The Island Politics

Attempt to remove the staff of the Bribery Commission
‘Abuse and misuse of Presidential power’

The Leader of the Opposition Mr. Ranil Wickramesinghe in a letter to President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga states as follows:

I am in receipt of your letter of 5th June 1998 in reply to my letter dated 19th May 1998.

In my letter I stated that:-

i) one of the Commissioners, the late Justice Siva Selliah, expired in January 1997. No steps have been taken to replace him.
ii) a Director General has not been appointed to the Commission, since Mrs. N. Gamage ceased to hold this office.
iii) the supporting staff of the Commission had been withdrawn

I called upon you to take immediate action to remedy these matters. I am sorry to observe that your reply, although running into three and half pages, does not address the three issues raised by me.

In fact, the maters referred to in your letter have no relevancy to the filling of the vacancies of a Commissioner and that of the Director General.

UNP support
The appointment of the third Commissioner and the Director General who is the Chief Administrative officer will result in the immediate re-constitution of the Commission. I will be glad to assure you of our co-operation with regard to these two appointments, provided the UNP is consulted in the selection process and the final appointees have bipartisan approval, in view of the prevailing circumstances.

In your letter you make certain accusations with regard to the ineffectiveness of the Commissioners and to the fact that 'an awful lot of public funds have been spent for the meagre amount of work done'. Yet, in your letter of 26th November 1997, addressing the same Chairman of the Commission, you have stated 'I am also appreciative of the work that you and other members of your Commission have put in during the last three years'. (vide annexure 1 to your letter of June 5th 1998). The Commissioners themselves in their letter to you dated 12th June 1998). The Commissioners themselves in their letter to you dated 12th June 1998, detail the history of the Commission's predicament and allude to the actual number of cases they have handled during the last 3 1/2 years of the Commission's existence.

Obviously, this raises serious doubts as to the validity of the charge you have made against the Commissioners. Moreover, when I raised this issue in Parliament, the Honourable G. L. Pieris made no reference to the Commission being ineffective.

However, I note with interest that these allegations have been made by you for the first time after the Commission accepted the complaints against (a) the Cabinet of Ministers inclusive of yourself (b) the Honourable Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Posts, Telecommunications and Media.

Your persistence in pressurising the Commissioners to resign through various means, and your autocratic resolve to act with complete disregard to lawful procedures in this matter, creates deep suspicion in my mind as to motives of your government.

If the Commission is ineffective as claimed by you, then the solution is to identify the reasons and to rectify them. By removing the staff of the Commission you clearly do not increase the efficiency of the Commission, rather you bring its work to a complete halt. On-going investigations cannot be proceeded with and new complaints cannot be investigated.

Doubt
I do not believe you did this for benefit of a school principal who misappropriated cups and saucers, or technical officers of the Building Department who solicited bribes of a few thousand rupees. Rather, the Commission was made ineffective deliberately so as to prevent inquiries into allegations of bribery and corruption against members of the Government themselves.

It was highly inappropriate of you as the President to intervene in the much publicised 'dispute' between the Commissioners and the Director General, and on that pretext call for the resignations of the Commissioners. According to the law, the President can remove a Commissioner from office only after an address of Parliament for the removal of such a member (Section 2(5)(a) of The Commission to Investigate the Allegations of Bribery and Corruption act). So far, the Parliament has not passed a resolution calling for the removal of any Commissioner. Therefore, in calling for their resignation without an address of Parliament you have seriously violated the provisions of the Act.

A resolution for the removal of any Commissioner can only be presented on grounds of 'proved misconduct or incapacity', not on indeterminate allegations of inefficiency. After all, you appointed Commissioners on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and in consultation with the Speaker. I was never a party to the process.

I wish to correct your conjecture that Mr. Thilak Marapana is the legal advisor to the Leader of the UNP. In fact, there is no such post in the UNP. For your information, Mr. Pelpola is the Legal Secretary of the UNP. Mr. Marapana has appeared for me in my personal capacity only on one occasion. A number of leading lawyers have played prominent roles in party politics and as you are well aware, they endeavour to keep their professional work separate from their political activities. Mr. Marapana has always upheld this tradition. It is a pity that as the President of this country you yourself are unable to conduct yourself with such impartiality, as evinced by your bigoted statements at the mere mention of the UNP.

You seem ignorant of the fact that the question of making the offence of 'corruption' retroactive was raised and disposed of during the second reading of the bills in October 1994. I quote from the Hansards of 4th and 5th October 1994.

A. C. S. Hameed: Col. 291 of 4/10/94
"With regard to the amendment to the Bribery Act as such under the definition of the word 'Public Servant' specially as far as the MPs are concerned, the period to be reckoned would be 1954 and for members of the Provincial Council it would be November 1987. Now that also is being done retrospectively. That again you would require two-thirds majority, and that too we will be supporting you, as I have already said. Then on forfeiture of property, I said we would support you because, there again, you would require a two-thirds majority. But, as you said already the new offence of corruption is prospective."

G. L. Pieris: Col. 413 of 5/10/94
"There are competing facets of public policy which need to be reconciled and the Government has done its best to do that by accepting some of these suggestions that have been made by the Opposition."

"With regard to retroactivity, as I pointed out when I introduced this legislation, the new offence of corruption will have exclusively prospective, as opposed to retroactive, operation."

"We have introduced that offence into our law but we have taken care to see that it will be applicable only for the future and not for the past. This is because we recognise the paramount value of a particular principle. The principle is this: if at the time an act is committed an offence, there are no penal sanctions attaching to that act."

The core issue is not one of making the law retroactive, but the empowering of the commission to inquire into the allegations of bribery and corruption made against members of the government by appointing a third Commissioner and the Director General. It is a violation of ethical standards as well as tenets of common decency expected of a Head of Government, to call for the resignation of the commissioners at a time when you and the members of your Cabinet are yourselves the subject matter of complaints made to the commission.

The move of your government in introducing a resolution in Parliament for an Address of Parliament for the removal of the existing two commissioners is itself an obvious "delaying tactic" adopted to prevent the commencement of investigations into complaints already made against the cabinet of Ministers, inclusive of yourself. This is patent because the commission can be reconstituted and activated by your taking the three simple steps I have referred to above. Every action of yourself and your government in respect of the commission bears the obvious stamp of subverting the rule of law and abusing and misusing your authority as President to protect and shield yourself and your immediate colleagues.

L E G A L W A T C H
Bribery Commission affair moves to Parliament

By Nayana
After two well-publicised hard-hitting letters from the President and the Members of the "Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption" respectively, the scene of the dispute has now shifted to Parliament where, as the public were pointedly told, it only requires a simple majority out of the total number of votes in Parliament, to remove the Members from their posts.

This column never quoted numbers anyway, neither when we predicted in 1996 that this newly created statutory commission might not live up to expectations, nor again when we analysed the public fiasco that had developed by late 1997.

However, any sense of satisfaction on the part of the government about this simple, and therefore easily attainable majority, should be tempered by an awareness that what is at stake is the credibility of the Commission (and also of the government) which will undoubtedly be damaged if the Commissioners are removed by a politically partisan vote in the House, irrespective of the merits of the case against them. Indeed, it would make the position of the Members of the Commission only slightly better than that of the former Bribery Commissioner who was transferable at the will of the political executive.

Section 2(5) of the 1994 Act that set up the Commission stipulates that a Commissioner cannot be removed from office except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of Members, for removal on the ground of proved misconduct or incapacity. The section also requires that no resolution for the presentation of such an address shall be entertained by Parliament unless notice of such resolution has been signed by not less than one-third of the total membership of the House and sets out full particulars of the alleged misconduct or incapacity.

The notice of the resolution to remove Commissioners T.A. De S. Wijesundera and Rudra Rajasingham which appears in the Parliamentary Order Paper issued on 12 June has been presented by 80 Members and Deputy Ministers drawn from the ranks of the People’s Alliance and minority parties supporting them. Their names, in the order published, are as follows:

D.M. Seneviratne; U.L.M. Mohideen; Jeewan Kumaranatunga; D.M. Dassanayaka; C.P.D. Bandaranaike; Sumitha Priyangani Abeyweera; Neil Rupasinghe; K.W. Kuruppuarachchi; Jayatissa Ranaweera; T.B. Ekanayake; Thilak Bandara Mahalekam; Maheipala Herath; Nanda Gunasinghe; P. Sumathipala; G.W. Wijayamuni Zoysa; S.S.M. Abu Bakr; Sumedha Jayasena; Tissa Karaliyadda; Amal Senalankadhikara; W. Milroy S. Fernando; Upali Gunaratne; Dixon J. Perera; Athula N. Jayasinghe; Anura Priyadharshana Yapa; Ediriweera Weerawardhana; N. Bennet Cooray; P.B. Dissanayake; Nandasena Herath; Mahinda Amaraweera; K.P. Silva; Yooses Peiris; Chamal Rajapakse; A.P. Jagath Pushpakumara; M.N. Abdul Majeed; Herath Banda Semasinghe; Noel Padmasiri Kariyawasam; H.M. Weerasinghe; Chandrasiri Gajadeera; Bandula Basnayake; Salinda Dissanayake; Prof. A.V. Suraweera; Dr. I.M. Ilyas; Ediriweera Premarathna; Felix Perera; S.D.R. Jayaratna; Jayasena Rajakaruna; Prof. W.A. Wiswa Warnapala; Lionel Gunawardena; Jinadasa Nandasena; Jagath Balasuriya; Kumara Welgama; M.C. Gopallawa; Janaka Bandara Tennekoon; A.M. Munidasa Premachandra; Dilan Perera; Reggie Ranatunga; L.B. Kiriella; Nirupama Rajapakse; E.A. Samarasinghe; M.M. Zuhair; S.B. Nawinne; Reginald Cooray; Athauda Seneviratne; Weerawanni Samaraweera; Heenmahathmaya Liyanage; Pavithra Wanniarachchi; P. Chandrasekeran; Douglas Devananda; Mahinda Wijesekera; Dalas Alahaperuma; Piyasena Gamage; Shantha Premaratne; C.B. Ratnayake; Kesaralal Gunasekera; S. Rajaratnam; U. Baskaran; A. Rasamanickam; A.M.D. Rajan; S. Sathasivam; and M. Sivalingam.

The Resolution, the full text of which has already been widely published in the media, stresses on the significance of the new offence of "corruption" introduced as an amendment to the Bribery Act in 1994, and cites as the first count of "incapacity" against the Commissioners, their alleged failure to secure a single successful prosecution for corruption during the tenure of office.

In this respect and also in its reference to the sums of public money allegedly spent in maintaining the Commission, the resolution bears some similarity to the President’s recent open letter to the Leader of the Opposition, to which the Commissioners have publicly replied, claiming that this emphasis on the newly created offence of corruption overlooks their work done in the more familiar field of bribery.

The second count of incapacity alleged against the Commissioners involves the institution of two cases for corruption which failed. This charge will raise the interesting question of the extent to which the head of an insitution is to be held responsible if a prosecution instituted by his office fails in court.

The third count, where misconduct is alleged, raises the matter of the aborted investigation by the Commissioners against the Director-General of the Commission, Nelum Gamage. A writ application filed by Ms Gamage resulted in a "settlement" with the Commissioners purportedly undertaking not to take any further steps against her. The Commissioners in their open letter published in the press last Sunday claimed that the Attorney-General entered into this compromise without their consent. The Parliamentary resolution alleges that the actions of the Commissioners in this regard were for a "collateral purpose" which it does not specify.

The fourth and fifth counts in the resolution are against T.A. De S. Wijesundara alone, the former concerning the alleged misuse of official telephones for his private benefit, and the latter alleging incapacity / misconduct in an incident of a missing file which was later found in the custody of an officer other than the one to whom Wijesundera had said it was lost.

The next three counts are against Rudra Rajasingham. The first alleges misconduct in allegedly interfering in an ongoing investigation against former Controller of Immigration J.A. Ariyasena. The second is for allegedly (and without consulting legal opinion) causing the arrest of an employee of the Employee’s Trust Fund who did not fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction. The third involves an accident to Mr Rajasingham’s official car in respect of which he allegedly violated government procedures by obtaining money for the repairs from the other driver directly.

The last count alleges misconduct against both Commissioners over the allegedly arbitrary closure of a file on one S. Vadugaiyapillai, General Manager of the National Housing Develpment Authority.

Section 2(5) of the 1994 Act states that the presentation and passing of an address of Parliament for the removal of a member of the Commission shall follow in all respects the procedure for the removal of a Supreme Court judge. Such procedure is provided for by Article 107 of the Constitution read with Standing Order 78 of Parliament.

Once the resolution has been placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, the Speaker is required to appoint a Select Committee of not less than seven members to investigate and report to Parliament on the allegations. The Commissioners, to whom copies of the resolution must be sent, are required to be given time to make a written reply. Thereafter, they are entitled to be heard in person or by a representative and adduce oral and documentary evidence to disprove the allegations. The Select Committee is also entitled to send for persons and call for documents.

Within one month of the conclusion of the investigation (unless further time is allowed), the Select Committee is required to submit a report together with the minutes of the evidence recorded. Parliament can commence proceedings for removal only after one month has elapsed from the date of submission of the report. If the Select Committee is not unanimous, the matter may be put to a vote and the record of the respective votes is submitted as part of the Committee minutes.

The long-drawn out impasse in the operations of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption is thus likely to continue for some months at least. The crucial question, once the dust has cleared, will be whether the public retains sufficient confidence in the institution to continue sending complaints to it. This is of particular importance because while the Bribery Commissioner under the former Bribery Act could commence investigations on his own initiative, the new Commission can only investigate "allegations contained in statements made to it".

However the most important reason for watching the present proceedings carefully is because of its potential impact on an institution far older and more respected than the 1994 Commission, namely the higher judiciary of this country, whose members are also dismissable only for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" upon an address of Parliament passed by a simple majority of the total membership of the House - Article 107 of the Constitution.

When the public was told that the members of the Commission could only be dismissed by the procedure applicable to judges of the Superior Courts, it sounded re-assuring from the point of view of the Commission. The manner in which proceedings are conducted over coming months will indicate just how re-assuring it really is, both for the Commissioners and for the judiciary.

Is Kadirgamar on slippery slope?

By K. Godage
It does appear that our India policy is in shambles. This correspondent takes no pleasure in referring to the fact that he has repeatedly drawn attention to the need to institutionalise the relationship with India. It was with much reluctance that I have time and again drawn attention to the obvious, namely that depending for our security, in all its forms, on the goodwill of foreign leaders, was not only naïve but dangerous, for we are wholly vulnerable.

Jayalalitha Jayaram, the former Tamil Nadu chief minister, today wields immense power in Delhi with 18 MPs from her party supporting the fragile governing coalition. The present government depends for its very existence on her. She, along with 27 MPs including five ministers belonging to five Tamil parties of Tamil Nadu, have written to the prime minister requesting him to intervene in the Sri Lanka conflict to ‘persuade’ (and after that God knows what other means they would adopt for they are already clandestinely assisting the LTTE) the government of Sri Lanka to withdraw the army from the ‘Tamil homeland.'

It is not that they do not realise that it is the same as requesting the Indian army to withdraw from Tamil Nadu. But in this instance they feel confident to make the demand because they do not consider Sri Lanka a sovereign nation. Our foreign minister and the advisor on foreign affairs to the president, have by their irresponsible statements conceded that our independence and sovereignty is of a lesser class than that of India’s. They feel therefore that they have a right to lord over and dictate to us.

In this regard I wonder whether the government is mindful of the stand taken by the ‘West’ on the Kosovo issue. Even though the conflict in Sri Lanka could not possibly ‘blow up’ the region, as would the threat from Kosovo, it is not inconceivable that India could use her new found clout to move the international community to call for a withdrawal.

Incidentally, the government is foolishly arming guards in camps where suspected terrorists are detained with T56 rifles. Do they realise that they are playing into the hands of Prabhakaran? To those prepared to swallow a cyanide capsule, to provoke a bullet for the cause would be even better. A riot in an internment camp could be engineered and Sharpville and Dili would be seen to have been picnics. Would the government be able to withstand the international pressure if this were to happen? Certainly not.

The Indian MPs also demand that the claim over Kachchativu, (which India accepted was not well founded, and which claim she withdrew) be re-instituted. They have stated in their memorandum that the "passive attitude that India has adopted towards Sri Lanka over the past seven years has not helped to solve the ethnic problem in that country" ---what do they therefore advocate? The answer is obvious.

The demarche of the parliamentarians is a major diplomatic triumph for the LTTE. They have now won over Jayalalitha to their side. They also have that champion of the perceived underdog, Fernandes, in their corner. Kadirgamar fought shy of meeting him when he made his ‘triumphant ‘visit to Delhi.

Whilst the foreign minister and his publicity departments were making a great song and dance about the diplomatic triumph achieved by the minister by being the first to pay pooja to the new leaders in India, and obtain assurances of support for Sri Lanka’s unity and territorial integrity, the LTTE was engaging in quiet purposeful diplomacy. Cheap publicity and platform rhetoric was not for them. They have been working very successfully on restoring their fortunes in India.

The immediate question that arises is whether the government was aware of the new coalition that was being established to support the LTTE - without actually identifying themselves with the LTTE of course. Obviously the government did not know and did not take preventive action. That raises questions on the effectiveness of our high commission in Delhi and of the ‘office’ in Madras. Their principal task is to keep the government informed of developments in India relevant to us. If they did not know of these developments and we were unable to take preventive action, then the high commission and the ministry have failed in their duty.

What then have the much-publicised visits to India by the minister achieved? Nothing of consequence. I doubt very much whether the minister, the high commissioner in Delhi or the deputy in Madras ever briefed the politicians in Tamil Nadu about the situation in the north. I say this because of the comments made by Dr Ramdoss amongst others about the economic blockade of the north and of food and medicines not being sent to Tamil areas etc.

The government and the ministry of foreign affairs in particular face a huge challenge in the days and months ahead. Whether they are equal to it is another matter. The LTTE has jockeyed itself into a position of great influence and there is every likelihood that the BJP would be compelled to change its policy towards Sri Lanka if it is to survive. Whether the government accepts it or not, the success of the LTTE in winning over not only the RSS but also the Fernandes and his Samatha Party and now Jayalalitha to their cause, constitutes a colossal defeat for us.

This is not the only instance of a diplomatic setback in recent days. The minister has been performing more than adequately, in fact brilliantly, in projecting the image of the country or advocating the cause of the government abroad. But he has come a cropper on international issues. His first faux pas was his change of position on the nuclear issue. Within twenty four hours of the first statement, which was a balanced one, which held the scales evenly between India and Pakistan, he changed his stance.

The second ‘statement’ expressing "no objection" showed the difference between an amateur and a professional in the words of one critic. He offended those who had consistently helped us, Pakistan China, in addition to the United States of course. They all pointed out that the minister’s statement was ‘out of order’.

As if this were not enough, the minister visits China and goofs again. Perhaps in keeping with the spirit of ‘transparency’, the report on his visit said it all. Official discussions between leaders of countries are invested with a certain sanctity which every professional knows should not be violated. What the Chinese told the minister would quite naturally been stated in confidence But what do we do? We tell the whole world.

In the process we also violate the ‘third country rule’. Even if the discussion related to a third country, it is not mentioned in a release. What has happened is far worse than that for even the Indians were displeased.

Let us recall what had been told to us, no doubt in confidence, but what we broadcast to the world. "The Chinese leaders strongly rejected India’s allegation that China posed a nuclear threat to India. They conveyed to Minister Kadirgamar their deep resentment that such an allegation had been made….."

The report went on to state that the Chinese had stated that they "found it difficult to understand why…..the Government of India should have decided to describe CHINA AS ITS MAIN ENEMY." (The Chinese could not have used the word enemy for reasons set out anon). It further said that the minister had said that it was a matter for considerable regret that some Indian leaders had publicly referred to China as its main ENEMY.

Neither Fernandes nor Advani described China as the enemy, leave alone ‘main enemy’. Fernandes described China as the ‘threat’ not the ENEMY----there is a huge difference between ‘threat’ and ‘enemy’. Sri Lanka has injected a new dimension into the conflict which both India and China could well do without.

The Indians and the Chinese would no doubt have been displeased. I presume the Indians would have made their displeasure known to the minister when he called on the PM recently. This type of faux pas are not expected from foreign ministers. They reflect badly on the country and cannot be excused.

The minister also chalked up another first for a ‘visiting foreign minister’ when he appeared on a political party platform with the Awami League leader and Prime Minister Sheikh Hassina to support the Chittagong Hill Tract Peace Accord. It was indeed poor judgement for the Accord which has become controversial and is opposed by the BNP and the last Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Khalida Zia. They have vowed to scrap the pact when they come into power. If that happens our relations with Bangladesh would be strained because of the minister’s poor judgement.

Little Sri Lanka has also displeased little Bhutan. The minister himself found time to visit every country of SAARC other than Bhutan to hand over the invitation to the SAARC Summit. To Bhutan he sent his deputy. A foreign critic surmised, "perhaps Bhutan is too small a country for your Foreign Minister to visit".

(The writer is a former ambassador who has held senior positions in the foreign ministry)

Death of President Sant Abacha
Nigeria - an avenue of opportunity

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
Nigerians did not all mourn the sudden demise of their president, Sant Abacha (51) who died suddenly of a reported heart attack on 8 June 1998. They showed little enthusiasm for the month-long period of national mourning ordered by General Abdulsalam Abubakar, Abacha's successor and close ally.

By and large, Nigerians showed relief at the death of a brutal dictator who had oppressed, jailed and killed so many of their countrymen and had brought a potentially prosperous oil-rich country into economic ruin through mismanagement and rampant corruption.

It was as if, quite suddenly, an avenue of opportunity had been thrown open for Nigeria to redeem itself. Intense speculation is rife as to whether Nigeria would now have the good fortune to see democracy restored and to enter the international mainstream.

Military dictatorships
Nigeria has failed to live up to the promise held out for Africa's most populous country at the time of independence from British rule in October 1960. The military, which has governed the country for 28 out of the 38 years of independence, have been the greatest liability in Nigeria's political development. Abacha was Nigeria's seventh military ruler, probably one of the most corrupt and ruthless of all African dictators.

After independence, civilian governments were in office until 1966 when the army crushed an attempted coup and installed a military regime. Civilian rule returned again for a brief period, from 1979 to 1983, under Sheu Shigair, Nigeria's first elected president.

On 12 June 1993, Nigerians elected, as president, the Social Democratic Party candidate and billionaire industrialist, Moshood Abiola, who gained 58 percent of the votes cast. However, the supporters of president Babangida (Abacha's predecessor) filed a complaint claiming irregularities in the election and the Abuja High Court ordered the results suppressed. The military regime annulled the poll.

One year later, on 12 June 1994, Abiola declared himself as president and said that he would announce a new government in thirty days. He was soon arrested and charged with treason. Abiola continues to languish in prison without trial.

Abacha's despotic rule
Repression and violence against political enemies have marked Abacha's five-year rule. Wole Soyinka, a stern critic of the regime and winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize for Literature, fled the country and was subsequently tried for treason in absentia.

In 1994, nine political activist from the Ogoni tribe were hanged, including the well-known playwright, Ken Saro-Wiwa, who was accused of involvement in the killing of four pro-government chiefs. After the hangings, the 52-member Commonwealth suspended Nigeria from membership.

Other distinguished persons who criticised the military regime were victimised. Kudirat Abiola, wife of detained presidential claimant, Moshood Abiola, was shot and killed while being driven along a street in Lagos.

In July 1995, former president Olusegun Abasanjo and fifty others were convicted of plotting a coup. A secret tribunal sentenced them to prison sentences from 15 years to life.

More recently, in December 1997 Abacha suppressed an attempted coup. Among the senior army officers arrested was the Chief of Defence Staff, general Oladipo Daya and others belonging to the Yoruba tribe, the second largest in Nigeria. Abacha quickly moved to place loyalists in key positions in the 77,000 strong army.

Abdulsalam Abubakar
Abdulsalam Abubakar (55), Nigeria's eleventh head of State, a professional military officer, has never held a political post. Like Abacha, he hails from the northern Hausa tribe, which has traditionally produced most of Nigeria's leaders. He is reported to have a reputation for probity that contrasts sharply with Abacha's.

In his first five-minute broadcast after assuming power Abubakar promised to continue the political transitional program of his predecessor aimed at reverting to civilian rule by 1 October 1998 following a presidential election on August 1. But, whatever their reputation, Nigerian generals, nine of whom had previously hijacked the presidency, do not carry much credibility.

In fact, in April, Abacha himself had orchestrated a campaign for self-succession. Meeting with leaders of the five government-sponsored political parties, he prevailed upon them to select him as the sole presidential candidate for the August 1 election. Now that Abacha is no more, it is not clear as to what Abubakar would do.

Meanwhile, Nigeria's pro-democracy movement composed of a broad range of opposition groups, vowed to reject the imposition of a new military leader and called for an Abiola-led government to prepare a constitution and elections for lasting democratic rule.

Religious and tribal tensions
Nigeria's problems have been bedevilled by conflicts between Christians and Muslims among the 250 tribal groups that constitute its population. In fact, tribal loyalties played a part in Abiola being deprived of the presidency. He counted wide popular support in his ethnic oil-rich Yoruba homeland in the Southwest. But other influential Nigerians, largely in the Hausa-Fulani north, mistrust Abiola, fearing he will isolate them.

Again, eastern Igbos traditionally question the word of southern Yorubas because they were betrayed by the south when the eastern region of Biafra broke away from Nigeria in the late 1960s. The ensuing civil war, one of the bloodiest in Africa, left more than 1 million people dead.

Nigerians blame much of their country's woes on its artificial creation as part of the European dissection of Africa and the colonial exploitation and repression that followed. The British mashed together the Hausa-speaking. Muslim principalities of the north with Yoruba kingdoms in the Southend eastern Igbo agricultural communities. While yoked under the same administration, the regions remained disparate, speaking different ethnic languages and hardly able to understand each other.

The British colonial rulers discouraged any real democracy that might have forced an equitable sharing of the country's earnings. Trade, infrastructure and education were developed mainly in the south, but Britain's divide-and-rule tactics left political power at independence in the hands of the Hausa-speaking people of the north.

Corruption
Corruption is a way of life among the military and the elite of Nigeria. But, whereas General Babangida had distributed the spoils of the oil industry to a wide group of his cronies, Abacha is reported to have personally overseeing the web of corruption that developed under his rule. He and his associates had a say in the sales of Nigerian crude oil by the state-owned oil company, removing an unknown slice of the industry which earned for Nigeria's coffers on average $10 billion a year. A Nigerian political scientist comments: "In Nigeria, corruption isn't a part of government, it is the object of government."

Businessmen rank Nigeria as one of the world's most corrupt places to do business. The corruption has taken Nigeria further into economic collapse than ever before. The fuel distribution system has collapsed, the telephone system is decaying, the electric grid is failing; vast tracts of the commercial capital, Lagos, never get electricity at all. Unemployment is estimated to be at least 25 percent. Vast numbers of Nigeria's nearly 120 million people in the cities, towns and rural areas, live in conditions of abject poverty.

Peace-keeping missions
Despite the political turmoil and mounting economic problems at home, Nigerian troops have led peace-keeping missions in neighbouring Sierra Leone and Liberia. Eventually, the mission in Liberia turned out to be a success; elections were held and peace restored. In Sierra Leone, Nigerian troops, with the help of the international community, ousted a military clique which overthrew a democratically elected government.

Nigeria is a key player in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Abacha was held in high esteem by his colleagues in the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). President Gerry Rawlings of Ghana mourned the death of "a great African leader".

Challenges ahead
The political opposition in Nigeria is weak and divided, trade unions have no clout, and street demonstrations like those in the Philippines in 1986 and in Indonesia in 1998 are unlikely. There is a fear that unless Nigeria reverts to civilian rule in the near future the military will consolidate its power as in the past and the avenue of opportunity presented by Abacha's death for a return to democratic rule will be lost.

Nigeria's leading human rights group, the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO) does not believe that the Clinton Administration's continuing "constructive engagement" with the new military government in support of the late dictator's "illegitimate electoral scheme" would help. They believe that the Nigerian people need intensified international support for the immediate transfer of power to imprisoned President-elect, Moshood Abiola, and the installation of a government of national unity.

The pro-democracy and human rights community believes that without justice there can be no peace in Nigeria. They would like Abubakar to release all political prisoners, including Abiola and dozens of detained journalists, immediately and to call Nigerians in exile to return without molestation. This basic respect for people's political rights should be the beginning of any earnest search for peace and stability in the nation.

Nigerians say that power should be handed over to a civilian Government of National Unity led by Chief Abiola. Such a government should then convene a broad-based Sovereign National Conference with absolute power to determine the way forward for Nigeria, including the form which its democracy should take. The CLO does not see any merit in a "wait and see" policy which would give the military the chance to renege on their promises as they have so often done in the past.

Bernard Soysa - from revolutionary socialism to parliamentary democracy

by Meryl Fernando
Bernard Soysa died on 30 December 1997 at the National Hospital, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Bernard's political life, spanning six decades in the Lanka Sama Samaja Party, consists of two periods; the first from 1937 to 1960, and the second from 1960 to 1997.

Bernard was one of the young Samasamajists in the 1930s who committed himself to the task of building a working-class party. Initiated into the Samasamajist movement in 1937 whilst a student at the University College, Colombo, he paid scant attention to his studies. Doric de Souza told me that Bernard could have passed his university exams like a shot, but he spent his time in the students canteen chatting politics, drinking tea and smoking cigarettes.

He dropped out of the University College, and after flirting with the teaching profession and the Law College for short periods, the was selected by he LSSP for pioneering work in India, to help build a Trotskyist party there. Along with V. Balasingham, Doric de Souza and later Leslie Goonewardene, he was engaged in preparatory work to bring together the Trotskyist groups in various parts of India to form the Bolshevik-Leninist Party of India in April 1942, with the LSSP as its Ceylon unit.

Soon after the BLPI was launched, the struggle in August 1942 against British rule in India took place. The BLPI plunged into the struggle in the areas where it had influence. Bernard, along with the Samasamajists from Ceylon, and the Indian Trotskyists were active participants in the struggle. Bernard was arrested in July 1943 in Bombay, months after the struggle was crushed. He was detained for 50 days in a Bombay police lock-up before being sent to Ceylon, where he was released on parole, but nonetheless continued to engage in underground party activity.

When the split in the party came into the open after the end of the war in 1945, Bernard was a leading member of the BLPI (Ceylon unit). He was an obvious choice for the Central Committee, and he often led political discussions for party members and sympathisers.

When in May-June 1947, the big strike of Colombo blue and white collar workers took place, he intervened particularly in the strike of government clerical workers to instruct the leadership on the course of action. There were diverse forces try in to influence the leadership. Bernard put his knowledge of Marxism to good use when he had to debate with Stalinists to win over Colombo Municipal Council white-collar workers to the Trotskyist position, some of whom were confused. The result was a powerful local which was able to capture the leadership of the Colombo Municipal Employees Union.

In the 1950s, Bernard used to meet workers in government establishments on fixed days of the week after work, through the workers' union leaders, to attend to their grievances. He had mastered the government's administrative and financial regulations, and dictated letters which young students — party members or sympathisers — would take down and type on union letterheads addressed to the management. English was the official language, the above regulations were in English, and government communications were in English.

His work in these places helped in the development of trade unions at the largest railway workshop at Ratmalana, the government engineering workshop at Kolonnawa (both suburbs of Colombo), and in the railway workshop at Ratmalana, the government engineering workshop at Dematagoda, Colombo. The ultimate result was the formation of the powerful LSSP-led Government Workers Trade Union Federation, which was to play a leading role in the strikes that took place after 1956 (the big strike in Colombo in 1947 ended in defeat, and the working class was dormant until 1956).

Bernard's work for the public sector unions was combined with his morning sessions at home, where he attended to the grievances of the city poor who would call at his home, and this saw him functioning at his best in day-to-day work.

In May 1960, when N. M. Perera proposed that the LSSP should form a coalition government with the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, Bernard opposed the proposal at a special conference. He said that the proposal would take the party across the line that divides the left from the right, to the right. The conference approved Perera's proposal, but he did not have majority support in the new Central Committee.

The Central Committee majority who opposed the proposal met at Osmund Jayaratne's residence to discuss the situation. Although the idea of forming a faction to fight against the proposal within the party arose, it did not win approval. The opposition comprised two tendencies — the hard-liners who opposed the proposal in principle, including Edmund Samarakkody, Bala Tampoe, Meryl Fernando, V. Karalasingham, R. S. Baghavan and Prins Rajasooriya, and the waverers, including Colvin R. de Silva, Leslie Goonewardene, Doric de Souza and Bernard Soysa.

As Mrs. Bandaranaike won a majority in the elections in July 1960, she did not want the LSSP in her government. But the LSSP did not proceed along a straight line to form a coalition government with the SLFP in June 1964. After the army attacked the Satyagrahis of the FP at the Jaffna kachcheri premises in 1961, and the 1961 budget attacked the masses, the LSSP leadership took an oppositional stance in relation to the government.

Recognising that 'in the context of Ceylon politics, the attainment of power through a parliamentary election is a possibility', the leadership proceeded to form a United Left Front in 1963 with the Communist Party and Philip Gunawardena's MEP, ostensibly to struggle against the SLFP government. But when the government was seriously weakened in 1964 and its very existence became doubtful, and Mrs. Bandaranaike prorogued parliament for four months and sought to enlist the left-wing leaders in her government, both N. M. Perera and Philip Gunawardena attempted separately to enter the government. Perera succeeded, and the ULF broke up; moreover, the Joint Council of Trade Union Organisations, under which the entire trade union movement had mobilised for struggle on a 21-point programme, was torpedoed.

The LSSP's position of parity of status for Sinhala and Tamil as state languages had already been changed when the ULF was formed. Perera accepted three portfolios, and formed a coalition with the SLFP. Bernard was with the leadership in these moves. The only difference he had with Perera was that along with Colvin, Leslie and Doric, he wanted the entire ULF to go into the coalition.

Bernard fully supported the second coalition government that was formed in May 1970 between the SLFP, the LSSP and the Communist Party. In the meantime, he had been appointed Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament during the first coalition of 1964; he continued in this post during the United National Party's government of 1965-70 and the coalition government of 1970-77, a tenure of 13 years.

In the second coalition, he acted for N. M. Perera as Minister of Finance on several occasions when the latter was out of the island, but he would not be Deputy Minister of Finance.

In August 1994, he was elected to parliament as an LSSP member of the People's Alliance, and was made Minister of Science and Technology and Human Resources Development. Speaking as a minister at the fiftieth anniversary session of the Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science in 1994, he called himself an 'unrepentant Socialist' forced to come to terms with the profit motive'.

With his knowledge of Marxism and his command of both English and Sinhala, it should have been a relatively easy task for Bernard to put pen to paper. But he hardly ever wrote! He did, however, contribute an article to the festshbrift volume for Professor EFC 'Lyn' Ludowyke in 1984, entitled 'EFC Ludowyke and the Political Changes of 50 years'. He said:

'Lyn rejected the coalition perspective the LSSP followed first in 1964 and then in 1970. He disliked in particular the communal politics of the major party in the coalition, the SLFP. In the Modern History, he writes with bitterness about what he considers to be an unhappy change. He did not accept the need for such coalitions, but his friendship with the LSSP remained unbroken. The LSSP's view is that the results in the long term have a value despite the price that had to be paid. These events, of course, await the judgement of history'.

For those who had eyes to see, 1977 showed the results of five years of the practice of Popular Front politics. It was an eye-opener, as the LSSP was reduced to nought in the parliamentary elections of 1977. In most electorates, including LSSP strongholds, the SLFP, taking second place, beat the LSSP into third place. More than that, the working class and the toilers were completely disoriented, and the party lost the militant trade union base which was its sheet-anchor. It is worth recalling that in his introduction to Karalasingham's Politics of Coalition, Ernest Mandel predicted:

Experience will confirm, once again, that far from 'stopping reaction' by joining a coalition government with the liberal bourgeoisie, the LSSP right wing probably only laid the ground for a huge electoral victory of the UNP. It will confirm that far from introducing Socialism 'piecemeal', the coalition government systematically will have to disarm and oppose the working class' defence of its immediate and historical interests.

Far from 'uniting the left', coalition creates disillusion, demoralisation and disorientation among the masses, the first result of it being already a big setback to the important move towards trade union unity which had marked the past period'.

From being an indefatigable crusader in the onward march for revolutionary Socialism, Bernard became a conscious participant in the bourgeois parliamentary-democratic process. Two tributes paid to him after his demise by right-wing intellectuals reflect significantly the role he played in the second period of his political life. Neelan Thiruchelvam, a constitutional lawyer and Tamil United Liberation Front MP, said:

'Comrade Bernard was a consummate parliamentarian who enriched our institutions of political representation at the local government, provincial and national levels. He acquired a mastery of public finance, he refashioned the Public Accounts Committee, which he dominated for decades. He refined the principles of financial accountability, and made an enormous contribution to improving the quality and accuracy of our public accounts.

Gamani Corea, a Sri Lankan economist and former Secretary-General of UNCTAD, said:

'For me, Barnard Soysa was the model if the ideal politician and public figure, combining erudition, high principles and qualities of leadership. He had confidence in his values irrespective of the swings of the political pendulum.

One can have respect for what people like Bernard did in the early part of their lives, but the fact remains that by abandoning the programme on which they built the party in order to reform the capitalist order to introduce Socialism step by step', they undid what they had done, and caused a setback to the movement they had built.

They belong to a long line of renegades, starting with the French right-wing Social Democrat Millerand, who participated in a 'liberal' bourgeois government in 1898, in order to 'defend the republic' that was threatened by clerical and military reaction, through the German Social Democratic leaders who joined the Kaiser's government during the First World War, to Philip Gunawardena, N. M. Perera, Colvin R. de Silva and Leslie Goonewardene, to name just some.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the onset of privatisation and liberalisation, and the party of the liberal bourgeioisie adopting the programme of the more right-wing capitalist party, as in Sri Lanka, left-wing leaders who join the government become so impotent that they are unable to influence government policy even in a small way to prevent the privatisation of a nationalised industry, not to speak of influencing the government to make it change course.

The writer was MP for Moratuwa from 1956 to 1964 representing the LSSP and later the LSSP (R). This article appeared in the latest Revolutionary History, Vol. 7, No. 1 (editor: Al Richardson) published in London.