The people’s mandate at the general election seven months ago was for “system change”. The main hope of those who voted overwhelmingly for the NPP was to improve the economic situation. Those who live in the north and east of the country, where the long civil war took place, voted along with their fellow citizens in other parts of the country for an improvement in their economic circumstances and a break from the decades of exclusion they have experienced. One way they thought this would happen was through the reduction of corruption that took resources away from economic development. The NPP’s central promise was to govern cleanly, hold the corrupt accountable, and recover the billions of dollars allegedly looted and hidden abroad. A common and growing criticism of the government, however, is that this recovery has yet to materialise in any significant form.

In recent weeks there has been a spate of arrests of politicians who were members of former governments and who are believed to have been corrupt. Some of them have been charged for offences that are much smaller than what they are believed to have engaged in. Some of them have been taken in for purchasing vehicles without paying the necessary taxes, and others for having used government funds to purchase things outside of the prescribed budget. In some cases, the offences for which they have been indicted appear minor compared to the larger, more systemic corruption they are suspected of. Yet, the judiciary has handed down unexpectedly severe sentences, suggesting a shift in the legal and political climate.

At present there is no indication of how the government will be able to bring back the billions that are believed to be stashed abroad. Investigations by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) have so far focused on uncovering domestic assets, such as properties, luxury hotels, and land holdings that are disproportionate to the official earnings of identified politicians. However, the fact that the designated and appropriate state institutions are actively pursuing those who have engaged in corrupt practices, even though they may be smaller than the actual extent of corrupt practices, has restored confidence in the government’s commitment to the task at hand.

North East
Those who live in the north and east of the country, where the long civil war took place, voted along with their fellow citizens in other parts of the country for “system change” that would lead to an improvement in their economic situation. In addition, they voted in the hope that the NPP, the new face in politics, would obtain for them their rights and justice. Much as they need economic resources to survive and to prosper, they cannot ignore the horrendous accounts of torture and killings that took place during the war. The memories of what happened continue to haunt those who experienced the war and its losses whether they live within or outside of the north and east.

Although the war ended 16 years ago, families of the disappeared are still waiting for truth, justice and reparations. Without knowledge of the fate and whereabouts of loved ones, enforced disappearances haunt entire communities, undermining the country’s efforts for reconciliation. An example would be the Presidential Commission report which noted that, according to witnesses, the army had detained 158 individuals from Eastern University Camp on 5 September 1990. However, nothing further has come of it.

Successive governments have sought to deflect attention away from the concerns of the people who were affected by the war. Previous governments have had no appetite to deal with the past. Many of the top leaders of former governments were themselves involved in the war. The succession of presidents held the portfolios of minister of defence and were also commanders-in-chief of the armed forces. The second problem has been the lack of interest on the part of the majority electorate to pursue the controversial and painful matters of what actually happened in the past. Those who live outside of the north and east have a simplified belief that the country has reached a situation of normalcy and peace.

A lasting solution that deals with the past would be most likely under the present NPP government as they were not compromised by being in charge of the security forces during the war. But this needs political commitment to meet the challenge of the past. Even under the present government, reports persist of land takeovers in places like Mullaitivu and Trincomalee, echoing the same patterns of demographic manipulation and marginalisation that have fuelled distrust for decades. These patterns reinforce the perception that the war’s logic has not truly ended but has simply shifted form. In place of open conflict, there are now bureaucratic and administrative delays in land restitution, selective enforcement of the law, and the slow suffocation of local autonomy through centralised decision-making.

Last Commission
Despite the passage of 16 years the international interest in the way the war ended in Sri Lanka continues to be high. The manner in which those who committed, and permitted, war crimes and human right violations in the battlefields of Sri Lanka may hold lessons for those parts of the world which are faring even worse. Instead of seeing the forthcoming visit of UN Human Rights High Commissioner Volker Türk as a burden or threat to the good name of the country, the government may see the opportunity to obtain the support of the international community to set a model for the world. The people’s mandate given for “system change” also suggests that this is the best time to address ethno-religious issues within the country that have plagued it since its independence.

The government can follow the same strategy it has followed in meeting the popular expectations for accountability with regard to economic crimes. It can use the regular law which is a powerful instrument of justice if permitted to function through independent state institutions. Where human rights and war crimes are concerned the designated state institutions can address those “emblematic cases” that have been identified in the past. These refer to incidents of human rights violations or war-time abuses which have been in the public domain for decades. Examples include the killing of five schoolboys on Trincomalee beach (2006), the killing of 17 NGO aid workers in Mutur (2006), and the disappearance of journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda (2010).

Indeed, the last presidential commission (Nawaz Commission) to go into matters of the war appointed by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in 2021 was tasked to go into the reports of all previous commissions of inquiry relating to the war and to make its findings. The Nawaz Commission recommended a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) be appointed with its first task to investigate the “emblematic cases”. Such a course of action would build trust regarding the sincerity of the government in victims, general population and international community alike. Like CIABOC, the revamped Bribery and Corruption Commission, which is building trust that economic corruption will not be tolerated, the TRC can help bring closure to the past and unite the people and communities of the country to work together for national development.

UNHRC Chief Volker Türk