A meeting was held on 17 September at Veerakatthi Pillaiyar Kovil hall in Karaikudiyiruppu, Mullaithivu, which was a follow-up to an event on 1 July at the same venue. At the earlier event families of the disappeared demanded an explanation from the TNA for expressing its satisfaction with the OMP Bill although victims were not consulted about their wishes. In reply to the people’s agitated calls for clarification, TNA’s Wanni District MP Mrs. Shanthi Sriskandraja said she as a party member was neither consulted or was aware of what the party had agreed to before the OMP Bill was tabled in parliament. She promised to bring along Mr. Sumanthiran, who had publicly expressed satisfaction for the Bill, to answer their questions.

Repeated protests

The Sri Lanka Government pledged to introduce four transitional justice mechanisms at the September 2015 UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) meeting in Geneva, which included the OMP, a judicial mechanism, an Office of Reparations and a Commission for Truth, Justice and Reconciliation. These pledges were incorporated in UNHRC Resolution 30/1 which Colombo agreed to implement. Despite repeated protests by families of the disappeared and civil society organisations that they had not been consulted, the Government tabled the OMP Bill on 27 May and passed it into law on 11 August.

At Saturday’s event, in response to a question on why he expressed satisfaction with the OMP without consulting the victims, Mr. Sumanthiran replied, “I did not speak about the people’s views only my own. It was based on my understanding of international law and legal mechanisms. I can’t consult 100 people where one person says it (OMP) is useful and another person says it’s not. We are not machines who merely convey the opinions of others. We were elected as representatives because people believed we have competence and the ability to think for ourselves. I have never said anything wrong. If I were to reject something good, I would be a liar.”

TNA 'pleased'

Although Mr. Sumanthiran said his views were personal, the TNA issued a statement on 1 July expressing its satisfaction with the OMP Bill: “We are pleased that several of the extensive revisions we urged have been included in the gazetted text.”

The TNA’s disingenuousness on consulting victims on the OMP Bill was reflected in an article that appeared in the Sunday Times on the 18 September. There highly-regarded legal commentator Kishali Pinto-Jayewardene said, “Deflating rising public anger regarding the non-consultative process followed in finalising this law, the TNA quickly intervened saying that they had examined the OMP Bill as it was at the time and that their ‘concerns’ had been incorporated.”

At the meeting however, Mr. Sumanthiran elaborated why neither he nor the TNA had consulted the families of the disappeared: “We did not speak with the people regarding the OMP law till it was passed because it would be misinterpreted. Now that it has been passed we will go from district to district and explain it to the people. You can tell us shortcoming and we will try to remedy them.”

(By Athula Withanage – jdslanka.org)