Demands and Recommendations For Law Reforms and Policy Changes With Regard to Violence Against Women and Girls

1. Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. Expedite judgement in all rape cases and sexual violence. We need justice for Vithiya, Seya and all other rape victims. Expedite the hearing in all rape cases *benchmarking Seya Sadewmi Case.

2. Clear the backlog of all cases of rape, incest, and grave sexual abuse by assigning (as a temporary measure) separate Courts in each district for cases of sexual violence against women and children.

3. The practice of giving suspended sentences to rapists should be stopped completely.

4. Rape is punishable under Article 364 (1) of the Penal Code of Sri Lanka, which carries a minimum of 7 years to a maximum 20 year rigorous imprisonment, a fine, and a Court order to pay compensation. In cases of a statutory rape, the maximum sentence should be increased to more than 20 years *including but not limited to life sentence.

5. The penal code allows the age of consent for sexual intercourse to be above 16 years. The age of majority in Sri Lanka is 18 and the marriageable age is 18. Therefore, comprehensive education should be made compulsory in all schools.

6. Decriminalize medical termination of pregnancies in the case of **rape, and major congenital abnormalities with immediate effect by amending the penal code.

7. Register all school buses and private vehicles that transport school children with the police and with the Ministry of Education. Make it compulsory that a woman should be present in all private-owned transport facilities; to and from school.

8. Strengthen Women and Children’s desks in all districts by appointing well trained gender sensitive Police officers.

9. Establish a structure for systematic data collection on rape and all forms of sexual violence against women and girls. (**Maintaining sexual offender database is a must & make it public)

10. Provide protection, relief and legal and medical remedies; including appropriate compensation to victims and their families.

11. Establish a unified Civil Code in Sri Lanka defining the age of marriage as 18 years ***(No community should have separate laws for themselves irrespective of religion or tradition. Which includes abolishing any acts passed such as the act for Kathi courts).

12. Establish a special fund to provide legal and medical intervention, including DNA testing in the cases of rape, incest and all sex-related violence.

13. Ensure safe public transport for all women and girls in all areas, times and place.

14. Set-up a special unit to fast-track cases concerning violence against women and children at the Attorney Generals’ Department.

15) Make Sexual education mandatory at schools. Make a curriculum that cover all aspects of basic sexual education that includes sexual health & safety.

16. Give self-defense/Situation handling/Martial arts training in schools as a part of physical education.

17. Provide special protections to victims and witnesses in cases of sexual violence and enforce the law on witness and victim protection.

A woman’s complaint against the Magistrate and several police officers in Mahiyanganaya.

The Asian Human Rights Commission has received a detailed complaint from Mrs. Herath Mudiyanselage Podi Kumarihami of Poojanagaraya, Mahiyangana, in the Badulla District. Her complaint reveals that the Magistrate of the Mahinganaya Magistrate’s Court, Ms. Thisani Thenabadu has taken several actions against.

The Petitioner alleges that the said Magistrate has been harassing her and violating her rights by illegal imprisonments and initiating and hearing of a case in which the said Magistrate herself has personal interest. The following are the alleged transgressions of the Magistrate that the Petitioner complains of,

1. The right of a Magistrate to issue such orders regarding the dress code of the litigants
2. Preventing a litigant from entering the court premises for a lawful purpose on the basis of such an order
3. Initiating a criminal trial without a criminal charge – as such an order cannot give rise to a criminal charge
4. Hearing the case herself, while been an interested party – thus violating the basic rules of fair trial
5. Previous acts of harassment in connivance with some police officers
6. Illegal imprisonment of the Petitioner on several previous occasions
7. Failure to initiate any action against police officers for torture of her son and herself, after the Magistrate was made aware of such acts
8. Threatening the Petitioner that she would be taught a lesson for disrespecting the police and also threatening her not to employ any lawyers in the Petitioner’s case before the Magistrate
9. Overall purpose of all these, is to support the move of some police officers to grab her land, by expelling her from her own land;Colluding in land grabbing.

It appears that the Registrar of the Magistrate’s Court, on the basis of the Magistrate’s order has put up a public notice that every woman who is entering the Court premises should be wearing only white attire, and the police officers on guard have been instructed not to allow anyone who is not wearing white attire to enter the Court premises.This notice is a violation of the rights of women.

No Magistrate has any power to prescribe which type and what colour of attire a woman should wear to a court. All that is required is that a person appearing before a court as a litigant, should be decently dressed. And this is not a requirement prescribed for a particular court but for any court in the country.It is not within the power of any Magistrate to prescribe anything beyond the general requirement of being decently dressed as a mark of respect for the Court. However, which colour a person should be wearing has nothing to do with the requirement of being decently dressed. One could be quiet decently dressed in any colour.

There is nothing in the law nor does it carry any common sense to say that one particular colour is more decent than the other.After having such a notice published, which the Magistrate had no authority to promulgate, the Magistrate has also deployed police officers as guards, at the gate of the Magistrate’s Court with the instructions that any female, who does not comply with the white-attire requirement should not be allowed to enter the court. The litigants to a court come on the basis of summons or by other obligations to attend Court and to attend to lawful businesses associated with litigation. It is not within the power of the Magistrate or of any police or security officer to prevent a person entering a court premises for such lawful engagement.Thus, the Registrar who has signed these regulations, the Magistrate who has issued these regulations, and the police officers who have attempted to enforce these regulations have all acted against the basic rights of a citizen to enter the court premises for a lawful purpose.

Further, they have endangered the lawful rights of any such citizen who may be subjected to an adverse judgment on the basis of his or her absence from court – which is in fact caused by such a notice and its enforcement.A woman who had been having several long disputes with some of the police officers and this particular Magistrate regarding an attempt to oust her from her land which is said to be over 2 acres in extent. The Petitioner states that some police officers have been planning to grab for the purpose of sand-mining, has been charged on the basis of a breach of the abovementioned white-dress code notice, and brought before the same Magistrate who has remanded her and thereafter, charged her and is now inquiring into the very charge that she herself has filed. This particular case bears No. BR1930/15 of the Mahiyanganaya Magistrate’s Court.The Petitioner categorically states that the Magistrate has a personal interest in the case and that therefore, she herself fears that the case has been instituted in violation of the principles of a fair trial.

A judge is required to be impartial and in this instance the Magistrate’s action lacks impartiality.The Petitioner also states that on a previous occasion when she was produced before this Magistrate, the same Magistrate has told her that the Petitioner should learn to respect police officers, or otherwise she as the Magistrate, will teach her a lesson – since her husband (Magistrate’s husband) is himself a DIG (A Deputy Inspector General of Police). The Petitioner also states that the Magistrate is aware of the attempt by the police officers to oust the Petitioner from her land and that the Petitioner believes that the Magistrate is acting in collusion with such police officers.The Petitioner also states that in the course of these events, her son was severely tortured by the police officers at the Mahiyanganaya police station and that due to serious injuries he had to be hospitalised. This matter has been brought to the notice of the Magistrate and the Magistrate without taking any action against the police officers has instead, remanded the torture victim’s mother – the Petitioner.The police officers have on one other occasion beaten her and that has been brought to the notice of the Magistrate but no action has been taken against the said police officers.

The Petitioner further states that due to the joint harassment by the police and the Magistrate, she had to live in hiding for a long time and that as a result, she has been unable to carry earn her livelihood as a vendor engaged in selling of vegetables.The Petitioner further states that she had been threatened by the said Magistrate not to take services of any of the lawyers in her cases and if she wants, she herself should cross examine the witnesses. Initially several lawyers have appeared for her but now as they are afraid of getting into conflicts with the Magistrate, they have refused to appear for her.The Petitioner fears for her future, and the future of her family, and the future of her property.The Petitioner has written to the Judicial Services Commission complaining about this Magistrate and her behaviour but so far, to her knowledge, no action has been taken against the Magistrate. The Petitioner requests the Government, as well as judicial authorities, and police authorities to inquire into this matter and to take appropriate action to protect the Petitioner’s rights.

She also appeals to the public, including the Media to come to her rescue.The Asian Human Rights Commission has consistently brought to the notice of the Government and the public, that there is a serious collapse of the judicial system in Sri Lanka and it states that the above case illustrates this situation and quite sharply.

Under these circumstances, a serious discussion involving all parties, the Government, the authorities and the people of Sri Lanka remains a dire need not only for this Petitioner but also for all Sri Lankans.

Finance Minister Ravi Karunayaka, a One Big Crook

New Yahapalana government gave thousand promises to topple highly corrupted Rajapakse regime and to become the new ruling force of the country. Among them was this 100 day programme that virtually covered almost all the areas that needed immediate attention from establishing rule of law to eradicating corruption from the system.

Those who supported Yahapalanaya were optimistic although many initial appointments within the government, government offices and independent organizations were itself questionable at the outset. Appointment of the Prime Minister itself was against the constitution despite the fact that it was a clear election promise. Appointing Ravi Karunayaka as the Finance Minister raised eye brows of many concerned parties as he was accused of aiding and abating a money laundering case where a court action was on progress for several years in which he was the main respondent. 

Among many such appointments were the removal of the previous Chief Justice Mohan Peiris and appointing Justice Sripawan as the chief justice. There is absolutely no argument over the qualification eligibility or suitability of Mr. Sripawan as the chief justice but the fact that the questionable process and events unfolded relating to how ex CJ was removed from position.

What Mahinda did to remove Shirani Bandaranayake from Cheif Justice position was one major reason why people started to doubt if he was suitable to run this country any longer as it was pretty clear the impeachment was based on personal vendetta and hate. A revenge for not following his directions and needs all the time. This incident duly attracted the attention of international rights groups who vehemently condemned Rajapaksha's actions to remove CJ forcefully using a tweaked parliamentary select committee. We need to understand that fact that even Shirani Bandaranaike like her predecessor Sarath N Silva was natural supporters of Mahinda Rjapaksha at the time of their appointments and thereafter until both broke up their relationship with Mahinda Rajapaksha for reasons mostly known to them. 

Obviously Mahinda Rajapaksha's next automatic choice for the job was Mohan Peiris, a close ally of Rajapaksha who later became his overseas travel companion. So it is fair to assume that he did the job exactly the way Mahinda Rajapaksha wanted to do. Just like Sarath N Silva did and later confessed publicly of not doing his job properly. 

Now the question however is what could have been the practice used to replace the former CJ who's appointment was in question. The answer to this however may vary to one another, but everyone with an independent mindset would agree that what took place in replacing Mohan Peris was not different to the methods Mahinda used to replace people he didn't want in the job. At least he twisted the system without bypassing it. 

Then came the appointment of the Central Bank governor Arjun Mahendran, a close friend of Ranil Wickramasingha and Ravi karunanayake who is a Singaporean citizen. It is a mandatory requirement that a position such as governor of the central bank must be be held by a Sri Lankan citizen, not a foreign national who has no loyalty to Sri Lanka whatsoever according to the oath he took when becoming a Singaporean citizen. Time proved how costly that appointment was for the people of this country.   

All of the above were immediate appointments after the change in January 2015. However, worst episode of shocking appointments came just after the general elections in August where corrupted, shamed and defeated politicians who had no mandate were appointed to ministerial posts by the president Maithreepaala Sirisena totally destroying people's hope for a new political culture in Sri lanka. Under the circumstances hundreds of appointments to diplomatic missions and government offices didn't matter. People seldom had time to discuss them as most of such placement were swept under the carpet except a few, such as Ravi Karunanayaka;s brother in law's appointment as Sales Manager to Sri Lankan Airline's UK office, Kumarasingha Sirisena's appointment as SLT chairman and Arjuna Ranathunga appointing his brother as the chairman of ports authority. 

This perfectly sets the basis for us to understand how Ravi Karunanayaka got himself evicted from all the charges relating to the famous money laundering case where he was directly involved in clearing Raj Rajaratnam's (Famous insider dealer and a big time LTTE funder who is currently service 11 year Jail term in Unites States) undisclosed investment through a local bank bypassing exchange control regulations and other financial reporting requirements. This is yet another classic example to understand independent judiciary or rule of law in this country will never be a reality until politicians stop appointing officials to the judiciary or until they are empowered in other means to act independently without any political pressure or the fear of loosing their positions. 

Its only days after the new Yahapalana government was elected, that the court decided to evict Ravi Karunanayaka from all charges on technical grounds stating that the Attorney General's department could appeal if required or submit a fresh application to this effect. Coincidentally, that was the last decision handed down by the judge Irangani Perera before her retirement. Nevertheless, attorney general department did not appeal or submitted a new indictment. Obviously it was never going to happen as Attorney General department is also under a government minister who can directly influence any decision taken by the AG.   

In trying to understand the sequence of events relating to Ravi Karunanaya's money laundering case, we submit here a piece written by H.L.D.Mahindapala which gives a detailed explanation of same that will help you connect the dots.  

Extract !

The attention of the readers is drawn to the following two edited news items to indicate the early trends of this path-breaking political journey. Please note the date “January 29” which is most relevant to both news items.

News Item 1: The Daily Mirror (January 13, 2015) : “The Mini-Budget of the new Government’s 100-day programme will be presented in Parliament on January 29 with a relief package for the people as promised in the run-up to the presidential election, Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake said today.

“After assuming duties at his office at the Government Treasury complex yesterday, the minister said the mini budget would also contain proposals to reduce prices on 10 essential commodities including fuel.

“The people gave a mandate to this government to bring about a palpable change in the system of governance and for a stable economic which was drifting aimlessly. ….

The minister said the Maithripala administration was not looking at minimising corruption but at eliminating it fully.

“Therefore, acts such bribery, obtaining huge commissions between 20% and 50% and other forms of corruption will not be tolerated under any circumstance. Corrupt officials will be severely dealt with irrespective of their political affiliation and status. Officials need not be subservient to anyone under this administration,” he said.

“We criticised the Rajapaksa regime while in the opposition and now it is our turn to practice what we preached,” the minister said.

News Item 2: Ceylon Today (November 14, 2014): “It was alleged in the Colombo High Court yesterday (13) that United National Party (UNP) MP Ravi Karunanayake had actively facilitated the transfer of Rs 390 million to Sri Lanka,…

by infamous Sri Lankan American and former hedge fund manager and billionaire, Raj Rajaratnam. It was alleged that Karunanayake was directly involved in this fraud and the exchange controller had questioned him on three occasions about it.

The former Additional Exchange Controller revealed that three million US dollars were received by a local private bank and Ravi Karunanayake intervened to collect the funds.

This came to light during cross examination of the former Central Bank Additional Exchange Controller, Kumara Perera, by Senior State Counsel Dileepa Peiris.

The case was taken up before the Colombo High Court Judge Devika Livera De Tennekoon.

The case was postponed until 29 January 2015, on which date the accused were ordered to be present in Court.

As stated earlier, what is important is the date, January 29, 2015. Obviously, the Finance Minister, Karunanayake, can’t be present in Parliament to present his mini-budget on January 29 and simultaneously be at the High Court to face the charges against him.

The fixing of one date for two events raises a few questions:

Q 1: Why was January 29 fixed as the date to present the mini-budget in Parliament when Karunanayake knew that he was due to appear in Court to face charges on that very day?

Q2: What is so special about January 29? Why not January 28? Or 30?

Q 3: Is this a ruse to get a postponement of the trial?

Q4: Is the inevitable postponement a sign of things to come?

Q5: Is this a crafty tactic to interfere with the course of justice?

Q6: Will there be attempts to cover-up the case?

Q7: As some of the key departments handling this case (example: Exchange Control) come under the Finance Ministry will there be pressure brought to manipulate/cook the evidence in courts? Remember, some of the files related to the administration of the CWE under Karunanayake went up in smoke?

Q8: Is this going to be the first of many cases that are likely to recur in due course to undermine the independence of the judiciary?

Q9: More importantly, why was Karunanayake facing serious financial irregularities in the High Court appointed as Finance Minister of the promised “ideal country” of My-3-pala-naya?

Q10: In appointing Karunanayake as Finance Minister – the epicenter of corruption and mismanagement – was due consideration given to his known record in the private and public sectors?

Q11: As one of the Vice-Presidents of IDU can Ranil Wickremesinghe justify his nomination of Karunanayake to be the finance minister by giving another example of an accused facing serious financial irregularities in courts appointed as finance minister?

Q12: Last but not the least, why did President Maithripala Sirisena appoint Karunanayake as his finance minister when it was public knowledge that he was facing charges in courts? Is this a good start for his six-year journey to build the “ideal country”?