Hulftsdorp Hill

2nd May 1999

The Supreme Court slaps the SPC

By Mudliyar

It was the 39th Birthday of Davindra Sethwijaya Mendis. Ironically it was theday a politician revered by Wijeyapala Mendis was also born. The politician was Dudley Senanayake. The day was June 19, 1998. Mr. Wijeyapala Mendis former minister of the UNP and a member of the UNP for 50 long years was suspended from the party.

The crime he committed was that he was found guilty by a commission appointed by the government. After the establishment of the Wijaya Commission, the UNP took a stand. The stand was that they would never accept the findings or the recommendation of commissions. But the UNP did very little as compared to the SLFP, to denounce the commissions.

In fact as long as the findings were not against the incumbent leader or his favourite cohorts, the UNP did not launch any campaign or did anything tangible to show the world, that the Special Presidential Commissions was an instrument covered in judicial veil, to sling mud at powerful politicians of the UNP.

With consternation the party rank and file accepted the disappearance of the self assertiveness of the leadership, hitherto been unafraid of any gimmick, with a judicial veil to falsely implicate the leaders of the UNP.

The Gobelsian propaganda unleashed by the government with the help of the evidence led before commissions were so damning but so far from the truth, the UNP did not have the courage of their convictions to counter it. They meekly surrendered to the onslaught, like the Ostrich hiding its head in sand dunes. The public on the other hand having no inkling of what was happening accepted the false propaganda as gospel truth.

The findings against Wijeyapala Mendis came as a blessing. Wijeyapala Mendis was the leader of the Gampaha District where the Bandaranaike's hail from. It was of great advantage to deprive him of the clout he wielded in the district. It was only a few months ago his only son committed suicide.

On the 50th Anniversary of the UNP it was decided to have a church service in Negombo with the leader of the UNP Ranil Wickremasinghe attending. Davindra Mendis was in charge of the decorations. It was on this day that the PA allegedly attacked the people who were decorating and killed three, and later four others. Davindra was arrested and remanded and after three months in the remand prisons he was bailed out.

As soon as he returned, the relatives of all those who had been killed came to meet him. They were wailing and weeping. The terror unleashed against them was such that some of them were not permitted to have their last rights in Negombo. The funerals were held in Colombo in secrecy.

It was like the grim days of the JVP. The relatives included those of an old woman who had been killed, for her unswerving support for the Mendis family. Davindra Mendis could not bear this and felt he was responsible for the death and destruction that took place in Negombo. The crowd came together in the midst of intimidation and threats to their lives. They were told not to be frightened of veiled threats. But some opponents in power did carry out their threats. Davindra Mendis could not reconcile the fact that most of his supporters had died in vain. He could not live with his conscience and took his own life by cutting a vein in his wrist with a razor.

When Wijeyapala Mendis returned from Chandra Bandara's funeral in Anuradhapura his only son lay dead in the bathroom, in a pool of blood. The death of an only son, would shatter the mental makeup of any human being. But as a Buddhist, Mr. Mendis attributed this to fate. He had arranged a pinkama to bestow merit on his dead son, on his 39th birthday, when news came that he had been suspended by the working committee of the UNP, based on the findings of the Special Presidential Commission.

The UNP which now champions human rights, freedom of speech and would defend democracy publicly, has an undemocratic party constitution. The leader appoints the working committee and the working committee surrenders all powers to the leader. The executive committee gives the power to the working committee to make decisions. Ultimately all matters of policy are decided by the leader.

The stand of the UNP about the findings of the Special Presidential Commissions, in the words of secretary Gamini Athukorale were: "On principle ,we have rejected the commission findings. The commission pointed out that a particular member was involved in corruption and we could not take the commission's findings and deal with the member directly. This is why we appointed a committee to look into it." (Sunday Leader May, 24. )

The UNP then went on to appoint a three member committee-Party chairman Gamini Athukorale, Uva province chief minister Percy Samaraweera and D.H.N.Jayamaha (Attorney-at-Law). When Mr. Mendis was summoned, the committee had decided not to permit lawyers to appear on behalf of him. It is interesting to see how the UNP committee conducted the inquiry against Wijeyapala Menids.

Committee:- You, Mr. Mendis sent up a document some time back starting with 'Dear member'. You published statements in news papers(referring to the advertisements placed by Wijayapla Mendis explaining his version of the alleged land transaction)

Mendis:- Only one side of the story is known to the people. I have to do something.

Committee:- That is the problem of the party also. You are trying to correct the misgivings of the people arising from the findings of the Commission. People are talking about these findings and they are asking what is the stand of the party. The commission's proceedings are formal proceedings. We could have taken the report and the findings and acted upon them without calling you and come to our conclusions. But we did not do that. We thought of giving you a hearing to explain and clarify matters.

Mendis:- It is witch-hunt by the Government. The opposition parties are against this.

Committee:- The Opposition Parties even in 1980 opposed the imposition of civic disabilities.

Mendis:-This is a witch-hunt. A man from my area is behind all these.

Committee:- Mr. Mendis what made you appear before the Presidential Commission

Mr.Mendis:- We went before the Commission with counsel. All evidence led exparte was disproved. Later a joint motion was filed regarding the re-exchange of lands to end the matter.

At page 14

Question: In view of the findings we have discussed now, has any damage being done to the party by your alleged conduct as revealed in the findings.

Mendis:- Damage caused to Wijeyapala Mendis

Question:-Any damage to the image of the party, that is the question.

Mendis:-No damage. You give the correct perspective to the country. So that the people will be educated. Most of the UNP people sympathise with me.

Question:- In what way do you expect the party to educate the people

Mendis:-Tell the people that the party does not accept the Presidential Commission. There is no reason why you should accept these findings. The whole system of Presidential Commission is a farce. We do not accept them as a party. You see the whole thing has been delayed

After the hearing of the special committee, the report was submitted to the working committee. Some of the findings of the committee would place even the Lalith Athulathmudali and Kobbekaduwa Commissions in better light.

"The committee noted that Mr. Mendis had been present at the sittings of the commission almost daily, which drew his attention to the evidence of Fonseka(Chairman NLDB) and Weerakkody(Secretary/Ministry of Rural Industrial Development) who were categorical in their position that Mr.Mendis exerted undue influence and pressure in obtaining land from the Southern end. All Mr. Mendis said to this was 'False and Disproved' It is extremely difficult for any reasonable person to believe that Fonseka and Weerakkody, two senior public servants such as they were would fabricate a story against Mr. Mendis."

It is unbelievable that the disciplinary committee of the UNP cannot find any reason why public officers cannot fault in their evidence. It has been the experience that in most commissions the public officers who would not yield to subtle pressure and would not want to compromise the truth are often not called to give evidence.

This is what the Supreme Court says about the same matter. Page 11 of the Judgment " The 1

st and 2nd Respondents had little hesitation in accepting the Chairman's evidence, for the reason that: (Quoting from the report) 'We were impressed with the frank and forthright manner in which (he) testified.He was a truthful witness whose evidence we accept without reservation. He was 82 years old at the time he testified and although his recollection may not have been perfectly accurate in certain instances due to his age, we had no reason to doubt his integrity or his testimony at any stage in spite of the very severe cross- examination...Besides his evidence has been corroborated by both [the secretary,RID, and the Director,[RC] and documentary evidence produced in this connection.'

Justice Mark Fernando then observes: "However, even a cursory examination shows not only that his evidence was vague and uncertain, and even contradictory, on important aspects, but also that it was inconsistent with letters contemporaneously written by him;indeed, the record shows that the Commissioners themselves realised these infirmities even while he was giving evidence. None of these matters have even been referred to in the interim report. The 1st and 2nd Respondents glossed over the defects in his evidence, attributing them to his being 82 years of age.

Mr. Wickremanayke complained that even that was incorrect, because twice-and both times in answer to the 1st Respondnent-the witness had given his age as 75 (on 12.09.95) and 76 (on 29.02.96). While there was no reason to doubt the integrity of the witness, there were serious shortcomings both in his evidence and its assessment, and to that I must now turn.

In his exparte evidence-in-chief, the Chairman, NLDBH, made various assertions which were later probed in cross examination. He describes Siringapatha Estate: 'That was prime Coconut land well fertilised and yielding about 4000-5000 nuts per acre. It was adjoining the Coconut Research Board land more or less.(Continued next week)

Jungle Telegraph

Editorial/Opinion Contents