Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

26 February   2021

 

EASTER SUNDAY REPORT AND UNHRC

 

When we arrange ‘what happened’ in chronological order – at the place they happened – they ‘show’ a pattern that makes it a ‘fact’. One who identifies with that pattern without any conflict in her/his mind, has the true experience of that fact and that is known as Truth.

 

Where the manifestations happened elsewhere the above arrangement would take one only half way to the Truth.

 

In his Daily News article ‘Unwarranted treatment of Sri Lanka by UNHRC’ Mr Sujeeswara                     Senadira  states:

[The recommendations made by the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) on Easter Attacks instructing the Attorney General to consider criminal proceedings against a former President, at least one former minister, the former Inspector General of Police and several others over their failure to prevent the attacks is a clear evidence of the professional strength, impartiality and transparency of the Sri Lankan Judiciary.]

 

The inquiry was NOT under Judicial structure. It was an extension of the Political power. The fact that the recommendations include action against the former President confirm lack of knowledge of the Constitution which provides ‘immunity’ from prosecution to the President. Belief in the measure is as important as the accuracy of ‘facts’ through which the problem is constructed. Without this knowledge of law there is no judicial relationship between the inquirer and those being subjected to the inquiry.

 

When there is relationship – both sides have duties and protection of the position. This was absent due to the following protection in the Constitution :

 

[ 35. (1) While any person holds office as President of the Republic of Sri Lanka, no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the President in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, either in his official or private capacity: Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be read and construed as restricting the right of any person to make an application under Article 126 against the Attorney-General, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, in his official capacity: Provided further that the Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the exercise of the powers of the President under Article 33(2)(g).]

 

Given that the consciousness and commitment to the above provision is missing from the report – there are no grounds to claim that the report confirms the strength of the Judiciary. The classification is erroneous as is the validity of the credit.

 

One wonders therefore whether the ‘timing’ was purposely done to distract attention from the UNHRC’s powers.

Given that the UNHRC issue is about Global Terrorism – the measures need also to be Global and not local to Sri Lanka