Transitional Justice in Sri Lanka

When authoritarian leaders leave office it is often a pleasant surprise, with jubilation over the regime change muting calls for justice for past abuses. Sri Lanka’s former President Mahinda Rajapaksa has found himself in this happy situation.

Rajapaksa’s successor, President Mathripala Sirisena, doesn’t seem too keen on bringing to justice those behind the atrocities committed in the 26-year war between Sri Lanka and Tamil Tiger rebels.

It is estimated that up to 100,000 people, mostly civilian, died during the conflict. Most of the casualties were reported during the final phase of the war, which ended in 2009, under the Rajapaksa regime.

However, in a long speech marking the completion of 100 days in office this week, Sirisena chose not to make any mention of the pending war crimes investigation, instead choosing to list his achievements thus far and make pledges for the future.

Although Sirisena was a trusted aide of Rajapaksa and his Sri Lanka Freedom Party was often associated with hardcore Sinhala nationalist forces, many ethnic Tamils voted for him in the January presidential election, contributing to his victory. Still, they may not be too disappointed; it appears their major goal was to oust Rajapaksa.

Sirisena is also not committing too much to the ethnic Tamils, who claim to have faced discriminatory policies from successive Sinhala-Buddhist-dominated regimes for decades.

Sirisena profusely denied in his speech that he had any plans to reduce or pull out armed forces from the North, which bore the brunt of war crimes.

“It is regrettable that our political opponents are using the Internet and some media to spread false information that the armed forces are to be reduced or removed from the North,” Sirisena said, clarifying that he is only focusing on vacating armed forces from private land they had grabbed during the war.

“I wish to clearly state that during the time of the armed conflict the armed forces took private land for their use not only in the North and East, but also in the city of Colombo,” he said. “Therefore, is it wrong to give these lands back to their original owners?”

This statement reminded me of a visit I made to Sri Lanka’s Tamil-majority North a few years after the end of the war. The region was formerly under the control of Tamil Tigers, and now the Sri Lankan government had deployed military personnel in huge numbers. This was seen by locals as the government’s continued refusal to share power with them, and that instead of making efforts towards reconciliation, the government was seeking to “colonize” their areas.

There is perhaps no family in those areas that has not lost a loved one in the war, as civilians. Some were killed by Tamil Tigers, and the others by military personnel, I was told.

It’s difficult to say if Sirisena will ensure that family members of the tens of thousands of the victims get justice.

In February, Sirisena requested the United Nations to delay a long-awaited report of an investigation into atrocities committed during the Sri Lanka’s war. Agreeing to the request, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein explained he was looking at “the possibility that important new information may emerge which will strengthen the report,” as Rajapaksa had refused to cooperate.

A month later, Sirisena said he would set up another domestic inquiry, in which the UN would only be “consulted” without participation of UN investigators.

Sirisena apparently saw this concession as one of his achievements.

“You will recall the international situation facing our country at the time I was sworn in as President on January 9th,” he said in the speech. “… Because of the faith you placed in me and elected this government, the international community that was divided over us, now place their trust in this government, and me just as you did, and believe that as Head of State I would protect the freedom of this country and its Democracy, Human Rights and Fundamental Rights.”

Sirisena’s request for deferment of the UN report is understandable, given that it could have empowered his rival Rajapaksa to inflame nationalist passions and derail Sirisena’s reforms agenda. However, apart from this political consideration, there is no reason for the international community to expect the domestic inquiry to be much different from the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, which was appointed by Rajapaksa in May 2010 and which was seen as sham by international human rights groups after it concluded that the military didn’t deliberately target civilians.

Rajapaksa can still influence a domestic inquiry. He lost the January election, but he is not out of politics and remains popular. While Sirisena received 6.2 million votes, Rajapaksa was not too far behind, with 5.6 million votes.

Rajapaksa is now gearing up for the forthcoming parliamentary election, and his supporters are working tirelessly to make him the next prime minister.

Rajapaksa’s continued clout is quite evident. This week, 113 of the 225 Sri Lankan lawmakers signed a petition and submitted it to parliament’s speaker, demanding the resignation of an official in an anti-bribery commission who had summoned Rajapaksa to appear in a bribery case involving $4.6 million.

Besides, Sinhala nationalist sentiments are still strong in the country. Rajapaksa’s defeat was attributed to his attempts to build a family empire and corruption, not to his alleged anti-Tamil agenda or mere subversion of democracy.

In the absence of continued pressure by the international community, transitional justice in Sri Lanka is likely to meet the same fate as unpunished killings and disappearances in Nepal’s civil war and Myanmar’s pro-democracy movement.