Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07COLOMBO1054
2007-07-30 12:22:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Colombo
Cable title:
SRI LANKA: SUPREME COURT ALLOWS CASE AGAINST
how-toVZCZCXRO6430 OO RUEHBI RUEHLMC DE RUEHLM #1054/01 2111222 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 301222Z JUL 07 ZDK FM AMEMBASSY COLOMBO TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6530 INFO RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA PRIORITY 0317 RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 7301 RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU PRIORITY 5414 RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 3940 RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 1233 RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO PRIORITY 4008 RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 3094 RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI PRIORITY 7893 RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI PRIORITY 5544 RUEHON/AMCONSUL TORONTO PRIORITY 0344 RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 2236 RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 001054
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INS
MCC FOR D NASSIRY AND E BURKE
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/30/2017
TAGS: PGOV PREL PTER PHUM MOPS CE
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: SUPREME COURT ALLOWS CASE AGAINST
CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT TO PROCEED
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires James R. Moore, for reasons 1.4(b,d).
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 001054
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INS
MCC FOR D NASSIRY AND E BURKE
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/30/2017
TAGS: PGOV PREL PTER PHUM MOPS CE
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: SUPREME COURT ALLOWS CASE AGAINST
CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT TO PROCEED
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires James R. Moore, for reasons 1.4(b,d).
1. (C) SUMMARY: The Supreme Court on July 27 allowed a case
filed by the Sinhalese nationalist parties against the
constitutionality of the CFA to proceed. The Court of
Appeals had previously dismissed the suit. The line of
questioning by Chief Justice Silva may give an indication
that he intends to rule against the CFA when the hearing
takes place at the end of November. The court action is
consistent with the President's recent comments
characterizing the CFA signing in 2002 by then-PM
Wickremesinghe as a "criminal act." It is not clear whether
the SLMM, whose status depends on the CFA, could remain in
the country if the Supreme Court invalidates the agreement.
End summary.
2. (SBU) On July 27, Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva granted
leave to proceed in a case challenging the legality of the
Cease Fire Agreement (CFA) signed in February 2002 by former
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. The petitioners,
Sinhalese nationalist parties Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna
(JVP),Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) and Sinhala Maha Sabha
(SMS),argue that the CFA is unconstitutional because it was
signed by Wickremesinghe and not by then-President Chandrika
Kumaratunga. During Friday's hearing, the Chief Justice
questioned whether the CFA was still active in the country
and said it was important for the court to examine whether
the Prime Minister could legally sign such an agreement.
3. (SBU) The case was originally filed with the Court of
Appeals, which dismissed it on March 6, on the grounds that:
-- the Prime Minister, as the leader of Parliament, has the
authority to enter into agreements on behalf of the country
-- the Prime Minister at the time was head of the governing
party and the President was from the opposition
-- the Supreme Court previously upheld the legality of the
CFA when it delivered its ruling on the Post-Tsunami
Operational Management Structure (P-TOMS) case in July 2005.
4. (SBU) The parties re-filed their case with the Supreme
Court, arguing that it was improperly dismissed by the Court
of Appeals. The Supreme Court's decision last week allows
the petitioners to proceed with their full case against the
CFA in the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals
altogether. The next hearing will be held on November 30.
5. (C) The court case appears consistent with the
President's recent statements. During his "victory in the
East" speech on July 19 and several times thereafter,
Rajapaksa has referred to the signing of the CFA as a
"criminal act," saying that it illegally granted territory
to a terrorist organization.
6. (C) COMMENT: Many observers suspect that President
Rajapaksa is behind the legal action. The President has a
track record of using the JVP and JHU to achieve political
objectives through the court system. For example, the court
ruling against P-TOMS was initiated by the JVP and JHU when
Rajapaksa was Prime Minister. According to this theory, a
ruling against the CFA would be a major victory for the
President, who appears hesitant to risk international
condemnation by taking responsibility for pulling out of the
CFA. A ruling in favor of the petitioners would eliminate
the only existing framework for peace talks, undermine the
role of Norway as facilitator, and remove the legal basis for
the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission's presence in the country.
Since the JVP's stated reasons for distancing itself from the
present administration have been the Government's failure to
abrogate the CFA and to remove Norway as facilitator, such a
decision might also facilitate a rapprochement with the JVP,
bringing it back into the government fold to replace the
COLOMBO 00001054 002 OF 002
flagging support for the government among SLFP moderates and
minority parties.
MOORE
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INS
MCC FOR D NASSIRY AND E BURKE
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/30/2017
TAGS: PGOV PREL PTER PHUM MOPS CE
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: SUPREME COURT ALLOWS CASE AGAINST
CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT TO PROCEED
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires James R. Moore, for reasons 1.4(b,d).
1. (C) SUMMARY: The Supreme Court on July 27 allowed a case
filed by the Sinhalese nationalist parties against the
constitutionality of the CFA to proceed. The Court of
Appeals had previously dismissed the suit. The line of
questioning by Chief Justice Silva may give an indication
that he intends to rule against the CFA when the hearing
takes place at the end of November. The court action is
consistent with the President's recent comments
characterizing the CFA signing in 2002 by then-PM
Wickremesinghe as a "criminal act." It is not clear whether
the SLMM, whose status depends on the CFA, could remain in
the country if the Supreme Court invalidates the agreement.
End summary.
2. (SBU) On July 27, Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva granted
leave to proceed in a case challenging the legality of the
Cease Fire Agreement (CFA) signed in February 2002 by former
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. The petitioners,
Sinhalese nationalist parties Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna
(JVP),Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) and Sinhala Maha Sabha
(SMS),argue that the CFA is unconstitutional because it was
signed by Wickremesinghe and not by then-President Chandrika
Kumaratunga. During Friday's hearing, the Chief Justice
questioned whether the CFA was still active in the country
and said it was important for the court to examine whether
the Prime Minister could legally sign such an agreement.
3. (SBU) The case was originally filed with the Court of
Appeals, which dismissed it on March 6, on the grounds that:
-- the Prime Minister, as the leader of Parliament, has the
authority to enter into agreements on behalf of the country
-- the Prime Minister at the time was head of the governing
party and the President was from the opposition
-- the Supreme Court previously upheld the legality of the
CFA when it delivered its ruling on the Post-Tsunami
Operational Management Structure (P-TOMS) case in July 2005.
4. (SBU) The parties re-filed their case with the Supreme
Court, arguing that it was improperly dismissed by the Court
of Appeals. The Supreme Court's decision last week allows
the petitioners to proceed with their full case against the
CFA in the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals
altogether. The next hearing will be held on November 30.
5. (C) The court case appears consistent with the
President's recent statements. During his "victory in the
East" speech on July 19 and several times thereafter,
Rajapaksa has referred to the signing of the CFA as a
"criminal act," saying that it illegally granted territory
to a terrorist organization.
6. (C) COMMENT: Many observers suspect that President
Rajapaksa is behind the legal action. The President has a
track record of using the JVP and JHU to achieve political
objectives through the court system. For example, the court
ruling against P-TOMS was initiated by the JVP and JHU when
Rajapaksa was Prime Minister. According to this theory, a
ruling against the CFA would be a major victory for the
President, who appears hesitant to risk international
condemnation by taking responsibility for pulling out of the
CFA. A ruling in favor of the petitioners would eliminate
the only existing framework for peace talks, undermine the
role of Norway as facilitator, and remove the legal basis for
the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission's presence in the country.
Since the JVP's stated reasons for distancing itself from the
present administration have been the Government's failure to
abrogate the CFA and to remove Norway as facilitator, such a
decision might also facilitate a rapprochement with the JVP,
bringing it back into the government fold to replace the
COLOMBO 00001054 002 OF 002
flagging support for the government among SLFP moderates and
minority parties.
MOORE