Bad faith and apparent independence
Prof Rajiva WIJESINHA
Having just written an article on the pronouncements of the so-called
independent media, I was not entirely surprised to discover that the
Associated Press had deliberately misrepresented my answer with regard
to the winding up of the Commission of Inquiry into several cases of
violence over the last few years. The article described the cases as
those of human right abuses, whereas they dealt with a number of high
profile killings, including the murders of some politicians, most
prominently that of the Sri Lankan Tamil Foreign Minister, Lakshman
Kadirgamar.
The journalist in question, having promised to take just a couple of
minutes of my time, was evidently not satisfied with my initial comment
when he asked for one.
Former Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar |
It was that I thought it a good thing that the reports on seven cases
would now come out soon, and that possibly inquiry into others would be
expedited through the normal process. He then claimed that the Chairman
complained that the Commission had been closed down, and asked for
comment on that. I noted that what might be considered the more
controversial cases had all been completed, and that cases such as the
Kadirgamar murder, which the Government obviously would want solved
soon, had been omitted. Thus, it could be hoped that, without the long
process the Commission had gone through, the normal investigation into
such a case, which had been delayed while the Commission sat, would now
go ahead swiftly.
I did however note under further questioning that this was my view,
and that I could not myself give the actual reason for the winding up
since that was a decision of the President, this being a Presidential
Commission of Inquiry, and he would need to ask him or his advisors for
a precise answer. Needless to say, that answer was highlighted as though
to suggest I was avoiding the question, whereas my actual comment was
omitted.
Similarly, the report totally misrepresented the Amnesty report on
Government Commissions. Though purporting to deal with commissions over
25 years, it actually looked only at the current Commission. It did
grant that previous commissions, which it did not discuss, had led to
indictments, though it regretted the conviction rate. The claim of
Government ‘using bribes, threats and even murder to eliminate
witnesses’ did not arise in that context since the conviction rate was
no different from that of countries which Associated Press would not
deem of indicting, as can be seen for instance with regard to the
incomplete inquiry into Bloody Sunday or the single conviction with
regard to Abu Ghraib, of all those charged.
In that context I should perhaps cite the report of what I said at
the presentation in Geneva of the Amnesty Report, which notes elements
the Associated Press would never cover in its adulation of such
misleading reports as well as the ‘international panel of experts’ who
were so harsh about the Commission which the Associated Press now
regrets -
He welcomed what seemed the positive approach of most of the
speakers, but noted what seemed a political agenda in one case, and said
it was a pity that there had been much bad faith in criticisms of Sri
Lanka. It was recognized that there were lapses, but it was important to
engage constructively to improve the situation, and he hoped that this
would be possible in the future.
He noted some inaccuracies, in that the Amnesty publication spoke of
20 years of impunity, but the document itself dealt almost entirely with
the current Commission and noted several indictments on the basis of
earlier commissions. It did say that convictions were few, but this was
not unusual in the world at large, as was obvious from the Rodney King
case.
In this context, while the points made by Iqbal about the police
cases in the Negombo area were valid, he indeed had noted the arrests
that had been made, in referring to bail being refused. The problem was
that the State had brought prosecutions, which had failed. It was
inappropriate to criticize the decisions of the courts, but it should be
noted that the State could endeavour to improve its prosecution skills.
In addition, it would be useful if lawyers had a code of conduct so as
not to appear in such cases since often, with able people not joining
the State apparatus, an able lawyer could achieve acquittals despite the
best efforts of a less skilful State prosecuting lawyer.
In fact, the Peace Secretariat had a couple of years back convened a
task force on human rights for the police, and senior police officials
had pointed out the need for professional training as well. They had
noted that police officer training had been reduced from years to months
because of needs, unlike in the case of the Army where training had been
extended with emphasis on rights. Training for the police had then been
requested, but turned down by the then High Commissioner for Human
Rights who was insisting on an office or nothing, but the situation had
now changed and training had begun.
Meanwhile, the new Attorney General had also begun training in
prosecution capacity with the Commonwealth Foundation.
Another instance of bad faith related to the refusal to assist the
National Human Rights Commission. Foster’s comments about its regional
offices were valid, but when help had been asked to improve these, it
had been denied. The excuse from the UN was that donors were unwilling
to fund the HRC, but in fact the Swiss had revealed that they had
provided funds for the purpose to the UN which remained unused.
Again, with regard to Witness Protection, the need for this had been
accepted long before, and an act had been prepared, but it had also
encompassed video evidence, and when this had begun there had been what
seemed interference by one of the Assistants to the IIGEP, who had been
overheard coaching a witness. That was the reason for the Government
view that safeguards were necessary.
The bad faith had in fact been a continuous problem with the IIGEP.
Whilst the Eminent Persons themselves had generally justified the faith
placed in them, some of their assistants had arrogated an authority they
did not possess. They had thought it fit to release denigratory reports
to coincide with meetings of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, in the
days when they thought they could make use of it for political purposes.
One report had been issued without the comments of the Commission, which
were a requirement, and the news that the IIGEP had decided not to
continue from March was revealed by the Deputy Dutch ambassador in
December, which certainly made clear the improprieties that had taken
place.
Along with the bad faith of some of those who professed concern, it
was also necessary to consider the fear that had dogged Sri Lanka for so
long. One speaker had mentioned two sorts of fear, but he had forgotten
the most pervasive, fear of terrorism, which had naturally led to
reactions based on a sense of insecurity. Now that terrorism had been
destroyed in its worst form on Sri Lankan soil, it was possible to move
forward in a more positive spirit, and it was to be hoped that all those
truly concerned with reform would work together without the bad faith of
the past.
(The writer is the Secretary General, Secretariat for Coordinating
the Peace Process) |