That Third Term

Posted by Sri Lanka Guardian | Monday, October 20, 2014 | Posted in , , ,

| by Reeza Hameed

( October 20, 2014, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) President Rajapakse’s eligibility to seek a third term as President has become a contentious issue ever since former Chief Justice Sarath Silva declared several weeks ago that President Rajapakse is legally barred from contesting a third time. Some commentators have challenged Sarath Silva’s views and Chinthaka Mendis was one of them (see Chinthaka Mendis, ‘Why Sarath Silva is wrong’, September 14, 2014, The Island). In my view, Sarath Silva is right in his assertion that President Rajapakse is disqualified from bidding for a third term and that the Eighteenth Amendment did not remove the disqualification to which he became subject no sooner he was elected for a second term.

The view that President Rajapakse is disqualified to contest a third term follows from a reading of the Constitution as amended by the Eighteenth Amendment, read together with the Interpretation Ordinance. A correct interpretation of the Constitution would lead one to the conclusion that the Eighteenth Amendment was only prospective in its operation and despite that amendment President Rajapakse’s disqualification continues.

The Eighteenth Amendment and its effect

President Rajapakse’s disqualification stems from Article 31(2) as it stood before its repeal by the Eighteenth Amendment. Article 31(2) disqualified a person who had served two presidential terms from seeking office for a further term. Article 31(2) provided that:

“No person who has been twice elected to the office of President by the People shall be qualified thereafter to be elected to such office by the People”.

This disqualification was reinforced by Article 92(c) of the Constitution according to which a person is disqualified for election as President “if he has been twice elected to the office of the President by the People”.
The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution was certified on 9 September 2010 and came into force from that day. The incumbent President was subject to the disqualification prescribed in both these articles at the time the Eighteenth Amendment was enacted. It is a disqualification to which President Rajapakse and everyone else knew that a person elected twice to the office of President would have been subject. It applied to President Rajapakse because he has been twice elected as President.

The conclusion that the Eighteenth Amendment did not remove the disqualification from which President Rajapakse suffered is one that inevitably follows from the application of section 6(3)(a) of the Interpretation Ordinance, which is reproduced here:

“Section 6(3): Whenever any written law repeals either in whole or part a former written law, such repeal shall not, in the absence of any express provision to that effect, affect or be deemed to have affected-
(a) The past operation of or anything duly done or suffered under the repealed written law;” (emphasis added).
(b) …
(c) …

When section 2 of the Eighteenth Amendment and section 6 (3) (a) of the Interpretation Ordinance are read together, it should follow that the repeal of Article 31 (2) does not affect anything ‘suffered’ under the repealed law.
President Rajapakse suffered a disqualification by virtue of the repealed Article 31(2) of the Constitution; and its repeal by the Eighteenth Amendment did not, in the absence of any express provision to that effect, remove his disqualification.

Interpretation Ordinance and interpreting the Constitution

Chinthaka Mendis has argued that the Constitution cannot be interpreted by recourse to the Interpretation Ordinance, and suggested that it would be artificial to rely on a piece of legislation enacted in 1901 to interpret the Constitution. Nevertheless, successive legislatures have adopted this Ordinance and kept it under review by making numerous amendments to it and, over the years, Courts have relied on it to interpret laws on whose meaning they have been required to pronounce.

It is also a fact that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution by recourse to the Interpretation Ordinance. For instance, in Visuvalingam v Liyanage, better known as the Judges Case, in which I appeared as junior counsel to the late S. Nadesan QC, a full bench of the Supreme Court presided over by Neville Samarakoon CJ construed the meaning of the word ‘month’ in Article 157A (7), which was introduced by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, to mean a ‘calendar month’ by reference to the definition given to that term in the Interpretation Ordinance.

The Court in that case heard detailed argument on the principles that it should follow when interpreting the Constitution and the Court held that the principles of interpretation that govern ordinary law are equally applicable to the provisions of the Constitution.

Text book authorities on interpretation such as ‘Craies on Statute Law’ and ‘Bindra on Interpretation of Statutes’ are frequently cited to Court by parties in support of principles of interpretation advanced by them even in cases involving the Constitution. The Interpretation Ordinance is Parliament’s own manual for interpreting legislation. The Interpretation Ordinance calls it an ordinance ‘for defining the meaning of certain terms and for shortening the language used in enactments and other written laws and for other purposes’.

It is, indeed, an odd suggestion to make that Parliament’s own guide to the interpretation of legislation shall have no bearing when interpreting the Constitution. The Ordinance obviates the need to define certain terms or to re-state certain principles every time a law is enacted. Parliament should be deemed to have enacted the Eighteenth Amendment with the Ordinance in mind. Therefore, it is legitimate and proper to interpret the Eighteenth Amendment by referring to the Ordinance.

The approach of the Constitution on the effect of past operation of laws is discernible from the Constitution itself. Thus, Article 168 (5) ensured that the past operation of any law in force prior to the commencement of the Constitution or anything duly done or suffered shall not in any manner be affected by the Constitution coming into force, unless the Constitution provided otherwise. A fortiori, even an amendment to the Constitution must have the same effect in respect of anything duly done or suffered by the past operation of any law or Constitution in the absence of an express provision to the contrary.

Where it was intended that a constitutional amendment shall have retrospective effect, it was expressly provided for in the amendment itself, as was done in the case of the Second Amendment by section 3 of that Amendment.

In reality, the function of drafting legislation is undertaken by qualified legal draftsmen who are familiar with the provisions of the Ordinance and the principles of interpretation and whose advice as well as that of the Attorney General would have been sought when drafting the Amendment. It is futile to pretend that the ordinary principles of interpretation do not apply to the Eighteenth Amendment and, accordingly, it is only prospective in its operation.

Enactment and written law

Chinthaka Mendis has argued further that the principle enshrined in section 6(3) of the Interpretation Ordinance is limited in its application to ‘written laws’ but has no application to the Constitution. His argument is based on the fact that the Ordinance used the terms ‘enactment’ and ‘written law’ and has given them different definitions. To address this point it is necessary to reproduce here the two definitions.

“Section 2(f): ‘enactment’ shall mean any Ordinance, Law or Act enacted by the Legislature of Ceylon or Sri Lanka, as the case may be, and shall include-

(i) The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, 1978;
(ii) Any enactment having force or law in Sri Lanka and promulgated in the form of a proclamation or regulation prior to the 1st day of January, 1834;
(iii) The Tesawalamai or the laws and customs of the Malabars or Jaffna promulgated by the Dutch Government of Ceylon in the year seventeen hundred and seven, and referred to in the Tesawalamai Regulation; and
(iv) The Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order in Council 1946.”

“Section 2 (kk) ‘written law’ shall mean and include all Ordinances, Laws and Acts of the Legislature of Ceylon or Sri Lanka and all orders, proclamations, rules, bylaws, regulations, warrants and process of every kind made or issued by anybody or person having authority under any statutory or other enactment to make or issue the same in and for Ceylon or Sri Lanka or any part thereof, the Minutes on Pensions, and the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order-in-Council 1946.”

It is apparent that the term ‘written law’ is defined to embrace a wider category of laws than ‘enactment’ and it included an Act of the Legislature of Sri Lanka. In a separate definition, the term ‘Act’ is defined in the Ordinance to include ‘an enactment of the Legislature of Ceylon or Sri Lanka, as the case may be, enacted on or after the 14th day of October 1947, other than a Law enacted by the National State Assembly’ (emphasis added). As a Law enacted by the National State Assembly has been excluded, then an Act could only mean a law enacted by the Parliament of Sri Lanka. Furthermore, both ‘enactment’ and ‘written law’ have been defined to include the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order-in-Council.

It follows, therefore, that the two definitions are not meant to be mutually exclusive. The definition of a ‘written law’ is wider than an ‘enactment’ and it does not follow that the inclusion of the Constitution in the latter definition should mean that it has been excluded from the former. The phrase ‘written law’ is defined in the Constitution itself to mean any ‘law’, which in turn is defined to include an Act of Parliament.
The Eighteenth Amendment is legislation that emanated from Parliament and is clearly an Act of the Parliament of Sri Lanka and falls within the definition of a ‘written law’. It might have amended the Constitution but it remains as an Act of Parliament.

Even a cursory glance of the Ordinance would make it apparent that the Constitution has not been excluded from its reach. Take for instance section 22 of the Ordinance, which dictates how a court shall interpret a clause in any enactment ousting the jurisdiction of a court to determine the validity or legality of a decision made under that enactment. That section has a bearing on the powers of the Court of Appeal when its jurisdiction is invoked under Article 140 of the Constitution.

Interpretation Ordinance was revised

It is significant that the Interpretation Ordinance was last amended by Law No 29 of 1974 by the National State Assembly. Thus, the question arises as to how the words referring to the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Sri Lanka 1978 came to be introduced in the Interpretation Ordinance, in the definition of ‘enactment’.
The Interpretation Ordinance as it appeared in the 1956 edition of the Legislative Enactments defined the word ‘enactment’ to include ‘and ordinance as well as an act of Ceylon’. An ‘act’ was defined to include ‘an Act of the Parliament of Ceylon’ as it then was and an ‘ordinance’ too was defined to include an Act of Parliament. Thus, a reader who wished to understand the meaning of an ‘enactment’ was referred back to the definition of an ‘act’. There was no reference to Constitution in the body of the definition of ‘enactment’.

The editors of the Unofficial Revised Edition of the Legislative Enactments 1981 made several revisions to make the Ordinance to make it accord with the intervening changes resulting from two constitutions that followed the 1946 Constitution. In his Preface to the Revised Edition former Justice Deheragoda who headed the team of editors stated that a number of changes were made to the Interpretation Ordinance and that ‘these changes were effected under powers which were to be conferred on the Commissioner revising the Legislative Enactments by the proposed Revision of the Legislative Enactments Bill, which, owing to certain legal and technical difficulties, was never placed before Parliament. These changes therefore, although necessary, remain “unauthorized”…’

However, despite his doubts about the lack of legislative authority, such authority could be found in the 1978 Constitution itself. In this connection it might be relevant to mention Art 168(1) of the Constitution, the effect of which provision is to give continuity, mutatis mutandis, to all laws, written laws and unwritten laws in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. In the Judges Case referred to herein the Court had to consider the meaning of the phrase mutatis mutandis as it appeared in Art 157A (7) of the Constitution, and held that phrase to mean ‘with necessary alterations in point of detail’.

For example, the Interpretation (Amendment) Act No 18 of 1972 amended the Interpretation Ordinance by the addition of section 22 which affected the power of courts to pronounce on the validity or legality of certain orders protected by an ouster clause, that is a clause with expressions such as ‘shall not be called in question in any court’. However, the Provisos to that section made the ouster clause inapplicable to the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Courts Ordinance in respect of certain matters, a jurisdiction which is now vested in the Court of Appeal in terms of Articles 140 and 141 of the Constitution, and the reference to the Courts Ordinance will have to be read as a reference to the Constitution 1978. Therefore, the editors have made changes to this section to reflect this change. In any event, section 22 will have to be read in this way even if the editors did not make these changes because of the application of the mutatis mutandis rule.

Similarly, the definitions given to the words ‘enactment’ and ‘Act’ will have to be read with modifications, if necessary. However, what the editors did was to insert into the body of the definition of ‘enactment’ the words referring to the 1978 Constitution. Apart from the fact that this insertion was unnecessary, arguably it was not justified by the mutatis mutandis rule because it amounted to more than an alteration in detail, especially where previously in that definition no express reference was made to any law.

Hence, the definition of the term ‘enactment’ in its present form does not lend a proper and justifiable basis for the argument that the Ordinance does not apply to the interpretation of the Constitution.

In any event, in the writer’s view, it is clear that the reference to the Constitution of 1978 in the definition of ‘enactment’ is mere surplusage and cannot displace the compelling arguments for including the Constitution in the wider term ‘written law’.


The conclusion is inescapable that President Rajapakse is disqualified from seeking office for a third term and he cannot avail himself of the provisions of the Eighteenth Amendment as its effect does not pre-date the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The author is an Attorney-at-Law.

US Bio-warfare Laboratories In West Africa Are The Origins Of The Ebola Epidemic

Posted by Sri Lanka Guardian | | Posted in , , ,

| by Aggeliki Dimopoulou

( October 20, 2014, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) Could Ebola Have Escaped From US Bio-warfare Labs? American law professor Francis A. Boyle, answers questions for tvxs.gr and reveals that USA have been using West Africa as an offshore to circumvent the Convention on Biological Weapons and do bio-warfare work.

Is Ebola just a result of health crisis in Africa - because of the large gaps in personnel, equipment and medicines - as some experts suggest?

That isn’t true at all. This is just propaganda being put out by everyone. It seems to me, that what we are dealing with here is a biological warfare work that was conducted at the bio-warfare laboratories set up by the USA on the west coast of Africa. And if you look at a map produced by the Center of Disease Control you can see where these laboratories are located. And they are across the heart of Ebola epidemic, at the west coast of Africa. So, I think these laboratories, one or more of them, are the origins of the Ebola epidemic.

US government agencies are supposed to do defensive biological warfare research in these labs. Is there any information about what are they working on?

Well, that’s what they tell you. But if you study what the CDC and the Pentagon do… They say it is defensive, but this is just for public relation purposes than anything. It’s a trick. What it means is what they decide at these bio-warfare labs. They say, “well we have to develop a vaccine”, so that’s their defensive argument. Then what they do is to develop the bio-warfare agent itself. Usually by means of DNA genetic engineering. And then they say, “well to get the vaccine we have to develop the bio-warfare agent” - usually by DNA genetic engineering - and then they try to work on the vaccine. So it’s two uses type of work. I haven’t read all these bio-warfare contracts but that’s typical of the way the Pentagon CDC has been doing this since at least the 1980’s. I have absolute proof from a Pentagon document that the Center of Disease Control was doing bio-warfare work for the Pentagon in Sierra Leone, the heart of the outbreak, as early as 1988. And indeed it was probably before then because they would have had to construct the lab and that would have taken some time. So we know that Fort Detrick and the Center for Disease Control are over there, Tulane University, which is a well-known bio-warfare center here in USA - I would say notorious for it - is there. They all have been over there.

In addition, USA government made sure that Liberia, a former colony of the USA, never became a party to the Biological Weapons Convention, so they were able to do bio – warfare work over there - going back to 1980’s - the USA government, in order to circumvent the Biological Weapons Convention. Likewise, Guinea the third state affected here - and there is an increase now – didn’t even sign the Biological Weapons Convention. So, it seems to me, that the different agencies of the US government have been always there try to circumvent the Biological Weapons Convention and engage bio-warfare work. Indeed, we had one of these two lab bio-warriors admit in the NY Times that they were not over there for the purpose of either screening or treating people. That’s not what these labs are about. These labs are there in my opinion to do bio-warfare work for different agencies of the US government. Indeed, many of them were set up by USAID. And everyone knows that USAID is penetrated all up and down by the CIA and CIA has been involved in bio-warfare work as well.

Are we being told the truth about Ebola? Is that big outbreak began all of a sudden? How does it spread so quickly?

The whole outbreak that we see in the west coast of Africa, this is Zaire/Ebola. The most dangerous of five subtypes of Ebola. Zaire/Ebola originated 3500 km from the west coast of Africa. There is absolutely no way that it could have been transmitted 3500 km. And if you read the recently published Harvard study on the DNA analysis of the west Africas’ Zaire/Ebola there is no explanation about how the virus moved there. And indeed, it’s been reported in the NY Times that the Zaire/Ebola was found there in 1976, and then WHO ordered to be set to Porton Down in Britain, which is the British equivalent to Fort Detrick, where they manufacture all the biological weapons for Britain. And then Britain sent it to the US Center for Disease Control. And we know for a fact that the Center for Disease Control has been involved in biological warfare work. And then it appears, at least from whatever I’ve been able to put together in a public record, that the CDC and several others US bio-warriors exported Zaire/Ebola to west Africa, to their labs there, where they were doing bio-warfare work on it. So, I believe this is the origins of the Zaire/Ebola pandemic we are seeing now in west Africa.

Why would they do that?

Why would they do that? As I suggested to try to circumvent the Biological Weapons Convention to which the US government is a party. So, always bio-warriors do use offensive and defensive bio-warfare work, violating the Biological Weapons Convention. So effectively they try to offshore it into west Africa where Liberia is not a party and Guinea is not a party. Sierra Leone is a party. But in Sierra Leone and Liberia there were disturbances which kept the world from really paying attention of what was going on in these labs.

USA sent troops to «fight» Ebola. What do you think about that move?

The US military just invaded Liberia. They send in the 101st Airborne Division to Liberia. That’s an elite division of combat and they have no training to provide medical treatment to anyone. They are there to establish a military base in Liberia. And the British are doing the same in Sierra Leone. The French are already in Mali and Senegal. So, they’re not sending military people there to treat these people. No, I’m sorry.

Weren’t they afraid Ebola’s going to go out of control even in the USA or EU in a massive way?

It’s already gone in the USA and the European Union. So, there it is. Which raises the question: Was this Zaire/Ebola weaponized at any of these labs? I don’t have an answer to that question. I am trying to get an answer. And therefore it is much more dangerous than the WHO and the CDC are telling everyone. The WHO and the CDC are up to their eyeballs in this. They know all about what ‘s going on. It was the WHO that ordered the original Zaire/Ebola in 1976 to be sent to Porton Down for biological warfare purposes. So this could be more dangerous than the WHO and the CDC are saying.

And you can’t believe anything they telling you because they are involved in that. But certainly I can’t say it has been weaponized. I don’t know that yet for sure. I have the Harvard genetic analysis of it. When I was in college I had very good courses in genetics, and biochemistry and population biology but I am not a professor of genetics. I have a friend who is a professor of genetics and he is going to take a look at this and try to figure out if there’s been DNA genetic engineering perpetrated or performed on the Zaire/Ebola. Is there a genetically modified organism at work, a GMO? I don’t know. But if a GMO is at work that’s a pretty good sign it’s been weaponized. But in anyway, it is far more dangerous than the CDC and the WHO are telling anyone, because it’s clearly transmitted for a certain distance - we don’t know how far - by air. Breathing and coughing and sneezing. So, anyone treating people, seems to me, are going to need not only a protective suit but probably a breathing apparatus, at minimum. And you saw what happened to that Spanish nurse and that Spanish priest that were brought in, infected with Ebola. So right now the WHO and the CDC are telling healthcare workers that in addition to suits they need breathing apparatuses. So, again, I don’t believe you can trust anything the WHO or the CDC are telling you. And I really don’t know about the European Health Agency… If they‘re believing the WHO and the CDC then, in my opinion, they ‘re not properly protecting the health of the European people. And it’s simply bizarre that the CDC and WHO are relegating the screenings to the people in west Africa. It’s just bizarre. They need to be protecting health of their own people and they aren’t doing that. I read some of the European press but I’m not sure precisely what the European Health Agency is recommending but they certainly can't rely upon the WHO and the CDC. As for Greece, I know you have your own Health Ministry there and they cannot rely upon them at all, as well.

Some experts told recently the Forbes magazine that even ISIS could use Ebola as a biological weapon. I would like to have your comment on that.

This is total propaganda. These people are trying to distract public opinion from the fact. My opinion is that the origins of the current pandemic came out of the USA bio-warfare labs in west Africa. That’s what is going on here. ISIS has nothing to do with this. That’s just propaganda which is trying to scare and distract public attention away of what really is going on here. They doing the same thing here in USA. That’s what we need to concentrate on. Number one. And number two? We have to find out: was this Zaire/Ebola GMOed by either Porton Down or CDC or these US bio-warfare labs? It is far more dangerous than it currently appears. That’s the real issue. And I don’t have an answer to that question. It was the US government labs that research here. I’m not saying that Ebola was released deliberately by these labs. I have no evidence to that. It could have escaped. But this is really what we need to be focusing on. Not ISIS. It’s ridiculous, it’s preposterous.

What do you think should be done?

I would encourage the Greek government to convene an emergency meeting of your top health science people and to look into this on comprehensive bases and figure out what to do under these circumstances to protect the health of people of Greece. In particular they must not believe anything they are being told by the WHO and CDC. There is a need of open objective minds here about what is really going on. I think this needs to be done.

Back in 1985, I was down in Nicaragua investigating atrocities of the Contras there and all of a sudden the country was hit with an outbreak of a hemorrhaging Dengue Fever which is similar to Ebola. And it seemed pretty suspicious to me. So I met with some of the highest level officials of the Nicaraguan government and said: “you know, this very well could be US bio-warfare against Nicaragua. They did the same thing to Cuba. And my advice is you convene health care medical experts, not politicians, to look into this. And if you agree with me and that’s the result, file a complaint with the UN Security Council for violation of the Biological Weapons Convention against the USA”. And eventually that is what they did. Here I am not recommending the Greek authorities to file a complaint against the USA. What I am recommending is the same thing I did to the Nicaraguans. That you need to convene some of your top experts geneticists, doctors, etc.

And don’t get anyone in this group who has ever done any type of research for any agency of the US government. They are completely unreliable. Get Greeks experts completely independent of the US government or the British government. It’s funny here in the USA when the media want to get experts on this, all the experts they talk to are people who have done biological warfare work for the USA. And they are up to their eyeballs on this Ebola. And doing research on this Ebola. Of course they’re not going to give you proper advice. So, find this experts and make sure they never done any research for USA or Britain on any of this stuff but are qualified and can give you a qualified opinion of what is really going on and how dangerous this stuff is. And then aim to protect the health of Greek people. You definitely don’t have to wait for the European Union in Brussels to do it for you. I’m not telling Greece what to do. I’m just telling you how to do it. And this should be done immediately. It should have been done already. But ok, better late than ever.

Francis A. Boyle is a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia - Herzegovina at the World Court. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University.

He is also the author of "Biowarfare and Terrorism". The book outlines how and why the United States government initiated, sustained and then dramatically expanded an illegal biological arms buildup.

Read the Greek version of the interview here

Ebola Manufactured by Western Pharmaceuticals, US DoD?: Scientists Allege

Posted by Sri Lanka Guardian | | Posted in , , , , ,

| by Dr. Cyril Broderick
Professor of Plant Pathology

Are bio weapons being tested on Africans. Reports have linked the Ebola virus outbreak to an attempt to reduce Africa’s population. Liberia happens to be the continents' fastest growing population.

Dear World Citizens:

( October 20, 2014, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) I have read a number of articles from your Internet outreach as well as articles from other sources about the casualties in Liberia and other West African countries about the human devastation caused by the Ebola virus. About a week ago, I read an article published in the Internet news summary publication of the Friends of Liberia that said that there was an agreement that the initiation of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa was due to the contact of a two-year old child with bats that had flown in from the Congo. That report made me disconcerted with the reporting about Ebola, and it stimulated a response to the “Friends of Liberia,” saying that African people are not ignorant and gullible, as is being implicated. A response from Dr. Verlon Stone said that the article was not theirs, and that “Friends of Liberia” was simply providing a service. He then asked if he could publish my letter in their Internet forum. I gave my permission, but I have not seen it published. Because of the widespread loss of life, fear, physiological trauma, and despair among Liberians and other West African citizens, it is incumbent that I make a contribution to the resolution of this devastating situation, which may continue to recur, if it is not properly and adequately confronted. I will address the situation in five (5) points:


Horowitz (1998) was deliberate and unambiguous when he explained the threat of new diseases in his text, Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola - Nature, Accident or Intentional. In his interview with Dr. Robert Strecker in Chapter 7, the discussion, in the early 1970s, made it obvious that the war was between countries that hosted the KGB and the CIA, and the ‘manufacture’ of ‘AIDS-Like Viruses’ was clearly directed at the other. In passing during the Interview, mention was made of Fort Detrick, “the Ebola Building,” and ‘a lot of problems with strange illnesses’ in “Frederick [Maryland].” By Chapter 12 in his text, he had confirmed the existence of an American Military-Medical-Industry that conducts biological weapons tests under the guise of administering vaccinations to control diseases and improve the health of “black Africans overseas.” The book is an excellent text, and all leaders plus anyone who has interest in science, health, people, and intrigue should study it. I am amazed that African leaders are making no acknowledgements or reference to these documents.


I am now reading The Hot Zone, a novel, by Richard Preston (copyrighted 1989 and 1994); it is heart-rending. The prolific and prominent writer, Steven King, is quoted as saying that the book is “One of the most horrifying things I have ever read. What a remarkable piece of work.” As a New York Times bestseller, The Hot Zone is presented as “A terrifying true story.” Terrifying, yes, because the pathological description of what was found in animals killed by the Ebola virus is what the virus has been doing to citizens of Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia in its most recent outbreak: Ebola virus destroys peoples’ internal organs and the body deteriorates rapidly after death. It softens and the tissues turn into jelly, even if it is refrigerated to keep it cold. Spontaneous liquefaction is what happens to the body of people killed by the Ebola virus! The author noted in Point 1, Dr. Horowitz, chides The Hot Zone for writing to be politically correct; I understand because his book makes every effort to be very factual. The 1976 Ebola incident in Zaire, during President Mobutu Sese Seko, was the introduction of the GMO Ebola to Africa.


The World Health Organization (WHO) and several other UN Agencies have been implicated in selecting and enticing African countries to participate in the testing events, promoting vaccinations, but pursuing various testing regiments. The August 2, 2014 article, West Africa: What are US Biological Warfare Researchers Doing in the Ebola Zone? by Jon Rappoport of Global Research pinpoints the problem that is facing African governments.

Obvious in this and other reports are, among others:

(a) The US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), a well-known centre for bio-war research, located at Fort Detrick, Maryland;

(b) Tulane University, in New Orleans, USA, winner of research grants, including a grant of more than $7 million the National Institute of Health (NIH) to fund research with the Lassa viral hemorrhagic fever;

(c) the US Center for Disease Control (CDC);

(d) Doctors Without Borders (also known by its French name, Medicins Sans Frontiers);

(e) Tekmira, a Canadian pharmaceutical company;

(f) The UK’s GlaxoSmithKline; and

(g) the Kenema Government Hospital in Kenema, Sierra Leone.

Reports narrate stories of the US Department of Defense (DoD) funding Ebola trials on humans, trials which started just weeks before the Ebola outbreak in Guinea and Sierra Leone. The reports continue and state that the DoD gave a contract worth $140 million dollars to Tekmira, a Canadian pharmaceutical company, to conduct Ebola research. This research work involved injecting and infusing healthy humans with the deadly Ebola virus. Hence, the DoD is listed as a collaborator in a “First in Human” Ebola clinical trial (NCT02041715, which started in January 2014 shortly before an Ebola epidemic was declared in West Africa in March. Disturbingly, many reports also conclude that the US government has a viral fever bioterrorism research laboratory in Kenema, a town at the epicentre of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. The only relevant positive and ethical olive-branch seen in all of my reading is that Theguardian.com reported, “The US government funding of Ebola trials on healthy humans comes amid warnings by top scientists in Harvard and Yale that such virus experiments risk triggering a worldwide pandemic.” That threat still persists.


The U. S., Canada, France, and the U. K. are all implicated in the detestable and devilish deeds that these Ebola tests are. There is the need to pursue criminal and civil redress for damages, and African countries and people should secure legal representation to seek damages from these countries, some corporations, and the United Nations. Evidence seems abundant against Tulane University, and suits should start there. Yoichi Shimatsu’s article, The Ebola Breakout Coincided with UN Vaccine Campaigns, as published on August 18, 2014, in the Liberty Beacon.


Africa must not relegate the Continent to become the locality for disposal and the deposition of hazardous chemicals, dangerous drugs, and chemical or biological agents of emerging diseases. There is urgent need for affirmative action in protecting the less affluent of poorer countries, especially African citizens, whose countries are not as scientifically and industrially endowed as the United States and most Western countries, sources of most viral or bacterial GMOs that are strategically designed as biological weapons. It is most disturbing that the U. S. Government has been operating a viral hemorrhagic fever bioterrorism research laboratory in Sierra Leone. Are there others? Wherever they exist, it is time to terminate them. If any other sites exist, it is advisable to follow the delayed but essential step: Sierra Leone closed the US bioweapons lab and stopped Tulane University for further testing.

The world must be alarmed. All Africans, Americans, Europeans, Middle Easterners, Asians, and people from every conclave on Earth should be astonished. African people, notably citizens more particularly of Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone are victimized and are dying every day. Listen to the people who distrust the hospitals, who cannot shake hands, hug their relatives and friends. Innocent people are dying, and they need our help. The countries are poor and cannot afford the whole lot of personal protection equipment (PPE) that the situation requires. The threat is real, and it is larger than a few African countries. The challenge is global, and we request assistance from everywhere, including China, Japan, Australia, India, Germany, Italy, and even kind-hearted people in the U.S., France, the U.K., Russia, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and anywhere else whose desire is to help. The situation is bleaker than we on the outside can imagine, and we must provide assistance however we can. To ensure a future that has less of this kind of drama, it is important that we now demand that our leaders and governments be honest, transparent, fair, and productively engaged. They must answer to the people. Please stand up to stop Ebola testing and the spread of this dastardly disease.

Thank you very much.


Dr. Cyril E. Broderick, Sr.

About the Author: Dr. Broderick is a former professor of Plant Pathology at the University of Liberia’s College of Agriculture and Forestry. He is also the former Observer Farmer in the 1980s. It was from this column in our newspaper, the Daily Observer, that Firestone spotted him and offered him the position of Director of Research in the late 1980s. In addition, he is a scientist, who has taught for many years at the Agricultural College of the University of Delaware.
Copyright: Liberian Observer Corporation

Ranil meeting Sri Lankan Diaspora

Posted by Sri Lanka Guardian | | Posted in , , , , ,

| by Rajasingham Jayadevan

( October 20, 2014, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) Campaign orchestrated by the wings of the Sri Lankan government against the Opposition Leader Ranil Wickramasinghe is clearly a calculated, diabolical and depraved drive of harassment to gain petty parochial mileage to overshadow the political setbacks experienced by the Rajapakse family.

Mr. Wickramasinghe with group of the Tamil Diaspora in London
I write as one of those who had the opportunity to meet the Opposition Leader in London. I together with Tamils representing diverse Tamil polity excluding the LTTE met Mr Ranil Wickramasinghe and discussed wide ranging issues centred on the authoritarian governance in Sri Lanka. We were one of the Tamil groups. He was frank and forthright in his comments and reflected the maturity of a seasoned and an educated politician to explain the way forward to overcome the difficulties.

He said thirteenth amendment is in the statute and affirmed the need to implement it properly and sincerely. He confirmed his priority is to implement the 13th amendment for the people of Sri Lanka to enjoy the devolvement already available in the constitution.

Those who met Ranil had engaged with President Mahinda Rajapakse, former President Chandrika Kumaratunge, and many other leaders of the Sri Lankan polity. The meeting we had did not reflect any sectarian discussions and issues of progressive decay in the governance and being the Opposition Leader, he very well articulated the need to redeem Sri Lanka from its gloom.

We came to know through the UNP organisers, that Ranil could not meet the exhaustive demand for meetings with the diverse Sri Lankan community due to time constraints. They expressed their overwhelming enthusiasm that cross section of the Sri Lankan community had met him.

According to the report in the Sunday Times, Global Tamil Forum refused to meet Ranil Wickramasinghe on the grounds that he had appointed Sajith Premadasa as the Deputy Leader whom they branded as an anti-Tamil racist. When I contacted the GTF to explain the opportunity missed to meet the Opposition Leader, Suren Surendran was categorical that their decision was justified.

I came to know members of the TNGT or BTF did not meet the Opposition Leader. The decaying political thinking of the government only confirm its lack of farsightedness to reason out whey these groups will not meet the Opposition Leader.

When I spoke to few from the Muslim and Sinhala community who met Ranil, they all confirmed the same views we held.

The anti-Ranil campaign only confirms that the government is panicking. One Sinhalese who was until recently associated with the government was disgusted with the progressing failures in governance and confirmed to me in writing that ‘the Sinhalese, are beginning to say Ranil is a good man, not a hora (thief) and they would vote for Aliya (Elephant) and that the UNP should swim with this tide and strengthen itself to correct the malaise experienced under the present Mahinda rule’.

Are we poisoning our children with Fonterra Produce?

Posted by Sri Lanka Guardian | | Posted in , , , ,

| by Pearl Thevanayagam

(October 20, 2014, Bradford UK, Sri Lanka Guardian) This is serious and begs the question that the future of our children whose parents are oblivious to the dangers posed by Western interests and mesmerised by advertisements which promote Australia and New Zealand. The government has also ordered 50,000 milch cows to supplement our own dairy needs.

Is it not possible to enhance our local dairy industry rather than import cows fed with dangerous chemicals? Sri Lanka is quite capable of feeding its animals with organic vegetation and if only it could promote indigenous methods of farming then we would not have to cow-tow to conglomerates who dump their chemical-laden products on to our shores.

In September 2012, traces of 2-Cyanoguanidine, a fertiliser commonly referred to as DCD that is used to slow down nitrate leaching, was found in some milk samples from Fonterra Federated Farmers and the Government moved quickly to reassure the public and overseas buyers there was no risk to health. Fonterra has received praise for its handling of the DCD issue. The levels were very low and attempts were made to prevent the test results from being reported in the media.

On the 16th of August 2013 Sri Lankan court banned the sale and advertising of all Fonterra products in Sri Lanka. The health ministry has said tests by Sri Lanka's Industrial Technology Institute found DCD in some Fonterra milk powders and it had ordered their recall.

On 3 August 2013, authorities in New Zealand announced a global recall of up to 1,000 tonnes of dairy products after tests turned up a type of bacteria that could cause botulism. Products included were infant formula, sports drinks, protein drinks and other beverages. The countries affected were New Zealand, China, Australia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia.

Fonterra's head of its milk products business, Gary Romano, resigned over the scandal on 14 August 2013.
There is no doubt milk is an essential component in a child’s growth but many a child in Sri Lanka does not get his sufficient quantities due to dearth of this vital part of the nutrient which would nurture them physically and mentally.

Media reported that children would be given free milk in the South. How about the children of lesser God in the rest of the island and how much has the government allocated to feed our children with this essential food. Who are we kidding? Kraft cheese imported from New Zealand is a must during Christmas but how much do we know what it contains. We serve them with cheese-bits but do we realise the chemicals which go into their production could cause irreparable damage.

This is akin to soya products which Canada introduced to developing countries including Sri Lanka as an alternative of animal protein but which contains lead that affect babies causing their mental retardation.

Sri Lanka is second to none in feeding their populace with organic produce but Stassens and like-minded corporate businesses such as Unilevers would spread their tentacles into developing countries dumping their toxic laden chemically saturated foods in the developing world while the West, US and Australia revert to organic produce importing from the same developing countries their quota .

As children we were fed goat’s milk fresh still warm in chembu (copper pot) and cow’s milk sans pasteurisation and we are still alive. When mother bought Blue Band margarine (Lever Brothers product) my father was livid and accused her of poisoning his children and threw it away. My mother only wanted to manage her budget and since she was not eactly literate she did the best she could.

Sri Lanka has plenty of rainfall and vegetation and its traditional farming practices sustained it for over centuries. Starvation was never heard of in this land of aplenty until conglomerates descended on our shores and dumped their produce and took away our organic produce.

It is high time we spurn the West’s overture and put in first place our own national interest over short term profits which only fatten the coffers of conglomerates and local businesses who sell our assets for their selfish motives and profits.

When will we ever learn?

(The writer has been a journalist for 25 years and worked in national newspapers as sub-editor, news reporter and news editor. She was Colombo Correspondent for Times of India and has contributed to Wall Street Journal where she was on work experience from The Graduate School of Journalism, UC Berkeley, California. Currently residing in UK she is also co-founder of EJN (Exiled Journalists Network) UK in 2005 the membership of which is 200 from 40 countries. She can be reached at pearltheva@hotmail.com)

The Time of Duty

Posted by Sri Lanka Guardian | | Posted in , , , , , ,

| by Fidel Castro

Revolution historic leader Fidel Castro highlights the quick response given by Cuba to the request concerning the fight against ebola epidemic in Western Africa.

( October 20, 2014, Havana, Sri Lanka Guardian) Our country did not take a single minute to give a response to the international agencies requesting its support to combat the brutal epidemic outbreak in Western Africa.

A girl cries outside the "Island Clinic", a new Ebola treatment centre that opened in Monrovia after the death of her father and her mother by ebola on September 23, 2014.The first members of a team of 165 Cuban doctors and health workers have arrived in Sierra Leone to help the fight against Ebola (AFP Photo)

This is what our country has always done, without excluding anyone. The Cuban Government had already given the relevant instructions to urgently mobilize and reinforce the medical personnel that were offering their services in that region of the Africa continent. An equally fast response was given to the United Nations, as it has always been the case in an event of a request for cooperation.

Any sensible person would know that the political decisions that entail some risk for the highly qualified staff involve a high level of responsibility from those who call on them to fulfill a risky task. This is something far more difficult than sending soldiers to fight and even die for a just political cause; and they also did so because they always thought it was their duty.

The medical staff that is ready to go to any region to save lives, even at the risk of losing their own, is the best example of solidarity that human beings can offer, particularly if they are not moved by any material interest. Their closest relatives are also contributing to that mission a part of what they love and admire the most. A country seasoned by long years of struggle can fully understand what is being expressed here.

We all understand that in fulfilling this task with maximum preparation and efficiency, we would also be protecting our people and the brother peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, by avoiding the spread of the virus, since it unfortunately has entered and could further spread in the United States, a country with so many personal links and exchanges with the rest of the world. We will gladly cooperate with the US staff in this endeavor, not in the pursuit of peace between the two States which have been adversaries for so many years, but, in any case, for world peace, which is a goal that could and should be pursued.

On Monday, October 20, at the request of several countries of the region, a meeting will be held in Havana, which will be attended by high authorities from these countries who have expressed the need to take all relevant steps to prevent the spread of the epidemic and combat it in a fast and effective way.

We, the Latin American and Caribbean peoples, will also be sending a message of support and struggle to all other peoples in the world.

The time of duty has come.

- October 17, 2014

Mahinda’s Election and Rajapaksa Future

Posted by Sri Lanka Guardian | Sunday, October 19, 2014 | Posted in , , ,

| by Tisaranee Gunasekara

“Heil myself
Raise your hand
There's no greater
Dictator in the land!
Everything I do, I do for you!”
Mel Brooks (Springtime for Hitler)

( October 19, 2014, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) No one wants an early presidential election, except the Rajapaksas.

There is no national need or a popular clamour for an early election. The opposition is not demanding one. The SLFP and the UPFA are reportedly extremely unhappy about the prospect.

But the Rajapaksas seem determined to hold a presidential election at the earliest possible constitutional time.

Perhaps it is the stars. That superstition apart, two other reasons, both extremely rational, may be compelling the Rajapaksas to have presidential elections, one year ahead of time.

Firstly, the Rajapaksas are losing and not gaining popularity. Winning even an unfree and unfair election in 2016 would be much harder than doing so in 2015. In fact it might require a degree of illegality and violence which is systemically destabilising.

By 2016 Sri Lanka will have more highways and more hotels, possibly South Asia’s tallest tower and one or two artificial islands. But by 2016, more Lankans of every ethnicity, religion, gender, caste and class will be dissatisfied with their present living conditions and pessimistic about their future prospects. To win an election in such circumstances, targeted and localised violence will not suffice. Violence will have to be generalised, from North to South. 

Secondly, and perhaps more pertinently, there is the issue of succession.

Mahinda Rajapaksa is neither young nor immortal. Death or incapacity can come to him at any time. Ensuring that his chosen successor is positioned one constitutional step below the presidency is a sine-qua-non for the continuation of familial rule. Without a Rajapaksa occupying the prime ministerial post, dynastic succession cannot be assured – and by extension familial rule would be in peril.

DM Jayaratne will not oblige the Rajapaksas by resigning. Sacking him and appointing a Rajapaksa to the post will create too much bad blood within the SLFP. The Family might have risked it, but for the presence of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. So long as she is around, she has the potential to become a lightening rod for inner-party discontent. And the Rajapaksas are not sufficiently confident of the party’s loyalty and servility to risk such a move, yet. 

But if Mahinda Rajapaksa wins the presidential election, his hand will be strengthened immensely vis-à-vis the party. The next obvious step would be to dissolve the parliament and hold a snap general election. With the opposition in post-defeat disarray and with the UNP submerged in a chaotic leadership battle (Sajith Premadasa will remount his leadership bid, post-defeat), winning a parliamentary election will be relatively easier. Basil Rajapaksa is effectively in control of the nomination process while Namal Rajapaksa has been appointed by his father to head the reorganisation of the SLFP youth wing . The new parliament will be far more Rajapaksa-complexioned than the current one.

It may also contain Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.

Alternately, a victorious Mahinda Rajapaksa might bend the SLFP and the UPFA to his will with the threat of an early parliamentary election. The SLFP and the UPFA are as lacking in intelligence and foresight as they are in courage. That is why they knuckled down and backed the 18th Amendment (sans that monumental error, in fifteen months, they and the country would have been free of the Rajapaksa scourge). In a similar display of outstanding short-sightedness and outstanding cowardice, the SLFP and UPFA may agree to a Rajapaksa prime minister, in return for a 1982 style referendum in place of an election. 

Either way, a Sibling can become the PM and the succession can be secured.

Realistically a united and revitalised opposition has a chance of pushing a presidential election into a second round. In such a scenario, currently inconceivable ripple-effects might loosen the Rajapaksa stranglehold over the state, the government and the ruling party. Even if Mahinda Rajapaksa wins in the second round, it may not give him the legitimacy and the authority he needs to impose his will on the party and the country.

But if Mahinda Rajapaksa wins outright, barring a miracle, Sri Lanka will be saddled with rule by the Rajapaksa Family – and their uncouth acolytes - for the foreseeable future.

Ominous Omens

This week, the EU imposed a ban on fish imports from Sri Lanka. The ban will come into effect from January 15th 2015. The potential loss to the country can be gleaned by the fact that last year, Lankan fish exports to EU amounted to more than Rs. 12billion .

The EU ban was due to persistent use of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing practices by large fishing vessels flying the Lankan flag. The first EU warning came in 2012. Several other countries, which were issued similar warnings, did the sensible thing and began to cooperate with the EU. But Sri Lanka reportedly refused to curtail IUU practices which are in violation of both EU and international regulations.

And according to The Sunday Times, the IUU fishing practices are being used by Chinese vessels flying Lankan flags .

The EU sanctions may be an early indication of the varied and multiple costs of Sri Lanka’s dependent relationship with China, a legacy of Rajapaksa rule which is likely to become infinitely worse during a third Rajapaksa term. Did Sri Lanka fail to cooperate with the EU because of Chinese pressure? Did the Rajapaksas agree to allow the Dragon to engage in illegal fishing under cover of the Lion flag, in return for financial and other favours?

Incidentally, if vessels flying Lankan flags continue to engage in IUU practices, more EU sanctions might follow.

This is what happens to a nation when its rulers have only one ‘idea world’ – power at any cost.

Once national elections are safely out of the way, the Rajapaksas will be able to move ahead with their anti-popular and self-aggrandising agenda without bothering about public opinion or national interest. The Orwellian ID card system, which will enable the Siblings to access biometric, genealogical and other vital information about every Lankan at the touch of a key or two, will be implemented. The class-cleansing project in Colombo and other cities will be accelerated. Even if Indian pressure saves parts of the 13th Amendment it will not suffice to stop the demographic reengineering of the North/East, Israel and Chinese style. Minorities will become more alienated as the regime intensifies its alliance with Sinhala-Buddhist supremacism in an effort to retain majority support. Governance will become not just anti-democratic but also anti-meritocratic. The law will become a Rajapaksa-tool. As kinship and political allegiance become increasingly relevant in the private sector, brain drain will intensify. Internally Sri Lanka will become a Rajapaksa fiefdom internally and a Chinese fiefdom externally.

This week, former Chief Justice Sarath Silva publicly apologised for his ruling in the ‘Helping Hambantota’ case and JHU parliamentarian Athuraliye Rathana Thero publicly apologised for supporting the 18th Amendment. Let us hope that we will not be fated to hear various opposition leaders (those still at liberty, politically and legally) offering public apologies for losing a winnable election, thereby enabling the Rajapaksas to consolidate familial rule and ensure dynastic succession.

  1. http://www.slbc.lk/index.php/component/content/article/1-latest-news/20840--reorganization-of-the-slfp-youth-organizations-will-be-carried-out-in-3-stages.html
  2. http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/10/15/sri-lanka-sanctions-could-affect-e74m-worth-of-imports/
  3. http://www.sundaytimes.lk/140928/news/chinese-craft-break-fishing-rules-lanka-faces-eu-ban-120217.html
  4. What should the Left propose – Roberto Unger

Wearing Sackcloth And Ashes As We Apologize

Posted by Sri Lanka Guardian | | Posted in , , ,

| by Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena 
Courtesy: The Sunday Times, Colombo 

( October 19, 2014, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Piquantly enough, this seems to be the week of apologies and confessions for Sri Lanka.

First, we witnessed the nationalist Jathika Hela Urumaya parliamentarian Rathana Thero’s confession in his capacity as convener of the Pivithuru Hetak (For a Better Tomorrow) movement, that it was wrong to have supported the 18th Amendment to the Constitution.

This was followed by ex-Chief Justice Sarath Silva apologizing for judicial decision-making on his part in 2005. This somewhat cryptically worded apology at a meeting of a political party was later explained to the British Broadcasting Service’s Sandeshaya programme as specifically applicable in regard to the Helping Hambantota case where he exculpated then Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa of massive corruption alleged in regard to the receipt of tsunami funds.

Mistakes that changed Sri Lanka’s legal landscape

Perhaps one should not cavil at these apologies in a land where public apologies are woefully scarce. After all, these confessions are not akin to those which have been dragged out of tortured detainees, more often than not of minority ethnicity, under the much maligned provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA, 1979).

Nor are they similar to the blubberings of a terrorized public officer tied to a tree and beaten by a Minister but who famously confessed that he was at fault rather than castigate the Minister despite the fact that the Minister concerned belonged more in the wilds of Mahiyangana rather than in the Cabinet.
As distinguished from such plebian happenings, what we have here are the apologies of a prominent monk of a constituent partner of the ruling alliance as well as by an ex-Chief Justice which we may presume, have been freely and voluntarily made. Sarcasm aside, if one hearkens to magnanimity, it may suffice merely to add an acid rider that these are not the only actions which must be apologized for by these two worthies.

Yet the need for cleansing of Sri Lanka’s eminently hypocritical public culture demands a little bit more than a casual chance remark. Indeed, the imagination must surely boggle at the ease if not the apparent spuriousness with which apologies have been issued for such awfully gargantuan mistakes which have irreversibly changed the course of Sri Lanka’s political and legal landscape.

More penitence and contrition needed

The 18th Amendment was not a mere passing constitutional fancy (for example) to change the colour of the dress that parliamentarians wear. Rather, it led to the radical reshaping of Sri Lanka’s constitutional systems, throwing the country back decades in progressive time. It effectively reduced the 17th Amendment, possibly the most well intentioned constitutional amendment in post-independence history, to cowed silence. It took away the Constitutional Council and replaced it with a paltry Parliamentary Council which could not say boo to the proverbial goose quite apart from disagreeing with the Executive President.
And worse of all, it enabled an authoritarian if not monarchic Presidency to install itself for life. Precisely what did its erstwhile supporters think it would do other than bring about this most predictable constitutional instability?

Certainly those who agreed to the 18th Amendment should not be allowed to rest content with just an apology. Instead, as has been the practice of old in religious orders, such penitents should wear sackcloth and ashes in public. This injunction applies to onetime government stalwarts who wrote copious reams about the un-workability of the 17th Amendment. Now, having fallen out of favour, they occupy themselves in casting bitter – and wholly ignored - animadversions on the folly of the Rajapaksa Government in making Sri Lanka’s foreign service the butt of all jokes.
Where does one go to when the Court is ‘mistaken’?

And then we come to the Helping Hambantota case where ex-Chief Justice Silva has expressed contrition for clearing then Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa of allegations of misappropriation and enabling him to contest the Presidential Elections.

As has been reported, this is the first time that a former Sri Lankan Chief Justice has aplogised for a judicial decision. Perhaps it may be added that this is also the first time that a one-time Chief Justice has thought it fit to adorn a political stage. But we are past that stage of incredulity certainly where this particular ex-Chief Justice is concerned.

Amusingly enough, ex-Chief Justice Silva goes so far as to state that he did not entertain a ‘presumption’ as to the corrupt tendencies of the (then) Prime Minister but that he has had occasion to revise this opinion after seeing rampant government corruption now. And one can only attribute a worrying lapse in memory to his further claim to the BBC that, apart from the Helping Hambantota decision, he had faced no criticism with regard to other verdicts he had delivered. On the contrary, criticisms of judgments delivered during his tenure were unprecedented in Sri Lankan judicial history. As this ex-Chief Justice who has become a tad touchy to public criticism after entering the political cum public sphere must surely acknowledge, two impeachment motions were presented in Parliament against him precisely on that basis, citing allegations of judicial bias and abuse.

Ironic debates surrounding the 18th Amendment

Moreover this apology raises a larger question as to what a hapless Sri Lankan citizen can do when mistakes of such a nature are made by the apex court. This has become a particularly important question for us as the judiciary continues to be plagued by political controversy which has only aggravated in recent decades.

At one point, Sri Lankans had the option of at least having jurists of the United Nations Human Rights Committee examine decisions of the Supreme Court to see if they secure peoples’ rights in terms of Sri Lanka’s own international obligations. This was in conformity to earlier enlightened precedent on the part of highly respected Sri Lankan judges which took international juristic opinion into consideration if this enhanced the domestic rights of citizens.

However, the 2006 ruling in the Singarasa Case presided over again by ex-Chief Justice Sarath Silva that the Committee process was unconstitutional on unsound judicial reasoning that the Committee exercised judicial power within Sri Lanka has put paid to this option. Perhaps we may hear the ex-Chief Justice apologizing for this decision as well at some point. Sri Lanka began to come under the international legal spotlight for its domestic non-compliance exactly from this point onwards.

Paramount to address the degeneration of justice

All in all, there is an undoubtedly ironic flavor to the current controversy surrounding the legal propriety of President Mahinda Rajapaksa seeking a third term given that the initiator of this controversy now apologises for a costly mistake which he made almost a decade and a half ago in bringing a Presidency tainted by corruption into office.

But as we solemnly discuss the lack of constitutional viability in arguments urging the retrospective applicability of the 18th Amendment, the overall point is greater than this. As any legal practitioner worth his or her salt well knows, points of law and opinions thereof are infinitely varied in their scope and applicability. Indeed, equally skilful arguments may be made using the law to benefit two completely opposing sides. In similar vein, Constitutions may come and go but if there is no public belief in the constitutional process as well as in the independence and integrity of judges who ultimately decide the interpretation of the Constitution, then there is little point in the exercise.

No better example illustrates this reality than the fact that two opinions of the appellate courts declaring that the impeachment of Sri Lanka’s 43rd Chief Justice was unconstitutional were reversed by a Bench of the Supreme Court on diametrically opposite legal reasoning a year later.

So as the sound and fury of legal debate echo around us, one may be forgiven for being a tad cynical thereto. For close to a decade and a half, this country has seen the rapid and ruinous degeneration of the law, the judicial institution and the very value of the Constitution itself. Those responsible in the judicial fraternity for this decline since 1999 are many. A solitary apology for a solitary decision by a solitary ex-Chief Justice scarce meets this profound deficit of credibility. As far as the general citizenry is concerned, complex points of constitutional law can only be secondary to the public acknowledgement of the extreme politicization of Sri Lanka’s judicial and legal systems followed by full and frank discussion as to the manner in which the integrity of the systems may be restored.

In the spirit of things therefore, (and one is being only partly satirical in saying this), a collective apology may be issued by judges and lawyers who not only acquiesced in the obscene subversion of the law but actively connived in particular political climates favourable to them when politicized judgments were delivered.

It is particularly preposterous that some of these very individuals are foremost among those advocating good governance today against the ravages of the Rajapaksa Government. Others rushed to get Presidential appointments to unlawfully constituted commissions monitoring human rights, the police and the public service even as the 17th Amendment was being ruthlessly cast aside.

Preventing anarchy in our midst
We may therefore look forward to that great day where more and more apologies are delivered for actions that have ruined this country. Again only half satirically, we may also look forward to a collective cleansing in sack cloth and ashes appropriately perhaps on Galle Face Green as we lament what we have reduced ourselves to and the torment that we have subjected the majority and our minorities to.

Such a holistic healing may accomplish far more than all the draft Constitutions which we see floating around or indeed, the solemn adjudication of points of constitutional law that we are so adept at. Let us have a little homespun honesty even at this stage.

Perhaps then, ordinary Sri Lankans who remain caught in the vicious pincers of the utter collapse of our legal, social and economic systems may refrain from stoning our courts, our business places and our institutions when anarchy erupts. Or at least we may hope this to be the case.

Cheeky joke for Kshenuka

Posted by Sri Lanka Guardian | | Posted in , , ,

( October 19, 2014, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) More often than not, meetings of the National Security Council are on a serious note. Understandably so since the matters for discussion focus on issues relating to Sri Lanka’s security.

That is not to say that the sessions are always staid and boring. Last Wednesday, a top intelligence official prompted loud laughter.
When External Affairs Ministry Secretary Kshenuka Senewiratne walked in, the man covered his cheeks with his left and right hand. Even the EAM Secretary could not help but laugh.

The joke of course was the result of Sajin de Vass Gunawardena, Monitoring MP for the Ministry of External Affairs, allegedly slapping Sri Lanka High Commissioner to the UK, Chris Nonis during a dinner party in New Jersey.

Slap bang: Even the host now a ghost

The controversy over the Sajin Vass-Chris Nonis altercation on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly sessions last month is refusing to go off the spotlight.

Virtually all those who were at that dinner have been strongly advised to deny their presence in order to prevent even juicier tit-bits leaking out — besides the “thundering slap” at Nonis.

The widespread joke is that even the host is apparently denying he was present at his own dinner.

The Sunday Times, which perhaps had the most authentic version of the incident, asked a returning delegate whether he was present at the dinner. “Not to the best of my knowledge,” he said, amidst loud laughter as he dodged the question.

Courtesy: The Sunday Times

Taking Tamil Sovereignty through Sri Lankan Presidential Elections

Posted by Sri Lanka Guardian | | Posted in , , , ,

| by A.R.Arudpragasam 

Part II

Anchoring Sri Lanka on Her True Historical Foundation

( October 19, 2014, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) The mistakes of the Sinhalese leaders, since independence, originate from one basic false assumption that Sinhalese hold the historical title of ownership over all of Sri Lanka and Tamils are invaders and aliens. The historical falsification and misrepresentation that started with the dubious mandate of King Bhuvanegabahu VII of Kotte given to the Portuguese in 1543 taken further by the Siamese sect monks who were brought to Sri Lanka in 1753 to write the history of Sinhala Buddhists and subsequently by the British who invented the Aryan Sinhala race who brought civilisation to Sri Lanka from North India. 

These monks using old writings that were available in Sri Lanka refabricated the Mahavamsa substantiating their scheme to turn Sri Lanka into a Buddhist country when that religion has remained virtually dead for five centuries. The reason these monks have to be brought from Thailand was there were no monks in Sri Lanka who could read Pali in which language many historical works were written in Middle Ages. These works were based on Tamil writings of earlier period and were still available in the Kandyan Kingdom. 

It is the Dutch who first took interest in ancient history of various communities of Sri Lanka and wanted all communities to write their histories. Tamil history Yalapana Vaipavamaalai too was written during this period on the request of Dutch. The rehashing of Mahavamsa was completed by the Siamese sect monks between 1753 the year the Siamese monks were brought to Sri Lanka and 1761, which is where the copy handed to the British ends, claiming it be a continuing tradition of chronicle writing ancient times as found in European courts of royalties which it was not. These monks who came from Siam (Thailand) were not aware of any history of Sri Lanka but used the ancient chronicles and stories to rewrite and distort the history. The monks were not writing a history of Sri Lanka but the history of ‘Maha Vamsa, (the great lineage)’. 

The Aryan Twist

Two things which the monk say in the first stanza went unnoticed. These are, one they are writing for their ‘serene joy’ and the other they are modernizing the text by which they meant they are changing the text from beginning to the end the way they wanted it. In the process, the history of Tamil kings became Sinhalese kings, Tamil Buddhism became Sinhala Buddhism and Tamil civilisation became Sinhalese civilisation. 

British gave additional twist by claiming that civilisation to Sri Lanka was brought by the Aryan Sinhala race coming from North India and portrayed all the Tamils as invaders from South India seeking a barbaric kinship with the Sinhalese. The document was translated from Pali into English and became the authentic ancient history of Sri Lanka during the British period. The word Aryan appears twice in the Geiger’s translation of Mahavamsa.in both instances as footnote to the text.
In reality it was the Tamil Hindu Kingdom of Jaffna in the North, historically, that titled itself Aryan due to the Kalinga origin of its royalty and the southern kingdoms that came to be called Sinhalese kingdoms were resisting the Aryan influence upholding the Dravidian values originating from the Pandyan connection of the Southern sovereignty. 

The Siamese Twist and conflict with Tamils

When the tradition of Mahavamsa was started in the 5th century, there was no Pali or Sinhalese in Anuradhapura. It was originally written in Tamil and in Manipiravalar style where only the root letters are written without the dots and other markings is evident from the fact many of the names are transliterated fromTamil. For example take the name Velusumana. The word Velu is the spear of Lord Muruga. Putting the dot on the last letter na, the name becomes Velusumanan which is a Tamil name not found among Sinhalese but a Tamil name found among Tamils even today (Even Prabakaran was Velu for Many) . 

This proves the original document was written in Tamil and in Manipiravalar style as this style of writing could not have got into Mahavamsa which is the history of lineage Kings of Anuradhapura who were all Tamils. Subsequently it was translated into Pali in Polanaruwa which was used by the monks from Siam to rewrite it in the 18th century who were totally ignorant of history of ancient Buddhism in Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese translation of Mahavamsa appeared for the first time during early 20th century. It was unknown to the Portuguese and the Dutch who ruled the county for three hundred years before the British. 

The monks who rewrote Mahavamsa in the 18th centuary, were totally unaware of the history of Kingdom of Jaffna that ruled the whole of Sri Lanka for nearly four centuries from mid-13th century to the beginning of 17th century defending her from foreign aggression and caring for her people. The monks were brought to Sri Lanka from Siam by the Dutch only in the mid 18th centuary, 130 years after the fall of Kingdom of Jaffna.

The rehashed Mahavamsa completely obliterated the history of Tamil Buddhist heritage and Sinhala Hindu heritage from the history of Sri Lanka paving way for foisting the story of 2500 year history of Sinhala Buddhism that never existed in Sri Lanka. There is no connection between the present day Buddhism, whose beginning is traced to the coming of the Siamese sects, and the Tamil Buddhism of Anuradhapura and Polanaruwa which ended in the 13th century when there was no Sinhala language or Sinhala Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

Buddhism, when it was a vibrant religion on the Indian sub-continent was divided as southern tradition of Buddhism and northern tradition of Buddhism. The Buddhism that effectively ended in Polanaruwa belonged to Southern tradition of Buddhism. The Buddhism that came to be revived under the British was northern tradition of Buddhism coming from Siam and Burma. 

Some of these Siamese sect monks were beheaded by the Kandyan monarch for their conspiracy to kill the king, who was a Tamil Nayaker and a Hindu, attempting put in place a Thai prince as the king, who has come to Sri Lanka robed as a Buddhist monk along with other monks. The conspiracy was uncovered and led to the beheading of some of these monks which is the root cause of their anti-Tamil orientation and subsequent collaboration with the British in destroying the Kandyan kingdom The concessions given to them by the British in return, enabled them to burden the country with the revival of a dead religion, and occupy the seat of the sovereign of the Kandyan kingdom.

The Sinhala Hindu Dimension

What these monks have done since their arrival from Siam is, through falsification and misrepresentation, and through collaboration with foreign rulers, have thrown a blanket over all the Sinhala people who are Sinhala Hindus and are claiming all Sinhala Hindus as Sinhala Buddhists. Claiming there was Buddhism throughout Sri Lanka in ancient times, they have become the sole proprietors of historical rights of Sri Lanka. 

If the identity of Sinhala Hindus is reinstated by identifying the people whose primary deity are Deval Hindu gods like Katragama Deiyo, Natha, Pathni and Saman and other Sinhala Hindu deities, their percentage could be as high as seventy present of the so called Sinhala Buddhists. Of the five deities taken in procession in the Kandyan Perehara first four are Sinhala Hindu Deities. Only the last one is Sacred Tooth which was added in the later period. 

The collusion of the Monks with the British and subsequent falsification of history also created the situation that no Sinhalese can call himself a Hindu and no Tamil can call himself a Buddhist creating a permanent divide between Sinhala Buddhists and Tamil Hindus. British who love the principle of divide and rule helped the obliteration of the identity of Sinhala Hindus, as Sinhala Hinduism is non Brahaminical and follows the ancient Dravidian traditions of ritualism that continues even today. 

The Sacred tooth

By holding on to the Sacred Tooth supposed to be that of Buddha in Kandy, these foreign Buddhist sects violate the practice followed from time immemorial, that of keeping the sacred tooth in the capitol of Sri Lanka where the sovereign was located. By retaining the Sacred Tooth outside the seat of power, these sects remain outside sovereignty of Sri Lanka and they will continue to act like sovereign themselves and eventually their number will increase exponentially becoming a challenge to the government bringing chaos and downfall of governments which will beset the nation. 

The original Sacred Tooth was in Jaffna as that is where the sovereign was located when the Portuguese came to the island. The Portuguese removed it from Jaffna during the war in 1560 to India and destroyed it by putting it in a cannon, pounding it and blasting it in front of everyone. The one in Kandy subsequently appeared after the arrival of Siamese monks. But whether it is fake or real is not the issue. By tradition it should be placed in a place like Kotte Naga Vihara and not Kandy and that is the issue. 

Challenges of Buddhism

The historical falsification and misrepresentation initiated by the Siamese monks came to be politicized in the democratic process of independent Sri Lanka subordinating it to the chauvinistic agenda of realizing the dream of a Sinhala Buddhist state over all of Sri Lanka. This led to competition among Sinhalese politicians as to who is the better champion of the fascist ideal and the cancerous growth of the ‘Okkam Appe’ (everything is ours) mindset originating from falsified history. The disabilities and duplicities of the Sinhala leaders and their attempt to resolve the ethnic problem while refusing to recognize the territorial and self-rule rights of Tamil people originates from this historical falsehood. 

Unless this perpetuated historical mindset based on exaggerated claims and historical misconceptions to which the entire Sinhala race is hooked to, is dismantled, a settlement and permanent peace within a united Sri Lanka will remain a pipe dream. The other alternative is to banish the wrong footed Buddhist sects from the shores of Sri Lanka and ship them back to Thailand and Burma as it happened in the 12th century and revive the real Sri Lankan traditions of Buddhism that existed in Sri Lanka. 

Tamil Buddhist literature still exist. But we have lost the ability to read them. They exist in various monasteries and foreign libraries and private collections. It is written in Sinhalese script and in Manipiravalar style. If a genuine attempt is made it can be recovered. This can be the first step towards the revival of Tamil Buddhism.

The True History 

The metamorphosis of the Sinhalese language from Hela, Tamil. Sanskrit, Pail and Malayalam began in the 14th century in the territory of Kingdom of Kotte when the entire country was under the rule of Kingdom of Jaffna. It was not out of design a new language was created but by the natural process effected by the peculiar melting pot of ethnic composition of Kotte lasting over hundred years. It was a centre of spice trade with foreign countries where there was a preponderance of Malayalees, Arabs, Tamils and many other tribes and races giving raise to the new language.

The new language that evolved over a hundred year period between 13th and 14th centuries taking the script that was used to write all languages which has now become the Sinhalese script. This spread to parts of Kandyan kingdom known as Kantha Uda Pasratta in the fifteenth century. In the 14th century works were written in both Hela and Sinhalese. Subsequently Hela declines and dies.
In the rest of country including the Southern Province, Tamil was the dominant and official language. The Sinhalese language did not exist in Anuradhapura or Polanaruwa and there was no Sinhala Buddhism in either Anuradhapura or Polanaruwa. Tamil was the dominant developed vernacular language throughout Sri Lanka during this period, though it was written in the script which is now called Sinhalese script as well as other scripts. 

No king of Sri Lanka can be called a Sinhalese king. They all spoke Tamil and were all crowned as kings according Hindu traditions and followed the Hindu religion . Parakramabhahu VI (1412-1467) would not have named his daughter Ulakudayadevi, a pure Tamil version of the name, keeping away the Sanskritised version Lokamahadevi. All Prakramabahus were aligned to the continuing Pandyan lineage of the Sri Lankan sovereignty. 

There was neither Sinhala race nor Sinhala language during Dutthagamini’s period (161-137BC). Duttugamini is considered to be the hero of the Sinhala race because he defeated the Chola king Ellalan who ruled Anuradapura. Duttugamini’s father’s name was Kakka Vanna Theesan and chronicles add, ‘he so got the name as he was of the colour of the crow’, which was twisted as Kavantissa by falsifiers to hide his Tamil origins. Prabakaran was another Duttugamini fighting the Indian invasion. When did the Sinhalese ever fight the Indians? Duttugamini never fought the Sri Lankan Tamils.

The dominant language among the aboriginal people was Hela. There were many other dialects among aboriginal people. Sanskrit and Pali were unspoken scholarly languages. There was no Sinhala race without Sinhala language. So the story of the 2500 year history of Sinhala race and Sinhala Buddhist civilization is a superficial projection extending the 600 year history of the Sinhala language and race into antiquity appropriating all achievements of Tamil civilization as Sinhalese civilization. But the 600 year history of Sinhala race begins under the rule of the Kingdom of Jaffna that extended to another 200 years followed by 400 years of colonial rule before the new metamorphosis Sinhala Buddhist race finally grabbed power.in 1948 and lifted its ugly head. 

The New Foundation of Sri Lanka 

And it is clear there has to be a Tamil version of Sri Lankan history and a Sinhalese version of history. The current historical misrepresentation on which the Sinhala race is founded which is now the official version of Sri Lanka history that is taught in schools and universities has to be scraped and a new truthful history of Sri Lanka people written.. Both the Tamils and Sinhalese should sit together and rewrite the true history or agree to maintain the two versions, a Tamil version and a Sinhalese version as official version of history of Sri Lanka. The Tamil version can be taught in North East and Sinhalese version can be maintained in Sinhala Ratta. But what is objectionable is teaching of historical falsehood to Tamil children. 

The historical falsehood on which the independent Sri Lanka came to be erected is the cause that forced Sri Lanka down the path of misrule and oppression. The British idea of unitary state is anchored on the historical falsehood which determines the right perception of Sinhalese people will nerve lead to a peaceful and stable Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese people are civilised people who have lived peacefully under the rule of the Kingdom of Jaffna respecting the customs and traditions of the land.

The Sinhalese civilisation is more pristine Dravidian civilisation than Sri Lankan Tamil civilisation. The Sinhalese are not a barbaric people. British historiographical traditions perpetuated an illusion that civilisation to the world was brought by barbarians. The Sri Lankan historiography too suffered from this illusion. The notion Sinhalese are Aryans which came to be foisted during the British period led to the barbaric reduction of Sinhalese as people and enabled the barbaric alignment through constructive engagement with global barbaric forces leading to the genocidal crimes in the North East.

As governing traditions of Sri Lanka are rooted in civilizational values, the Sinhalese are unable to provide a just governance by comprehending and recognising the age old traditions and rights of Tamil people due to the disability resulting from the totalitarian historical mindset based on falsified history. 

Historical Influences of the Tamil Leadership

Similar disability besieges the Tamil leadership as well. As it was the Kingdom of Jaffna that has last held sway over all of Sri Lanka before the rule changing hand to the foreign powers, the sovereign tradition continue to influence the Tamil politics. Since independence, Tamil politics has been controlled by the Colombo based legal elite who had very little in common with the people in the homeland. When the political culture of the Sinhalese came under democratic pressures leading to a commoners political culture, the Tamil elite leadership refused to allow such a transformation in Tamil leadership, instead resorted to emotional extremism and confrontational politics to retain the people under their spell. 

The uncompromising stand arising from confrontational politics has characterised the Tamil politics in the politics of independent Sri Lanka. The only thing they are capable of engaging in after elections is to run to foreign embassies. The Tamil leadership to this day has demonstrated very little capacity to engage either with the Sinhala people or with their representatives in the parliament or Sinhala leadership but continued to stick to a legal platform as though Sri Lanka is under colonial rule, to overcome the problems faced by Tamil people caused by the surge of Sinhala nationalism. 

The Tamil leadership could not differentiate between the Supreme Court and the parliament where more than half the members are classed as thugs. Political process is different from legal process. The Tamil leadership continued with its colonial traditions and could not work out a scheme to deal with the transition and the new surge. 

British dumping the Tamils as minorities under a unitary constitution and usurpation of Sri Lanka by the Sinhala race through the abuse of parliamentary majority and the attempt to reduce the Tamils to second class status and the helplessness of Tamil leadership led to violent reaction from the Tamils. This resulted in a revolutionary shift in the content of the Tamil leadership. However, with global barbaric forces looking for ‘moderate’ leadership by which they look for amicable, empty headed, reactionary conservative elements who can easily be turned into dependent characters, there has been reversals and return to the old mode of confrontational politics exhibiting the same old weakness of the Tamil leadership. 


The true and heroic history of Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhalese together provides the nationalistic foundation of Sri Lanka. It is time Sinhalese and Tamils make an earnest effort to anchor Sri Lanka on her true historical foundation with its clear demarcation of . the two sovereign traditions. This will enable the building of a new nation based on the principle, Tamileelam belongs to Tamil people , Sinhala Ratta belongs to Sinhala people and Sri Lanka belongs to all Sri Lankans accommodating the sovereign experience both nations. 

Note: For further reading on the historical aspects of this article please refer to my book, The Missing Pages of Sri Lankan History- The Traditional Homeland of the Tamils. By A.R.Arudpragasam 

The author, who is forerunner of the Tamil armed struggle for liberation, has remained its guru and has led the struggle from behind from the beginning. He taught Prabakaran how to operate the AK and lectured him on the difference between terrorism and liberation struggle and wrote a novel Lanka Rani to explain that difference and brought forth a new generation of revolutionary leaders of Tamil people who have proved themselves in their service to the Tamil people. Though an engineer and scientist by training with an ideological underpinning anchored in Soviet democratic movement, the author is a founder member of the militant group EROS and the first freedom fighter to land in Sri Lanka in 1976 with a training with the PLO laying the foundation of the armed struggle for the liberation of Tamileelam. He became the coordinator of Committee for Eelam Liberation CEL in 1981 which brought together the six dominant groups of that period namely EROS, EPRLF, TELO,PLOTE,LTTE and NLFTE and has remained a common person to all the groups ever since. Orienting these groups towards democracy, it was in CEL that the decision to seek India’s help was made in 1982, which eventually led to India’s support to the armed struggle, Indian intervention in Sri Lanka in1987 and to the 13th Amendment and Provincial Council. A foremost scientist in the field of sustainable development, he served as the first head of the Research Division of the Chief Ministers Secretariat of the North East Provincial Council in Trincomalee and hold over two hundred inventions and runs a global NGO, Global Sustainability Initiative. Author of many scientific papers and theories and books among them, Constituted Democracy, Monetary Exploitation and the Missing Pages of Sri Lankan History – The Traditional Homeland of the Tamils, Theory of Global Rupture and Long term Projects for the Development of Northeast are some. He has three children among whom Maya Arulpragasam (MIA) is well known. He can be contacted by email:globesustain@gmail.com

New Book