That the image of the Police Department, one of the main instruments that extend the Government's writ countrywide, had hit a new low was cause for serious public concern this week.
It was of even bigger concern to President Mahinda Rajapaksa. He was incensed that it came as a bad reflection on his Government. It had only three months ago militarily defeated the Tiger guerrillas. The Police were shareholders in this victory and won public acclaim together with their major stakeholders. Now, the conduct of a few errant officers was not only eroding public confidence but also faith in the Government. It not only highlighted the unbridled arrogance of the unruly in uniform but also the devastatingly deafening silence and attempts at cover-up by those in the gazetted ranks.
At Angulana, it is alleged, two youth cast teasing remarks at a woman in a shanty. She telephoned the officer-in-charge of the police station, said to be a regular visitor to her wooden abode. The youth were bundled into a jeep, taken to the police station, assaulted and thrust into the remand cell. They were reeling with the excruciating pain on their bodies some hours later. Then a group of police officers walked in and plucked them out. Hours later, their bullet-riddled bodies lay on the road near the Angulana railway station. It is alleged that the police officers were all stone drunk. The OIC and several constables are now in remand custody.
 |
| Agony of Angulana: Residents protesting after the killing of two youths |
Since the matter is now before Courts, it would be sub judice to discuss details. In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment," means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court. Cursorily the incident could pass off as just another instance of Police brutality.
Nevertheless, Angulana, is an eye opener in many respects. It lays bare some disturbing trends in a society increasingly driven by fear and mistrust of the Police. It also brings out the pluses and the minuses of today's media.
Slum dwellers who were the victims at Anuglana are a poorer section of society. Barring a few underworld characters there, most lacked political patronage or influence. Soon after they found the bullet riddled bodies of the two youth, they blocked trains along the southern coastal line. They staged demonstrations. Some groups even attacked the police station. That is how they drew attention to an act of injustice, the brutal murder of two of their fellow mates allegedly by the very men tasked to protect them. This is for exercising their liberty, like all other citizens, to resort to light hearted banter.
On the plus side, the media played their 'watch dog' role in reporting the protests and the causes that triggered it. That was how the incident came into public focus without being hushed up. The New Media in the form of 'breaking news' (via sms texts on mobile phones) as well the traditional tv, radio, and print did their duty well despite a difficult climate. This drew the attention of Government leaders. The Police hierarchy came under pressure and the wheels of justice, creaky and tardy earlier, began to roll.
The minus side for the media, sad enough, is the rapidly vanishing breed of crime reporters. In the years past, there were many who specialised in these rounds by building contacts from a police constable through sergeants, OICs, Assistant Superintendents, Superintendents and above. They were even familiar with the underworld and became the last word in matters of crime. Some media recognised their work as showpieces when they reproduced decades later the renowned crime stories and how police busted them.
To name a few - The Turf Club robbery and murder in 1950, the Alfred Soysa - Kalattawa murders and the tragedy of Adelene Vithana. However, in the decades that followed, there had been multiple murder cases and damning daylight robberies but they remain less documented. Consequently, the public remain relatively less informed.
Then, the wide knowledge and expertise of those crime reporters helped keep the public well informed about crime. In return, it helped the Police in their preventive work. Today, however, most turned to the Police Spokesman for a comment, be it a petty theft, a traffic offence, a big heist or multiple murders. That seemed an easy way out. The spokesman not only became the lone voice of the Police but also sent out orders to all their divisions that no officer should speak to the media except him.
Police Spokesman Ranjith Gunasekera, (on leave prior to retirement from this week) created history after the Angulana incident by announcing something neither the investigators nor a magistrate was then aware of. He told the media that the youth killed were involved in drugs. It took several hours for this Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), the only official mouthpiece of the Police Department, to say later that it was not so and some of his junior colleagues had erred in their conduct. His misleading initial remarks reminded one of the pithy Sinhala axioms. It spoke of how a man who fell from a tree being gored by a bull. That only added insult to injury for the slum dwellers.
It is a well known fact that Spokesman or Spokespersons are in fact 'defence counsel' for the organisations they represent. In the Police, their role appears undefined. Making the situation worse is the growing absence of crime reporters who, in a sense, played the role of 'prosecutors' by placing some facts before the people so they could both discern and decide. Today, more and more find the easy way out by turning to the spokesman and not engaging in their own pursuits. The losers are not only the public, but also the Government.
Naturally, stories of politicians felling trees in forest reserves, kasippu (illegal intoxicating brews) outlets raided by Police in various divisions, the spread of drug addiction in towns and villages, brothels doing lucrative business among others, undertaken by OICs of stations become rare. Unlike the Army, Navy and the Air Force, the Police force is identified as a Department in view of its civilian nature. There is no doubt there is a need for a spokesman for the Police to delve on matters of policy and subjects at a headquarter level.
However, to silence all other officers, particularly those engaged in crime prevention and tasks concerning the civil population is to sever the links the Police want to improve with the public. On the one hand, it denies to the Government reports from the ground level about crime and other activity. On the other, it denies to honest police officers an opportunity to inform the public of their achievements through detections.
In the past, these achievements reported in the media helped them in their promotions. It also won them public recognition. What is required, therefore, is to allow officers at the divisional or station level the right to speak out about their own sphere of activity. This was done in the past and the media remained the link between the public and the police. During that period, only those who exceeded their brief and violated orders to maintain secrecy over some internal matters were taken to task.
In every country where a Police service operated, stations liaised with the media in their area to maintain public contact. This was how they tracked down most wanted men. This was how they got their leads to solve cases and make arrests. This is how they declared they were on the look out for suspects and gave their descriptions. This was how they showed the world that they were doing a good job. It was so in Sri Lanka too, until a Police spokesman became the single voice of the Police and their stations countrywide.
Last week, the Sunday Times ran a news report about poor parents forcing their children to beg during school holidays. The story was at the behest of a responsible official at the Women and Children's Bureau. The official concerned did not want to be identified. The reason: "I don't want to get pulled up by the Police Spokesman. Only he is authorised to speak to the media." Another frustrated official in the same department declared yesterday, "They want us to remain mum whilst we protect the rights of women and children. To speak to the media in the pursuit of our work would be a punishable offence. How do we perform our job?"
Six days before the Angulana incident, there was another disturbing event involving the Police. A student of the Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology (SLIIT) in Malabe was abducted at gunpoint over a personal feud with a colleague, the son of a senior Police official. It has transpired during Police investigations that the former Colombo Crime Division (CCD) chief Vas Gunawardena's wife, Shymalie, her son Ravindu and a group of policemen were allegedly involved in the incident. SSP Gunawardena has since been transferred to Police Headquarters. The mother and son were remanded until August 31. Eleven police officers and home guards from the CCD are also in remand. Here again, the matter is sub judice.
Senior Police officials claim the investigators are yet to establish any direct link between SSP Gunawardena and the incident. Hence, no charges have been preferred against him so far. This is the second time he has figured in a similar case. On the previous occasion, when he was in a junior capacity at the Mount Lavinia division, he was the subject of a high-level inquiry following a complaint by a VVIP lady. The matter was to go before courts. However, it was resolved by the intervention of an influential personality who approached the lady. Charges were dropped.
In the wake of the Malabe incident, there was more controversy generated after the CCD claimed it had recovered a van loaded with 20 claymore mines in Mannar. With sections of the Police claiming that the attack on the SLIIT student was a case of "mistaken identity," arising out of the probe into the claymore mine case, doubts were cast whether the detection was a diversion.
President Rajapaksa summoned Police Chief Jayantha Wickremaratne and his deputies for a conference at ‘Temple Trees’ last Monday where he told Lewke, a one time Commandant of the Police Special Task Force (STF), “You are not a politician or a Police spokesman to say such things. If you had anything to say, you should have said that to the IGP.”
It goes to show how the ultra-sensitive powers-that-be want a sanitised version of the facts given to the public.
The two incidents involving the Police came in the backdrop of reports of the deaths of several notorious criminals. Opposition politicians have charged that the Government had ordered the Police to carry out extra judicial killings. There were fears that some police officers had taken a cue from the Government's purported request to get tough with all and sundry; that it was an open licence for them to do as they pleased; that a Police Raj has been established.
The country's premier legal body, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), in a statement expressed its "shock and horror over the numerous instances of police brutality against unarmed civilians, in particular the killing of two youth at Angulana last week and the violent attack on a young student of the IT campus in Malabe"
"The Bar Association calls upon the Government to take immediate steps to prevent the recurrence of such acts of brutality and violence and urges the Attorney General, the Secretary Ministry of Defence and the Inspector General of Police to take all necessary steps to ensure compliance with the due process of the law in bringing those responsible before the appropriate Court."
The Organisation of Professional Associations of Sri Lanka said it "strongly condemns the atrocities committed by Police Officers and urge the authorities concerned to contain this unfortunate trend."
Recognising snowballing criticism at the Police, the Government sensed it was burdened with the vicarious responsibility for what some errant Police officers were doing. Both President Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickremanayake declared they would brook no nonsense from the Police if they violated the law. They vowed to deal with miscreants however high their positions were. Though their assurances are genuine, doubts remain about the extent to which the Government could go to deal with Police brutality, corruption and other misdeeds.
The Independent Police Commission set up among other matters to enforce discipline and decide on postings for senior officers is now defunct. The Government has not named members after the terms of office of the previous incumbents expired. President Rajapaksa is known to have repeatedly kept telling his Cabinet Ministers "what's the use of me being the President if I can't appoint the OIC for Tangalla". That's the mood in the highest levels of Government viz-a-viz the 17th Amendment and the re-activation of the Independent Police Commission. As a result, most Government politicians have been successful in having their own favourites and loyalists appointed to serve in their electorates. Those who have been regarded as 'irritants' or 'not loyal' have been given marching orders to 'punishment stations'.
Getting tough with policemen when both Presidential and Parliamentary elections are around the corner is no easy task. No Government in power could win elections after antagonising the Police. Hence, the public at large would have to endure the evil whilst praying for better times. The unseen benefit here, however, is the judiciary where judges and magistrates have been bold enough to identify the wrong doers, (the main but often unfulfilled task of the Police), and order the Police to arrest them. In other words the judiciary has courageously taken over the role of the Police to deliver justice to the public.
President Rajapaksa who talked tough to senior Police officials this week proved again that when it comes to public relations, he had no rival. Nearly two and half months back the widow of UNP top runger from Matale, the late Alick Aluvihare had written to President Rajapaksa thanking him for sending a wreath for her husband's funeral. She had also taken the liberty of inviting him for the third month alms giving on August 16 though she did not believe the President would attend. She thought she was extending a mere courtesy. However, it turned out to be otherwise.
Last Sunday, a pirith ceremony was under way at the Aluvihare household in the village in Matale that goes by the same name. It was nearing its end, when Pujitha Jayasundera, DIG (Central Province) turned up. He was not in uniform. He said a VIP was due and he had come there to oversee security. Moments later, those present at the Aluvihare household heard or saw an Air Force helicopter overhead but they were not sure who was on board and where it was headed.
The helicopter touched down at the Aluvihare playground. When the President turned up at the alms giving, those present were caught by surprise. In his inimitable fashion, when it came to the dhaney, Rajapaksa partook in the meal. He sat in a room that was hardly arranged and ate from the plate in his hand. Late Aluvihare's son, Ranjith invited UNP deputy leader Karu Jayasuriya, stalwarts Tissa Attanayake and S.B. Dissanayake to join Rajapaksa. What ensued was a humorous conversation.
Jayasuriya was to raise the issue of Police brutality. He said the way they were acting did not do any good for the country. He said if the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was in force, no such thing would have happened. He appears to have forgotten that without even the 17th amendment, the Police Commission was inactive.
"Owa okkama genu magadi" (these are antics of women), replied Rajapaksa in an apparent reference to the Malabe incident where Mrs. Vass Gunawardena is allegedly involved, and dismissed further discussion on the 17th Amendment. The President asked who would be his UNP opponent at the Presidential election. He must have known that the matter had been raised at last week's Working Committee meeting of the UNP, which in turn flared into a major in-house fracas.
"You first make an announcement declaring the election. We will then name our nominee,"
replied General Secretary Tissa Attanayake. Rajapaksa mischievously responded suggesting "SB and Karu have come from outside. You can name one of them."
Jayasuriya intervened to say, "My Maha Gedera (meaning his main house or origin) is the UNP. I only supported the Government because of the terrorism problem." Rajapaksa replied, "So you have two persons. You can submit one of them for the contest." Attanayake ended the discussion on that subject by remarking, "don't get me involved in these things." Rajapaksa told those gathered at the alms giving that he chose to come since he held the late Aluvihare in high esteem. He said that the separatist war with Tiger guerrillas has now ended and everyone must get together to develop the country. If his presence at the Aluvihare alms giving was a public relations coup, it did not go down well with some of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) supporters. One key member was to remark that Rajapaksa, both President and leader of the SLFP, had not attended the alms giving of his own party stalwarts. Several names including those of late Jeyaraj Fernandopulle and Amarasiri Dodangoda, former Cabinet Ministers, were mentioned.
Though Rajapaksa was only being mischievous when he suggested that either Jayasuriya or Dissanayake would be the party candidate, the question of who will really be UNP's nominee is yet to be resolved formally. UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe is away in Australia attending a meeting of the International Democratic Union (IDP). As reported last week, the matter of a UNP presidential candidate came up for discussion at the last Working Committee meeting but the discussion was cut short. Leave alone discussing the upcoming presidential elections and a candidate from the party, internecine problems continue to afflict the UNP. Last Wednesday human rights lawyers in Kurunegala organised a 'Nidhase Janahamuwa' or (free gathering of people) at the premises of the Young Men’s Buddhist Association. About 500 persons had gathered.
As the meeting was in progress, a group in the audience stood up and began hooting. The crescendo increased when Mangala Samaraweera spoke. He was saying that the 'the Government is misusing the victory of the war and that should not be allowed'.
Samaraweera was annoyed that the crowds were interrupting. He said 'Narintath hoo kiyanna aithiya thiyanawa (Jackals also have the right to hoot). This statement angered the group. The hooting continued with voices becoming louder. Then some of them started throwing plastic chairs at the speakers. Tissa Attananayaka and Gamini Jayawickrema Perera were walking into the venue.
Lankadeepa and the Sunday Times correspondent for Kurunegala, Pushpakumara Jayaratna, said he identified some members of the group as close associates of UNP MP Johnston Fernando. A formidable faction of the UNP has accused Fernando of acting as a Government proxy on a number of occasions. It was he who created the rumpus in the UNP Working Committee last week over the issue of what President Rajapaksa had wanted to know in Matale; who will be the UNP's Presidential candidate. Kurunegala Municipal Council member, Warunda Sanjeewa Vitharana, Pradeshiya Sabha Member Asanka Nawaratne, a private secretary of Johnston Fernando and Mohammed Zakeer were among the few, he reported.
Our correspondent was assisting another colleague who was standing on a chair and videoing the commotion. "Kurunegala MC Member Vitharana walked up and threatened him for videoing the 'trouble makers', alleged Jayaratne. He complained that he was abused in obscene language. One of the Municipal Council members then punched the correspondent. However, colleagues of Jayaratne intervened to save him from further physical attacks. Personal bodyguards of Samaraweera, Attanayake and other MPs present saved the day. Samaraweera told a news conference later that those connected with the Government were responsible for the incident.
In another unusual development this week, General Sarath Fonseka gave a lie to reports that he may enter politics. The fact emerged during a strange twist of events. A website now banned by the Government published what it claimed was "an e-mail address to the nation" by General Fonseka, now Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). In that, he had purportedly criticized India, the Western powers and expressed dislike towards the implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
Gen. Fonseka hurriedly sought a meeting with Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. Thereafter he was at a meeting with President Rajapaksa where the Defence Secretary too was present. He elained that this so-called message was an insidious attempt to ruin his career. He dissociated himself immediately and said he suspected this was part of a campaign against him. Initial suspicions of the Government centered on the aide of a former Cabinet Minister now in the Opposition. However, a probe has failed to establish any link so far. Gen. Fonseka was the keynote speaker at the Centrepoint 2009 sessions of the Post Graduate Institute of Management Alumni (PIMA), an event co-sponsored by Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. During a Q & A session that followed his address, Gen. Fonseka was asked if he had any plans to take to politics. He declined to answer the question. Defence sources said yesterday he had been asked to avoid making any controversial remarks.
Yet, his silence over the specific question did not mean he would enter politics, though those present at the sessions wondered if silence was consent. As he explained to Rajapaksa, he wanted to continue as Chief of Defence Staff.
The Opposition mired in its own problems has little or no time to raise issues affecting the public. The Police brutality is one such issue. Even the strongest criticism against them, with the exception of one or two making mild remarks, has come from within the Government ranks. Hence, there is little choice for the people except to hope for the best and pray for the rest.
|
E-mail