Christians, Buddhists, civil society against General Fonseka’s conviction
On 13 August, a military court convicted Sri Lankan Army Chief General Sarath Fonseka and a personal aide, Captain Senaka Haripriya, on charges of engaging in politics whilst on active duty. Later they were also indicted on charges of aiding and abetting a mutiny and harbouring army deserters.
No one is surprised by the outcome because most people agree that it is a “political” trial, instigated by President Mahinda Rajapaksa to rid himself of a dangerous competitor for the highest office of the land.
A hero in the fight against Tamil Tigers, General Fonseka ran for president in the last election. However, he challenged the results, complaining about vote rigging, and for this, he was arrested after several charges were levelled against him.
For the Asian Human Rights Commission, the trial was unfair, far short of due process. Defence attorneys were not given enough time to prepare an adequate defence and were not allowed in the courtroom at every hearing. In addition, the judges were former subordinates of the general who were punished by him, thus raising doubts about their objectivity.
For Dr Jehan Perera, a Christian human rights activist, it is ironic that whilst the government-appointed Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation is starting its public hearings, a reverse process has taken the centre stage in the country.
In its ruling, the court martial recommended the general be stripped of rank, medals and pension, a suggestion that President Mahinda Rajapaksa ratified. “The military tribunal left it to the President to make the final decision,” Perera explained. “This gave the president an opportunity to be magnanimous. The benevolent ruler is the ideal in Buddhist historiography. It is dear to the Sri Lankan ethos. But this opportunity was not taken.” Sadly, “This case has been political from beginning to end and will, no doubt, continue to be dogged by politics”.
Two Buddhist clerics from the Malwathu and Asgiri monastic chapters, Thibbatuwawe Srisumangala and Udugama Sribuddhirakkitha Mahanayakes, are also dissatisfied with the president’s lack of compassion for General Fonseka. “Whatever the charges against him, he [the president] should have pardoned him for what he did. . . . By accepting the court’s ruling, the president committed an unjust act,” they said.
Likewise, “We condemn such a ludicrous judgement,” said Fr Terence Fernando, coordinator for the Archdiocesan Human Rights Commission. Speaking to AsiaNews, he added, “This verdict is a personal vendetta. It is quite unfair.”
Brito Fernando, from the Platform for Freedom, agrees. For him, “it is personal revenge” even if one considers that the “government might have had some reasons to justify the judgement against General Fonseka.”
As for people in the street, opinions point in the same direction, against the president’s conduct. “He would have never become “king” were it not for General Fonseka’s action in the field,” said one person. “Only the general led the battle until victory. We cannot but disagree with the way the president treats the general now.”
.png)
