Faiszer rejects international aid in investigating war crime allegations

Sri Lanka today has a very independent judicial mechanism in place, therefore the international community should not demand an international process to investigate war crime allegations, pointed out Faiszer Musthapha, Minister of Provincial Council and Local Government. 

He stressed that “at present the country has a ‘very good judicial’ system so nobody should point a finger and say that there are issues with regard to the Judiciary and therefore we need to have an international process”.

“Generally you call for an international process when you don’t have faith in the domestic mechanism. President Sirisena has put a very independent judicial mechanism in place. I don’t think the international 

community should have any doubt over the judicial system which is in place which was further strengthened by the 19th Amendment,” he said, in an interview with the Daily FT.

He made these remarks when asked about the much-discussed interview with President Sirisena by the BBC in which the former said foreign judges and prosecutors should not be involved when investigating alleged war crimes. 

Musthapha also aired his views about the new constitution, local authority elections and impact of forming a new political party. Following are excerpts of the interview:

Q: What is the latest on latest on local authority elections? 

A: At the moment we are working on a fast track process to compete the delimitation process. I have given a deadline to finish the delimitation by 15 April. I feel that we should be able to finish it before that and hopefully by end June or July I should conduct the election. We are fast-tracking the whole process. President Maithripala Sirisena has agreed to give me whatever resources I need to expedite the process. 

Q: What measures have been taken to fast-track the delimitation process? 

A: With regard to the district regional committee, I have divided the tasks among members of the delimitation committee and I have got approval to work where power has been delegated among members of the committee where each member is given a specific role. This is with regard to changing the boundaries; it is a difficult process. We are doing everything to the best of our ability. I have full confidence in my officials and the committee appointed; they will do a good job. 

Q: What is the latest with regard to bringing in a new constitution? 

A: There was a motion which was tabled. The SLFP has given nine amendments. The Joint Opposition and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, none of them have a really substantive bearing because all are in agreement that the amendment to the Constitution or a new constitution should be done in accordance with standing orders. If you look at the proposed amendments to the motion I wouldn’t say any of them were very substantive, because it is a connective process; it’s all constituting to a select committee. All the members would constitute the select committee. There is no other process more democratic than the process which is being adopted with regard to the constitutional changes. 

Q: What are the nine proposals submitted by the SLFP? 

A: Those are mainly very technical amendments. One is about the preamble – we want to keep it open – and another with regard to the Standing Orders, to be operative in full. In substance there is a collective agreement that Parliament through a select committee would follow the constitution and the Standing Orders can bring any changes. Also the fact that in motion itself stated that once amendments have been agreed by Parliament that they will go before the people for a referendum as well. It’s a very inclusive process; Parliament and also the public at large. 

Q: What are the loopholes in the Prime Minister’s proposal? 

A: There is a steering committee and there is a technical committee. The JVP and certain others are of the view that this committee should be appointed by the select committee itself. I am sure we can reach consensus and move along. I am sure that we can avoid and get total consensus in moving forward with regard to this process. This is regarding the methodology; with regard to how we are going to deal with a new draft or constitutional amendments. 

Q: Are you saying the SLFP is in full agreement with the Prime Minister’s proposal? 

A: The Prime Minister has agreed to our amendments. There is agreement between the SLFP and the UNP. Our amendments have been accepted by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. But with regard to the JVP and the Joint Opposition, I am sure that when we look at the amendments being proposed, consensus can be reached in moving forward. I firmly believe in that and it’s my personal opinion. 

Unfortunately people are using this as a platform to debate about the unitary character and the place Buddhism is given in the 17th Constitution and so on. None of these issues can in any way be dealt with because they need a referendum. None of these amendments to the motion touch upon any of these issues. Here we are only deciding on what process we should adopt in amending the Constitution.

Q: Why omit certain terms such as ‘new’? Does this mean it will not be repealed and a new constitution will not be brought in?

A: Parliament will decide whether it should be new or whether we should amend the present Constitution. That right should be given to the select committee. When you say ‘new’ you are already taking the right away from Parliament to decide what Parliament requires. 

You can name it in any manner; 82 says any provision of the Constitution can be amended by a two/third majority. There are other provisions in the Constitution like the sovereignty of the people, the day of Independence and the place given to Buddhism, which require a referendum. There is no need to put the word ‘new’ because Parliament will decide what is required. 

Q: How long will it take to complete the process? 

A: I am unable to give an exact timeframe, but the Government wants to push this process through. I am sure the Government is working expeditiously to bring in the constitution as early as possible. 

Q: What are your remarks on current speculation about a new political party to be formed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa? 

A: I am very confident that members of the SLFP love the party. All who have evolved through the SLFP would not do anything detrimental to the party. People can hold different opinions, but I firmly believe that no person who has obtained positions through the SLFP in the Government would go against the SLFP.

Q: How will forming a new party affect the SLFP? 

A: Anybody can form a new party, but I believe the majority of the SLFPers will always remain with us. Nobody has issued a statement officially, but anyone who genuinely loves SLFP will not harm our party. 

Q: Do you agree that ultimately it will be the UNP that will benefit? 

A: Every SLFPer knows that if the party is divided, it will be detrimental to the interest of the party. So whatever differences anybody may have, collectively we should do everything possible to safeguard unity of the party. 

Q: President Sirisena’s interview with the BBC has raised quite a few eyebrows. Some argue whether the Government has made a U-turn from what was promised at the UNHRC. Your comments?

A: The President has never made a U-turn. He always said that it will be a domestic process; he also said there won’t be a hybrid court but technical assistance from tribunals with similar experiences would strengthen this process. I don’t think it will be harmful to get assistance from Commonwealth judges from tribunals with similar nature to give assistance.

We have a very good judicial system. We have had few instances in the past but apart from those we have a credible legal process in place. President Sirisena in bringing all these independent commissions and the Constitutional Council has further strengthened the independence of the Judiciary. I don’t think anybody could point a finger and say that there are issues with regard to the Judiciary and therefore we need to have an international process. 

Generally you call for an international process when you don’t have faith in the domestic mechanism. President Sirisena has put very independent judicial mechanism in place. I don’t think the international community should have any doubt over the judicial system which is in place and its independence which has been strengthened by the 19th Amendment. 

Q: This is not the only instance where the President takes one stand and the Prime Minister and UNP have a different viewpoint. How can this Government function when there is no unity among the two sides?

A: Even in the Cabinet we have different ideologies and different views, but at the end of it I am sure the relationship between the President and the Prime Minister is in good condition. Diversity of opinion is there but with regard to being one Government, at the end of it we will reach consensus. 

Q: Some argue the country is at a standstill due to clashes between the two main parties in the Government. Is that true? 

A: Don’t forget this country gave priority to put in place an independent judicial system and give rule of law the primary place. If people were only talking about development, they would have not voted for us. People wanted rule of law to exist first. When rule of law is in place, now we have to move to the second phase. Rule of law is a part of development. If the rule of law is properly operating in the country, the Government mechanism can operate better.

One shouldn’t compare a nine-year administration with one year. The present Government took office in August last year. You cannot judge a five-month-old Government. Once the policies have been announced, we have to give time for the Government to implement those policies. People should give this Government time and space to carry out its programs. If time and space is given, we can put this country right. 

Don’t forget that we were handed over this Government with its coffers empty. You cannot look at Sri Lanka in isolation and say the country is at a standstill, globally there is a volatile situation. 

Q: Recently there were incidents aimed at destroying ethnic harmony. As a responsible Parliamentarian who represents an ethnic minority, how would you describe this disturbing trend in the country? 

A: There is legislature to deal with this. I am sure law and order will prevail. Unfortunately we should not look at it on the basis of ethnicity. If the rule of law prevails, it will deal with all such incidents.