First they offer help and then they
enslave
‘First
they had the book and we had the land.
Then they said “close your eyes, let us pray”. When we opened our eyes, we had the book and
they had the land.’ --
Bishop Desmond Tutu on the relationship between invader and missionary in the
conquest of Africa.
It all began innocently enough, not too dissimilar
to the Europeans who upon ‘discovering’ new lands obtained first the goodwill
of native peoples with bead in return for temporary shelter and later spilled
their blood and robbed their lands. The
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was at the beginning
full of promises and generosity. It
began when Upul Jayasuriya was the President of the Bar Association of Sri
Lanka (BASL). Money was offered and
accepted to refurbish the old auditorium.
As of now, the agency notorious for its covert
operations to destabilize countries it purports to help, is involved in
numerous other projects including the development of the District Court
Library, improving the BASL Library, BASL system networking project, public
forums, trafficking program, ethics issues, BASL research unit and the ICT
project.
Most of these projects are in the ‘in progress’
category with some having little or no progress to show. Some of them are partly funded by BASL but
are conveniently referred to as ‘USAID projects’.
Interestingly apart from the BASL President,
Geoffrey Alagaratnam the rest of the Bar seems to be clueless about projects,
duration, budget lines and such. Such
information is known almost exclusively to Prakalathan Thuraisingham (also
known as ‘Prabha’), who is the on-the-spot point-man for USAID in BASL offices
and activities. Thuraisingham works
closely with Nayomi Wickramaratne who was the previous Administrative Secretary
(Acting) of BASL.
Interestingly, she held that post even as she worked
for USAID, obtaining two salaries, a fact that the then Treasurer Upul
Deshapriya vehemently objected to.
Whether or not Upul Jayasuriya knew this is unclear. What is clear is that through her, USAID had
access to the personal files, the accounts, system information and details of
the management structure, all of which could easily be used to manipulate the
BASL for whatever ends. Whether this
happened, we don’t know, but the opportunity was there and indeed was created
either knowingly or due to gross neglect and incompetence on the part of
whoever was responsible for creating these conditions.
USAID does pay a rent for the space occupied, but
nothing is paid for the use of other BASL resources including employees. What might have begun in cordial terms had
within the space of 18 months transformed into a situation where USAID
officials operate as though they own the BASL.
USAID officials are reported to be poking their fingers into
administrative operations of the BASL.
Thuraisingham is reported to strutting around as though he is a member
of the BASL, even being present that election of Bar Council Members. The truth is he is neither member nor an
employee. Whether or not he had the
blessings of the BASL President and the rest of the BASL membership is not
known.
Most disturbing (for lawyers) is the fact that
through the ‘networking project’ funded by USAID the details of all BASL
members, court cases against lawyers, projects etc., can be accessed by an
outside agency. Considering the sway
of the BASL in the political life of the country (it played a key role in the
eviction of Mohan Peiris and the reinstating of Shiranee Bandaranayake as Chief
Justice, for example), the benefits for a rogue outfit operating for a country
that does not subscribe to the ethics one expects in matters that are described
as ‘friendly’, are pretty obvious.
Information is key.
Documentation, historically, is often a necessary first step that is
followed by either purchase or outright capture. Perhaps the affairs of the BASL are not that
dramatic, but a body that purports to be independent of political control (a
fact seriously compromised by the election of Upul Jayasuriya, a known UNPer
and an immediate beneficiary of the January 8 result) should not only steer
clear of political parties but all other bodies, especially agencies that have
a history of meddling and indeed subversion.
It doesn’t look as the membership of the BASL has a
clue about what’s happening. The
current President and the Executive Committee, for example, are contemplating a change
in the BASL structure which could very well make the ‘USAID takeover’ official
for all intents and purposes.
The envisaged
restructuring will see the appointment of an Executive Director who will
function as the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Registered Lobbyist. This
would severely diminish the discretionary powers of the Secretary, Treasurer
and Administrative Secretary.
The project is the
brainchild of USAID which is to provide relevant funds.
The person appointed
to the position will have wide powers which include implementing programs
regardless of management changes, developing income generating plans and
linking the bar with other professionals and organizations. In addition
he/she will be involved in education, communication, data base and community
through policy, reporting and programming.
He/she will also
develop strategic plans and implement the action/operational plan and micro
donation strategies, advice on all BASL activities, act as official
spokesperson of the bar, represent BASL and supervise day to day operations of
the BASL.
Thuraisingham’s name
(Surprise! Surprise!) is being tossed around as the possible first ‘Executive
Director’. BASL members would know the
nature of the organization’s relationship with the Chief Justice and the
Attorney General. The potential for
involvement in unwarranted and dangerous ways in the affairs of justice needs
no elaboration.
The proposal does not
mention eligibility criteria, opening the post to people who are not members of
BASL and therefore technically to people who have no understanding of the
judicial system of the country, its history and traditions, or the role of the
BASL. The problem then is not about Thuraisingham. If not him, then someone else, that’s the
logic that can be drawn from the absence of specification. And if USAID is funding it, there’s no reason
to believe that USAID will not have a say in who gets the job.
The membership needs
to ask questions. Alagaratnam needs to
answer questions. Will he inform the
membership of all that has happened, including the role of the USAID, the
operations of Thuraisingham, the status of BASL vis-à-vis USAID and what the
possible appointment of an USAID-handpick would mean for the BASL?
