Liberator of the east takes fight to Army Chief

 The former commanding officer of the Eastern Province who cleared Thoppigala of the LTTE, Major General Parakrama Pannipitiya, in a fundamental rights petition to the Supreme Court has accused the Army Commander, General Sarath Fonseka of disregarding threats to his life and withdrawing the security made available consequent to his transfer to Colombo.

In his petition, excerpts of which are published, Maj. Gen. Pannipitiya (Petitioner) has cited Brig. D.M.D. Alwis (Military Secretary), Maj. Gen. W.G.M.U.R. Perera (Quarter Master General), Maj. Gen. M.C.M.P. Samarasinghe (Overall Operational Commander - Colombo), Brig. R.V. Udawatte (Director - Assets Management), Brig. K.S. Fernando (Director - Quartering) and the Attorney General as Respondents. The Supreme Court on Friday issued an interim order suspending the letter requiring Maj. Gen. Pannipitiya to vacate the staff quarters and reinstated his security escort.

The Petitioner's Service as the Commander Security Forces (East)

18. The Petitioner states that at the time he took over command as the Commander Security Forces (East), the operational troops had cleared Mavil Aru, Sampur and Muttur. Under the Petitioner's command, the troops liberated Vaharai, Kadiraweli and Verugal Aru and also cleared the jungle areas of Kadawana, Pararu and Kuburuppiddi. The Petitioner states that continued operations in the Batticaloa District under his command led to the capturing of the Thoppigala jungle and other major strongholds of the LTTE in the east by July 2007.

19. The Petitioner states that thereafter, the security forces in the east continued to assist in providing humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons and the resettlement process of the displaced persons. The security forces also worked out de-mining plans.

20. The Petitioner states that with effect from 28.12.2007, his appointment as Commander of Security Forces (East) was discontinued and the Petitioner was attached to the Army Headquarters.

Security threats to the Petitioner

21. The Petitioner states that as the Commander of the Security Forces in the east, he was under the threat of the LTTE.

22. The Petitioner states that a threat to his life was present both in operational areas as well as outside operational areas. The Petitioner has received information that the LTTE has been monitoring the Petitioner's movements in Colombo and in other areas outside of the operational areas.

23. The Petitioner states that by letter dated 21.02.2007, the Inspector General of Police has informed the Director of the Ministerial Security Division that information has been received that four LTTE cadres led by prominent LTTE cadre, Mayurn had arrived in Colombo to carry out suicide missions targeting convoys of three VIPPs including the Petitioner. It is also stated in the said letter that action should be taken to educate the security officers to take maximum precautionary measures. A true copy of the said letter dated 21.02.2007 is annexed.

24. To the best of the Petitioner's knowledge, none of the said LTTE cadres have been captured and the threat to the Petitioner's life continues.

25. The Petitioner states that His Excellency the President visited Vaharai in February 2007 after it was liberated from LTTE control in January 2007. On 07.02.2007, the Hindu kurukkal who welcomed the President was shot dead by the LTTE. The Petitioner states that immediately thereafter, Major S.A. Kumararatne, senior intelligence officer, informed the Petitioner that he has received information that the Petitioner would be targeted next and therefore requested the Petitioner to take precautionary measures while in the east.

26. The Petitioner states that in or about March 2007, M.R. Latheef, senior superintendent of Police informed him that the Petitioner's movements in Colombo are being monitored by the LTTE. He also informed the Petitioner that according to intelligence reports, LTTE cadres have followed the Petitioner's car in Colombo to certain places that the Petitioner frequently visits and identified that the easiest way to target the Petitioner in a suicide attack would be by using a three wheeler in front of Police Park.

27. In the circumstances, the Petitioner resorted to several precautionary measures including following the special security instructions given by the Army Headquarters to all senior officers after the suicide attack on Major General Parami Kulathunga. The said instructions include travelling in civil, changing vehicles and modes of transport. A true copy of the said instructions are annexed.

Allegations against the Petitioner

28. The Petitioner states that in or about November 2007, an officer of the Special Investigations Branch of the Military Police visited the Security Forces Headquarters (east) and informed him that an anonymous petition against him has been received at the Army Headquarters and that he has been appointed by the First Respondent to investigate into the same and submit a report to the First Respondent.

29. The Petitioner was informed by the said officer that in the aforesaid petition, it is alleged that the Petitioner has used a captain to manage his properties in Puttalam. The Petitioner states that he and his family members do not own any properties in Puttalam and that baseless allegations have been made against him.

30. The Petitioner was also informed by the said officer that it was also alleged that the Petitioner has hired a vehicle in an irregular manner. The petitioner states that as per the special security instructions given by Army Headquarters to all senior officers after the suicide attack on Major General Parami Kulathunga, all senior officers of the Sri Lanka Army and especially those who are under the threat of the LTTE, are required, inter alia, to travel in civil vehicles, regularly change the vehicles and modes of transport. In the circumstances, the Petitioner also adopted the said security measures and as per decisions taken by the Tender Board, vehicles were hired for the Petitioner's use.

31. The said officer also stated that there are allegations that the Petitioner has been taking food items from the Officer's Mess beyond his entitlement. The Petitioner states that army officers are given a ration allowance and two methods are adopted with regard to receiving the ration allowance. Under the first method, the ration allowance is added to their salaries and the officers pay for their meals at the Mess.

Under the second method, provisions are obtained by the Mess and officers may either have meals at the Mess or take ration entitlement to their bungalows and cook. The Petitioner has a separate bungalow and a cook, and obtains rations from the Officer's Mess and cooks at his bungalow. The Petitioner states that if an officer needs to obtain rations in excess of his entitlement, he can do so upon making the necessary payments to the Mess.

The Petitioner states that during some months, he had visitors at his bungalow and therefore obtained extra rations from the Mess and have made the necessary payments. In proof thereof, the Petitioner annexes hereto marked P4, a true copy of a letter dated 11.01.2008 indicating the amounts that the Petitioner has settled for extra rations obtained during the period January 2007 to December 2007.

32. The Petitioner states that the said officer informed him that the other allegations contained in the said petition included, inter alia, that the Petitioner has used abusive language at the Officer's Mess. The Petitioner strongly denies the truth of these allegations which are baseless and have been levelled against him with a view to tarnish his image.

33. The Petitioner states that the said officer recorded statements from the Petitioner and several officers of the Security Forces Headquarters (East).

34. The Petitioner states that he applied to the First Respondent for leave from 26.12.2007 to 03.01.2008. The First Respondent had approved leave from 26.12.2007 to 02.01.2008. Accordingly, on 26.12.2007, the Petitioner left the Security Forces Headquarters (East). On his way to Colombo, the Petitioner received a telephone call on his mobile phone from the Second Respondent who required him to report to the Army Headquarters at 3.30 p.m. on the same day to meet the First Respondent.

35. The Petitioner states that he called over at the Army Headquarters at 3.30 p.m. on 26.12.2007 and he was accompanied by the Second Respondent to the office of the First Respondent.

36. The Petitioner states that at the aforesaid meeting with the First Respondent stated that there have been several allegations against the Petitioner and in view of the same the Petitioner should submit retirement papers. The Petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain and/or to answer the allegations levelled against him.

37. The Petitioner states that at the aforesaid meeting, the First Respondent required him to handover his command at the Security Forces (East) by 28.12.2008 without ceremonial function or any other function. The Petitioner states that it is customary in the army to have a ceremony on the departure of a commander.

38. The Petitioner states that the First Respondent also required him to submit the documentation necessary for retirement. The Petitioner informed the First Respondent that he is not prepared to do so. Thereupon, the First Respondent informed the Petitioner that he can either submit the retirement papers or face a Court Marshal and informed the Petitioner to make known his choice in writing by 31.12.2007.

The Petitioner's transfer

39. The Petitioner states that by letter dated 26.12.2007 of the Second Respondent, the Petitioner's appointment as Commander of the Security Forces Headquarters (East) was discontinued with effect from 28.12.2007 and the Petitioner was attached to the Army Headquarters. The Petitioner states that Major General J.J.P.S.T. Liyanage was appointed as the Petitioner's successor. The Petitioner states that the said letter does not indicate the capacity in which the Petitioner has been attached to the Army Headquarters. A true copy of the said letter dated 26.12.2007 is annexed hereto.

40. The Petitioner states that he handed over his command at the Security Forces Headquarters (East) to Major General Liyanage on 28.12.2007. As instructed by the First  Respondent, no ceremony was held.

Request for an impartial inquiry

41. The Petitioner states that by Redress of Grievance (ROG) dated 28.12.2007, he informed the First Respondent that the allegations levelled against him are baseless and requested that an opportunity be given to explain the Petitioner's grievances to the First Respondent. The Petitioner further requested that an impartial inquiry be held in this regard. A true copy of the said letter dated 28.12.2007 is annexed hereto.

42. The Petitioner states that by letter dated 01.01.2008, he was informed by the Second  Respondent that the First Respondent has refused to grant the Petitioner's aforesaid ROG due to the fact that a Court of Inquiry is pending over the matter concerned. A true copy of the said letter dated 01.01.2008 is annexed hereto.

Court of Inquiry

43. The Petitioner states that on 03.01.2008, he received a message from the Second Respondent requesting him to attend a Court of Inquiry on 07.01.2008. A true copy of the said message is annexed hereto marked P7.

44. The Petitioner states that by letter dated 28.01.2008, he requested the Second Respondent to provide him with a copy of the convening order of the said Court of Inquiry. However, by letter dated 30.01.2008, the Second Respondent informed the Petitioner that in terms of Regulation No. 21 of the Army Courts of Inquiry Regulations of 1952, where the evidence before a Court of Inquiry affects the character or military reputation of an officer or soldier, a request may be made by such officer or soldier to the Commander of the Army for a copy of the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry be released to him.

It is also stated therein that Petitioner has requested for a copy of the convening order of the Court of Inquiry and that the Petitioner should request the President of the Court of Inquiry to read out the convening order facilitating the Petitioner to note down the contents. A true copy of the said letters dated 28.01.2008 and 30.01.2008 are annexed hereto marked P8 and P9 respectively.

45. The Petitioner states that the Court of Inquiry was held on several dates in January and February 2008 in Minneriya and Colombo.

46. On the Petitioner's request, the Third Respondent caused the Convening Order of the Court of Inquiry to be read out facilitating the Petitioner to note down its contents. A true copy of the notes taken by the Petitioner is annexed hereto.

47. The Petitioner states that the Court of Inquiry recorded statements from approximately 62 persons in Colombo and Minneriya. To the best of the Petitioner's knowledge, the Court of Inquiry has not been completed.

Request to vacate staff quarters

48. The Petitioner is presently residing at the staff quarters in Summit Flats, Keppetipola Mawatha, Colombo 5. The said staff quarters was handed over to the Petitioner in 2000 and the Petitioner's period of residence in the said quarters was extended until 31.03.2006 considering the fact that he is serving in the operational areas.

49. In January 2006, the Petitioner proceeded to India to follow a one year training course at the National Defence College, New Delhi. Upon his return the Petitioner was posted as the Commander of the Security Forces Headquarters (East).

50. The Petitioner states that he did not handover the staff quarters during the time he was in India or thereafter. No request was made by the Sixth Respondent or any other officer to vacate and/or handover the staff quarters.

51. The Petitioner states that by letter dated 14.01.2008, the Sixth Respondent requested the Petitioner to handover the said quarters to the Sri Lanka Army before 31.01.2008. By letter dated 25.01.2008, the Petitioner informed the Sixth Respondent that in view of the fact that he is under threat of the LTTE, the Petitioner does not have a secure place to live and therefore is not in a position to vacate the staff quarters by 31.01.2008. True copies of the said letters dated 14.01.2008 and 25.01.2008 are annexed hereto marked P11 and P12 respectively.

52. By letter dated 30.01.2008, a true copy of which is annexed hereto marked P13, the Sixth Respondent acknowledged the receipt of the Petitioner's aforesaid letter marked P 12.

53. By letter dated 30.01.2008, the Sixth Respondent informed the Petitioner that the First  Respondent has ordered that if the Petitioner fails to handover the staff quarters prior to 28.02.2008, disciplinary action would be taken against him and that arrangements would be made to impose penal deductions for rent. True copy of the aforesaid letter dated 30.01.2008 is annexed hereto.

54. The Petitioner states that although he is no longer serving in the east, the threat to his life has not minimised.

55. The Petitioner states that the staff quarters presently occupied by him are situated in a High Security Zone to which access is highly restricted. Only residents and authorised persons are allowed to enter the said High Security Zone. Visitors of the residents are allowed to enter the High Security Zone only if their vehicle numbers and National Identity Card numbers have been previously provided by the residents to the security check points situated at the two entrances to the zone. Any other visitors are allowed to enter the zone only if the resident personally identifies the visitor at either of the entrances to the zone.

56. The Petitioner states that if he is required to vacate the staff quarters, he would be compelled to live elsewhere in an unsecured area.

Withdrawal of back-up vehicles

57. The Petitioner states that by message dated 16.01.2008, the double cab which was used as the Petitioner's backup vehicle was withdrawn and the Petitioner was required to handover the same on 17.01.2008, which the Petitioner did. A true copy of the said message dated 16.01.2008 is annexed hereto.

58. By letter dated 17.01.2008, a true copy of which is annexed hereto marked P16, the Petitioner requested the First Respondent to grant permission to obtain another vehicle to be used as a back-up vehicle.

59. By message dated 23.01.2008, a true copy of which is annexed hereto marked P17, the Petitioner was informed that he would be given a van. The Petitioner states that a Hi-ace van was handed over to him on 25.01.2008. The said van is without self starter and therefore cannot be used as a back-up vehicle.

Reduction of entitled vehicles and escorts

60. The Petitioner states that as the Commander of the Security Forces (East), the Petitioner was entitled to one staff car and three other vehicles. The Petitioner was also entitled to 10 escorts and two orderlies while at the serving station and to two drivers and two escorts while at the home station or residence.

61. As a result of the Petitioner's transfer, he is now entitled to a staff car and another vehicle and six escorts and two drivers. True copies of the circulars relating to the use of vehicles by senior officers and personal staff of senior officers are annexed hereto marked P18 and P19 respectively.

62. The Petitioner states that although as a result of his transfer his staff and other entitlements have been reduced, his security threats have not been reduced. The Petitioner further states that unlike in the east, the security threat to the Petitioner is greater in Colombo. In operational areas, the secure and unsecured areas are clearly earmarked and the Petitioner can regulate his movements accordingly. The same is not so in Colombo. In the circumstances, the Petitioner's life is in grave danger.

Withholding of Gallantry Award

63. The Petitioner states that he was recommended to receive the Rana Sura Padakkama at the Gallantry Awards Ceremony which was held on 24.01.2008. However, by letter dated 22.01.2008, the First Respondent informed the Petitioner that in view of the pending disciplinary inquiries, the Petitioner will not be awarded the Gallantry Award at the ceremony until such time that the inquiries are completed as per recommendations made by the Tri Service Board. A true copy of the said letter dated 22.01.2008 is annexed hereto marked P20.

Violation of the Petitioner's fundamental rights

64. The Petitioner states that in the aforesaid circumstances, the aforesaid actions of the First to 15th Respondents or any one or more of them is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unlawful and of no force or effect in law inasmuch as:

a) The First Respondent failed to give due regard to the threats to the Petitioner's life;

b) The First Respondent acted arbitrarily in requiring the Petitioner to vacate the staff quarters;

c) The First Respondent acted arbitrarily in withdrawing the back-up vehicle of the Petitioner;

d) The Petitioner's transfer has resulted in the reduction of his staff and vehicles, thereby increasing the security risks;

e) The removal from the Petitioner from the post of Commander of the Security Forces (East), requiring the Petitioner to vacate the staff quarters and reduction of the Petitioner's staff and vehicles, pending the Court of Inquiry is arbitrary.

Shock treatment for war heroes' families

By Nirmala Kannangara

Wasanthaa Kumarapola is a war widow since a decade ago. She had picked up the pieces of her shattered life with difficulty and learned how to support her two young children. As a single parent, it is her duty to support the children with her husband's salary and the meagre income she makes as a craftsperson in Ruwanwella. The past 10 years have been anything but easy with her struggling to make ends meet while educating her children.

But Wasanthaa was in for shock treatment last week when she received the cheque for her husband's salary with a massive deduction of Rs. 8,200. She had no clue that her husband's salary was now to be shared with his parents.

She received no communication from the authorities informing her of the deduction of her late husband's salary to pay part of it, 25% to be exact, to his parents. She simply received Rs.8200 less, a massive amount to a mother with two children to support.

TheNext of Kin (NOK)of a member of the armed services who dies on operational dutyor due to terrorist action is entitled tothe pay and allowanceshad the deceased lived up to 55 years.

Shocked

"The least they can do is to inform us. It was a shock to see the slashed payment. The bills keep increasing and our children need more money for their education. It is one huge struggle," she lamented.

This was also the plight of Sakuntala Gurudeniya whose husband died 12 years ago in Kallady. He was 31 years old when he died, and since then, she has supported her only daughter with the Rs.27,000 paid to her every month as his salary.

What is more, their in-laws too have not been informed of any such payment being made to them. Nor have they received any money.

It is then that a few war widows decided to verify matters from the Sri Lanka Army (SLA) and learned about a decision to provide 25% of a war hero's salary to the parents (if they are alive) while paying the remainder to the widow including child support.

When contacted, the parents of war heroes too said that they received no money though their daughters-in-law have made inquiries from the Army Headquarters only to be told that this is a new decision to split the salary and pay one fourth to the parents.

Confusion

The confusion lies elsewhere. (See Box for MCNS release)

As confusion reigns amongst the families of war heroes, their widows and parents claim that some of them lost their loved ones over a decade ago and are protesting that new schemes jeopardise their monthly budgets that are carefully planned to cover essential costs.

What transpires now is that the scheme has been wrongly implemented. As per the cabinet decision approved by President Mahinda Rajapakse, the diversion of 25% of the salary towards parents applies only to those who died in action since November 2007, and not a day before.

With widows blaming the Logistics and Statistics Division of the Army Headquarters for the mess-up, they also request the issue to be urgently addressed so that their lives need not be affected by sudden changes.

In the meantime, armed forces personnel bemoan the lack of coherence and policy in granting housing loans to them, alleging that procedures have changed making them wait for months on end to obtain their loan facilities.

"When they speak, they say we are to be facilitated in every way. We used to raise  housing loans through the respective departments which was convenient and quick. But now like everyone else, we are also subjected to the regular procedure. Only the interest rate is low," a soldier speaking to The Sunday Leader on the basis of anonymity, said.

Warring factions emerge as campaigning enters final week

By Dilrukshi Handunnetti

Despite government pledges to make the Batticaloa polls free and fair, there is a tangible fear that March 10 is likely to prove bloody. At the least, it is predicted that the poll result may not reflect public will.

The presumption is that the overall result is already written on the wall. The government, with the aid of the three Tamil party coalition (which includes PLOTE, EPDP and EPRLF (NABA Faction) hopes to sweep the polls in main areas and in the Batticaloa Municipal Council area, feels sure of victory with the TMVP's backing.

It is in this backdrop that the People's Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) on Thursday (28) filed a fundamental rights petition in the Supreme Court calling for free and fair elections in the Batticaloa District after disarming armed groups.

Measures for a fair poll

They cited 35 respondents including the Defence Ministry Secretary, the Minister of Local Government, the Elections Commissioner and the Inspector General of Police and called for an invalidation of votes at polling centres if vote-rigging and other malpractices take place.

PAFFREL Chief, Kingsley Rodrigo who considered the FR plea as a 'necessary pre-emptor of undemocratic practices' said that the plea sought a mandate on three issues.

"We wish to strengthen the election process. The three issues are, the prevention of the use of firearms for election related purposes by groups other than security forces and police, banning of the use of state vehicles by candidates and thirdly, a re-poll in polling centres where rigging is reported."

In the meantime, as campaigning enters the final week, the political intensity is palpable.  

In the meantime, Batticaloa is a hotbed of political activity as the campaign enters its final week. Local reports alleged government security forces and the Defence Ministry had a hand in some of the violent incidents having 'convenient Tamil proxies' to carry out orders. It is regrettably noted that due to the manner in which the Batticaloa polls are being conducted, the government and its allies have destroyed the 'well-deserved goodwill' the security forces earned by selflessly rescuing civilians during the tsunami of 2004 and sacrificing their lives in doing so.

Goodwill gone

"It is a pity that the security forces are being used to terrorise the area. The machinery is in full swing. Civilians who feared militant groups now fear security forces as well, one time their defenders," claims SLMC activist, M.L.M. Hizbullah.

Locals also claim armed Muslims aided by the intelligence services are being used to fight the LTTE alongside the Karuna Group and now used to harass the SLMC, the only opposition party in the fray.

In the meantime, the University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) in its Special Report No.29 refers to child proscription/abduction by both the Karuna camp and the opposing Pillayan group.

The latest incident contained in the report refers to the abduction of 14-year-old Indran Indraraj of Thiruchenthoor, Kallady, abducted on February 14.

The schoolboy went missing on February 14 and the mother suspects the Pillayan group for the abduction.

According to the UTHR, the mother inquired from the TMVP Pillayan camp in Arasady, Batticaloa and was unconvinced by their denial. Local people in Batticaloa have received reports about a child soldier training camp in Pulipanjakal near Kudumbimalai (Baron's Cap).

Old habits

"It is a continuation of practices Pillayan and Karuna were famous for when they were comrades in the LTTE. The mother continued to pursue the matter and complained to the police and UNICEF. A few days later she received an anonymous call saying that her son would be released and not to raise a noise," adds the report.

What is more, as opposing armed Tamil groups roam the area, there are also fears about Muslim armed groups operating in Batticaloa.

The UTHR (Jaffna) points out that the Muslim armed groups were raised to fight against the LTTE and that the Karuna Group trained these groups, a claim supported by locals.

According to the UTHR, a leading figure, Auto Kaleel, as a young boy was in LTTE intelligence and later ran away and surrendered to the army.  This was when the LTTE turned against the Muslims in the early 1990s.

"In 2006, army intelligence used him to recruit scores of Muslims to be trained by Mangalan Master of the Karuna Group to assist the army in 'liberating the east.' In 2007 they moved away from the Karuna Group and Kaleel and his followers took on a veneer of religious zeal. He was named as the leader of the gang responsible for the ritual murder of the 15-year-old girl Hidaya who was abused by a number of people (UTHR Special Report No.26). The police have not touched him."

Level of impunity

The report notes that with Muslim militants being divided, the impunity different groups enjoy is directly related to the political backing they command.  

The UTHR adds that Kaleel according to information available is now aligned to an intelligence outfit aligned to Pillayan. "This now we learn had a total of about 35 Muslim agents in Valachchenai, Eravur and Kattankudy. In one instance, members of this group exploded a claymore mine targeting a Karuna Group leader. Yet both Karuna and Pillayan function under government patronage and protection," it adds.

In the meantime, it is Valachchenai that has maintained its high prevalence of violence during the campaign. According to M.L.M. Hizbullah, Muslim militancy emanates from only SLMC defector Ameer Ali, and none other. But the clashing Tamil groups are diverse and many, he says and operate in Tamil dominant areas with the blessings of the government.

With militancy on the rise with a communal twist, there is mounting fear that March 10 is likely to prove a repeat of the infamous Wayamba poll when nothing is likely to be spared to secure victory.