Justice for the abused child shadowed by secret meetings and screaming silence

 As the public, we could observe how NCPA had to force the Police to take action to arrest the monk and produce him to the court. The monk was only produced to the court on the 2nd court day, only to be released on bail. It speaks for itself that the case will proceed to deny justice unless relevant authorities, such as NCPA, are empowered to defend the child’s interests

By Women of Conscience

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ is a well-tested dictum in Sri Lanka. Details of the cases of child abuse, particularly by clergy, Buddhist clergy in a number of instances, revealed a common trait of long, drawn-out legal procedures, only to be thwarted due to discrepancies in evidence. Accusations against Pallegama Hemarathana Thero, who allegedly procured a child for sex and raped her, also show a similar pattern. 

Despite the gravity of the accusation - procuring an 11-year-old girl and raping her, the Sri Lanka Police did not take prompt action to arrest the monk and investigate the case thoroughly. 

Given the enormous political power the monk wields as a prominent religious leader with a close relationship with the political establishment, neither the government nor opposition political parties in the Parliament rallied swift support to put the Police into action. 

Twenty two women Parliamentarians, a historical record in women’s representation, also did not stand with the child. It was only after repeated attempts by the National Child Protection Authority (NCPA) and public outcries that the Police arrested the monk. In addition, court proceedings also reveal a number of loopholes creating favourable conditions to deny justice to the abused child. It is in this context that the Women’s Caucus in the Parliament called for a secret meeting on 5 June.

The secret meeting amidst screaming silence has aggravated public fear that justice would be denied to the child. On top of the secrecy, the news that the NCPA was reprimanded for making the Police uncomfortable, reported by the BBC Sinhala news, and later by other media, quoting sources present at the meeting, is distressing.

As the Government, the Ministry of Women and Child Affairs, the Police, and women parliamentarians failed to stand with the child, only the NCPA and web-based social and select other media stood up to ensure that due process would take its course unhindered by the influence of power and privilege. As the public, we could observe how NCPA had to force the Police to take action to arrest the monk and produce him to the court. The monk was only produced to the court on the 2nd court day, only to be released on bail. It speaks for itself that the case will proceed to deny justice unless relevant authorities, such as NCPA, are empowered to defend the child’s interests.

The press release issued by the Women’s Caucus on 8 June, while hinting that the Caucus, too, shares an interest in ensuring that the case proceeds with stronger evidence, reveals a dangerous tendency. Reference to intervention in setting new guidelines on “media reporting and judicial proceedings relating to child abuse cases” has escalated worries that the attempt is to impose a complete blackout and obstruct transparency in how investigations and court proceedings move forward. 

We, as the concerned public, believe that justice is not limited to the affected girl, but also to all of us, abused children participating in their respective judicial proceedings, and people in Sri Lanka. It is important we know what happened at the court, and social media has been the only outlet for information in the case of Pallegama Hemarathana, as all mainstream media except a few observe a vow of silence, bound by their affinity to high-powered religious figures.

We, as the concerned public, believe that justice is not limited to the affected girl, but also to all of us, abused children participating in their respective judicial proceedings, and people in Sri Lanka

Following the secret meeting and BBC exposé, the statement by MP Lakmali Hemachandra,  on using her parliamentary privileges and related political conversations, has further shifted the spotlight away from where it belongs: the abused child and justice. The case, which first received deafening silence from the political establishment, women MPs, and mainstream media, has now entered a Yanne Koheda, Malle Pol (neither here, nor there) moment. Amid procedural debates and privileged statements, the child's right to timely justice has been pushed to the backseat once again. Forces derailing justice are taking the upper hand.

Therefore, we as the concerned public demand answers to the following;

•  What discussions, if any, have taken place regarding assigning a greater investigative role to the NCPA in this case, for example, transferring the case investigation to the NCPA?
• What specific progress has been made in the investigation thus far? What key investigative steps have been completed, and what actions remain outstanding before the investigation can be concluded?
• Have all gaps, deficiencies, and concerns relating to the investigation that were raised by the lawyers appearing on behalf of the child during the 22 May court proceedings and subsequently been adequately addressed?
• Why have charges relating to human trafficking not been pursued in this case? Has this possibility been investigated, and if so, what was the basis for determining that such charges were not warranted?
• Has the Attorney General's Department appointed a State Counsel or other legal representative to represent the interests of the child in these proceedings? If so, who has been appointed?
• What steps have been taken to protect NCPA officers involved in this case from vilification, harassment, or external pressure while carrying out their duties?
• Given the influence associated with the accused in Anuradhapura, has the possibility of transferring the case to another jurisdiction been considered as a means of safeguarding confidence in the impartiality of the proceedings?
• Has the possibility of a Trial-at-Bar been considered in this case, given the substantial public interest and the need to maintain confidence in the administration of justice?
• What measures have been put in place to safeguard the child's mental health, well-being, and education, both during the investigation and in the longer term?
• What assurances can be provided that witnesses and other persons possessing information relevant to the case, including members of the child's family, are being adequately protected from intimidation, pressure, harassment, or undue influence?

(The author is a group of women standing in solidarity with those abused and marginalised by racial, capitalist and patriarchal systems)