HEAR THEM OUT BEFORE YOU ACT

Dr. Jehan Perera writes that there should be more listening before acting

The government made use of British State Minister for South Asia, United Nations and the Commonwealth Lord Tariq Ahmad’s visit to Sri Lanka. According to the President’s Media Division. “Lord Tariq Ahmad stated that Sri Lanka will be able to resolve all issues pertaining to human rights by moving forward with a pragmatic approach.”

Lord Ahmad tweeted differently however, saying he “emphasised the need for GoSL to make progress on human rights, reconciliation, and justice and accountability.”

The timing of his visit and statements made regarding human rights suggest the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions in Geneva, which commenced on 28 February, was looming large in the background.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet presented a written report and a plethora of issues came up for review – includ­ing Sri Lanka’s progress on accountability for crimes, missing persons, bringing the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in line with international standards, protecting civil society space, and treat­ing all ethnicities and religions without discrimination.

The UK government has consistently adopted a strong position on human rights issues especially in relation to the civil war that allegedly led to large-scale human rights violations. It has a large Tamil diaspora that’s active in lobby­ing politicians in that country. As a result, some British parliamentarians have taken up very critical positions on Sri Lanka.

However, Ahmad’s approach appears to have been more along the lines of supporting the state to do what is needed as regards human rights – rather than condemn it. This would be gratifying to the architects of the government’s international relations and reconciliation processes led by Foreign Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris.

Following Ahmad’s visit, the government commenced its ‘Adhikaranabhimani’ (access to justice) programme in the north. The justice ministry in particular expended a great deal of effort to organise the four day programme, and mo­bilised 16 state institutions in the field to explain the mission and make preliminary contact with potential recipients of the service.

These institutions included the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), Office for Reparations and Legal Aid Commission. They had even written cheques for those who had applied for compensation in the past.

The mixed reaction to the Adhikaranabhimani programme is one that might have been anticipated.

Sections of the Tamil polity – especially in the diaspora – consider the reconciliation mechanisms that were developed by the previous govern­ment in terms of the commitments made by cosponsoring the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1 of 2015 as being essentially a charade.

From its inception in 2017, the OMP came under attack when its officers attempted to meet people in the north. There was a suspicion that the OMP was only a ploy to convince the international community about the government’s sincerity in dealing with the past.

It is indeed unfortunate that the government’s approach to reconciliation is widely believ­ed to be shaped by the need to cope with pressure from Geneva, and forestall international action in the form of UN monitoring, EU economic sanctions, and US and UK travel bans.

At a meeting with the diplomatic corps in Colombo and civil society in the north, Peiris explained the significance of the reforms. He noted that substantive reforms to the PTA included amendments to the sections on detention and restriction orders, and those expressly recognising judicial review of orders among others.

Despite efforts made by the government to reform the PTA however, the civil society response so far has been critical and lukewarm at best. While the amendments are welcome, they need to be more far-reaching to have any impact on the ground after nearly four decades.

The main problem with the government’s initiatives, both with regard to the Adhikaranabhimani programme and PTA reforms, is that there were hardly any consultations by the state with either civil society or potential beneficiaries of those mechanisms.

Peiris and Justice Minister Mohamed Ali Sabry engaged in meetings with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and a section of civil society on reforming the PTA but these were more in the nature of short briefing sessions rather than consultations.

Rebuilding trust and openness takes time, and requires listening, heeding and res­ponding to the needs of the affected people, as well as the champions who fight on their behalf.