Author: Branita

The head of Sri Lanka’s Catholic Church His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith on Tuesday called on the masses to respond at the appropriate time to the attempts being made to suppress the truth through intimidation.

“If Shehan Malaka did not go live on social media, the country would have never known that he was being forcefully taken away by a group in a white van. He had the courage to reveal this to the country,” said His Eminence.

He slammed the police over its conduct in arresting people adding that Sri Lanka Police must be present in uniform when making an arrest and must use a police jeep for such purpose.

“Police officers must read the charges against any accused when making an arrest,” he said adding that the Shehan Malaka was not arrested, but abducted in broad daylight.

His Eminence Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith termed such conduct as uncivilized and immoral, which is not suitable for a democratic community.

The Archbishop of Colombo also took a blow at the present Attorney General, noting that he is a public servant and NOT a political stooge.

He said the Attorney General who is expected to enforce the recommendations of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry that probed the 2019 Easter Sunday Attacks, is making attempts to arrest those who are calling for justice over the Terror Attacks.

“I request the people to understand the conspiratorial conduct of the government. Respond to it at the appropriate time,” he stressed.

He once again said that if the issues cannot be solved locally, he would not hesitate to make his appeal at an international level.

His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith held the government accountable for these events.

High Commissioner of Sri Lanka to South Africa, Siresena Amarasekara held several meetings with government officials of South Africa and envoys of countries accredited to South Africa to discuss the achievements made by Sri Lanka in matters on human rights, focusing on the upcoming UNHCR sessions and recognizing the importance of the African region where the countries have emerged as a cohesive group of nations.

He met High Commissioner of Namibia, Veiccoh K Nghiwete, Ambassador of Zimbabwe, D.D. Hamadziripi, High Commissioner of Malawi, Stella C. Hauya Ndau and Charge de Affair of Switzerland in South Africa, Veronique Haller, in this regard, the Sri Lanka High Commission said.

At these meetings, High Commissioner Amarasekara emphasized the importance of a domestic mechanism to resolve internal conflicts within the domestic socio-political environment, rather than an imposed mechanism by external parties.

He stated that the involvement of the external parties further complicates ethnic issues, rather than resolving them. The government of Sri Lanka has the authority, wish, and capacity to resolve it. But due to unwarranted external involvements, the government that resolves the problem has become the accused and is prevented from performing its task.

The High Commissioner further stated that after the conflict, the Government of Sri Lanka has done almost everything possible to provide relief to affected people. He also stated that due to unnecessary international pressure, the government is compelled to sacrifice its meager resources to play a defensive role. He said that if these international parties are genuinely interested in the issues of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka, they should support the government in its effort to provide relief to the affected. Encouraging the pressure groups to work with the government to find a solution is a duty of the countries that brought the resolution before the UNHRC, and assist to reduce the gap between different ethnicities in Sri Lanka, he said.

At these meetings, the High Commissioner explained that the word ‘accountability’ has no meaning if the responsible parties can’t correct the mistakes done by them and not serve the affected parties.  High Commissioner Amarasekara invited them to look into this problem from a wider perspective without depending on unfounded and fabricated narratives.

He further referred to Lord Naseby’s book and various articles written by him on the ethnic issue of Sri Lanka, revealing factually correct and impartial analysis. High Commissioner Amarasekara requested impartial African nations to encourage those parties who have been misled by biased information, to revisit the resolution against Sri Lanka with an open mind.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa through a Gazette (extraordinary) notification No. 2251/30 dated 26-10-2021 and No. 2252/56 dated 06/11/2021 established a ‘Presidential Task Force for One Country, One Law (OCOL)’, by virtue of the powers vested in the President by Article 33 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. The 13-member One Country One Law task force is headed by Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero.

The President’s Senior Assistant Secretary Jeevanthie Senanayake was appointed as the Secretary to the Presidential Task Force. The ‘Presidential Task Force for One Country, One Law’, is tasked with the study of the implementation of the concept; ‘OCOL’ within Sri Lanka and prepare a draft Act for the said purpose.

Lead Muslim civil society organisations and religious leadership wrote to the President expressing their deep concern and lack of confidence in the impartiality and competence of the Chairman of the Task Force to examine the issues involved and drafting relevant laws.

The findings of The Presidential Commission of Inquiry to investigate and inquire into and report or take necessary action on the bomb attacks on 21 April 2019 clearly indicate, that his speeches “contained without any doubt, hate speech” and further was of the view that part of the speeches made, can form the basis for a prosecution in terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act No. 56 of 2007. Moreover, they went on to recommend that the Attorney General considers filing charges against him; in view of which, the Muslim community is unconvinced that the purpose of the One Country One Law Task Force can be achieved by such an individual chairing this task force.

Sri Lanka is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious country. This diversity is reflected in its personal laws of minority groups and are protected under our Constitution. Whilst there is no question that there must be uniformity in the application of the general, civil and criminal law (Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, etc.), personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and succession, are matters that properly fall within the purview of personal laws. The Muslim community has enjoyed the benefits of these personal laws (whether codified or not) since time immemorial; from the time of the Sri Lankan Kings to date, more than 1,000 years in existence.

These personal laws have never infringed on the rights of other communities, whilst being protected by the Constitution of Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. The culmination of a One Country One Law, which seeks to abolish personal laws (Thesawalamai, Kandyan, and Muslim) of all communities, will merely be a cause for contention amongst communities and not a cause of harmony. Undoubtedly, there is an urgent need for reform of these laws but not a need for it to be abolished.

The Muslim community vehemently opposes any attempt to abolish its personal laws in the guise of implementation of the “One Country One Law” concept, and are convinced that 98% of the Muslim community will stand in solidarity, in emphatically opposing the elimination of all personal laws, especially the Muslim Personal Laws of Sri Lanka.

Regretfully, some Muslims had been coaxed in to submitting proposals to the task force to abolish the Muslim Personal Laws (MPL). Some of them have complained of personal experiences of injustice, corruption and prejudice of certain Quazis, hence the Muslim Personal Laws should be repealed. MPL has been in existence since the Dutch period and was called the Mohammedan code that addresses the Muslim marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. These laws have religious and cultural foundations that conform to the Islamic faith.

The betrayal by certain Muslims with vested interests caused a huge uproar amongst the Muslim community. Muslim activists started a signature campaign to protest the possible repeal of the Muslim Personal laws. So far over 50,000 protesting signatures have been delivered to the Presidential Task Force Secretariat from across the country and is expected to increase to at least 75,000 within the next few days. Many Muslims have called upon the Task Force not to repeal but reform the Muslim Personal Laws that respects gender equality and justice conforming to international standards while preserving Quranic injunctions.

There may be individuals who are corrupt in the quazi system, but the majority of them are honourable persons. They have acceptance by the community and are appointed by the Judicial Service Commission. As we all know, there have also been quite a few allegations against the judiciary and was a hotly debated subject with the recent imprisonment of Parliamentarian Ranjan Ramanayake. No one has called for repeal of the justice system because of various allegations. Corruption, nepotism and political bias has encompassed every level of Sri Lankan society. A few individuals not conforming to norms is no reason to repeal any law.

The Quazi system certainly needs reforms and the Muslim community has already submitted its proposals to the Minister of Justice that calls for the Quazi system to be upgraded, suitable persons recruited, appointment of female Quazi, a private place to conduct proceedings and various other constructive recommendations.

The Quazi system is a judicial body with personnel appointed by the Judicial Services Commission. Appeals lie with the Board of Quazis and then to the Supreme Court. The primary role of a Quazi is to mediate and reconcile marriages in conflict based on the Quran and Islamic jurisprudence.

This legal system is a complex mixture of laws. Dutch colonial administrators codified the rules of inheritance, marriage and divorce in order to facilitate the application of Muslim family law. This Code was adapted by the British in 1799. The British later enacted the Registration of Muslim Marriages Ordinance in 1896 repealing parts of the Dutch Code. The other important piece of legislation relating to Islamic family law is the Muslim Intestate Succession Ordinance of 1931 which is still in force. The 1896 Ordinance was later abolished and the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA) was enacted in 1951, which essentially reinforces the principle that, in matters of personal status, the rights and duties of the parties involved are to be determined by the religious school of laws to which the parties belong.

The Muslim community has been intimidated into silence since the fateful Easter Sunday bombing of 21/4/2019 due to the involvement of a few Muslims by name. This tragedy branded the 2.1 million Muslims as terrorists. The community did not recognise the bombers as Muslims and were not even given an Islamic funeral. Pushing the entire community to the wall by vested interests may have far reaching consequences leading to despair and radicalisation of Muslim youth. Many are losing faith in the Sri Lankan nation and are endeavouring to migrate.

Sri Lanka needs equitable justice through its judiciary while recognising the inalienable rights of minorities in a multi ethnic, multi religious, multicultural and multilingual communities that form the Sri Lankan nation. These vibrant colours form the Sri Lankan nation that should flourish.

A survey conducted by the Colombo-based  Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) in September-October 2021, found that while the majority of Sri Lankans were wedded to the principle of elections, they were also hankering for “a strong leader who is not inconvenienced by elections.”

An overwhelming majority (92.2%) were in support elections as a way of choosing the rulers. However, 75% favored a strong leader. From an ethnic perspective it was mostly respondents from the Sinhala and Tamil communities who said that there should be a strong leader who did not have to worry about elections. Up Country Tamils and Muslims  opposed the strong leader principle.

Exactly half of the respondents (50.3%) were of the opinion that more powers should be given to parliament by reducing the powers of the President.

An overwhelming majority (87.4%) said that all major decisions that concerned the country should be taken by experts rather than politicians. Nationally, a majority of respondents (60.7%) were of the view that there should be more experts as opposed to politicians in the government.

There appeared to be overwhelming support for the military as a result of its efforts to mitigate the COVID-19 crisis in the country. However, when asked as to whether the country should be governed by the military, a substantial majority (70.8%) said “no”.

There was however considerable support in the military handling public affairs at a time of crises. This view was held particularly by the Sinhala community (60.5%), as opposed to those from the minorities (Tamils 30.5%, Up Country Tamils 30.2% and Muslims 25.2%).

On giving decision-making powers to religious leaders, a majority of respondents (76.3%) disagreed that major decisions should be taken by religious leaders.

A majority of respondents (64.1%) said that it is unlikely that during its term in office, the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government would lift the country from the economic crisis it has been in.

There appears to be a certain degree of skepticism about the government’s plans to bring about a new constitution. Nearly 40% were of the view that a new constitution was unlikely.

Fertilizer Question

A majority of respondents (72.1%) were of the opinion that even though chemical fertilizers are not good for one’s health, until a viable solution is found, chemical fertilizers should continue to be used to some extent. Only 23% of the respondents were of the view that chemical fertilizers must be completely stopped, immediately.

Foreign Investment

Nearly 45% of the respondents felt that the government should allow foreign companies to invest in the country, as an increase in trade would benefit everyone. But 37.5% said that due to exploitative practices of foreign companies, the government should not allow foreign investment in the country.

On household income, a significant proportion of respondents (75.1%) indicated that their household income got worse. This is felt most among the Up Country Tamil community (63.6%) which indicated a drop in income. A significant majority of respondents (58.8%) from the Up Country Tamil community indicated that their political party affiliations resulted in their being unfairly treated when receiving government subsidies.

Ethnic Relations

Nearly 48.6% were of the view that their association with persons from other ethnic groups had remained the same when compared to what it was two years ago. Nearly 30% of the respondents claimed that it had got worse. Up Country Tamils (47.3%) and Muslims (40.5%) reported that inter-ethnic relations had got worse.

Nearly 37% of the respondents believed that freedom to criticize the President and other political leaders had decreased, whilst nearly 32% of the respondents claimed that it had remained the same. Muslims (51.9%), Up Country Tamils (51.5%) and Tamils (50.3%) claimed that there had been a decline in the level of freedom to criticize the President and other political leaders when compared to what it was during the previous government.

Muslims (50.4%) and Up Country Tamis (56.6%) and Tamils (45.3%) said that it had become difficult to criticize the military. Only 25.3% of the Sinhalese felt so.

Whilst a majority of respondents (58.2%) were of the view that the government would maintain good foreign relations, nearly one third of the respondents indicates that the government would not. From those who indicated that the government would not maintain successful foreign relations, it was mostly respondents from the Muslim community (40.2%) who held this view.