| by Tisaranee Gunasekara
“The elephant is crashing about in
the room, trampling people to death, and politely ignoring it is no longer an
option”.
AC Grayling (To Set Prometheus Free)
( December 23, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) One year ago, at a resort in the
Rajapaksa-heartland of Tangalle, a British tourist was murdered and his Russian
companion brutalised.
The crime was heinous; and inane,
given the priority Colombo
accords to tourism as a money-spinner and employment-generator. A visibly efficient
investigation, a manifestly fair trial and a demonstrably just verdict were
thus necessary both for moral-ethical and
economic reasons. Yet, a year later, the Kharum Shaik murder case has reached
an impasse.
Simon Danczuk, the MP for Rochdale (the locality of Mr. Shaik’s home) has made an
extremely serious allegation: “The
deputy high commissioner has told me he fears that ‘political interference’ is
stopping justice taking its course where Khuram’s killing is concerned. Despite
assurances from the Government that there would be a swift and a straight
forward trial this is going nowhere and ministers and police are sitting on
their hands” (Manchester Evening News
– 20.12.2012).
Mr. Danczuk also expressed fear that
Lankan government may attempt to “quietly
drop the case to protect a local politician” (ibid). His misgivings are logical, given the identity of the main suspect
(the man who allegedly chased an injured Mr. Shaik, repeatedly attacking him
until he collapsed, according to eye witnesses): Sampath Chandrapushpa,
chairman of the Tangalle Pradesheeya Sabha and Rajapaksa loyalist.
Lankan police are quite efficient – and
very obedient. The men who pistol-whipped Justice Manjula Tilakaratne at a busy
junction in broad daylight remain free for the same reason that the murderers
of Lasantha Wickremetunga or Joseph Pararajasingham are not behind bars. Those who
tried to attack Gunaratne Wanninayake and shot at the house of Wijedasa
Rajapaksa will not be apprehended for the same reason the white vans can ply their
horrific trade unhindered. The police may not have been so circumscribed in
fulfilling their duties, had the 17th Amendment got off the ground,
and the Independent Police Commission became a living reality. But post-18th
Amendment, no policeman can afford to really investigate certain types of crimes
and act against a certain tribe of suspects, without risking his job – or
worse.
Tiger Justice and Rajapaksa Justice
In the not so long ago days, when
Tiger courts dispensed Tiger justice in Tiger-controlled areas, Tiger leader
Vellupillai Pirapaharan appointed a Tiger chief justice. The 32 year old Tiger
CJ ‘Oppilan’ (that was his nom-de-guerre;
he refused to divulge his real name), was neither a lawyer nor an academic. In
an interview he explained why a man untutored in law and lacking in academic
distinction was placed at the apex of the nascent Tiger judiciary: “The LTTE
has appointed me as Chief Justice because of my experience,” (The Sunday Times - 27.2.2005).
Translate that statement into
ordinary language and the reason for the appointment becomes clear. The Tigers
wanted a judiciary which ignored natural justice and dispensed Tiger justice. The
Tigers needed a chief justice who would hound Tiger opponents and justify Tiger
crimes. The killers of Rajini Rajasingham Thiranagama, Appapillai Amirthalingam
or Neelan Tiruchelvam would have never been found guilty by Tiger courts –
because according to Tiger law they were traitors deserving of death.
The Tiger law was thus two laws: one
law for Vellupillai Pirapaharan and his supporters and another law for his
opponents. The Tiger judiciary was iniquitous and unjust not just
conjuncturally but structurally, because its basic premises were protecting
Tiger supporters, punishing Tiger opponents and promoting Tiger interests.
Rajapaksa
justice is no different.
In his speech at the Institute of Chartered Accountants, President
Rajapaksa claimed that when he first heard about the alleged wrongdoings of
Pradeep Kariyawasam, he took immediate steps to cover things up. When an ‘Ape Miniha’ (Our Man) does something
wrong, the President pronounced, the proper response is to ‘quietly cover it
up’: “With difficulty I covered it up;
shaped it; that is how it is done; for ‘Our Man’; so it was shaped”.
If the leader of a self-respecting
country proclaimed that he believes in two types of justice, one for his
supporters and one for his opponents, his words would have generated a societal
uproar. Not in Sri Lanka.
It is significant that the President made this speech not to the likes of
Mervyn Silva but to Chartered Accountants. (Was the President signalling how accountants
should do their job, if they want to avoid trouble?) Despite the horrendous
nature of the Presidential pronouncement, none of the professionals present expressed
any disquiet, even afterwards. Their blasé attitude was repeated across most of
the rest of Lankan society. Are we becoming inured to Rajapaksa justice?
President’s earth-shatteringly
outrageous statement is explanation enough for the state of the Kharum Shaik
case. The chief suspect, Sampath Chandrapushpa, is indubitably an ‘Ape Miniha’. Therefore he is a protected
species in Rajapaksa Sri Lanka and his crimes will be ‘covered up’ and ‘shaped
up’. (The AG’s Department was brought under presidential control and the
independent police commission turned into a presidential appendage precisely to
enable such deeds). Had Mr. Chandrapushpa killed a fellow Lankan, he would never
have been arrested. Since his alleged victim was a British citizen, appearances
had to be maintained, until the murder became day-before-yesterday’s news.
Pradeep Kariyawasam was a protected
species so long as his wife, the CJ, did not impede the Rajapaksa juggernaut.
The moment the CJ decided to abide by the constitution rather than by Rajapaksa
dictates, he ceased being a protected species. Just as Rajapaksa justice
entails protecting Rajapaksa supporters it also entails hounding Rajapaksa
opponents.
The
Rajapaksas want a judiciary which will mete out Rajapaksa justice, not some of
the time but all the time. Enabling this future is the real purpose of
impeachment. To achieve this end, the Rajapaksas are pushing Sri Lanka on to
the brink of an unprecedented constitutional crisis, pitting their
tame-legislature against the judiciary and forcing their parliamentary-serfs to
violate the law. As the Appeal Court warned on Friday, “This court is of the
view that any steps taken in furtherance of the findings and/or the decision
contained in the report of the 2nd and the 8th Respondents
marked P17 would be void if this court after the hearing of this application
issues a writ certiorari to quash the said findings and/or the decision of the
PSC, therefore the relevant authorities should advise themselves not to act in
derogation of the rights of the petitioner until this application is heard and
concluded since any decision regarding these proceedings to alter the status
quo may lead to chaotic situation”.
Marx and Engles stated that under capitalism
“All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at
last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life…” (The Communist Manifesto). In their
single-minded pursuit of power, the Rajapaksas too are vaporising what was
solid and profaning what was holy. As Sri Lanka reaches the brink of an
unfamiliar precipice, will we have the sober sense to face the real conditions
(and consequences) of Rajapaksa rule? Or will we prefer keep our eyes closed
and walk on?
Subscribe Us
