Conscienceless fabrication no impediment to hold public office?

The Diary of Terror – Part 13 – February 18, 2010

By Sri Lankan Human Rights Watch

(February 18, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) A group of security staff for the retired General Sarath Fonseka, who was the common candidate in the last presidential election,were released by a magistrate yesterday (17th February) as there was no evidence against them to hold them in detention any further. They were arrested on the 27th of January while the election results were being counted. A large military contingent of soldiers was sent to guard the hotel where the opposition political leaders were gathered to follow the election results. The government mounted a highly publicized campaign with photographs of soldiers surrounding the hotel and broadcasted the news that the government had come to know of a conspiracy hatched by Sarath Fonseka, together with a continent of army deserters and others, with the view to assassinate the president and his family.

This story was aired repeatedly by television, radio and the print media. The group of Fonseka supporters were arrested were treated as part of this alleged assassination plot. This story was further reinforced by official government spokesmen that included ministers, members of parliament, and other officials from the government through the media. Many interviews were conducted from among the viewers, asking for their reactions over such a plot. Often, the interviewees were carefully selected from among the government supporters. Their statements, often couched in very provocative language, were repeatedly publicized. An overwhelming impression was created that there was in fact a plot to assassinate the president and his family. The government media did not give publicity to the statement by Sarath Fonseka and others who denied and dismissed these allegations.

There can be hardly any doubt that such propaganda about the assassination plot was carried out with the knowledge of the president, the Secretary of Defense and other important ministers of the government. The open propaganda was continued for several days and there was no attempt by any of these highest officers of the government to stop it or declare that it was not the truth.

The arrest of many persons reinforced the propaganda about the assassination story. These persons were arrested by Criminal Investigation Division and detained in the notorious fourth floor of the CID headquarters. Very little access was given to the families and the lawyers of these detainees.

Now, it is quite clear that the entire story was a fabrication and that the spokesman who spoke about this incident to the media in fact have propagated a completely false and provocative story. It is also very clear that that entire exercise was carried out with the full knowledge of the highest authority in the country.

What then is the position of the law in Sri Lanka on such deliberate propagation of an absolutely false story, attributing a commission of a grave crime? The damage such propaganda can do to any individual citizen cannot be exaggerated.

Are there no legal and moral consequences for such actions within the Sri Lankan system? Does not the president, as the highest officer, and all others who hold high positions, have a duty to refrain from such behavior and, where they fail to do so, to face responsibilities for such actions? In any society that still maintains decent moral standards, will those who have engaged in such an activity be deserving of holding of any public office?