.

Prof. G.L.Peiris on the restoration of capital punishment
Death sentence will be carried out on a case by case basis

by Prabath Sahabandu
The government policy is not to carry out all sentences of death imposed by the courts and the death sentences handed down prior to announcement of the change in government policy will not be carried out, says Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs, National Integration and Ethnic Affairs and Deputy Minister of Finance Prof. G. L. Peiris.

Death sentence will be carried out, he says, on a case by case basis after careful examination of three reports submitted by the trial judge concerned, the counsel representing prosecution at the trial and the Attorney General.

Why was the government in a seemingly inordinate hurry to restore the death penalty? Can its restoration be justified on any grounds? And what role does the Minister of Justice have to play in carrying out the death sentence?

Prof. Peiris provides answers to these questions in an interview with the Sunday Island edition.

Excerpts:

Q: The high incidence crime in the country has caused various sections of the country to raise questions about the effectiveness of the criminal law and the perceptions with regard to the role of the criminal law in society. And the re-introduction of the death penalty is considered a measure the government has adopted to deal with this problem. How would you justify the restoration of the death penalty?

A: The criminal law is of course an essential instrument for social organisation. There is no society that can exist without proper implementation of provisions contained in the criminal law. What is required here is the striking of a balance between individual rights and fundamental freedoms on the one hand and the collective interests of society and security on the other. Some of the events that have occurred - the gruesome killings such as the Rita John murder, the recent multiple murder at Hokandara and another at Katugastota, the widespread phenomenon of trafficking in drugs, rape and so on - have raised question in the public mind whether the criminal law is being effectively applied. That is potentially a dangerous state of things. If the public feels that the police and the courts are impotent, then they will want to take the law into their own hands on the basis that if society in an organised way cannot protect the individual, his property and his family and so on, then it is up to the individual to take the law into his own hands. That unless remedial action is taken promptly will lead to a total break down of the social system.

We believe that this course of action is broadly in line with public opinion today. The public are concerned about the fact that so many people who are guilty of violent crimes are not being adequately punished. In other words the punishment is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that what is theoretically a sentence of life imprisonment may in fact amount to imprisonment for only about ten years. And that brings the law into contempt. It may also lead to serious social consequences. It is in order to deal with these consequences that the government had decided on this change in policy.

This government has focused on problems connected with the law and the administration of justice in a way that no other government has done since Independence. What is particularly important about much of what is being done is that there is unanimity. There is no difference of opinion in Parliament. All MP's whatever political party they belong to were of the opinion that these were very timely and desirable changes.

As far as the criminal law is concerned, the repository is the Penal Code. That was enacted in 1883. That is, for more than a century there has been no fundamental change. That is a very unacceptable state of things. As society changes, the criminal law must also change particularly in matters connected with women, children and vulnerable sections of society. For the first time in more than a century, this government has addressed that problem in many ways. We have created new offences to deal with problems which were not serious or did not even exist in 1883, but which are today very significant social issues. We have created a range of new offences connected with sexual harassment, exploitation of women and children, the use of children in blue films and so on.

Those offences which were unknown to the criminal law before the innovation were effected by the government. What is more, we have greatly increased in many cases maximum penalty applicable to existing offences. We have also done something that is unconventional. In the criminal law it is unusual to prescribe minimum penalties. The usual practice is for the judge within the limits of punishment that is prescribed by the law to determine the question of punishment that is appropriate to the circumstances of a particular case. But in order to protect society, we have stipulated a minimum penalty in certain situations. That is the courts cannot hand down a lower sentence than the minimum penalty prescribed by the law.

Q: Criminal cases usually drag on for years in this country. Isn't it also important to address the issue of laws delays in an effective manner?

A: We have also addressed the question of speedy trials. Non- summary proceedings are a significant impediment in that regard. Take a serious case like murder or rape. Before the subject is committed for trial at the High Court, you have to go through the non - summary proceedings in a magistrate's court. That sometimes takes years. That is by the time the trial commences in the High Court, witnesses have forgotten matter which they are testifying to. They have forgotten the incident. It is very easy for an astute defence counsel to destroy a case that is true and well founded. The result is that those who are guilty can get away scot free. And this leads to contempt for the law because the public is aware that these are the people who are responsible for the crimes with which they have been charged. But when the law cannot touch them, the effectiveness of the law becomes very seriously questioned in the public mind.

This government has abolished non - summary proceedings with regard to certain offences and statutory rape. And we are proposing to abolish non - summary proceedings in several other areas. The advantage is that the trial can begin very swiftly. And that will enhance public confidence in the administration of justice. Recently various other measures have been taken such as the radical overhaul of procedure related to general amnesty. It is totally unsatisfactory to have 6 or 7 amnesties for the year. The earlier system lent itself to serious abuse. For example, it is known that many people surrendered on the eve of a general amnesty in order to be able to take the full advantage of the amnesty. We have also taken action to ensure that persons who are convicted of certain offences will not have the benefit of the amnesties that are granted. Now an acute question has arises as to the death penalty. It is important to explain our position on the matter clear.

The last execution in this country was carried out in 1976. Since then nobody has been hanged. But that change did not occur by virtue of the law being changed. The death penalty remains in the statute book as one of the penalties that can be handed down in this country. The reason why no hanging took place since 1976 was that it was commuted to life imprisonment by the use of executive clemency. It is called the prerogative of pardon.

That is not a satisfactory situation for this reason: people are sentenced to death in the High Court. Murder is an offence punished by death. Drug trafficking is punished by death or life imprisonment. There are other offences stipulated in the penal code, which carry the death penalty like waging war against the state. It sometimes happens in the High Court that with solemnity the death sentence is passed. Fans are switched off and it is a very solemn moment. But everyone including the accused knows that it is not definitely going to be carried out. This results in erosion of the dignity of the law. There is a gulf or a chasm between the law stated in the statue book and the reality.

If you are convinced that under no circumstances should any person be hanged, then the death penalty should be removed from the statute books.

The change in policy was announced the other day. The President has decided that in certain situations the death situation will be carried out. In other words there will be no automatic commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment in all circumstances.

Before explaining the procedure that will be adopted in future it is useful to consider some of the general matters connected with the death penalty. Those who argue in favour of it put forward the rationale of deterrence. That is by inculcating fear in the potential offender you bring pressure to bear on him to refrain from embarking on this course of action. He knows that if he is caught and convicted, he will be hanged. And the fear of death will induce him to refrain from committing the act that he is contemplating. That is the main reason why the death penalty is applied. Of course the whole theory of criminal punishment has changed over the years. In the ancient societies, in the Roman law, for example, the rationale of criminal punishment was revenge. Society was taking revenge from someone who had harmed society in a very serious way. Society was expressing its collective anger and indignation. Society was rejecting the offender by depriving him of his freedom by locking him up in jail. Today the idea of criminal punishment is different. It is utilitarian rather than retributive. That is a person is put in jail only to make a better citizen out of him. At the time he leaves jail the idea is that he will be equipped to lead a useful and productive life in society. That is why in our prisons we have introduced a series of vocational training programmes such as plumbing, carpentry, brick-making and hairdressing so that they will develop certain skills and they can lead a satisfying life when they are released from prison.

Q: But have other countries where the death penalty is carried out experienced a decrease in the crimes punishable by death? Those who campaign against the death penalty answer in the negative. It has also been pointed out that only the poor will be hanged while the rich will manage to find loopholes in the law by virtue of their wealth. How would you counter these arguments?

A: Those who oppose the death penalty use various arguments. In the first place they argue that there has been no statistical evidence which shows that the number of murders is less in the countries where the death penalty is actually carried out as compared with countries which do not have executions. The United States is one of the few countries in the western world where the death penalty is still applied in some states. In the United Kingdom it is not so. In Germany the death penalty does not exist. In Italy it does not exist. In the Scandinavian countries there is no death penalty. But in some Asian countries such as India, Malaysia, Singapore and Pakistan the death penalty is applied. Some people question the effectiveness of death penalty in reducing the numbers of murders. There are other arguments also against the death penalty. Another argument is the question of human fallibility. It has been proved in some cases that the death penalty was imposed on the people who were not guilty at all. There have been two such well known cases in the UK. The error can always be put right so long as the person is alive. One of the most powerful arguments against the carrying out of the death penalty is this: those who are executed are in the main poor people who do not have access to competent counsel. In the US at one time the death penalty was suspended by the Supreme Court because there was compelling evidence that the vast majority of those executed were poor blacks who did not have the financial resources to apply the law to their advantage. In a country where the death penalty is carried out legal aid is very important. There should be equity with regard to access to legal advice. In the United States the death penalty was restored, only after corrective action had been taken in respect of legal aid. That is a very important consideration.

There are also those who argue that the death penalty is abhorrent in principle as a matter of broad policy because it represents institutional violence on the part of the state. It has been argued that this sets an undesirable example and that the state does not have the right to take away the life of a human being.

In Sri Lanka we had occasion to balance all these considerations and to come to a consideration. We are very concerned that the public should not consider the law as impotent. Today we know that there is a growing body of public opinion that is demanding the actual application of the death penalty. About three years ago a member of the government parliamentary group, Mr. Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra, introduced in Parliament a private member's resolution for the restoration of the death penalty. At that time there were only 35 members present in Parliament and it is significant that all of them voted in favour of that motion. No one opposed it. Of course it is not binding on the government but the result of the vote in Parliament is significant in so far as it is indicative of prevailing public opinion.

Q: There is some confusion as regards how the death penalty will be applied. Will it be applied equally to all those who are convicted of crimes punishable by death or will it be imposed selectively?

A: Yes, there is an impression in the public mind today that all death sentences hereafter are going to be carried out. The government policy is not to carry out all sentences of death imposed by the courts. This is the procedure that will be adopted in a situation where a person is sentenced to death. Three different reports will be called for. The President will have access to three different reports. The first report will come from the trial judge. The trial judge is aware of all the detailed circumstances because he has heard evidence from the beginning to end. The trail judge will analyse his evidence and make a recommendation to the President as to whether the death sentence in his opinion should be carried out or not. There will be a second report - an independent report - from the Attorney General, who will consult the counsel who represented the prosecution at the trial. The AG then will give independent advice to the President as to whether the death sentence should be carried out. The third person who is required to advise the President is the Minister of Justice. The procedure that will be followed is this: The Minister of Justice will look at the report of the trial judge and the report of the AG. If either of them has recommended the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment, the Minister of Justice will automatically advise commutation. If both the trial judge and the Attorney General have advised that sentence of death should be carried out, then the Minister of Justice will examine the position independently. He will use certain criteria in deciding whether the death sentence should be carried out or not. These criteria are reasonably objective. I will give you a few examples of such criteria. One would be features of unusual cruelty. For example if there are fifteen or twenty stab wounds, that would be a reason for carrying out the death sentence. Secondly premeditation. These are different from hot blooded murders where someone loses his temper and self-control. Thirdly the pecuniary or financial motive. There we are in the realm of contract killing. The person who pays money for the murder is also equally reprehensible in his conduct. The fourth factor would be the general consideration of the behaviour that tends to shock the public conscience. Those are aggravating circumstances. If one or more of those aggravating circumstances is present, the Minister of Justice will advise that the sentence of death should be carried out. So, there is a certain procedure.

Q: There is also some discussion among the public whether sentences of death that were handed out earlier will be carried out. Your comments?

A: There are about 102 people in death row today in Sri Lankan prisons. There is no intention of carrying out sentences of death that were handed down prior to the announcement of the change in government policy. So the change in policy will apply to sentences which are pronounced only after the announcement of that change.

Legal Watch
A conditional "yes" to capital punishment

by Nayana
The essential elements of the government's statement on the re-activation of the death penalty are being lost sight of in the flood of emotive rhetoric, both for and against, that this issue invariably generates.

There is one section of society that sees a re-introduction of the death penalty as the most effective solution to any rise in the rate of violent crime. Sri Lanka over the last twenty years has experienced a dramatic increase in highly visible violent crimes, including some particularly gruesome murders in recent months which have shocked the public.

The government-controlled media was clearly pandering to this sentiment when it proclaimed the return of the hangman's noose in banner headlines. However despite the inevitable political rhetoric that formed part of the official news release from the Presidential Secretariat, the government has in fact been unusually circumspect with regard to the substance of the intended reforms.

The policy of routine commutation of the death sentence practiced by previous regimes since 1978 is not going to be replaced by one of routine execution. According to the official announcement, a death sentence imposed by a court will be carried out only when the Judge who heard the case, the Attorney-General and the Justice Minister are all of a view that it should be.

In other words, the ultimate penalty will only be carried out in the very worst cases. This probably will not appease public sentiment in some quarters where there have even been calls for persons charged with grave crimes not to be allowed defence lawyers. No matter what the provocation, it is important to resist the justice of the lynch mob.

At the same time, if one is not to encourage mob justice and private revenge, it is necessary that the State be seen to respond with sufficient severity to cases which arouse public abhorrence.

From the other side of the ideological divide, the government policy is being harshly criticised by self-styled "liberals" who have thrown at it every criticism that has been made of the death penalty, irrespective of the type of society in relation to which criticism was made.

The argument advanced at the time the death penalty was first suspended during the premiership of S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, to the effect that most murders in this country were not premeditated, may or may not be true in the increasingly sophisticated world of organized crime that we see today. However, in any event, all extenuating circumstances including lack of premeditation would almost certainly be taken into account by at least one of the three persons whose unanimous recommendation is required before a death sentence can be carried out.

American surveys that show the death penalty operating most heavily against blacks and low income groups also may not be relevant in the Sri Lankan context due to the review procedure proposed by the government, which is not present in the American states which carry out the death penalty. It must also be remembered that in the U.S.A. the holders of all but the highest legal offices are elected in the same way as politicians and may therefore be inclined to pander to majority public sentiment, which is another factor that does not operate here.

Finally, the cliche that crime and poverty go hand in hand does not take account of the political/mafia/gangster culture that is perceived in Sri Lanka as being behind much of today's serious violence.

However, what is pertinent to remember in this context is that the decision to reactivate the death penalty will come to nothing (or will, indeed, be seen to operate unfairly) if there is no corresponding policy decision to permit, and where necessary compel, the law enforcement authorities to apprehend the perpetrators of violent crime, regardless of the patronage they may have received from any quarter.

One suspects that this will be a harder decision for a government to take, given the increasingly visible nexus between political success and the use of violence. It is not surprising that the government media chooses to present the return of the death penalty as the sure-fire solution for the increasing crime rate.

Actually it is only the final step in a process that first requires the impartial apprehending of offenders. Thereafter it needs the gathering of evidence by a properly trained police force that realizes that cases based on confessions extracted by torture only make the task of prosecuting counsel in court harder rather than easier.

It is also important to remember that the presidential prerogative to pardon offenders or commute their sentences has been used not only with regard to crimes carrying capital punishment, but also with regard to some lesser offences where the power has been flagrantly abused.

An instance that attracted much controversy in 1994 and might even have influenced the election result later that year was the pardon granted by former president D. B. Wijetunga to two persons convicted of attempted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, for which they had each been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment.

One of these persons was a member of the Kuliyapitiya Urban Council while the other was the President of the Kuliyapitiya Private Bus Owners Association. Having been released on bail pending sentencing they had not only failed to turn up in court on the required date but had openly flaunted their presence in the town for over a year with the police failing to apprehend them.

Finally, when the High Court Judge of Kurunegala called upon the Inspector-General of Police to take immediate action to take these persons into custody, the President, within 48 hours, granted both of them a free pardon.

The Government's proposed reforms deal with the entire gamut of commuting of sentences and the release of prisoners under general amnesties. According to the official statement, persons sentenced to life imprisonment will have to serve a minimum of 20 years before they can be considered for remission, while general amnesties will be announced only once a year, on Independence Day, and will not be applicable to those convicted of serious crimes such as rape, child abuse, robbery, drug-trafficking and acts of terrorism.

These reforms are based on the principle that society must be protected from dangerous criminals. However, as pointed out above, such a policy will work only if such criminals are fearlessly and impartially apprehended. That is likely to be the main point of contention in the future, not a debate over sentencing theory between "liberals" and "right-wing hardliners" as some writers have suggested.

The Lahore Agreement
This is a defining moment-Vajpayee

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
The initial euphoria was clearly evident, especially because it seemed so unlikely Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, leading a minority Hindutva government, was warmly received by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, businessman-turned politician, who commands an unprecedented parliamentary majority.

On 20 February 1999, Sharif opened the gate to Pakistan at the Wagah border checkpost on the Cyril Radcliffe line to receive Vajpayee and his "group of eminent persons" and subsequently to receive them as honoured guests at Governor House in Lahore. "This is a defining moment," gushed a beaming Vajpayee approvingly.

Symbolism

There was much symbolism in the visit - the first of an Indian prime minister to Pakistan in a decade since Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi met Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto at Sind House, Islamabad in July 1989. It was only the third bilateral visit of an Indian prime minister to Pakistan the first by Jawaharlal Nehru took place not long after Partition and well before the birth of Bangladesh.

A 21-gun salute greeted Vajpayee who was entertained to a civic reception and a state banquet at the Lahore Fort. The Pakistan Rangers and Indian Border Security Force co-ordinated the military ceremonial. In a speech at Governor House, Vajpayee established a good rapport with his audience by promising not to use nuclear weapons.

Then there was Vajpayee's visit to the Minar-i-Pakistan - the spot from which in 1940 Fazlul Huq, with Mohammed Ali Jinnah by his side, moved the Pakistan Resolution at the All India Muslim League session. That symbolised the end of united India. Now, an Indian prime minister, nurtured on a diet of Akhand Bharat, was openly disavowing irredentism, Vajpayee's thoughtful gesture helped to confirm India's commitment to Pakistan's legitimacy. Little wonder then that the ruling Muslim League wondered whether an enduring settlement with India could only happen under a BJP regime.

The Lahore Documents

It was a carefully rehearsed 24-hour visit to Lahore, which Vajpayee himself described as being "brief but substantive". The two prime ministers signed the Lahore Declaration and issued a Joint Statement and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU signed by the respective foreign secretaries was meant for them to continue the discussions their leaders had initiated. The foreign ministers met again on 19 March at the sidelines of the SAARC Council of Ministers Meeting in Nuwara Eliya, Sri Lanka.

The Lahore Declaration sought to lay down the broad principles of an emerging India-Pakistan relationship, with the prime ministers of the two countries "sharing a vision of peace and stability between their countries, and of progress and prosperity for their peoples".

The Declaration emphasised the oft-repeated commitment of both countries to the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and the universally accepted principles of peaceful coexistence. It reiterated the determination of both countries to implement the Simla agreement in letter and in spirit.

Moreover, the two Prime Ministers agreed that their countries would intensify their efforts to resolve all outstanding issues, including the problem of Jammu and Kashmir. They agreed to refrain from intervention and interference in each other's affairs. They reaffirmed their condemnation of terrorism in all forms.

The Memorandum of Understanding commits the two sides to "developing measures for confidence building in the nuclear and conventional fields, aimed at avoidance of conflicts."

Of course, critics have been quick to point out that the history of India and Pakistan is replete with a host of agreements that have not been implemented and good intentions that have not been followed through. If the Lahore agreements are not to be similarly aborted, the two prime ministers will have to take personal responsibility for a hands-on approach to foster and nourish the sensitive bilateral relationship. They will have to rein in the hawks on both sides, carry domestic public opinion with them, and see that their optimism percolates down to the respective bureaucracies.

Wide-ranging discussions

According to the Lahore Joint Statement, the Vajpayee-Sharif talks focused on the entire range of bilateral relations, regional co-operation within the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC), and issues of international concern.

To ensure the implementation of the Lahore documents, the two Foreign Ministers will meet periodically to discuss" all issues of mutual concern, including nuclear-related issues". Matters of mutual concern include: co-operation in information technology, in particular for tackling the problems of Y2K: liberalising the visa regulations and travel regimes to promote people-to-people contact. Further, a two-member committee at ministerial level would be appointed to examine humanitarian issues relating to civilian detainees and missing PoWs (prisoners of war).

Nuclear issues

After the de facto entry of India and Pakistan to the nuclear club with their respective nuclear test explosions in Pokhran and Chagai in May 1998, the US and other western powers had been concerned about the possibility of nuclear deployment in South Asia. In fact, the "bus diplomacy" was meant partly to satisfy western demands that India and Pakistan should sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) this year. It was not without significance that US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot had in the recent past been engaged in shuttle diplomacy between Delhi and Islamabad.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) initialled by the foreign secretaries commits the two sides to "developing measures for confidence building in the nuclear and conventional fields, aimed at avoidance of conflicts." The need to implement existing Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) and to hold consultations on further CBMs to be developed was perhaps all that could be initially agreed on, after years of acrimony and distrust.

Although there was agreement to hold talks on security concepts and nuclear doctrines, there was no mention either in the Declaration or in the Joint Statement of the crucial issue of the non-deployment of nuclear weapons and missiles. Experts feel that the separate unilateral moratoriums on nuclear testing, which both sides have already declared, are meaningless so long as each side is keen to retain the option to deploy nuclear weapons.

And even the voluntary moratoriums on nuclear testing can be withdrawn "under circumstances which threatened to jeopardise either country's supreme interests". It is reported that while Sharif was prepared to discuss the non-deployment of nuclear weapons, there was no matching response from Vajpayee, whose BJP government is wedded to an ill-defined concept of "minimum credible deterrence".

The MOI did not refer to any unilateral, bilateral or multilateral moratorium on the production of fissile material pending a fissile missile cut-off treaty (FMCT). Pakistan had alleged that India had violated earlier bilateral accords and has therefore laid stress on an independent, international verification system, a proposal that India has so far rejected out of hand.

Kashmir - the core issue

Pakistanis in general considered it significant that the leader of a right-wing nationalist party was visiting Lahore and had agreed, among other things, to discuss Kashmir. They concede that an immediate solution to the Kashmir problem would not be forthcoming after more than five decades of adversarial confrontation but insist that Kashmir cannot be brushed under the carpet.

They see a softening of India's attitude in the Lahore Declaration which states that the respective governments will "intensify their efforts to resolve all issues including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir". Hitherto, India has stood by its claim that Kashmir is not "disputed territory" and is an integral part of India.

Right wing opinion in Pakistan was articulated by the leader of the Jamaat-I-Islam, Quazi Hussein Ahmad, who expressed his opposition to Pakistan signing the CTBT and said a peace and friendship with India was possible only after a solution was found to "the crucial issue of Kashmir".

Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was wary of committing herself and adopted a conciliatory attitude on the issue of normalisation of relations with Pakistan but stressed more the need for a common economic zone in South Asia.

Beyond Lahore

Vajpayee's journey to Lahore has been described as an event comparable to Richard Nixon's flight to China, Anwar Sadat's embrace of Menachem Begin and the famous handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitshak Rabin on the White House lawn. There is hope among the people of India and Pakistan that all the symbolism associated with the historic encounter between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan will translate into trade ties, easing of visa regulations and finally the resolution of the much-debated Kashmir issue.

Leading film personality Dev Anand, who took the Delhi Transportation (DTC) bus to Lahore with Vajpayee, articulated the thoughts of millions when he said: "I am very optimistic about this bus trip. The beginning has been made, let us not decry this step. We were taken around various landmarks. But more than that it was the people at the receptions and banquets, the people who matter in Pakistan in the political set-up. We had a feel of the Pakistani mind. Only time will tell how far we go."

Don't let terrorism score off anti harassment

The National Movement Against Terrorism has warned that the security of Colombo is being gravely endangered by persons taking cover under the government's anti-terrorism initiatives to act as LTTE cats paws. Such persons are responsible for most of the transformer blasts and the most recent suicide bomb attempt on the life of a Mount Lavinia policeman active in the anti-terrorism effort, the statement said. The full text appears below:

The National Movement Against Terrorism hereby wishes to inform and alert the Nation that the insane, barbarous Tamil Tiger racists have taken another step in their bloody campaign of destroying the lives of unarmed civilians and disrupting the lives of the Nation.

Tigers are in the final phase of opening a murderous "war front" in the city using "registered refugees" surreptitiously smuggled into Colombo. They are in the process of totally disrupting the security, economy and civilian life of the city and the district of Colombo.

Unless the authorities with the assistance of security personnel including the police and the assistance and cooperation of the people stop this utterly dangerous trend immediately, within the next few days, it would be too late!.

The second military front of the Tigers has been opened using the 400,000 odd so called refugees illegally registered and meticulously planted in Wattala, Modera, Mattakkuliya, Kotahena, Wellawatta, Mt. Lavinia, Ratmalana, Ja-ela, Ragama and Negombo. This has become clearly evident from the destruction of transformers in Pettah and Kotahena, by the placing of bombs in train carriages and tracks, by exploding of bombs in buses, by exploding of bombs simultaneously in several places, finally, by even targeting selected competent, honest officers of the anti-terrorist units in the city.

The aforesaid is confirmed by the extent of infiltration of the Tigers into the security and Intelligence Units and systems of Colombo.

This is obvious from the actions of organized "Human Rights Lawyers" operating in Hulsdorp, who, by hook or by crook ensure the release of LTTE suspects taken in under Prevention of Terrorism act.

While sections of the Colombo business community and the underworld have already come under the sway of the Tigers certain Tamil Organizations, NGOs', Women's Organizations and Religious Fundamentalist bodies are acting as fronts, apologists and saviours of the Tigers.

We state that the Tamilisation of Colombo with so-called refugees from the Vanni is utterly dangerous to the security of Colombo. They are being systematically settled in vast numbers in every nook and corner. They are buying up businesses, opening new businesses, in the form of communication centres, jewellery shops, eating houses, restaurants, property developers, high-rise luxury apartment builders, foreign employment agencies, cellular phone sale centers, video & cassette parlors, newspaper agents, gram boutiques and sellers, oil stores, computer companies and innumerable other business ventures.

A systematic scheme of Tamil expansionism using to a great extent "refugees" from the North, Vanni and East has been rapidly unleashed in the city and its suburbs, buying up luxury apartments, NHDA flats, private flats, private houses, lands slums and garages.

Tamil people from the Vanni etc are being settled in their thousands and no centralized record of these "surreptitious immigrants" is being maintained. As to what the population of Colombo is today is anybody's guess. As to what the percentage and the ratio is between the races and as to whether there has been a great change in the percentages of the races since 1981 has never been ascertained and the authorities do not seem to care. That the country is in grave danger because of such uncontrolled uncharted immigration is now plainly clear.

It has now transpired that the Mt. Lavinia suicide bomber had been among the "thousands of registered with the Pettah police". The accomplice Jeevarathnam who committed suicide by swallowing cyanide had been registered with the Wattala police. The "police informant" Shankar who is now said to be a LTTEer has been instrumental in registering hundreds of Tamils from the North & East with the help of a Muslim sub-inspector attached to the Intelligence Unit of a police station in Colombo. Shankar while masquerading as a police informant has been in the habit of bringing in Tamils to be registered at the Wattala police and had also achieved the registration of Jeevarathnam.

Law enforcement officers has stated with ample reason that directives of the Anti Harassment Committee to the police, has helped the LTTE to infiltrate Colombo. Under the new directive "visitors" from the North & East do not have to personally visit police stations to obtain clearance. Further, LTTE suspects in custody are regularly visited by members of the ICRC and they cannot be subjected to any pressure by the police and thus they never reveal their destructive plans for the city or else where.

We state with responsibility that the actions and directives of the Anti-Harassment Committee are totally detrimental to the security of the people and the State and are diabolically designed by certain interested parties to be totally detrimental to the security of the people and the State. We hold the AFC directly responsible for the recent massacres of civilians and the destruction of transformers, train carriages etc by the LTTE in Colombo.

We call upon Ministers, Mr. G. L . Peiris, Mr. Lakshman Jayakody, and Mr. Lakshman Kadirgamar not to yield to the pressures and manoeuverings of interested Tamil political groups and organizations and to rescind the decisions already made with respect to the registration of Tamils coming into the city. These directives have proved to be dangerous to life and safety of the ordinary citizen of Colombo and its suburbs.

These Ministers cannot hope to obtain the vote of the people by deliberately or through criminal negligence paving the way for the murder of the voter and the destruction of State property by the LTTE.

We call upon Minister G. L Peiris, the chief organizer of the People's Alliance in Colombo, to secure the city immediately to rescind the directives of the AHF to the police forthwith. We emphasize that a strict and fool-proof method of registration of Tamil persons entering the city must be put into operation. A computerized, centralized, single record of all registrations must be maintained. Persons staying on in Colombo for undue lengths of time without valid reason must be investigated and sent back to their original place of residence. At whatever cost security must be maintained.

Therefore, in the name of the lives of the people of this country, we call upon the government to register immediately the 4 to 5 lakhs of Tamil people who have taken up residence in Colombo after 1987. We maintain that after registration, they should be sent back to their places of origin. We appeal to the State not to permit the genocide and ethnic cleansing which took place so blatantly in the North and the East of Sri Lanka, to take place in Colombo and its suburbs.

The mayhem and pandemonium created by the Mt. Lavinia bomb blast during the rush hour is a clear indication of things to come. The entirety of the Galle Road came to a total halt, the people panicked, office workers were stranded and once again the blood of innocent home-bound workers were shed.

On the 17th of March the Supreme Court was suddenly adjourned when Justice Mark Fernando was informed that the Marshal in charge of security had received a bomb threat. On the same day two lawyers received an anonymous telephone call to say that a bomb will go off in a few minutes in the premises of the Chief Magistrate's Court. The work of the court was disrupted.

The fear psychosis which would grip Colombo and bring civilian life to a standstill will soon be apparent. These are clear signs of things to come and this country must sit up and compel the State to take total control and bring an immediate halt to this bloody mayhem.

Finally we call upon the people of this country to unite and combat on all fronts separatism and terrorism generated from within the Tamil community who because of the indulgence and the tolerance of the people of the South have come and settled down amongst them and are now surely but steadily destroying their benefactors.

A copy of this letter will be sent to Prof. G.L Peiris before he addresses the National Law Conference on the 21st of March 1999 at the Hotel Taj Samudra at the invitation of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. We hope that the learned participants at this conference will bring up the vital issues raced herein.

Committee of the National Movement Against Terrorism

  | NEWS | PROVINCIAL | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |