SCOPP Chief on Nigel Rodley's intemperate reaction
The Peace Secretariat is amused at the intemperate reaction of Sir
Nigel Rodley, 'an eminent person from Britain' as he was described, to
the revelation that the eminent Indian head of the IIGEP Justice P N
Bhagwati has made it clear that he does not accuse the government of
lacking political will with regard to the Commission of Inquiry into
several cases concerning Human Rights, Peace Secretariat Chief Prof.
Rajiva Wijesinha said yesterday.
Such blustering on Sir Nigel's part simply confirms the impression
some elements in the IIGEP had helped to create, that their prime motive
was to engage in confrontation with the government of Sri Lanka, without
regard to propriety or the truth, he said. Sir Nigel is quoted as
telling the BBC that "I think you or anybody else should be treating
with extreme scepticism any representation by the government of Sri
Lanka what (sic) any of us says."
Prof. Wijesinha said:"Having made this crude comment on what the
government was reported to have said, Sir Nigel than sanctimoniously
says, "I am not prepared to comment on anything the government of Sri
Lanka quotes what (sic) Mr. Bhagwati says. When I see the letter I would
be willing to comment," he told BBC Sinhala.com.
He is then reported to have added that 'the panel is not aware of any
letter sent to President Rajapaksa by their president'. It was not
indicated whether he had spoken to the other members of the panel
including Justice Bhagwathi, or whether he felt entitled to pronounce on
behalf of the panel as a whole.
It is quite understandable that Justice Bhagwathi did not show Sir
Nigel the letter, given the patronizing tone of the latter. It is also
evident from other comments he made that he simply did not understand
the mandate or the actual workings of the IIGEP.
For instance, he is reported to have declared that "The government
claimed that we had no right to conduct public hearings, but we
certainly did have and we made these statements only after discussing
with the CoI and the AG's office. All these statements contain their
comments," he said. This is simply untrue.
In September 2007 what was supposed to be an IIGEP statement was
issued without the comments of the CoI. It turned out that the CoI had
addressed their comments to Justice Bhagwati, the head of the IIGEP.
However the assistants of the Eminent Persons from some developed
countries, who had set up their own Secretariat, assumed that, because
they had not received the comments, they did not exist. Sir Nigel should
have looked at the statement issued in September before he made his
lofty generalization. Sir Nigel however has perhaps reached a level in
his profession when he does not need to consider evidence, but gets by
on his reputation.
In speculating on the motives of some elements in the IIGEP however,
Sri Lankan officials considered the evidence, the claim by the
assistants to the CoI that responses had to be received in time for a
statement to be issued to coincide with the Human Rights Council meeting
in Geneva for instance, or the attempt to stymie attempts by Sri Lankan
officials to promote Witness Protection, claiming that this was
interference with their own tepid efforts to obtain training for a
single policemen.
This patronising approach fitted in with the irresponsible approach
of those members of the IIGEP who had assistants who took their places,
though the government had appointed eminent persons, not callow young
men. Unsurprisingly, all the assistants came from rich countries, which
funded their own but would not fund the far better qualified assistant
proposed for Justice Bhagwathi.
These assistants had an agenda and, as bad money drives out good,
they and those few members of the IIGEP who seem to have shared that
agenda managed to over-ride the rest.
Justice Bhagwathi perhaps realised that, sitting together with Sir
Nigel, he had been dragooned into seeming to support a position he
realized was inappropriate, given the evidence and given his mandate.
What he wrote seems to represent his own considered view. It is of
course up to Sir Nigel to disagree. But to insinuate that the Sri Lankan
government is lying is unworthy of his title or his past.
Sir Nigel's performance finally puts the lid on the claims of those
who believe that external validation is necessary for Sri Lankan efforts
to be deemed respectable. With a Queen's Counsel being so shallow and so
snide, it is unlikely that the nation will allow itself to be patronized
by unknown quantities such as the assistants whose only claim to
superiority seems to have been, as Paul Scott so tellingly put it, the
colour of their skin. |