Consultations carried out by the IFJ and its
partners in recent months, suggest that media freedom is a neglected dimension
in Sri Lanka’s post-war politics. Within the wider landscape of diminishing
hopes, marked by the fading of early optimism of a peace dividend accruing from
the end of Sri Lanka’s civil war in May 2009, the country’s media practitioners
continue to face formidable difficulties. Overt measures of coercion are less
conspicuous than during the war years. But there are fears that free speech is falling
victim in a media environment in which political and financial power is
deployed to silence dissent.
The restive new mood is represented among
other things, in the recent teachers’ strike which led to a three month long shutdown
of the country’s universities. The stated reasons for the strike were a
perceived decline in pay and working conditions in the teaching community,
though the larger reason was the continuing damage inflicted on Sri Lanka’s
once highly regarded education system. As the strike entered its third month,
official spokespersons using their monopoly over the state-owned media,
denounced it as an effort to topple a democratically elected political regime and
reverse the gains of the decisive victory achieved in a quarter-century long
civil war. Specific individuals were named among the leadership of the
Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) – all of them highly
regarded academics – as bearing responsibility for this conspiratorial plan.
The FUTA agitation drew wide public support. And
this has not by any means, been the only stirring of discontent beneath the placid
surface of post-war Sri Lankan society. Workers at the public sector Ceylon
Electricity Board have shown signs of restiveness in recent weeks over stagnant
pay. Industrial action within the sector has led to power cuts in parts of the
country. Observers believe that the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa
is investing too heavily in large-scale infrastructure such as ports and
expressways, stretching the economic and financial capacities of the country beyond
tolerable limits. Human rights lawyers and civil society campaign groups
believe that pension funds which are mandated to function under the central
bank and keep their investments long-term and safe, are now being induced by
subtle government pressure to buy up shares in crucial public institutions,
such as banks. The growing concentration of power in the hands of the
government is enhanced by an accretion of economic power. Placements of advertisements
by the government are being used with specific intent to control editorial
agendas. As a final enforcer of the ruling party’s will, money power could also
be deployed to directly take over media outlets.
The media terrain itself remains contested,
with the few platforms that are willing to offer a fair voice to the Tamil
community often being accused with little subtlety of being terrorist
sympathisers or “treasonous” in intent. Within the media, the failure to take a
leap across a crucial divide and achieve a state of genuine diversity is best
represented by government control which remains significant, both in terms of
ownership and advertising spending, as also content decisions.
Media freedom as essential component of national reconciliation
In July 2012 the Government of Sri Lanka (GSL)
announced a “National Action Plan” (NAP) to give effect to the recommendations
of a commission on national reconciliation. The Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) as it was called, was appointed with a
presidential mandate a whole year after the war’s end. Despite early scepticism
about its terms of reference, the hearings of the commission did manage to
unearth some important – if partial details – about civilian suffering in the
north of the country in the last years of the war. In a report running to over
400 pages, submitted in November 2011, the LLRC had no more than two pages that
were of direct relevance to the media. But the few recommendations that it did
make in this respect, were deeply consequential.
The commission had recommended steps to
prevent attacks on media personnel and institutions, the investigation of such
events from the past and deterrent punishment where appropriate. It also urged
the restoration of full rights to free movement for media personnel and the
enactment of a right to information (RTI) law. The observations of the LLRC
that have a bearing on media freedom, deserve to be quoted at some length:
Freedom of expression and right to information, which are universally
regarded as basic human rights, play a pivotal role in any reconciliation
process. It is therefore essential that media freedom be enhanced in keeping
with democratic principles and relevant fundamental rights obligations, since
any restrictions placed on media freedom would only contribute to an
environment of distrust and fear within and among ethnic groups.
This would only prevent a constructive exchange of information and
opinion placing severe constraints on the ongoing reconciliation process.
The Commission strongly recommends that:
a. All steps should be taken to prevent harassment and attacks on media
personnel and institutions.
b. Action must be taken to impose deterrent punishment on such offences,
and also priority should be given to the investigation, prosecution and
disposal of such cases to build up public confidence in the criminal justice
system.
c. Past incidents of such illegal action should be properly investigated.
The Commission observes with concern that a number of journalists and media
institutions have been attacked in the recent past. Such offences erode the
public confidence in the system of justice. Therefore, the Commission
recommends that steps should be taken to expeditiously conclude investigations
so that offenders are brought to book without delay.
d. The Government should ensure the freedom of movement of media
personnel in the North and East, as it would help in the exchange of
information contributing to the process of reconciliation.
e. Legislation be enacted to ensure the right to information.
The IFJ and its partners are concerned that despite
these very clear action points, the NAP does not set down any time-line for the
passage of an RTI law and probably glosses over the need to dispel the climate
of impunity for attacks on the media. A regime of transparency and the
assurance of free movement for media persons, also seem a remote prospect.
There is at this time a degree of confusion
over the nature of the relationship between the NAP and an earlier action plan
announced in December 2011, titled the National Action Plan for the Protection
and Promotion of Human Rights (referred to commonly as NHRAP). The latter
programme of action was evolved by the GSL as part of voluntary commitments
made at the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Sri Lanka at the U.N. Human
Rights Council (UNHRC) in May 2008. Key commitments under the NHRAP that have a
direct bearing on media freedom, include the enactment of an RTI law within a
year, a review of the Official Secrets Act within six months, and comprehensive
legislation on internet access within a month. None of these commitments has
been met. If anything, there has been a contrary trend as this report records
in a later section, with the introduction of an arbitrary rule for registration
of news websites, establishing a de facto
norm of restraining the freedom of expression without a clear legal or
constitutional mandate.
Similarly, in relation to the right to
information, the last demonstration of intent by the GSL, has been contrary. In
June 2011, the ruling alliance organised its formidable numbers in parliament
to vote down a freedom of information bill introduced by the deputy leader of
the opposition as a private member’s initiative. Despite the NHRAP and the NAP
being announced since, there has been no explicit assurance from the highest
level of the Sri Lankan political leadership, that they intend to reverse
course in the practical realm.
Free movement far from assured
Towards the end of September 2012, the GSL
declared the closure of the Menik Farm camp for internationally displaced
persons (IDPs) in Vavuniya district in the north of the country. Vavuniya is
one of four districts in the Vanni region, which bear the worst scars of the war’s
last phase. In the months after the end of the war, Menik Farm had 300,000
inmates, vulnerable to the elements, deprived of basic amenities and unsure
about life beyond the perimeter of the camp. From the early part of 2010, the
GSL began allowing IDPs housed in the camps that were beginning to earn
worldwide notoriety as internment centres, to return home. This was heralded in
official statements as the beginning of a rapid process of normalisation in a
country ravaged by years of ethnic hatred and killing. But more sensitive
elements within the Sri Lankan media found on tracking those who were seeking
to rebuild their lives, that they had little to return to. They lacked the
resources to begin life afresh after the devastation inflicted in the last
phases of the war and they had no clear idea of the lands they had tenure over,
when intensive military colonisation in the north and the east had been adopted
as a part of the national security strategy.
By September 2012, fewer than 1,200 remained in
Menik Farm. Though officially portrayed as an important milestone, in the
prevalent mood of scepticism, the closure of the camp was seen as a cosmetic
makeover in preparation for the Universal Periodic Review to be undertaken in
the U.N. Human Rights Council session, beginning end-October. Beyond the
propaganda mileage gained in the rapid downsizing of the IDP camp from its maximum
expanse in the post-war months, there were questions posed about the quality of
life assurances that the GSL was extending to the resettled population.
Soon after the GSL announced its intent to
close down Menik Farm, a news team from the English language daily Ceylon Today travelled to Vavuniya
district to record the last days of post-war resettlement. The team had much to
say about the state of uncertainty that Menik Farm went back to, even when they
were able to run the gauntlet of the heavy military presence and find their
last place of settlement. It also found that in post-war Sri Lanka, “unearthing
information in the interest of Sri Lanka’s war-displaced can prove daunting”.
The obstacles that the news team faced as it went about the job of documenting
the closure of Menik Farm, are narrated in first person in the following terms:
What is going on in a little-known place named Seeniyamottai in the
Mullativu District is a well-guarded secret, with different agencies offering
different interpretations. Often, the answer is to declare that they are not
authorized to speak to journalists, unless papers are processed through the one
powerful agency, Ministry of Defence, permitting officials to speak.
There was no expectation of a cordial welcome on our part, but it was
made very clear that the new resettlement initiative was to be a hush-hush
operation, at least for the time being. We were rudely told that there was
nothing for anyone to see inside a welfare camp and we should not be ‘overly
curious.’ Facilitated largely by the military, it bore all signs of a camp that
is still being set up.
“Go elsewhere. Visit Prabhakaran’s swimming pool.
There is nothing for you here,” a junior officer on duty told us. The style of
operation, the refusal to share any information, was in contrast to the
government’s lofty claims of transparency and accountability in the
resettlement process, and to the many assurances offered to us in Colombo that
‘there are no IDPs now. Feel free to visit any place.’
The journey and the information blockade in Seeniyamottai demonstrated
that though it is now post-war, resettlement, like many other issues connected
to the concluded war, still remained taboo a topic. So, Seeniyamottai saga was
not up for discussion. There was no surprise when we were denied entry into the
new ‘welfare’ village. If the relocated are to be believed, there is very
little welfare within the site, with no water, electricity or even cooked food
being available. Wednesday’s rain caused the IDPs to get drenched in their
new-found home, with tents being scarce.
Similar experiences were narrated by a reporter
for the news portal Lankastandard from an expedition into the Vanni to
determine the how true the official narrative on resettlement was:
Suriyapuram camp which is situated in close proximity to the Security
Forces Head Quarters in Mullaitivu is guarded by a group of army personnel and
the media is not allowed to visit the IDPs, in fear of the facts being
reported.... When The Lankastandard visited Suriyapuram camp in Nandikadal on
Wednesday September 26, 2012 to report on the efficacy of the ‘re-settlement’
programme of the IDPs and the progress thereof, the army stops us in our
tracks. The military personnel at the check point told us we could not proceed
unless we had either the permission of the District Secretary Mullaitivu or the
Civil Affairs Officers of the Security Forces Headquarters Mullaitivu... My photographer and I who were in Mullaitivu
on Wednesday and Thursday were stopped from entering the Suriyapuram camp in
Nandikadal by the army officers on guard. This was the camp where the last
batch of IDPs from the Manik Farm was brought to although the government
claimed they were re-settled in their villages... Not only did they stop us
from entering the Suriyapuram camp, they threatened us not to write anything
detrimental to them... One of the army officers inside the makeshift camp
shouted at me to leave the area immediately and warned me not to write anything
against the camp and the IDP grievances but to ‘mind my own business’.
Clearly, there is abundant basis to believe
that even with the best of intentions to report on the state of post-war
rehabilitation, the media would face active impediments from the security
forces and other state agencies. This is one important respect in which actions
by the Rajapaksa regime fall short of LLRC recommendations. In the matter of
attacks on journalists, the LLRC had voiced its outrage at a near lethal attack
on G. Kuhanathan, news editor of the Tamil daily Uthayan, even while its deliberations were on. Kuhanathan, 59, was reportedly
left for dead after being attacked with iron rods by two unidentified men while
on his way home on the evening on 29 July 2011. He was discovered in a critical
condition by passers-by and taken to Jaffna General Hospital where he was put on
life-support.
No end to impunity
In elections that had just been concluded the
previous week to local town councils in the northern province, the Tamil
National Alliance (TNA), which strongly opposes the ruling coalition of
President Rajapaksa, won 18 of 23 councils. Uthayan’s
editorial policy in backing the TNA appeared the direct provocation for the near
lethal attack on its senior news editor. This was the second attack on an Uthayan staffer in Jaffna in the space
of a few months. On 28 May, S. Kavitharan, a reporter with the newspaper, was
attacked in the city in a similar manner while on his way to work. No
investigations were conducted.
Kuhanathan and Kavitharan have since been
granted political asylum in Switzerland.
These two were the latest in a long sequence
of targeted attacks on the staff and premises of Uthayan in Jaffna city and elsewhere. In January 2006, S.S.
Sukirtharajan, a reporter for Sudar Oli,
a newspaper from the same group, was shot dead in Trincomalee in the eastern
province, in evident retribution for his role in exposing the execution-style
killing of five Tamil students by Sri Lankan armed forces. In May the same
year, two employees were killed in an armed attack on the Uthayan premises in Jaffna that may have had Kuhanathan as target.
Later that month, a delivery van belonging to the newspaper was attacked and
its driver killed. Another attack on the Uthayan
office occurred in August 2006. And in April 2007, S. Rajeevarman, an Uthayan reporter in Jaffna, was shot
dead after reporting on disappearances in the northern province.
In January 2012, a diplomatic cable from the
U.S. ambassador to Sri Lanka at the time came to light, recording a 4 October
2006 conversation with Basil Rajapaksa, brother of the president and his
officially designed “senior adviser”. Basil Rajapaksa is described as speaking
with “surprising candour” and admitting that a Special Task Force comprising
elements of the Sri Lankan military and police, may have carried out the
execution of the five students in Trincomalee. Basil Rajapaksa’s candour in
identifying the agency responsible for this atrocity, must be counted as a rare
interlude in recent diplomatic history, though he was evidently banking on
confidentiality. In the course of the same conversation, Basil Rajapaksa is
also recorded telling the U.S. ambassador that two close allies of the President
– Douglas Devananda and Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan (alias “Colonel” Karuna) – were posing problems in the northern and
eastern provinces, by letting their armed cadre loose on political enforcement
missions. The August attack on the Uthayan
premises, said Basil Rajapaksa, was probably the work of Devananda’s political
party, carried out in all likelihood with the support of elements from the Sri
Lankan Navy.
N. Vithyatharan, editor of Sudar Oli at the time of the Trincomalee
incident, recalls how Sukirtharajan alerted him to the possibility that the
death of the five students was not caused by an accidental detonation of a bomb
they were assembling, as the official story went. He had arrived at this
finding after making inquiries with staff at the morgue where the bodies were
kept. With a specific directive from his editor, Sukirtharajan then used his
contacts to enter the morgue at a time when it was thinly guarded, to take the
photographs which Sudar Oli published
the following day, effectively debunking the official narrative. Two days
later, as he prepared to go to work, Sukirtharajan was called out of his home
by a group that drove up on motorcycles and shot him dead at point blank range.
With Devananda and Karuna still being
indispensable allies of the President and key to sustaining the fortunes of the
ruling coalition in the north and east provinces, media freedom bodies in Sri
Lanka think there is little possibility of any manner of accountability being
enforced for these crimes. Since the U.S. ambassador’s cable was leaked, a
number of media platforms in Sri Lanka to publicised its contents. Among all
these, Devananda has chosen to file a defamation suit against Uthayan alone.
Progress in the investigation of Sunday Leader editor Lasantha
Wickramatunge’s murder in January 2009 and the disappearance of cartoonist
Prageeth Eknaligoda in January 2010 has been negligible. Despite occasional
statements from investigation agencies that dramatic discoveries were imminent,
hearings in both these matters have repeatedly adjourned with the police
reporting nothing of consequence.
Meanwhile, efforts by journalists through
professional bodies – including IFJ affiliates, the Free Media Movement (FMM)
and the Sri Lanka Working Journalists’ Association (SLWJA) – to highlight the
issue of impunity have been likened by official spokespersons to high treason. In
the second week of January this year, the government-owned TV channel launched
an attack, bristling with unseemly aggression, against the FMM. While playing
footage on its main news programmes of FMM members and activists from past
campaigns, the channel ran commentary attacking them in virulent terms. According
to a reliable translation provided by IFJ sources in Sri Lanka, the commentary
accused these activists of “betraying” the “motherland for gold and titles”.
With mock regret that the descendants of individuals who were “killed” during
the reign of the kings “live on today”, the commentary promised that those who
“do no good to the country, would some day face no good”.
Verbal abuse as the norm
On January 10, the government-owned newspaper
accused the FMM of petitioning the European Union (E.U.) to terminate Sri
Lanka’s bilateral trade preferences. Two former convenors of the FMM and, by
subtle implication, the current holder of that post, were accused of seeking to
undermine a concession that many industries in Sri Lanka benefit from. The
report did not stint in the use of suggestive and extremely hostile rhetoric,
describing the individuals named as “anti-national elements” who were sustained
on “foreign funds”. The accusations were provably false, since the FMM has
never advocated the withdrawal of trade concessions to Sri Lanka.
This particular round of hostile rhetoric may
have been provoked by the FMM resolve to observe a “black day” on January 25 to
commemorate the major atrocities committed on journalists in that month over preceding
years: including the murder of Lasantha Wickramatunge and the disappearance of
Prageeth Eknaligoda. Prior to the FMM’s planned demonstration, the government
secured a court injunction restricting the protests to a narrow area around the
Fort Railway Station, a major landmark in the capital city. Gangs of
stick-wielding toughs reportedly took over the place where the demonstrations
were planned. Placards carried by these gangs explicitly identified the FMM as
an ally of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the ethnic insurgent
group defeated by government forces in 2009 after a civil war marked by gross
human rights violations by both sides.
On January 25, the government-controlled
newspaper, the Daily News, carried an
editorial which warned that any effort to “sabotage the progress of the country
by disruptive elements (would) be put down”. The editorial identified the FMM as
“one of those organisations which have been in the forefront of lambasting the
Lankan state on numerous issues”. The FMM, the editorial warned, “has been
steeped in controversy and has a lot of soul-searching to do”.
On January 26, Dinamina, the Sinhala-language daily from the state-owned Lake
House (or Associated Newspapers Ceylon Ltd) group, carried a story which had senior
minister, Keheliya Rambukwella, saying that exiled journalists who had taken up
the campaign for human rights and reconciliation were “traitors” bringing the
country into “disrepute”. Later, the English-language daily from the Lake House
group, the Daily News, reported that
human rights defenders, including press freedom campaigners identified by name,
were betraying Sri Lanka and continuing to work with the terrorist rump of the
defeated Tamil insurgent group.
The abuse rose in intensity as the U.N. Human Rights
Council (UNHRC) opened its session in March 2012 and began to consider a
resolution critical of Sri Lanka’s record. In an editorial on March 16, Dinamina described human rights
defenders as “degenerates” and denounced particular press freedom campaigners
as “mouthpieces of the LTTE”. It warned that in a country like Iran, “these
kinds of bastards would be stoned to death”.
Dharmasiri Lankapeli, a veteran leader of the
Federation of Media Employees’ Trade Unions (FMETU) -- a body representing in
the main, workers at the Lake House and other state-owned groups -- was among
the main targets of abuse. The attacks also extended to social scientists and
political commentators such as P. Saravanamuttu, Nimalka Fernando and Sunila
Abeysekara, and prominent figures of the church who have argued the cause of
national reconciliation and accountability for human rights abuses since the
end of the civil war.
The government-controlled ITN TV channel has
been another easily accessible platform for severe verbal assaults against
journalists and human rights defenders. Between January 9 and 24, the channel
carried no fewer than five programmes in its daily slot titled “Vimasuma”
attacking journalists present during the nineteenth regular session of the
UNHRC, for having allegedly “betrayed” the country. Vivid and graphic
photo-montages were circulated by various political actors, which depicted journalists
and other prominent human rights defenders as terrorists and traitors, working
at the behest of alien forces.
On March 23, Mervyn Silva, Minister for Public
Relations, addressed a public demonstration against the UNHRC resolution,
threatening to “break the limbs” of the exiled journalists if they dared set
foot in the country again. Among the journalists mentioned was Poddala
Jayantha, who was left with permanent disabilities after suffering brutal assault
in Colombo city in June 2009. Silva has been known for several bruising
encounters with the media and was in July 2009, reported as publicly claiming
credit for the Wickramatunge murder in January 2009 and the assault on
Jayantha. Though he later disavowed the statement attributed to him, Silva’s
record as a baiter of journalists, has continued to cause deep unease.
On March 22, the state-controlled ITN channel
carried a news item claiming that it would soon be exposing a “traitor”, while
showing pictures of Gnanasiri Koththigoda, then the president of the Sri Lanka
Working Journalists Association (SLWJA), in the background. The anchor-person
referred to a number of journalists forced into exile by the climate of
intimidation as “media traitors” and suggested that Koththigoda was through his
news reporting, aiding the cause of secession espoused by sections of the Sri Lankan
Tamil diaspora.
The SLWJA (since renamed the Sri Lanka
Journalists’ Association, or SLJA) is an IFJ affiliate of long standing.
Poddala Jayantha, who preceded Koththigoda as president of the association has
been living in exile since January 2010 after the brutal assault he suffered
six months earlier. On March 23, Koththigoda himself took up the explicit
threats he faced in ITN’s coverage with Sri Lanka’s Media Minister Lakshman
Yapa Abeywardene. The minister then reportedly called up ITN’s director for
news, Sudarman Raddeligoda, and obtained an assurance that the attacks would
cease. Yet the attacks have continued, according to reliable IFJ sources in Sri
Lanka.
Two media personalities are identified as
particularly abusive in their public commentary over state-controlled channels.
Hudson Samarasinghe, chairman of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, runs a
daily radio talk-show where he is known to be relentless in pursuit of supposed
enemies of the nation, sparing no epithet in his condemnation. And so too is
Mahinda Abeysundara, former editor of Dinamina,
who now enjoys a regular spot in talk-shows hosted by ITN.
Crackdown on news websites
It is a particularly alarming feature of the
current state of the media in Sri Lanka, that the parliamentary opposition,
which has the unabridged right under the constitution to call into question
this manner of management of the air-waves, has chosen to opt out. Late-September,
a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on the Media Ministry adjourned within
half-an-hour without any discussion, since the members were not presented with
an agenda and could find no issues to talk about.
The opposition leadership argues that it is
under no obligation to stand up for media freedom when it gains little time or
space in the media. Ranil Wickramasinghe, leader of the opposition in
parliament, recently attracted criticism when he called on the public to
boycott all state-owned media. He followed up with an exhortation that the
public should boycott all media platforms that are seen to uncritically parrot
the line of the regime, singling out one particular media group with broadcasting
interests in Sinhala, Tamil and English. He remains unrepentant about this
seeming rabble-rousing. The political opposition he claims, is doing all it can
to bring about a degree of sanity in governance. But the media for narrow
commercial reasons has given it little traction. Indeed, the media has in his
portrayal, become a willing tool in the hands of the current regime, indulging
its every whim.
The opposition seems to have responded with a
strategy that utilises online resources to counter-attack. And news websites
hosting content on Sri Lanka have been subject to arbitrary rule changes and
frequent obstruction in recent months. In December 2011, the Media Ministry
introduced a rule requiring the registration of all websites hosting news
content on the country. An FMM petition
challenging this notification under fundamental rights clauses, was dismissed
by the Supreme Court in May on grounds that the petitioners had no locus standi in the matter, since the
websites themselves had complied with the registration requirement.
On June 29, Colombo city police raided the
offices of two news websites, SriLanka-X-News and SriLanka Mirror, took into
custody all the staff present and impounded all their equipment. A team of
approximately 25 law enforcement officials arrived at the shared premises of
the two websites that morning. All media workers present were detained within
the locked premises for three hours and questioned by the police, following
which they were taken away to the headquarters of the Crime Investigation
Department (CID). Computers and other equipment were confiscated from the
premises of the news websites.
Concurrently, the police also raided the
residence of Ruwan Ferdinandez, formerly with the SriLankaMirror and then editor-in-chief
of SriLankaXNews. Ferdinandez is a close political associate of the opposition
politician Mangala Samaraweera and his websites are in all but name, associated
with Sri Lanka’s principal opposition, the United National Party (UNP). Just
the day before the raids, Sri Lanka’s government had ordered the country’s main
internet services to cut off access to five Tamil-language news websites:
TamilWin, Athirvu, Sarithan, Ponguthamil and Pathivu. SriLankaMirror was one of
five websites blocked by the government in November 2011, following a directive
that all websites carrying news and current affairs content on the country
should be registered. It was subsequently unblocked on condition that it would
not provide links to any unregistered websites.
It was noted at the time that the June 29 crackdown
on news websites occurred soon after the
government ordered the dissolution of the
elected governing councils in three provinces of the country, including the
politically sensitive east. The raids on independent media may have been part
of a strategy to curb critical commentary during the campaign and run-up to
fresh elections in these provinces. A fortnight after the raids, the Media
Ministry issued a directive reaffirming a registration requirement for news
websites and adding on the additional requirement of an annual fee.
Though these directives have not been subject
to judicial scrutiny, Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court warned in September, while hearing
a fundamental rights petition by the owners of the websites that had been
raided, against any misinterpretation of its earlier ruling in the matter of registration.
It also ordered all equipment confiscated from the websites’ offices returned
within two weeks. Website staff taken into custody meanwhile had been released
after a day in detention, on the orders of a city magistrate. Samaraweera
believes on the evidence of the most recent hearings of the case in the court,
that the prosecution is not keen to pursue the case since it could potentially
prove embarrassing. Indeed, the Supreme Court had been visibly disdainful of
the prosecution case that the warrant for raiding the website offices had been
granted on the grounds that they had been guilty of violating the “majesty of
the presidential aura” (in Sinhalese, “rajakeeya mahima”).
The day that the website offices were raided
by police, Shantha Wijesooriya, a journalist working with SriLanka-X-News was in
a busy marketplace attending to routine chores, when a group of toughs
approached with evident intent to snatch him and bundle him into a waiting van.
Wijesooriya managed to evade his intending captors and run to safety. He spent
the next two weeks in hiding in numerous places in Colombo city and its
suburbs, before securing passage out to the relative safety of a neighbouring
South Asian country.
The reasons for the attempted abduction remain
obscure. Reports in the Colombo press after the event suggested that
Wijesooriya was seen to be a person with inside knowledge of the manner in
which the opposition websites were sustained.
Revival of Press Council
The media community in Sri Lanka is also
concerned at the revival of the long dormant Sri Lanka Press Councils Act of
1973. This is an act which incorporates several draconian provisions, including
the power to prosecute under criminal law for any perceived violation of the
laws in force. Since the law was revived two years back, the body has remained
fairly dormant and the President's efforts to bring on board a number of
journalists have failed because most have declined the invitation. The
nomination of Ariyananda Dombagahawatta apparently changed the equation since
he was the first journalist with a public profile who signed up with the newly
revived Press Council. The Committee on Public Enterprises of Sri Lanka’s
Parliament recently went into the whole question of the expenses incurred in
maintaining the Press Council and suggested that it be shut down. But the
administration is unlikely to heed this directive since it needs to keep the
body in existence for the punitive power it can exert over the media.
The self-regulatory body set up by the
newspaper industry, the Sri Lanka Press Complaints Council (SLPCC), meanwhile
has enjoyed a reaffirmation of commitment by its stakeholders, though a
withdrawal of donor support in the next two years could imperil its continuing
relevance. Despite being under-resourced in relation to the Press Council – it
works with three complaints officers as against the 16 full-time staff that the
Press Council employs – the SLPCC is seen to be a more credible body, because
it enjoys the confidence of the newspaper industry.
Provincial journalists, whose role would be
especially crucial in the post-war context, continue to suffer from unequal
wages and working conditions, seriously impairing their motivation and
commitment. They find themselves marginalised in terms of information sources
and ignored by main governmental agencies, which only feel obliged to talk to
the Colombo media. A right to information legislation is particularly important
for this category of media professional, who have special reason to insist that
this recommendation of the LLRC be implemented with appropriate seriousness.
The tenuous financial state of the Sri Lankan
media makes it vulnerable to advertiser pressures. The situation is not helped
in any way by the weighty presence of the government and its agencies in the
world of ad spending. According to a recent estimate by the Sri Lanka Press
Institute (SLPI), government sources account for 16% of total advertising
spending in the country. And with the significant ownership that the government
has in the media, it absorbs an even larger part – estimated at 38% -- of ad
expenditure. To this source of power may be added the influence acquired by the
creeping takeover of public institutions such as banks, by the current
administration. A number of media institutions have become vulnerable to
government diktat for this reason and some of them have had to accommodate
pressures for effecting change at the top of the editorial hierarchy.
Chopping and changing editors
In June, Lalith Allahakkoon, editor-in-chief
of Ceylon Today was abruptly relieved
of charge by the newspaper management. Four among his colleagues resigned in
protest against this seemingly arbitrary decision by the owners. Full editorial
control at this point passed to Hana Ibrahim, who was already designated
editor, though under the oversight of the editor-in-chief. There was much
adverse comment, especially since Ibrahim has a professional profile that
includes work with international press freedom bodies. She had also served in the
elected position of FMM convenor for two years.
The Ceylon
Today editorial team took a while reconstituting its professional
capacities. Despite the turbulence, the editorial team today insists that there
was no other motive for the changeover than the need for improved oversight of published
content. Press freedom bodies in Sri Lanka were reluctant initially to take a
stand in this matter but came around within a week, to a mild deprecation of
the Ceylon Today management decision.
Ceylon Today is owned by Tiran Alles, a businessman with
interests in a variety of sectors and a longstanding political profile. Though
once associated with the opposition politics of Mangala Samaraweera, and
instrumental in propping up the candidacy of the former Sri Lanka Army
commander, General Sarath Fonseka, in the presidential contest of January 2010,
Alles has since parted ways. Samaraweera who then headed a dissident faction of
President Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) has since merged his unit
into Wickramasinghe’s UNP, to be part of the mainstream opposition. Alles has
stayed outside this arrangement and kept faith with Fonseka, in a political
formation that is part of the opposition, but regarded by the UNP as a tacit
ally of the Rajapaksa regime.
These pressures originating within the
interface between media ownership and active politics, have been transmitted
into the community of journalists, often causing serious schisms within the
ranks. On July 8, Ceylon Today ran an
editorial titled “When Media Freedom is Abused”. With Ibrahim now holding editorial
authority, the tone and content of this leader was easily and accurately,
attributed to her. Referring to the June 29 raids on the offices of two
websites associated with the political opposition, the editorial commented:
... lost in the blanket vilification of the government action is a simple,
yet disconcerting reality – the misuse and abuse of media freedom by a
significant segment of the online media community, to hurt, vilify and defame
others under the guise of unfettered journalism. ... (I)f media, online, print
or even television, is to be treated with dignity and respect, it also needs to
accept that media freedom is not so much a right as a responsibility... that
demands that we abide by an ethical code.. a responsibility that demands we
ensure news and views published, telecast or broadcast are unbiased and
impartial, not distorted, skewed or part of a slander campaign...
Unfortunately, this was a responsibility missing in web journalism.... In an
environment where space for dissent is becoming increasingly sparse and
mainstream media is under constant threat, news websites attained greater
significance, holding the promise of going where the mainstream media
feared.... In this context, the manner in which the online portals have been
abusing media freedom not only betrays the hopes of the masses, but also
portend a greater danger, in that they provide the necessary ammunition for the
government to carry out its vindictive actions against the press en masse...
No regime is happy with absolute online freedom, and many find the issue of
striking a balance between freedom of expression and free access to information
a grave challenge. But to act irresponsibly in the manner the news websites
have done so, is to give legitimate clout for the government to clamp down on
online dissent, making it easier for it to further subjugate the media... This
is why, it is important for journalists; web based or otherwise to accept the
freedom they enjoy as a serious responsibility and practice the kind of
journalism that really matters.
Despite Ibrahim’s background in working on
press freedom issues, this editorial provoked a reaction of outrage from the
opposition press. In a letter addressed to CPJ’s Asia programme coordinator,
Samaraweera accused Ibrahim of “negative, inflammatory and inaccurate reporting”.
Under Ibrahim’s editorial guidance, said Samaraweera, Ceylon Today and its associated Sinhala-language newspaper Mawbima had “taken a stoic position to
defend the Sri Lankan government’s illegal action against the websites, in some
cases going beyond the call of duty to report, and descending to actually
provoking further action and arrests against journalists at the website and its
administrators”. The two newspapers, he continued, had “failed to publish a
single statement issued by foreign governments and the UN expressing concern
over the raid, in its print edition”.
Independent journalists in Sri Lanka admit in
moments of candour, that much of the material that is published on opposition
websites would not meet professional standards. Samaraweera though, is
convinced that the standards that these websites have set are considerably
superior to those of state-owned media. Few would disagree. And this is an
ethical conundrum that underlines yet again, the longstanding IFJ insistence
that state-owned media in Sri Lanka should be transformed into public service
media.
FMM activist Sunil Jeyasekara, who worked as
deputy editor of Irurasa, the Sinhala
language weekly published by the Sunday
Leader, came to accept the many months of salary denied as a consequence of
the financial distress the group was going through. He continued working out of
a sense of commitment, but was told in July by the group chairman, that his
services were no longer needed. It is not clear if the termination of his
services then had anything to do with a number of hostile articles that the Sunday Leader published around the same
time, about the FMM.
Frederica Jansz, editor of the Sunday Leader was forced to resign at
the end of September, within months of the newspaper passing into the ownership
of a stockmarket investor. Asanga Seneviratne, who now owns a substantial stake
in the newspaper, insists that he only came in to retrieve the Sunday Leader from a precarious
financial situation. Jansz was in this account, instrumental in bringing him in
as an investor and was paid a substantial commission as part of the deal. When Seneviratne
later decided to switch the editorial management, he paid Jansz an agreed
amount as severance pay.
The narrative that has gained ground though,
is of Jansz having been forced out because of her history of taking on the
ruling dispensation and especially her many bruising encounters with Defence
Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, another brother of the President’s. This is a
history that goes back to stories run in the Sunday Leader under Lasantha Wickramatunge’s editorship, alleging
serious corruption in the acquisition of defence equipment under Gotabhaya
Rajapaksa’s watch. Just prior to the January 2010 presidential election, the Sunday Leader ran a front-page story
putting down the summary execution of LTTE leaders who were surrendering under
a white-flag after painstaking negotiations brokered by international actors,
to an explicit order from the Defence Secretary. Fonseka was quoted definitively
making this pronouncement, though a study of the fine print seemed to indicate
that he was actually speaking on the basis of information received from
journalists embedded with the army unit in the area. The public revelation of
this information in the mood of post-war triumphalism, was a considerable
public relations setback for Fonseka’s candidacy in the presidential election.
Despite President Rajapaksa’s comfortable victory in the January 2010 election,
the family seemed intent on pursuing a vendetta against the former army
commander, placing him under arrest shortly afterwards and putting him on trial
in a variety of cases.
In October 2010, Jansz took the stand as a
witness for the prosecution in a case brought against Fonseka under the Army
Act, for putting out details of what came to be called the “white flags story”.
There were questions then raised about the ethics of a newspaper editor taking
the witness stand against a news source for a story carried in her own
newspaper under her byline. Jansz proved eager to prove the case against the
former army commander, handing over her notebook from the purported interview
at which he made the “white flag” revelations. This led to Fonseka’s conviction
in November 2011 under the Army Act, for causing disaffection within the ranks
and violating principles of the “chain of command”.
In July 2012, Jansz called up the Defence
Secretary to verify information gathered on the change of duty rosters in a
scheduled flight of the Sri Lankan national airline, to accommodate a family intimate
of his in bringing home a pet dog from Switzerland. The public interest angle
here was the supposed cancellation of twenty passenger bookings on the flight in
question, since the pilot assigned to the task of transporting the Defence
Secretary’s pet was not licensed to fly the large aircraft normally deployed on
the route. The change in duty roster had been revoked after senior pilots of
the airline registered their protest. Jansz’s call to the Defence Secretary
quickly descended into bitter acrimony. A few days later, Jansz called up the
Defence Secretary again to inform him that the Sunday Leader was not carrying the story, though not because the
facts were in question. Again, the Defence Secretary erupted in anger and
intemperate abuse. The Sunday Leader
carried the transcript of both conversations prominently on front page the very
next week, causing great public outrage.
As this situation report is prepared for
publication, the Sunday Leader is
believed to have acceded to a directive by the Press Council to publish an
apology for this story, which brought the Defence Secretary into disrepute. If
true, this would be the first exercise of authority by the Press Council, with
serious long term consequences for the Sri Lankan media.
Aware of the inherent dangers, Sri Lanka’s
media community is seeking to reaffirm its commitment to the self-regulatory
body set up by the newspaper industry, the Sri Lanka Press Complaints Council.
This is a body that faces a possible existential threat on account of a
withdrawal of donor support. However, the current management of the body, which
comes under the Sri Lanka Press Institute, is positive about keeping it running,
and even renewing its relevance. The plans, which include the transformation of
the SLPI into an international training hub with all appropriate
certifications, are credible, though they could well come to nothing without
the unconditional support of the media industry and broader civil society. The
alternative may well be an erosion of media independence and with it, the rapid
receding of all realistic prospects of national reconciliation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report is the outcome of the IFJ’s
continuing engagement with partners in Sri Lanka. The IFJ’s South Asia
coordinator, Sukumar Muralidharan, visited Sri Lanka at the end of September
2012 to gather information for this report. The effort put in by Sharmini Boyle
and Sunil Jeyasekara of the Free Media Movement (FMM) in coordinating this
mission is gratefully acknowledged. In addition, the following individuals and
the institutions they represent were of utmost help with their insights and
information:
- DIlrukshi Handunetti, Senior
Deputy Editor, Ceylon Today
- Hana Ibrahim, Editor,
Ceylon Today
- Imran Furkan, Chief
Executive, Sri Lanka Press Institute
- J.C. Weliamuna, Lawyer
and human rights activist
- Kamal Liyanarachhi, Sri
Lanka Press Complaints Commission
- Kumar Nadesan,
Chairman, Sri Lanka Press Institute
- Lasantha Ruhunage, Sri
Lanka Journalists’ Association
- Mangala Samaraweera, Member
of Parliament, United National Party
- M.T.M. Muzammil, Sri
Lanka Muslim Media Forum
- N.M. Ameen, Editor, Navamani and Convenor, Sri Lanka
Muslim Media Forum
- Ranga Jayasuriya, Sri
Lanka Journalists’ Association
- Ranil Wickramasinghe, Member
of Parliament, United National Party
- Ruki Fernando, Human
rights campaigner
- Sanjana Hattotuwa,
Editor, Groundviews
- Shan Wijethunge, Transparency
International
- T. Premananthan,
Editor, Uthayan
- Thilanga Sumathipala,
Chairman, Lakbima group
- Udaya Kalupitharana,
Human rights campaigner, Inform
- William Sukumar
Rockwood, Sri Lanka Press Complaints Commission
