Hounding protesters at the cost of GSP concessions

The government seems to be more interested in suppression of people’s agitations rather than looking into the root causes of them and resolving those issues for good. Also the authorities do not seem even to hear the people who are undergoing unprecedented hardships owing to the current economic crisis complaining about their grievances. The government leaders who are responsible for the current state of affairs are of the view that the recent public uprising 
was a crime.   

President RanilWickremesinghe had issued a gazette notification on September 23 declaring several High Security Zones (HSZs) in Colombo and suburb under the Official Secrets Act of 1955. The purpose was clear, the HSZs were meant to prevent future protests and obtain pre-emptive legal coverage for crackdown on those protests. The decision was challenged before the Supreme Court by the members of the Opposition, especially the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and some others, but before the petitions were heard, the President through another gazette on October 1 revoked the earlier gazette.   

Media reports said that the declaration of High Security Zones were made without consulting the Attorney General and the President had signed the gazette on the premise that it was presented to his signature with the Attorney General’s nod. Yet, that indicates that the President had considered only the legality of the gazette before he revoked it, and not the right of the people to peacefully protest and dissent. It also points that the gazette was not initiated by him.   

On June 10, 2021, the European parliament adopted a resolution calling for the respect for human rights including repeal of the PTA while inviting the European Commission to consider temporarily withdrawing Sri Lanka’s access to GSP+ concession

Before that the government had unleashed a crackdown on the leading persons of the recent public uprising, commonly known as the Aragalaya and using the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) against them. The government recently had promised to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to impose a moratorium on the law until it is replaced with another counter terrorism Act in line with the international standards.   

Now the authorities have presented a Bill, the Bureau of Rehabilitation Bill which also seems to be meant to hound those who agitated between April and July demanding relief from the economic hardships and a total “system change.” According to the Bill, “the objective of the Bill shall be to rehabilitate drug dependent persons, ex-combatants, members of violent extremist groups and any other group of persons who require treatment and rehabilitation …”   

Also Public Administration and Home Affairs Ministry has issued a circular restricting state officials from expressing opinions and views without following the Establishment Code. This too is viewed as a move to restrict the views against the mounting economic pressure on the people.   

As in the case with the HSZ gazette, several fundamental rights petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court against the Bureau of Rehabilitation Bill.The petitioners have stated that provisions of the Bill were inconsistent with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution that guaranteed freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and ill-treatment, and unequal treatment and discrimination. The categories cited in the Bill to be rehabilitated are ill-defined and do not clarify how these persons may qualify for rehabilitation, they argue. Ambika Satkunanathan, the former Human Rights Commissioner who is one of the petitioners in her petition argued that the use of such vague and arbitrary classifications can thus lead to persons being detained for rehabilitation for even participating in protests.   

Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government also imposed regulations through a gazette notification on March 12 last year to sending “extremists” to rehabilitation centres for one year, without them being tried by any court. Those regulations also did not define the term “extremists.” However, the Supreme Court suspended it in August last year after considering a fundamental rights petition.   

Many observers opine that the President is being pressurized by the leaders of the ruling Sri Lanka PodujanaPeramuna (SLPP) to take these harsh actions against the protesters. However, it is too early to decide if it’s the SLPP or the United National Party (UNP), the President’s party or both who really wants to take these repressive measures.   

The SLPP leaders have never been concerned about the international image of the country. They have always used the international criticisms against the country to boost their own image within the country, without considering the repercussions of it. They cited those criticisms as an attack on their patriotism. However, the UNP which also followed the same policy during the Presidencies of J.R.Jayewardene and RanasinghePremadasa followed a different approach since around 2000 under the leadership of RanilWickremesinghe.   

It was the UNP led government that repealed the Criminal Defamation Act during Ranil Wickremesinghe’s second premiership. Amidst attacks by the nationalist groups who claimed that the UNP was attempting to betray the country to the LTTE, the UNP led government was able to muster support from more than 20 countries including world powers and over 50 international organizations for the peace talks with the LTTE in 2002. The party again won acclaim from the international community when it cosponsored the UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka in 2015 and 2017. The yahapalana government lifted the proscription of many Tamil Diaspora organizations. All these acts resulted in the European Union granting the GSP plus concessions to the country in 2017 which were removed during the previous Mahinda Rajapaksa government over human rights issues.   

However, the latest actions by the government have cost the UNP of its international image while the country is on the brink of losing the GSP tax concessions again. A group of EU Ambassadors who met President Wickremesinghe on August 10 while claiming “for us, the protection of civil and human rights, above all, freedom of expression and right to dissent is of utmost importance” advised the President to “devote special attention to ongoing three processes of GSP+, IMF and the UNHRC.” The message is very clear even to an ordinary person; leave alone President Wickremesinghe who is well versed in international relations and diplomatic jargons.   

On June 10, 2021, the European parliament adopted a resolution calling for the respect for human rights including repeal of the PTA while inviting the European Commission to consider temporarily withdrawing Sri Lanka’s access to GSP+ concession. In a follow up action European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in a statement on Monday said the European Union will assess progress made on Sri Lanka’s commitments towards GSP+ trade concession “very soon”, with a report due to be released later this year or early 2023. It added that freedom of expression and assembly, dialogue among all stakeholders, as well as respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights will remain essential.There cannot be any question as to why these freedoms have come to the fore at this juncture.   

People would not protest and the Opposition parties cannot incite them to protest in a big way, unless there are issues affecting their lives. Even former President Mahinda Rajapaksa during an interview with the Sunday Times had stated “Everybody including me and the previous governments have to answer” for the country’s ills. If that was the cause of agitations, the remedy should also be in accordance with it.