But in his editorial titled “Getting Gota” this is what the Editor of the Daily FT does shamelessly and without a hint of decorum expected of a senior journalist.
He writes that “For the nationalists and chauvinist elements within the majority community, he [President Gotabaya Rajapaksa] remains a war hero who significantly contributed to the defeat of terrorism.”
We wonder and question, do you mean to say that for the minority communities of Sri Lanka the defeat of terrorism is not a cause to celebrate the leaders who led the drive to eradicate terrorism from these lands, as heroes? Because when you say that for the “rest” we would like to know explicitly who you mean, do you mean the Tamil Diaspora around the world who refuse to accept the terrorism done in their name? or the political elements within the country who is working day and night to keep alive the rift between the Sinhalese and Tamils so as to safeguard their votes?
We further ask the esteemed editor what he means when he talks of the “the country’s inability to meaningfully confront allegations surrounding those who occupy positions of power has become one of the defining failures of the post-independence State, especially since the insurrection of 1971.” Yes, we agree that this country has seen its fair-share of violence but has progressed through it, with a viable and vibrant democratic process. No country is perfect, but we have seen elections at regular intervals especially since the election of the leftist SLPF government in 1994 under Her Excellency Chandrika Bandaranayake Kumaratunga, and people voting in and out leaders based on their perception of right and wrong. And at each of these junctures there has been many investigations and judicial proceedings to identify and prosecute wrongdoings. But one much realize that allegations are one thing, but prosecution of a case to the satisfaction of the judiciary is a whole another ball game. Or is the editor suggesting that our judiciary is not up to the task?
For instance, you talk of Lasantha Wickrematunge. It is true that for years “there has been allegations and suspicions circulated in public discourse regarding the involvement of a military intelligence unit loyal to Rajapaksa, including claims made by journalists, investigators, and members of Wickrematunge’s family.” But in this age of propaganda, dis-and-mis information, allegations alone are not enough. Public discourse in a society like ours, where partisan political agendas and emotions trump the truth and critical thinking is not evidence.
No court has “no court has established Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s responsibility” not because “accountability has remained elusive” but because no court has been presented with evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt the so-called claims you mention.
Or we ask you again, do you mean to say that our judicial process is flawed and incompetent?
The learned journalist then suggest that “leaders of the Yahapalana regime, who cut numerous deals with the Rajapaksa’s walked away free souls after their defeat in 2019” forgetting that if these Yahapalana regime had any shred of evidence which were to put not just Gotabaya but any of the Rajapaksa’s, they would have used it to not be defeated in 2019.
So, while the editor writes “Investigators, prosecutors, and journalists associated with sensitive cases later found themselves facing pressure and criticism” he does so without presenting a shred of evidence to substantiate his or the claims of investigators, prosecutors, and journalists he speaks of.
That is, He is contributing to the pool of propaganda and disinformation to which others of his caliber has done so before.
It is true that “Today, renewed scrutiny surrounding questions of accountability, including over responsibility connected to the Easter Sunday attacks, has again placed Gotabaya under the magnifying glass.” But did you stop to question why and how these allegations were systematically introduced to the society and public perceptions were crafted? Was it a political narrative that has led us here or an evidence-based examination?
Take the two most prevalent topics tied to this in public discourse today.
The detention of former CNI and DMI Major General Suresh Sally
The Rit petition by Gotabaya Rajapaksa requesting an order preventing the CID from detaining him by way of a Detention Order (DO under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA))
In both cases public is not made aware that the purpose of the PTA is to “prevent” terrorism. It is not a tool for investigating acts already committed. This why the PTA empowers the executive branch and not the judiciary to issue Detention Orders (DO’s).
Sometimes – or most of the time when it’s about terrorism – there is not enough evidence to satisfy the laws of the land in a court of law prior to an attack. Therefore, most democratic states – including the United States – make use of preventive tools to detain a suspect or suspects and by doing so prevent an attack from happening while the investigators can uncover the full story with suitable evidence so the prosecution can happen in the judiciary.
For Sri Lanka a great hypothetical use of the PTA would have been had the, then CID SDIG or Director along with the Defense Secretary and President had worked to issues DOs against Zaharan Hashim and the lot and prevented the Easter Sunday attacks when actionable intelligence was provided by the foreign intelligence services of India and France.
Key to remember is that the threshold of evidence required for a PTA based DO is much much much lower than the threshold of evidence needed to establish a case in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, there is no requirement really for a DO other than a suspension. In the case of the perpetrators of the Easter Sunday attacks there was much more than that but the Yahapalanaya government and the current so-called investigators of Sally’s and Gota’s involvement failed to make use of the PTA for the purpose it was design for.
What both Sally and Gota is asking the supreme court to do is to prevent them from being arrested – in the case of Sally to be released from detention – under the DO issued from the executive branch – a political element.
What they are saying is if there is evidence, actual evidence which can stand the scrutiny of a court of law, by all means, present the evidence to the judiciary and then let a judge and jury make determinations about it.
The Daily FT editor is correct; accountability and law cannot and should fluctuate “on which coalition is in office or whether a case remains politically useful.”
“If there is evidence, it must be investigated independently. If wrongdoing is established, there must be consequences. If allegations cannot be substantiated, that too must be made clear.”
But he is wrong because he concludes by contradicting his own claim and acting as a judge by stating “Gotabaya Rajapaksa must face his crimes and, his victims, either dead or alive, must be delivered justice.”
Every person in the eyes of the law is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law not by public perception or by editorial propaganda.
This right is enshrined in Article 13(5) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, which explicitly states “(5) Every person shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty.” The burden to prove the guilt falls on the state not on the person who is accused. This is a right the Supreme court has upheld over and over.
So, it is the persecution – that is the Attorney General of this land - who must take this case in front of a judge or panel of judges and deliver justice not a news paper journalist.
Written in response to : https://www.ft.lk/ft_view__editorial/Getting-Gota/58-793639