14 August 2022
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DISAPPEARANCES OF REBELS?
Many Tamils who were finding fault with the Rajapaksa Government for the ‘disappearances’ are now finding fault with President Wickremesinghe. This confirms that their target is the common government and not any particular political party or person. If it is a person, then that person ought to be pursued. If it is a political party, then action ought to be at political level. If it is the government – then it ought to be through the law.
Article 38(2)(a)(v) of the Sri Lankan constitution provides as follows:
(2) (a) Any Member of Parliament may, by a writing addressed to the Speaker, give notice of a resolution alleging that the President is permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office by reason of mental or physical infirmity or that the President has been guilty of –
(v) any offence under any law, involving moral turpitude and setting out full particulars of the allegation or allegations made and seeking an inquiry and report thereon by the Supreme Court.
Majority Tamil Politicians in National Parliament, claim to, have opposed / Oppose the Rajapaksa Government. One of them is Mr Wigneswaran, who is reported to have claimed as follows:
[Tamil Makkal Thesiya Kuttani (TMTK) Leader and Jaffna District MP C.V. Wigneswaran claimed that President Ranil Wickremesinghe had agreed to release all Tamil political prisoners, abolish the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (PTA), withdraw the Presidential Task Force (PTF) for Archaeological Heritage Management in the Eastern Province and halt related land grabs, demilitarise the North and East, and end the Sinhalese “colonisation” of Tamil-majority areas.
According to Wigneswaran, Wickremesinghe had agreed to such in order to secure the former’s vote at the election held in Parliament on 20 July to elect a President.] at https://www.themorning.lk/wiggy-claims-ranil-agreed-to-all-his-conditions-before-vote/
The above confirms ‘trading’ and not governance. The details have been reported as follows:
[Speaking to The Morning yesterday (11), Wigneswaran said: “On 19 July, in Parliament, then-Prime Minister and Acting President Ranil Wickremesinghe came to my seat and said that he wanted to meet me. I said that in order for me to vote for him, I had a lot of requests to make pertaining to the Tamil people, and at this point I handed him a document that was prepared by myself and five or six other parties, stating our requests. He agreed to these demands, so I gave him my vote openly.”]
The above is confirmation of ‘trading’ in vote. As former judge of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Mr Wigneswaran would be taken as having the ability to read and interpret the laws of the land at a higher level than other members of Parliament without judicial experience, and therefore the confidence in the impartiality of the Sri Lankan Judiciary. By avoiding that process through article 38(2)(a)(v), during the time Mr Gotabaya Rajapaksa was President, Mr Wigneswaran has confirmed that he did not believe that the former President - Gotabaya Rajapaksa was guilty of war crimes nor genocide of Tamils.
If he had believed – that true belief would have drawn his attention to the above article. A believer would act without worrying about winning or losing – as true rebels do.
As heir of the Judiciary, Mr Wigneswaran would have wisdom in the law of prescription. His following claim could be addressed through the Court system:
[withdraw the Presidential Task Force (PTF) for Archaeological Heritage Management in the Eastern Province and halt related land grabs, demilitarise the North and East, ]
If Mr Wigneswaran’s group believed that the said lands were theirs, the obvious law applicable is Prescription Ordinance 1872 which provides as follows:
3. Proof of the undisturbed and uninterrupted possession by a defendant in any action, or by those under whom he claims, of lands or immovable property, by a title adverse to or independent of that of the claimant or plaintiff in such action (that is to say, a possession unaccompanied by payment of rent or produce, or performance of service or duty, or by any other act by the possessor, from which an acknowledgment of a right existing in another person would fairly and naturally be inferred) for ten years previous to the bringing of such action, shall entitle the defendant to a decree in his favour with costs. And in like manner, when any plaintiff shall bring his action, or any third party shall intervene in any action for the purpose of being quieted in his possession of lands or other immovable property, or to prevent encroachment or usurpation thereof, or to establish his claim in any other manner to such land or other property, proof of such undisturbed and uninterrupted possession as herein before explained, by such plaintiff or intervenient, or by those under whom he claims, shall entitle such plaintiff or intervenient to a decree in his favour with costs:
Provided that the said period of ten years shall only begin to run against parties claiming estates in remainder or reversion from the time when the parties so claiming acquired a right of possession to the property in dispute.
Prescription (Special. Provisions) Act, No. 5 of 2016.
[WHEREAS certain persons have been disadvantaged and therefore unable to pursue their rights in court for the recovery of any immovable property including land due to the activities of any militant terrorist group during the period commencing on May 1st, 1983 and ending on May 18th, 2009
2. (1) If at the time, when the right of any person to sue for the recovery of any immovable property including land shall have accrued, such person was a disadvantaged person, possession of the aforesaid immovable property including land by any other person shall not be taken as giving such other person any entitlement specified in section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance (Chapter 68) to such immovable property including land by virtue of such possession, so long as the first mentioned person remained a disadvantaged person.]
Prescriptive rights are belief based. They render ownership a much deeper level than ownership through trade – be it for cash or for other favours such as votes. The Native Title in Australia is the parallel of Sri Lanka’s Prescriptive Title.
Why did Mr Wigneswaran and other Tamil members of Parliament, not take action through the above laws in court? Are they ignorant of the work of their ancestors in Parliament and /or do they not believe in the claims they are making on behalf of the Tamil community.
One has to be extremely cautious about false claims in this regard. Belief is divine. Any false claim would be Blasphemous.
In terms of the mothers and other relatives of the ‘disappeared’, unless they in their minds opposed the LTTE – they have the responsibility to make claims with LTTE heirs – especially in the Tamil Diaspora and NOT the government they did not believe in. Hence, if they claim from the government of Sri Lanka they automatically renounce the Rebels. An Affidavit needs to be submitted in Court to confirm this. Otherwise as per the laws of karma – they are reaping as per their own sowing.
தன் வினை தன்னைச் சுடும் , ஓட்டப்பம் வீட்டை சுடும் .
One’s disloyalty will burn one;
The poisoned hopper from the evil mind, which I stuck in the roof will burn the house.
Post a Comment