayake, 54, on charges of
professional and personal misconduct.
Bandaranayake was
dismissed by President Mahinda Rajapakse on January 13, two days after
parliament voted to impeach her, despite a chorus of international criticism.
The United States
has led international calls objecting to the impeachment as an assault on
judicial independence and rule of law in the island.
Bandaranayake has
been replaced by former attorney general Mohan Peiris who had been serving as
the government's chief legal adviser.
The impeachment
process was launched in November after court decisions went against the regime
of Rajapakse, who has tightened his hold on power since crushing Tamil Tiger
rebels in May 2009 to end a decades-long ethnic war.
Lawmakers found Bandaranayake
guilty of tampering with a case involving a firm from which her sister bought
an apartment, of failing to declare dormant bank accounts and of staying in
office while her husband faced a bribery charge.
She has said the
charges were politically motivated and that she was denied a fair trial. Copyright
© 2013 AFP. All rights reserved.
Sri Lanka blocks
international impeachment probe
AFP | 3 days ago
COLOMBO:
Sri Lanka has blocked entry of a London-based group of lawyers who planned to
probe the controversial impeachment of the island’s chief justice, the
International Bar Association said on Saturday.
The group expressed “serious concern”
over the withdrawal of visas for the Human Rights Institute lawyers, who were
due to visit Colombo for 10 days starting Friday. The institute is a branch of
the bar association.
The delegation was going to “consult a
wide diversity of stakeholders” about “the rule of law and the independence of
the judiciary in Sri Lanka”, the association said. It did not say how many
lawyers who were to travel to Colombo.
The panel was going to study Sri
Lanka’s sacking of chief justice Shirani Bandaranayake, the first woman to hold
the nation’s highest judicial office.
The government dismissed Bandaranayake
despite two Sri Lankan court rulings that the impeachment was illegal and
unconstitutional.
There was no immediate comment from
Colombo on the association’s statements.
Sri Lanka insists it followed proper
legal procedures in firing Bandaranayake, 54, on charges of professional and
personal misconduct.
Bandaranayake was dismissed by
President Mahinda Rajapakse on Jan 13 – two days after Sri Lanka’s parliament
voted to impeach her, despite a chorus of international criticism.
The United States has led
international calls objecting to the impeachment as an assault on judicial
independence and rule of law in the island.
Bandaranayake has been replaced by
former attorney general Mohan Peiris who had been serving as the government’s
chief legal adviser.
The impeachment process was launched
in November after court decisions went against the regime of Rajapakse, who has
tightened his hold on power since crushing Tamil Tiger rebels in May 2009 to
end a decades-long ethnic war.
Lawmakers found Bandaranayake guilty
of tampering with a case involving a firm from which her sister bought an
apartment, of failing to declare dormant bank accounts and of staying in office
while her husband faced a bribery charge. She has said the charges were
politically motivated and that she was denied a fair trial.
Sri Lanka justifies
blocking visit of Verma, others
COLOMBO, February
5, 2013 | The Hindu
“Members
concealed the fact that their mission was to prepare a report on the
impeachment of Chief Justice”
Accusing the
former Chief Justice of India, J.S. Verma, and a delegation of the
International Bar Association (IBA) of withholding information and
misrepresenting facts, Sri Lanka said on Sunday that it blocked the visit of
the four-member team because it detected “inaccurate information” in the visa
applications.”
Because of this,
“regrettably, the government of Sri Lanka was constrained to withdraw visas
issued, through the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) system for three
applicants and the other, by a diplomatic mission,” the Ministry added.
Mr. Verma, who
was to have arrived here on Friday to head an international mission to assess
the legal issues involved in the impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani
Bandaranayake, was forced to cancel his visit. The other members also followed
suit.
A much respected
figure in the Indian judiciary, Mr. Verma, recently headed a committee set up
to amend the Indian criminal law to provide for quicker trial and enhanced
punishment for crimes against women. He was widely commended for submitting a
comprehensive report within a month.
The Sri Lankan
External Affairs Ministry said in a release that three persons had applied
under the business visa category. They “were issued [visas] on the basis of the
purpose of the visit being reflected as conferences, workshops and seminars,
while the fourth person had been issued a gratis visa, and the purpose of the
visit being cited as private.”
“Subsequently, it
came to light that the stated purpose… was not in conformity with the actual
nature of the visit. In fact, there were media reports… that this was an
international fact-finding delegation with a mandate to probe and prepare a
report on the recent impeachment of the former Chief Justice,” the release
said.
Admitting that it
was aware of the real purpose of the visit, the Ministry said: “One of the
delegates is on record stating that the delegation would be interviewing…
members of the judiciary, government functionaries, Members of Parliament and
the local community. This demonstrates that the visit was not for the purpose
of attending conferences, workshops and seminars but undertaking activity
surreptitiously which is of an intrusive nature to the sovereignty of Sri
Lanka.”
“Considering the
prestigious reputation of the IBA, it would be expected that the organisation
would scrupulously adhere to the rules and regulations governing a country’s
visa regime. Further, intimidatory behaviour on the part of one of the IBA
delegates towards the Sri Lanka High Commission in London is unbecoming. In
keeping with the government of Sri Lanka’s interest in transparency, bona-fide
applications for visits of this nature are processed with objectivity. However,
in keeping with universal practice, appropriate action would be taken if there
is a misrepresentation of information by a visa applicant,” it said.
As per the
existing visa norms, the delegation members cannot enter Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan
immigration website cites four visa categories — visit visa (tourist,
business); residence (employment, investor, religious, student, Indians under
the Indo-Lanka agreement, ex-Sri Lankans and their dependents, family members,
diplomatic and official visa); my dream home visa; and resident guest visa.
The IBA
constituted the delegation to investigate and report on Parliament’s actions in
respect of the impeachment, and if there were anomalies and transgressions.
Acting on a
resolution Parliament passed on January 11, President Mahinda Rajapaksa
dismissed Ms. Bandaranayake on January 13. Before the impeachment debate took
place, the courts had declared null and void a Parliamentary Select Committee’s
report, on which the impeachment motion was based.
Visas issued to IBA 4-member delegation to Sri Lanka withdrawn on the detection of inaccurate information
Sun, 2013-02-03 19:08 — editor
Colombo, 03 February,
(Asiantribune.com):
On the detection
of inaccurate information filed in the Visa applications filed by the 4-member
International Bar Association (IBA) delegation, led to the withdrawal of their
visas.
Also it has been
cautioned of the ‘intimidatory behavior on the part of one of the IBA delegates
directed at the Sri Lanka High Commission in London as unbecoming.
Ministry of
External Affairs in the press release said, “Considering the prestigious reputation
of the IBA, it would be expected that the organization would scrupulously
adhere to the rules and regulations governing a country’s visa regime.”
However,
inaccurate information filed in the visa applications to enter Sri Lanka by the
members of the International Bar Association, led the Sri Lanka Government to
‘withdraw visas issued through the ETA system for 3 applicants and the other by
a diplomatic mission.’
Press release
noted, “In keeping with the Government of Sri Lanka’s interest in transparency,
bona-fide applications for visits of this nature are processed with
objectivity. However, in keeping with universal practice, appropriate action
would be taken in the event there is a misrepresentation of information by a
visa applicant, Ministry of External Affairs pointed out.
Sri Lanka’s
Ministry of External Affairs revealed that “Following the detection of
inaccurate information contained in the visa applications of the 4 member
delegation representing the International Bar Association (IBA), which had
unilaterally scheduled a visit to Sri Lanka, the Government of Sri Lanka was
constrained to withdraw their visas.
Accordingly,
press release went on to add that “It may be noted that the Business Visa
category which had been applied for in the case of 3 persons were issued on the
basis of the purpose of the visit being reflected as Conferences, Workshops and
Seminars, while the 4th person had been issued a gratis visa and the purpose of
the visit being cited as 'Private'.”
Sri Lanka’s
Ministry of External Affairs, pointed out, "subsequently, it came to light
that the stated purpose for the visit in the applications was not in conformity
with the actual nature of the visit. "
“In fact, there
were media reports to the effect that this is an international fact finding
delegation with a mandate to probe and prepare a report on the recent
impeachment of the former Chief Justice. Further, one of the delegates is on
record stating that the delegation would be interviewing, in this regard,
members of the Judiciary, Government functionaries, Members of Parliament and
the local community”, the press release revealed.
The press release
further pointed out that “This demonstrates that the visit was not for the
purpose of attending Conferences, Workshops and Seminars but undertaking
activity surreptitiously which is of an intrusive nature to the sovereignty of
Sri Lanka.
- Asian Tribune -
http://www.asiantribune.com/node/61458
Members of International Bar Association
hopeful in returning to Sri Lanka
Sunday,
03 February 2013 - 07:00 PM
The
International Bar Associations Human Rights Institute issuing a release states
that its delegation has been forced to postpone a planned visit to Sri Lanka in
order to assess the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary due to
the last minute withdrawal of permission to enter the
country.
The
release further notes that the IBAHRI delegation consisting of distinguished
jurists was scheduled to visit Sri Lanka from 1st to 10th February 2013.
A
visa had been issued to one member of the delegation on 18th January 2013 and
was revoked on 29th January 2013, while approval to enter the country was
suspended in the cases of other delegates on 29th and 30th January.
The
IBAHRI has expressed its serious concern to the Sri Lankan High Commission in
London regarding the revocation and suspension of entry approval for its
high-level delegates and looks forward to working together with the relevant
authorities in ensuring a speedy and satisfactory resolution.
Meanwhile
the Sri Lankan Ministry of External Affairs states that following the detection
of inaccurate information contained in the visa applications of the 4 member
delegation representing the International Bar Association, which had
unilaterally scheduled a visit to Sri Lanka, the Government of Sri Lanka was
constrained to withdraw visas issued through the ETA system for 3 applicants
and the other by a diplomatic mission.
According
to the Ministry of External Affairs it had subsequently come to light that the
stated purpose for the visit in the applications was not in conformity with the
actual nature of the visit.
Sri Lanka accuses JS
Verma team over visa norms
PTI
Colombo, February 04, 2013
Colombo, February 04, 2013
Sri Lanka has accused a delegation of international jurists
led by former Chief Justice of India JS Verma of attempting to undermine its
sovereignty and violating visa norms.
"Regrettably the government of Sri Lanka was constrained to withdraw visas issued through the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) system for 3 applicants and the other by a diplomatic mission," the external affairs ministry in Colombo said in a statement.
"Regrettably the government of Sri Lanka was constrained to withdraw visas issued through the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) system for 3 applicants and the other by a diplomatic mission," the external affairs ministry in Colombo said in a statement.
The delegation representing
London-based International Bar Association (IBA) were to visit Sri Lanka from
February 1 to 10 to assess rule of law and independence of the judiciary after
the controversial impeachment of the country's first woman Chief Justice
Shirani Bandaranayake by the Parliament last month.
"This demonstrates that the visit
was not for the purpose of attending conferences, workshops and seminars but
undertaking activity surreptitiously which is of an intrusive nature to the
sovereignty of Sri Lanka," the statement said accusing IBA of
"unilaterally" scheduling a visit by a 4-member delegation to Sri
Lanka.
The ministry said the delegation had
applied for Business Visa category and visas were issued on the basis of the
purpose of the visit being reflected as 'conferences, workshops and seminars'.
"Subsequently, it came to light
that the stated purpose for the visit in the applications was not in conformity
with the actual nature of the visit", the ministry said.
"Considering the prestigious
reputation of the IBA, it would be expected that the organisation would scrupulously
adhere to the rules and regulations governing a country's visa regime", it
said.
Only Lanka and Fiji have ever denied visa to IBA missions: Lawyers Collective
Published : 12:35 am February 6,
2013 | 195 views
Lawyers group warns that Fiji was suspended from the Commonwealth
of Nations one year later
- Urges Govt. to be transparent and allow independent assessment of impeachment process
- Says IBA missions have visited SL twice before and compiled useful reports
- In 2001, IBA mission thanked GoSL for ‘warm’ reception in report on Sarath Silva impeachment
By Dharisha Bastians
The International Bar Association fact
finding mission to Sri Lanka should have been permitted entry if the Government
had nothing to hide with regard to its impeachment process against Chief
Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, legal activists said yesterday.
The Lawyers Collective, an umbrella
organisation of several legal associations issuing a statement expressed
disappointment that visas had been denied to the high level delegation from the
IBA, which is the world’s leading association of legal practitioners, bar
associations and law societies.
The Collective said that it believed
that if the Government had nothing to hide or it had followed Latimer House
principles in impeaching the country’s top judge last month, the mission would
have been permitted. It added that the only country to have ever denied visas
to IBA missions was Fiji in 2008.
Fiji was later expelled from the
Commonwealth in 2009, the statement from the lawyers group said.
A high level delegation led by former
Indian Chief Justice J.S. Verma was expected to arrive in Colombo on 1 February
for a 10-day visit to conduct a fact finding mission on the country’s recent
impeachment of the Chief Justice.
The IBA was forced to postpone the
visit after the Sri Lankan Government revoked the visas of all four members of
the delegation, citing a violation of visa rules. The IBA delegation was to
also include UK House of Lords Member Baroness Usha Prashar, IBA Human Rights
Institute Programme Lawyer Shane Keenan and British Barrister working with the
IBA’s Human Rights Institute, Sadakat Kadri.
“The Government of Sri Lanka has
constantly stated that the impeachment against its Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake
has been done in accordance with the constitutional and international best
practices. An independent assessment would have assisted the Government of Sri
Lanka to prove its credibility,” the Collective said.
They said that IBA missions had visited
Sri Lanka twice before and compiled reports which “enriched the legal
profession and judiciary immensely.”
According to the statement, the
International Bar Association has considerable expertise in providing
assistance to the global legal community. “The Bar Association of Sri Lanka
(BASL) is a member of the IBA. Sri Lankan legal community is an integral part
of the global legal fraternity,” the Collective said.
“Lawyers Collective urges the
Government of Sri Lanka in the circumstances to be transparent and be open for
scrutiny of its impeachment process and Rule of Law. Such openness would help
the democracy in Sri Lanka in general and the professional standards of the Sri
Lankan legal professionals,” the statement added.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka is
yet to officially respond to the Government’s denial of entry to the IBA
delegation, but BASL Presidential Aspirant Attorney at Law, Upul Jayasuriya
told Daily FT that Sri Lanka was exhibiting signs of being a police state by
being paranoid about such visits.
An IBA delegation had also arrived in
the country in 2001 during the impeachment against Chief Justice Sarath N.
Silva, and compiled a report, Jayasuriya, said, even though the Government of
the time was intent on safeguarding its Chief Justice from impeachment.
The 2001 delegation included Lord Brennan QC, former Chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, Justice V.S. Malimath, former Chief Justice of Karnataka and Kerala, and Mah Weng Kwai, then President of the Malaysian Bar Council. In their report, the 2001 delegation extended its gratitude for their warm reception by both the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lakshman Kadirgamar and the then Minister of Constitutional Affairs, Dr. G.L. Peiris.
The 2001 delegation included Lord Brennan QC, former Chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, Justice V.S. Malimath, former Chief Justice of Karnataka and Kerala, and Mah Weng Kwai, then President of the Malaysian Bar Council. In their report, the 2001 delegation extended its gratitude for their warm reception by both the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lakshman Kadirgamar and the then Minister of Constitutional Affairs, Dr. G.L. Peiris.
“In addition, the delegation members
would like to thank the Chief Justice, Sarath Nanda Silva, for agreeing to meet
them and giving generously of his time,” the delegation said in its report.
ආණ්ඩුවේ ප්රකාශය වැරදියි - ජාත්යන්තර නීතිවේදීන්
අවසාන යාවත්කාලීන කිරීම : 2013 පෙබරවාරි 5 අඟහරුවාදා - 13:19 GMT
ලන්ඩනයේ ශ්රී ලංකා මහ කොමසාරිස් කාර්යාලය මේ දක්වාම තමන්ට කිසිවක් දැනුම් දී නැති බවත් එම සංගමය පවසයි
තම දූත පිරිසක් ශ්රී ලංකාවේ සංචාරය කිරීම සඳහා අයදුම් කළ අවස්ථාවේ වීසා ලබා ගැනීමේ ක්රමවේදය උල්ලංඝණය කළ බවට ශ්රී ලංකා ආණ්ඩුව කරන චෝදනාව ජාත්යන්තර නීතිවේදීන්ගේ සංගමය ප්රතික්ෂේප කරයි.
එමෙන්ම තම දූත පිරිසට වීසා ලබාදීම ප්රතික්ෂේප කිරීමට ශ්රී ලංකා ආණ්ඩුව ගත් පියවර දැඩිව හෙලා දකින බව ද ජාත්යන්තර නීතිවේදීන්ගේ සංගමයට අනුබද්ධ මානව හිමිකම් ආයතනය ප්රකාශ කරයි.
ශ්රී ලංකාවේ නීතිවේදීන් මුහුණ දෙන ගැටළු සහ නීතියේ ආධිපත්යය ක්රියාත්මක වන්නේ ද යන්න පිළිබඳව සොයා බැලීමේ අරමුණින් ඉන්දියාවේ හිටපු අගවිනිසුරු ජේ එස් වර්මා ගේ නායකත්වයෙන් යුත් සිවු පුද්ගල දූත පිරිසක් පෙබරවාරි පළමු වැනි දින සිට දින දහයක් ශ්රී ලංකාවේ සංචාරයක යෙදීමට නියමිතව තිබිණ.
විශේෂයෙන්ම අගවිනිසුරු ශිරාණි බණ්ඩාරනායකට එරෙහි දෝෂාභියෝග ක්රියාදාමය විමර්ශනයට ලක් කිරීම එම සංචාරයේ ප්රධානම අරමුණක් වූ බවයි, වාර්තාවල දැක්වෙන්නේ.
ෆීජි දේශයේ උදාහරණය
"නීතිඥ වෘත්තියට අදාළ කරුණු සම්බන්ධයෙන් ස්වාධීන විමර්ශනයක් කෙරෙනු දැකීමට ශ්රී ලංකා බලධාරීන් බියක් දක්වන බවට මේ මගින් ජාත්යන්තර ප්රජාවට පණිවුඩයක් සැපයෙනවා "
ආචාර්ය මාක් එලිස්, ජාත්යන්තර නීතිවේදීන්ගේ සංගමයේ විධායක අධ්යක්ෂ
දූත පිරිසට වීසා ලබාදීම ප්රතික්ෂේප කිරීමෙන් අනතුරුව නිවේදනයක් නිකුත් කළ ශ්රී ලංකා විදේශ අමාත්යාංශය, තම සංචාරයේ සැබෑ අරමුණ පැහැදිලි කිරීමට දූත පිරිස අපොහොසත් වී ඇති බවට චෝදනා කළේය.
විශේෂයෙන්ම ලොව පුරාම නීතිවේදීන් නියෝජනය කරන ජාත්යන්තර නීතිවේදීන්ගේ සංගමය වැනි සංවිධානයක් රටක නීතිය ගරු කරනු ඇතැයි බලාපොරොත්තු වන බව ද අමාත්යංශ නිවේදනයේ සඳහන්.
එහෙත් ජාත්යන්තර නීතිවේදීන්ගේ සංගමය එම චෝදනාව තරයේ ප්රතික්ෂේප කරයි.
"නීතිඥ වෘත්තියට අදාළ කරුණු සම්බන්ධයෙන් ස්වාධීන විමර්ශනයක් කෙරෙනු දැකීමට ශ්රී ලංකා බලධාරීන් බියක් දක්වන බවට මේ මගින් ජාත්යන්තර ප්රජාවට පණිවුඩයක් සැපයෙන" බවයි ඒ පිළිබඳව ප්රකාශයක් කරන ජාත්යන්තර නීතිවේදීන්ගේ සංගමයේ විධායක අධ්යක්ෂ ආචාර්ය මාක් එලිස් පවසන්නේ.
එක් නියෝජිතයෙකුගේ වීසා බලපත්රය අවලංගු කිරීමෙන් සහ අනෙක් තිදෙනා සඳහා වීසා ලබාදීම අත්හිටුවීමෙන් අනතුරුව, ඒ පිළිබඳව ලන්ඩනයේ ශ්රී ලංකා මහ කොමසාරිස් කාර්යාලය වැඩිදුර කටයුතු කරනු ඇතැයි තමන්ට දැනුම් දෙනු ලැබුවද මේ දක්වාම තමන්ට කිසිවක් දැනුම් දී නැති බවත් එම සංගමය පවසයි.
මේ අතර නිවේදනයක් නිකුත් කරන ශ්රී ලංකාවේ නීතිවේදීන්ගේ එකමුතුව, එදා මෙදා තුර ජාත්යන්තර නීතිවේදීන්ට වීසා ලබාදීම ප්රතික්ෂේප කළ එකම රට ෆීජි දේශය බවත්, ඉන් කාලෙකට පසුව ෆීජි රාජ්යය පොදු රාජ්ය මණ්ඩලයෙන් පිටුවහල් කෙරුණු බවත් පෙන්වා දෙයි.
විශේෂයෙන්ම දෝෂාභියෝග ක්රියාදාමය පිළිබඳව ශ්රී ලංකා ආණ්ඩුවට සඟවන්නට කිසිවක් නැත්නම් දූත මණ්ඩලයේ සංචාරයට අවහිර කරන්නේ කුමන හේතුවක් නිසා දැයි නීතිවේදීන්ගේ එකමුතුව ප්රශ්න කරයි.
ජාත්යන්තර නීතිවේදීන් 'ලංකාවට පැමිණීමට නුසුදුසු පුද්ගලයන්'
අවසාන යාවත්කාලීන කිරීම : 2013 පෙබරවාරි 3 ඉරිදා - 11:43 GMT
සංචාරයේ අරමුණ අගවිනිසුරු ශිරාණි බණ්ඩාරනායකට එරෙහි දෝෂාභියෝගය විමර්ශනයට ලක් කිරීම බව විචාරකයන්ගේ මතයයි
ජාත්යන්තර නීතිඥ සංගමයේ නියෝජිත පිරිසක් ලෙසින් ශ්රී ලංකාවේ සංචාරය කිරීමට නියමිතව සිටි සිවු දෙනා මේ මොහොතේ "ශ්රී ලංකාවට පැමිණීමට නුසුදුසු පිරිසක්" ලෙසින් තීරණය කළ බව බලධාරීහු පවසති.
ආගමන විගමන පාලක චූලානන්ද පෙරේරා ඒ බව පැවසුවේ ජාත්යන්තර නීතිඥ සංගමයට අනුබද්ධ මානව හිමිකම් සම්බන්ධ ආයතනයේ (ඉබාරි) නියෝජිත පිරිසකට වීසා බලපත් ලබාදීම ප්රතික්ෂේප කිරීම පිළිබඳව බීබීසී දෙමළ සේවයේ ජයප්රගාෂ් නාල්ලුසාමි කළ විමසීමකදී.
හිටපු ඉන්දීය අගවිනිසුරු ජේ එස් වර්මා ගේ ප්රධානත්වයෙන් එම දූත පිරිස පෙබරවාරි පළමුවැනි දින සිට පෙබරවාරි දස වැනි දින දක්වා ශ්රී ලංකාවේ සංචාරයක යෙදීමට නියමිතව තිබිණ.
ශ්රී ලංකාවේ නීතිඥ වෘත්තියට අදාළ වාතාවරණය, නීතියේ ආධිපත්යය සහ අධිකරණයේ ස්වාධීනත්වය පිළිබඳව කරුණු විමසා බැලීම දූත පිරිසේ සංචාරයේ අරමුණ බව ඉබාරි ආයතනය පවසන අතර, එහි ප්රධාන අරමුණ අගවිනිසුරු ශිරාණි බණ්ඩාරනායකට එරෙහි දෝෂාභියෝග ක්රියාදාමය විමර්ශනයට ලක් කිරීම බව විචාරකයන්ගේ මතයයි.
"මේ වෙලාවේදී ලංකාවට පැමිණීම නුසුදුසුය කියන තීරණය මත අපි ඒගොල්ල ලංකාවට එන්න පෙරාතුව ඒගොල්ල වීසා අයදුම් කරපු මාධ්යය ඔස්සේම දැනුවත් කරලා තියෙනවා මේ මොහොතේ ලංකාවට එන්න එපාය කියන එක," චූලානන්ද පෙරේරා ආගමන විගමන පාලකවරයා පැවසීය.
වීසා බලපත්ර නිකුත් කිරීමේන අනතුරුව පවා ඒ පිළිබඳව යලි සලකා බැලීමට අදාළ රටට අයිතියක් තිබෙන බව ද ඔහු සඳහන් කළේය.
Sun, Feb 3, 2013, 10:04 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.
Feb 03, Colombo:
The Sri Lankan government today clarified the reason for cancelling the visa
issued for a delegation of international lawyers scheduled to arrive in the
country on a fact-finding mission to probe the impeachment of the chief
justice.
Issuing a statement the External
Affairs Ministry said the authorities had detected that the four members of the
delegation representing the International Bar Association (IBA), had provided
inaccurate information on their visa applications.
Former Chief Justice of India J.S.
Verma was to lead the four-member delegation organized by the International Bar
Association to probe the impeachment process.
Following the detection of inaccurate
information contained in the visa applications of the 4 member delegation,
which had unilaterally scheduled a visit to Sri Lanka, the government was
constrained to withdraw visas issued through the ETA system for 3 applicants
and the other by a diplomatic mission, the statement said.
Three members of the delegation have
applied for visa in the Business Visa category which is issued for the purpose
of attending Conferences, Workshops and Seminars, while the 4th person had been
issued a gratis visa and the purpose of the visit being cited as Private.
The government has later learnt that
the stated purpose for the visit in the applications was not in conformity with
the actual nature of the visit.
The Ministry said the authorities
learnt through media reports the delegation is visiting Sri Lanka on a
fact-finding mission with a mandate to probe and prepare a report on the recent
impeachment of the former Chief Justice.
Further, one of the delegates on the
record has stated that the delegation would be interviewing, in this regard,
members of the Judiciary, Government functionaries, Members of Parliament and
the local community.
The External Affairs Ministry said the
statement demonstrated that the visit was not for the purpose of attending
Conferences, Workshops and Seminars but undertaking activity surreptitiously
which is of an intrusive nature to the sovereignty of Sri Lanka.
"Considering the prestigious
reputation of the IBA, it would be expected that the organization would
scrupulously adhere to the rules and regulations governing a country's visa
regime," the Ministry said.
The Ministry slammed the
"intimidatory behavior" by one of the IBA delegates directed at the
Sri Lanka High Commission in London as "unbecoming".
"In keeping with the Government
of Sri Lanka's interest in transparency, bona-fide applications for visits of
this nature are processed with objectivity. However, in keeping with universal
practice, appropriate action would be taken in the event there is a
misrepresentation of information by a visa applicant," the Ministry
statement said.
Lawyers Collective Regrets Denial Of Visa To IBA; Urges Government To Be Transparent
It is reported
that visas issued to a delegation of the International
Bar Association
(IBA), consisting of eminent jurists, headed by the distinguished former Chief
Justice of India J.S. Verma, had later been revoked. The
delegation was expected to conduct meetings with a diversity of stakeholders on
the development of the legal profession, rule of law and the independence of
the judiciary in Sri Lanka. This was not the first time IBA missions visited
Sri Lanka and in fact, on two previous occasions the IBA visited
and compiled reports, which enriched the legal profession and judiciary
immensely.
The International Bar Association, established in 1947, is the
world’s leading association of legal practitioners, bar associations and law
societies. It has a membership of more than 50,000 individual lawyers and
over 200 bar associations and law societies spanning all continents. It has
considerable expertise in providing assistance to the global legal community.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) is a member of the IBA. Sri Lankan legal community is an integral part of the
global legal fraternity.
The Government of Sri Lanka has
constantly stated that the impeachment against its Chief Justice Shirani
Bandaranayake has been done in
accordance with the constitutional and international best practices. An
independent assessment would have assisted the Government of Sri Lanka to prove
its credibility. It is regrettable that the Government of Sri
Lanka has denied visas to the members of this delegation, consisting of
persons of highest credibility and recognition. Lawyers Collective
believes that if the government did not have anything to hide, or it had
followed Latimer House principles, the mission would have been permitted. We wish to remind those who matter that the only country which
denied visas to IBA missions ever was Fiji in 2008, which was later suspended
from Commonwealth in 2009.
Lawyers Collective urges the
Government of Sri Lanka in the circumstances to be transparent and be open
for scrutiny of its impeachment process and Rule of Law. Such openness would help the democracy in Sri Lanka in general and
the professional standards of the Sri Lankan legal professionals.
Colombo denies
visas to IBA jurists
[TamilNet,
Monday, 4 February 2013 10:52 No Comment]
Sri Lanka denied
visas to three jurists, headed by India’s former Chief Justice J. S. Verma,
from the London-based International Bar Association Human Rights Institute
(IBAHRI) to enter Sri Lanka on a fact finding mission related to the rule of
law and the independence of the judiciary, AFP reported. Colombo accused the
jurists of "misrepresenting" the objective of their visit to Sri Lanka,
and that the mission was going to undertake "activity surreptitiously
which is of an intrusive nature to the sovereignty of Sri Lanka,"
according to the AFP. The IBA expressed "serious concern" over the
withdrawal of visas as the team was due to visit Colombo for 10 days starting
Friday.
The panel was
going to study Sri Lanka’s sacking of chief justice Shirani Bandaranayake, the
first woman to hold the nation’s highest judicial office.
Sacking of the
Chief Justice, and the appointment of Mohan Peiris, a former Attorney General
and legal advisor to the Sri Lanka’s president, have received world-wide
condemnation, and concern, including from the U.S. and the U.N.
"Sri Lanka’s
parliament and executive have effectively decapitated the country’s judiciary
in pursuit of short term political gain," the International Commission of
Jurists (ICJ) said in a statement earlier.
Commonwealth
Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma expressed deep disappointment at the chief
justice’s dismissal, saying that he would consider further Commonwealth
initiatives on Sri Lanka, a member of the Commonwealth, and responses to
situations perceived to constitute violations of core Commonwealth values and
principles.
Gabriela Knaul,
U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said the
case against Bandaranayake was part of a pattern of attacks and threats against
members of the judiciary and lawyers and interference in their work.
Knaul said
article 107 of the Sri Lankan constitution, read together with Standing Orders
of Parliament, contravened international human rights law and needed amending
so that disciplinary proceedings against judges were conducted by independent
commissions.
The Rajapaksa-appointed
new Chief Justice Mohan Peiris, has gone on record for saying that the rise of
crimes in the SL military occupied Jaffna was only a sign of normalcy returning
after 29 years of militarization.
Sri Lanka slams foreign lawyers over impeachment probe
Agence France-Presse | Updated: February 03, 2013 17:37
IST
(File pic of Sri Lanka's former chief justice
Shirani Bandaranayake)
Colombo: Sri Lanka on
Sunday accused a London-based group of lawyers of undermining Colombo's
sovereignty and said a four-member team probing judicial independence was
barred from entering the island.
The external affairs ministry said it revoked visas issued to
members of the International Bar Association (IBA) because they
"misrepresented" the objective of their visit to Sri Lanka.
The ministry in a statement said the four-member mission was going
to undertake "activity surreptitiously which is of an intrusive nature to
the sovereignty of Sri Lanka".
The IBA on Saturday expressed "serious concern" over the
withdrawal of visas for lawyers from its Human Rights Institute who were due to
visit Colombo for 10 days starting Friday.
The panel was going to study Sri Lanka's sacking of chief justice
Shirani Bandaranayake, the first woman to hold the nation's highest judicial
office.
The government dismissed Bandaranayake despite two Sri Lankan
court rulings that the impeachment was illegal and unconstitutional.
Sri Lanka insists it followed proper legal procedures in firing
Bandaranayake, 54, on charges of professional and personal misconduct.
Bandaranayake was dismissed by President Mahinda Rajapakse on
January 13, two days after parliament voted to impeach her, despite a chorus of
international criticism.
The United States has led international calls objecting to the
impeachment as an assault on judicial independence and rule of law in the
island.
Bandaranayake has been replaced by former attorney general Mohan
Peiris who had been serving as the government's chief legal adviser.
The impeachment process was launched in November after court
decisions went against the regime of Rajapakse, who has tightened his hold on
power since crushing Tamil Tiger rebels in May 2009 to end a decades-long
ethnic war.
Lawmakers found Bandaranayake guilty of tampering with a case
involving a firm from which her sister bought an apartment, of failing to
declare dormant bank accounts and of staying in office while her husband faced
a bribery charge.
She has said the charges were politically motivated and that she
was denied a fair trial.
High level visits show international pressures will
continue
February 4, 2013,
8:14 pm
By
Jehan Perera
The government’s
confidence that the March session of the UN Human Rights Council will not be
damaging to its interests would have grown with the visit of the three member
US governmental delegation on a fact finding visit to Sri Lanka. Their
statement that the US would follow up on its March 2012 resolution at the UNHRC
with a "procedural resolution" will be a disappointment to those who
have been hoping that the international community will do the job of the
opposition in ensuring accountability within the country. The emphasis on
procedure suggests a lack of emphasis on substance. The indications are
that there will be no new mechanisms that will be proposed in the
"procedural resolution" which will possibly reiterate the same
concerns that were put out in the 2012 resolution and urge a continued
attention to implementation of the same.
In this context,
the government is taking the impending meeting of the UN Human Rights Council
in Geneva in March without a display of anxiety unlike on the last occasion
last year. The aftermath of the US-sponsored resolution in 2012 has shown
the limited ability of the international community to take action in the face
of opposition by the country concerned. The forthcoming meeting in Geneva
did not stop the government from impeaching the country’s Chief Justice on
largely political grounds. There was some speculation that the government
might stall the impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake until the March
session of the UNHRC as completed, rather than provide more ammunition to its
detractors. But this speculation proved to be without foundation as the
Chief Justice was both impeached and removed in quick order.
The government’s
public demonstration of confidence in the strength of its position can also be
seen in the manner it has dealt with the proposed visit by a top level
delegation of the International Bar Association. The government had
originally given permission for the visit and even issued a visa to one member
of the delegation, a former Chief Justice of India. The purpose of the
visit was to assess from the Sri Lankan protagonists themselves what had
transpired during the course of the impeachment of Chief Justice Bandaranayake
and its aftermath, and the implications for the rule of law and independence of
the judiciary. But now the government has felt emboldened to revoke the
permission for the visit of the international legal delegation even to the
extent of cancelling the visa that had been granted.
TOUGH APPROACH
The government’s
tough approach towards the human rights champions of the international
community is based on the understanding that most international institutions,
especially UN bodies, require a great deal of consensus between unlike minded
actors. In general countries are protective of their own
sovereignty. Even in mature and advanced democracies such as the UK the
issue of surrendering too much of sovereignty to supranational bodies, such as
the EU, is a deeply felt one. Countries that are more vulnerable to
external interventions on account of their lack of power are also concerned
about establishing precedents that might be used to adversely affect
them. Sri Lanka therefore has a natural affinity with the majority of non-Western
countries who are often at the receiving end of strictures on human rights and
good governance from the more mature and advanced democracies of the Western
world.
Among the
comments by non-Western diplomats that I heard over the past two weeks, one was
that they did not wish to do anything that would be against Sri Lanka.
Ideally speaking this should be the attitude of all who seek to influence the
course of events in Sri Lanka or any other country for that matter. Even
opposition to those actions of governments that violate their people’s human
rights should have the "Do no harm" principle underlying them so that
it does not make a bad situation worse, as in the case of Iraq, Libya and now
Syria. The follow up to this concern is that the current weakness of the
opposition political parties makes a political vacuum more likely if the
government is weakened as a result of international pressures. The
comment of another non-Western diplomat was that Sri Lanka must never be made
to go the way of Cyprus where the UN itself has itself become part of the
system that keeps the country divided.
The extreme
Western position would represented by the letter written by two leading
Senators Patrick Leahy and Robert Casey to the outgoing US Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton asking her for an independent international investigation into
accountability issues. They argued that "Achieving a sustainable
peace in Sri Lanka will require continued and sustained leadership by the
United States and others in the international community committed to genuine
accountability." However, the grounds on which they have made this
call is questionable. They have said that "During the years
following the end of the war, the Sri Lankan people have waited for the
government to address these concerns, yet no tangible or substantial progress
has been made." The problem with this statement is that it does not
represent the ground reality in an ethnically and politically divided
society. It can be believed that the big majority of the Sri Lankan
people will not be in agreement with such international intervention.
COMPROMISE
RESOLUTION
In sponsoring a
procedural resolution, the US would be recognizing the need to obtain the
support of the non-Western countries in the UNHRC who form the majority of
countries and who see Sri Lanka as a kindred country. At the present time
these countries are unlikely to be willing to support a stronger resolution
than the one that was approved by the majority of them in the March 2012
session of the UNHRC at the strenuous insistence of the United States.
This time around the government will be able to argue that a mere one year is
not a sufficient period of time to be able to make a fair assessment of what
has been done and not done in terms of implementing the 2012
resolution. The UNHRC resolution 19/2 of March 2012 titled "Promoting
Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri Lanka" called on the Sri Lankan
government to implement the constructive proposals of its Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission while noting that it failed to adequately address
serious allegations of violations of international law, and called for UN
assistance in addressing these problems.
The Sri
Lankan government has prepared an impressive list of documents, action plans,
committees, activities, indicators of achievement and date lines. It also
has its own military’s report on their implementation of the recommendations of
the LLRC. The government is also in a position to show visible changes in
the post-war landscape that is impressive to the not-so-well-informed
outsider. Those who last saw Sri Lanka during the time of the war and see
it today would be considerably impressed by the visible changes that have
occurred. They will see open roads where there were once barricades and
checkpoints, and also feel comfortable as they speed upon well carpeted roads
while looking upon the new constructions on the roadside that have erased the
destruction of war. The critic might say it looks better but feels
worse. This requires spending more time with the people to get to know
their inner thoughts, which few of the visiting international government
representatives have time or inclination to do.
In these
circumstances the rationale underlying the US position to restrict itself to a procedural
resolution becomes clearer. It will help to mobilize those same countries
that voted in 2012 to back the US sponsored resolution. It will also keep
the resolution of 2012 alive on the UNHRC agenda to be brought up again in 2014
when the country comes closer to the next national election cycle. What
is significant is that the issue of accountability will not subside until the
Sri Lankan government is able to demonstrate on the ground that it has
fulfilled the imperatives of reconciliation. Mere posturing about action
plans and political maneuvering may buy time and ensure survival for the day,
but it will not make the problem go away. What it also means is that
those in Sri Lanka and internationally who want to see change in Sri Lanka have
to work harder until Sri Lankan society itself wants democracy and human rights
in greater measure than what the government is prepared to give.
India’s former CJ denied visa
Saturday, 02
February 2013 10:01
India’s former Chief Justice J.S. Varma, who
sought to visit Sri Lanka as a member of an international fact finding mission
on the impeachment process, had been denied visa by the Sri Lanka authorities,
informed sources said yesterday.
Mr. Varma was to arrive in the country yesterday. According to
informed sources, he has applied for tourist visa to arrive in the country. In
the meantime, the Sri Lankan authorities have learnt that Mr. Varma wanted to
visit Sri Lanka as a member of a panel appointed by the International
Bar Association (IBA) to study the procedure adopted by the government of Sri
Lanka to impeach former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, and to submit a
report.
The IBA has been critical of the procedure followed in the
impeachment process. Ms. Bandaranayake was impeached after the Parliamentary
Select Committee (PSC) that probed charges against her found her guilty of
professional misconduct.
The government maintains that it followed the procedure outlined
in the Constitution to dismiss her. However, the opposition argued that she was
denied natural justice in the entire process.(Kelum
Bandara)
The Sri Lankan Tamil plot thickens
February
6, 2013 M K Bhadrakumar
Domestic and
western pressure will build up in the coming weeks on Delhi to back a
US-sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka coming up in the UN Human Rights
Commission in Geneva.
Sri Lanka
President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Source: Reuters
The signs point toward a
storm breaking out on the Sri Lankan question, as the month of March
approaches. The United States said last Monday it would sponsor another
resolution against Sri Lanka, for the second successive year, at the U.N. Human
Rights Council (UNHRC) in March for failing to pursue those responsible for
abuses as government forces were crushing Tamil rebels in 2009.
Speaking
in Colombo on January 28, James Moore, deputy assistant secretary in the
United States State Department, was quite blunt:
“The United States has
decided to sponsor a procedural resolution at the March 2013 session of the UN
Human Rights Council along with international partners. The
resolution will be straightforward, it will be a procedural resolution, and it
will build on the 2012 resolution, which called on Sri Lanka to do more to
promote reconciliation and accountability. The resolution will ask the
government of Sri Lanka to follow through on its own commitments to its people,
including the implementation of the LLRC recommendations.”
Another deputy assistant
secretary in the state department Jane Zimmerman who was present at the media
interaction in Colombo, brushed aside Colombo’s contention that the process of
reconciliation and rehabilitation of the Tamils is being successfully handled –
“But you can’t really have reconciliation without accountability.”
The Sri Lanka government
has reiterated that it won’t cave in to the US pressure. A new stridency is appearing
in Colombo’s voice. The first move has been the slamming of the door on the face of a delegation of the International
Bar Association which was planning to visit Sri Lanka, taking exception to the
visitors’ alleged intention of undertaking “activity surreptitiously which is
of an intrusive nature to the sovereignty of Sri Lanka.”
And now comes the big
news that Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa has spoken dismissively of the need to grant any more political
autonomy for the Sri Lankan Tamils.
Rajapaksa also took a
swipe at the US move to take up the war crimes issue at the United Nations. He
said the UN Charter does not empower the world body to “interfere in the
internal affairs of countries.” He then added, “Sri Lanka’s foreign policy is
that of non-alignment. It is necessary for us to build a new era in foreign
affairs based on this policy. This is essential for the freedom of Sri Lanka.”
The thinly-veiled
warning to Washington is clear – ‘Back off, we intend to be non-aligned
vis-à-vis the US’ rebalancing to Asia.’
This is turning out to
be a classic pantomime where the real plot is the great game rivalries in the Indian Ocean. China announced
recently that the oil and gas pipelines connecting Yunnan with the Bay of
Bengal would be operational in June. Again, the control of Gwadar port in
Pakistan has passed onto the Chinese hands. Beijing plays down these developments, while perceptions
matter in politics. And, at any rate, Sri Lanka becomes a crucial
transportation hub for China in the emerging scenario that enables Beijing to
break out of its “Malacca Dilemma”.
The gathering storm
would engulf India too. Delhi comes under strong compulsion to be seen
championing the rights of the Sri Lankan Tamils. The potential of the Sri
Lankan issue playing out in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu indeed
worries the ruling Congress Party. Tamil Nadu sends 39 lawmakers to the
540-member Indian parliament, which could be a crucial contingent in the
formation of the next coalition government in Delhi following the elections, which
seem to be fast approaching.
Without doubt, China’s
influence in the South Asian region worries Delhi, although India’s interest in
identifying with the US’ ‘rebalancing’ strategy would be minimal. The
legitimacy of China’s growing interests in the Indian Ocean region also cannot
be ignored. The litmus test will be how far India’s own interests come under
threat.
Domestic and western
pressure will build up in the coming weeks on Delhi to back the US-sponsored
resolution coming up in the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Without
doubt, the US’s resolution is part of a concerted western move. Britain is already invoking the “Commonwealth values.” On
the other hand, Delhi is savvy enough to know that Sri Lanka cannot be easily
dislodged from its adamant position on the nationality question and, besides,
annoying Colombo can only prove to be counterproductive.
Meanwhile, the Sri
Lankans are also ace practitioners of diplomacy. Amidst all the tensions
building up, Rajapaksa plans to visit India on February 8 – on a religious
pilgrimage that takes him to the ancient Buddhist site of Bodh Gaya and the
revered Hindu temple at Tirupati.
