PTA and Northern and Southern terrorists

LEGISLATION: If there was one piece of legislation which was maligned by the entire opposition including the SLFP and TULF, it was none other than the Prevention of Terrorism Act. J. R. Jayewardene said it was not a permanent piece of legislation that should be in the Statute Book and he called it The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.

Tamil intellectuals, at that time, brought forth various arguments against the Prevention of Terrorism Act, on the grounds that the fundamental right to have recourse to justice through a Court was denied to any person suspected of having committed an offence under the PTA.

One of the most pernicious arguments, which were brought forth by the Tamil intellectuals, was to compare the PTA with the Terrorism Act of South Africa of 1967.

At that time, it was a commonly accepted principle that the South African Terrorism Act would shock the conscience of any reasonable and prudent man.

The Tamils were able to compare and contrast the South African Terrorism Act to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and show the world that Sri Lanka was not different to the racist regime in South Africa. Our diplomats did not have the capacity, or the need, to counter such propaganda which besmirched Sri Lanka as racist State.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act gave the power, to a Police Officer of a certain rank, to obtain Detention Orders to detain suspects for up to three months, which could be extended to 18 months.

And the person arrested and remanded had no power, even though confident that his arrest was arbitrary, capricious and done at the insistence of a Police Officer, who had a private vendetta against him. He had no access to justice.

The world over, the Tamil Diaspora carried out an assiduous campaign and systematically cast aspersions on, what they alleged to be, the undemocratic draconian piece of legislation, the sole purpose and intentions of the Government was to penalize the innocent Tamils.

This was another attempt to racially discriminate them, by the Government, which was elected by them to bring in a 'Dharmista' society, to usher in an era of just and equitablility. I believe the campaign by the Tamil intellectuals had a considerable impact and our image internationally and was condemned by many, including the International Commission of Jurists.

But the real brunt of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was borne by Sinhala youth, who revolted against the government in power. Hundreds and thousands of Sinhala youngsters were detained at various camps.

It was a common knowledge that Detention Orders were used to detain Sinhala youth, not on any justifiable evidence but on conjectured suspicion and anonymous petitions. The only way these youth could seek justice was to petition the Supreme Court.

At that time Justice Parinda Ranasinghe, the Chief Justice and Justice Mark Fernando decided that they would entertain even a post card or a letter from the detainees and treat them as petitions. Thousands of detainees petitioned the Supreme Court and cases were filed in the Supreme Court.

Except for very few hardcore terrorists, the others were released as there was no evidence forthcoming. Justice Kulatunga, in a celebrated case in 1991, postulated the rationale behind the decisions of the Supreme Court to accept letters and other communications and treat them as petitions invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, stated that "pursuant to a complaint dated 26/12/1989 addressed to the Chief Justice by the Petitioner, about the condition of the Boosa Detention Camp, the Court afforded him the opportunity of preferring a formal application for relief against the alleged infringement of his fundamental rights and detention in early 1989.

In view of the fact that his freedom to seek redress had been hampered, sometimes by the condition of his detention, the Court is able to entertain his application".

The Cease Fire Agreement abrogated the Prevention of Terrorism Act. This is one of the demands made by the LTTE, as at that time a large number of hardcore terrorists were in custody. It behoves how a Government could, by one Agreement, pardon thousands of terrorists who were languishing in remand, against many of whom there was sufficient evidence.

Till the year 2001, we and few other countries, suffered the brunt of terrorism, whether it was Southern or Northern terrorism. We had to fight local terrorists and face the propaganda war unleashed by them and their supporters in the western world.

The word terrorism was unknown and unheard of. It was termed as the liberation struggles by people, who had been subjugated by totalitarian undemocratic, racist regimes.

The west made life impossible for the countries that were fighting this menace locally. We were losing not only the battles with terrorist but also the war of propaganda unleashed by the white rulers and masters at the behest of Tamil intellectuals.

Though we always had a democratically elected government, and strived to discuss matters of interest to the communities, and several times brought packages, which would grant regional autonomy, yet, the West and funding agencies and their offshoots the INGOs and the NGOs cultists never permitted the west to know of the true fascist undemocratic nature of the LTTE, which had annihilated all opposition by sheer brutality murder and mayham to become the sole representatives of the Tamils.

The Tamil diaspora's contention was that one of the most noted terrorists, when the infamous South African apartheid was in control, was Nelson Mandela, who became one of the greatest leaders in the 20th century, was accepted by many living abroad.

The propaganda unleashed by the Tamil intellectuals, comparing Sri Lanka's Prevention of Terrorism Act with the Prevention of Terrorism Act in South Africa won and the sympathy and empaty of world powers, who did not wish to see the real or the perceived intentions of Prabhakaran and the LTTE.

Then, Al Qaeda attacked the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The comfort zone, in which these gentlemen lived, suddenly became privy to naked terrorism.

The terrorists were willing to kill indiscriminately in order to inspire anxiety in the ordinary civilian, through killing, maiming and destroying their property by violent actions, in order to advance the theory of liberation by group and force civilians into submission.

The canker of terrorism would direct violence against any target chosen randomly or selectively to serve as a message generator.

For the first time, the developed world with its civilized norms, rules and laws, found that terrorists, like the barbarians, had absolutely no compunction or a moral obligation to follow the basic concepts adhered to by even the most uncivilized people, who go to war.

Therefore, the suicide bombers, or killers, who piloted a plane with innocent civilians onto the Twin Towers killing thousands were immediately designated as terrorists.

Though, when the terrorists blew up the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, by driving a lorry laden with bombs, killing hundreds of civilians, and causing damage to property, they were at that time termed as martyrs.

Thus, the then martyrs and others, who were driven by patriotism and nationalism to kill, slaughter and destroy property, are now treated by the Western thinkers in a different way. In fact, the British enacted, in the year 2001, the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

The world rallied round, not against their freedom fighters, but against the freedom fighters who used violence to achieve their goals. In 2001 and 2002 there were many countries which enacted legislation against terrorism.

India, the country that sired the terrorists and for that crime, had to sacrifice their noble son Rajiv, to a suicide bomber, had to pass The Prevention of Terrorism Act, on March, 28, 2002. Thus, the world is now united against terrorists.

What was passed in 1979, in the emerald isle of Sri Lanka and which was then condemned by many pseudo human rights activists, as a draconian piece of legislation, is now accepted and adopted by many countries in the world as terrorism became the scourge of the 20th century.

It is instructive to note the President had included the definition of terrorism in the new regulations and this is almost similar to the definition of terrorism in other countries, including the UN.

Section 20 states that, terrorism means certain categories of unlawful conduct. It then categorises the unlawful conducts and then spells out the unlawful conduct which is committed with the object of threatening or endangering the sovereignty or territorial integrity of the Republic, or any other recognized Sovereign State, or any other political or governmental change, or compelling the Republic to abstain from doing any act. It also includes any other unlawful activity which advocates or propagates such unlawful conduct.

And then, it proceeds to define what specific terrorist activity means and includes the offences specified in the PTA, Money laundering and suppression of terrorist financing. It is instructive and informative to compare the Indian Prevention of Terrorism Act.

The Indian Act specifically mentions only an act which is intended to prevent any act which threatens the unity, integrity or sovereignty of India. Any other action, by any group, does not bring it within the scope of this act:

The President should be concerned about the clause, 'or any other political or governmental change' and 'or any other sovereign State'. These two clauses, in the main definition given to terrorism, may lead to abuse.

As one of the foremost human rights activist, the President is fully aware, when extraordinary power was given to the security forces, it is often misused and the police are guilty of using these provisions to the detriment of law abiding citizens who have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

The most important safeguard against these abuses would be to give power to Court to examine the material against a suspect and then permit the Judges to use their discretion before extending the detention order any further.

As most terrorist suspects do not easily state the truth, it is absolutely necessary to keep them in detention, but if there is no material and yet the police are detaining the suspect for no rhyme or reason, then the suspect must be able to state his case after a period of three or six months in detention.

The rights of the accused may be advanced in the High Court so that Judge of the High Court, trained now to hear civil appeals, may see a difference which a Magistrate or even the senior DIG could not see.

If this provision is amended, the main criticism, which was levelled against the JRJ PTA could be averted, as "No man should be detained without the orders of a Judge," is a principle that is even enshrined in our Constitution.

Lord Mansfield, in 1705, in a celebrated oft quoted judgment said "The last end that can happen to any man, never comes too soon, if he fails in support of the law and liberty of his country (for liberty is synonymous to law and government)".

Some times laws that would be frowned upon by champions of liberty, like the ICJ, must understand that when the State faces threats to its very existence from internationally proscribed groups, like the LTTE, the State will have to curb certain freedoms for the good of the majority.

One time ICJ representative, Desmond Fernando saved the country from falling into the hands of the southern terrorists by appealing to the international community, in Geneva, to enhance the aid given to the State headed by President Premadasa at a time when the country was not only under PTA and emergency laws, but the writ of the unknown gunmen was law and they were killing at will leaving bodies burning on the roads.