By Skandha Gunasekara and Tharumalee Silva
The Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) probing the Easter Sunday attacks continued with its explosive revelations. Last week, it was brought to light that Former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa had close ties with Sri Lanka Thowheed Jamath (SLTJ) and that the lead bomber, Zahran Hashim, had supported President Maithripala Sirisena during the 2015 presidential election.
Former Western Province Governor Azath Salley appeared before the PSC on Tuesday (11) where he testified that former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa had links with the SLTJ and that he had used the group for political purposes.
Upon further questioning, Salley accused the former Defence Secretary of imprisoning him for refusing to promote the SLTJ’s Islamic ideals, claiming that when Rajapaksa was in power, he provided government funds to promote their cause.
Salley said that he was taken into custody by military intelligence in 2014 and was kept in custody without charges.
“I was offered Rs. 500 million and asked to leave the country. I didn’t take it. Then, I was told I’d get Rs. 300 million and be able to spend the balance Rs. 200 million for my election campaign, and keep my mouth shut. I did not take that either,” he said.
When asked to name the officer who had made the offer, the former Governor said that it was an intelligence officer.
In another controversial statement, Salley stated that it was former Minister of Muslim Religious Affairs M.H.A. Haleem’s brother, Fahim, who directly assisted Zahran Hashim and his group to engage in their activities and carry out the barbaric mission successfully.
Minister of Health Dr. Rajitha Senaratne was quick to rise to Haleem’s defence, stating: “Just because his brother is a terrorist, it is unethical to believe that Haleem too promotes and believes his brother’s ideologies.”
The former Western Province Governor said that he had passed on warnings to former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando and President Maithripala Sirisena several times, all of which went unanswered.
“As a close acquaintance of the President, I begged him to take action against Zahran. I even spoke to Fernando three times regarding the matter, but they yet failed to take notice,” said Salley.
He further warned the PSC of another individual who allegedly follows terrorist ideas, named Abdul Razik.
He stated: “He is promoting terrorism and yet, I am told they could not arrest him for a lack of evidence.”
He then went on to question the credibility of the Government. “Razik claims that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s preaching is the right Islam, and openly claims it. If a person is promoting terrorist ideals, what more evidence is needed to arrest him?”
When former Army Commander Air Marshal Sarath Fonseka inquired as to whether Razik was a threat to national security, Salley responded: “It’s possible.”
Salley then enlightened the PSC on how NTJ may have acquired their funds for the attacks and stated that the money may have come to the island from Saudi Arabia.
Salley also defended the establishment of the controversial Sharia university in Batticaloa and stated: “Shariah Law was only taught as one subject. The university was a normal university and state permission was granted to build it.”
In response to a question posed to by Minister of Power, Energy, and Business Development Ravi Karunanayake on whether Salley believed in having a separate law for the Muslim community of Sri Lanka, Salley responded: “I believe that the Muslim community should be allowed to practice Shariah Law and live accordingly.”
Furthermore, Salley revealed that P. Jainulabideen, the Leader of the Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath (TNTJ) in India, had visited Sri Lanka in 1994 and preached his ideas. After this, Abideen had attempted to re-enter the country on three separate occasions, but had been unsuccessful due to Salley’s interventions.
He stated that the Muslims community in Sri Lanka is facing severe hardship post 4/21 and blamed several Buddhist leaders including Ven. Athureliye Rathana Thera for instilling religious hatred among the citizens.
Dress code woes
Salley, after asking the PSC if he could make a statement, said that Muslim women employed in the public service were unable to report to work due to the controversial circular issued by the Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration restricting the dress code of female public service employees to only the saree or osari.
“Muslim women are on no-pay leave because of this circular. It is unjust and the Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration had openly said that the circular would not be withdrawn as long has he remained in his post. I urge the PSC to address the plight of these Muslim women,” Salley pleaded.
The PSC then agreed to summon the Secretary for the next session.
On Thursday (13), during the PSC’s second session for the week, the Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration was summoned to testify on his issuance of the controversial circular, and was questioned on why the circular was still in effect.
Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration J.J. Rathnasiri told the PSC that the circular banning the burka and making the saree the mandatory dress code for the female public servants had been issued only after discussions held with other ministry secretaries and his Minister.
Testifying before the committee, Rathnasiri said that the circular had resulted in some issues, and initiatives had been taken to amend the circular.
On Thursday, the committee was present in full force with the return of its Chairman, Ananda Kumarasiri. The other members of the committee present were Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne, Prof. Ashu Marasinghe, Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, Minister Ravi Karunanayake, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, MPs Rauff Hakeem and M.A. Sumanthiran.
Rathnasiri, who identified himself as the most senior administrative official in the country, said that there should be accountability and co-ordination among various departments and divisions of the public service, standards should be maintained, and public servants should maintain discipline.
“Following the Easter Sunday attacks, there were requests from other ministries and state officials to take new measures to ensure security and safety of property and personnel. Among those was a request to introduce a dress code for public servants. There were already some guidelines and regulations. Following two meetings of ministerial secretaries held at the Presidential Secretariat, I issued a circular to the public servants pertaining to their dress code. In addition, there were requests from many government sector organisations to take measures to the effect. The circular was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Establishments Code,” Rathnasiri said.
What followed was a dialogue between the members of the PSC and Rathnasiri, which we have been outlined below.
Karunanayake: Ours is a multi-ethnic society. According to the President, Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and Government, there had been no decision to introduce a new dress code. The Minister told the Cabinet that he did not know of that decision.
Rathnasiri: If the Minister says so, then I would not argue against it.
Sumanthiran: Would you accept the responsibility for introducing this dress code?
Rathnasiri: Yes. I, as the person who signed the circular, accept the responsibility.
Sumanthiran: The suicide bombers who carried out the attacks were dressed in trousers, track shoes, t-shirts, and carried backpacks. But you did not ban any of those garments. You made guidelines with regard to the dress code of women. Why is that?
Rathnasiri: There were complaints that those who come into public offices covering their faces were a threat to the security of property and persons. That was why we introduced the dress code.
Hakeem: Do you know that some public servants have resigned or taken leave from their jobs because of the circular at question?
Rathnasiri: No. Such a development had not been reported to us. If there is such an issue, it could be referred to the Public Service Commission. Had there been such a request, we are ready to consider it.
Hakeem: Are you aware of the situation in the Sri Lanka Institute of Development Administration following this circular?
Rathnasiri: Yes. The cadet officers of the SLIDA are undergoing training to enter public service. We instructed that the female trainees wear sarees. There are some 200 cadet officers there and they have no problem with the dress code; they all adhere to the dress code.
Sumanthiran: The Prime Minister’s Office had issued a notice that they would not adhere to the dress code; this circular amounts to a violation of human rights.
Rathnasiri: If there were such issues, then those who have such problems should first inform his or her department head, the next senior officer, and the secretary of the relevant ministry, and still, if there is no solution, then the complaint could be forwarded to the Public Service Commission. They could go before the Human Rights Commission.
Dr. Wickramaratne: Do you know that in the landmark case Gamaethige vs. Siriwardena, Supreme Court Justice Mark Fernando had stated that any public servant could go before the Human Rights Commission without going through his or her chain of command and senior officers?
Rathnasiri: It is better if the public servants follow the process when making complaints.
Hakeem: Now, there is an issue because of this circular. Many Muslim women cannot go to their workplaces because this circular makes it compulsory to wear sarees.
Rathnasiri: We have only re-imposed a previous guideline. The saree has been recognised as the dress for women in the public service.
Fonseka: Is there any such guideline making a certain dress code mandatory?
Rathnasiri: There are guidelines which specify the payments for material for the dress, which is given as an allowance to the public servants. According to those guidelines issued in the 1920s and updated lately, the payments have been specified only for saree jackets, trousers, coats, etc. Only those dresses have been recognised. In addition, when we recruit females for the public service, we specify they come on their first day of service, to accept their letter of appointment letters, in sarees. There was no intention to discriminate any person of any religion. It is under discussion to amend the circular in question. There could be changes made to it.
Second witness
The second witness called in on Thursday was former Eastern Province Governor M.L.A.M. Hizbullah.
Hizbullah told the PSC that during the 2015 presidential election, Zahran Hashim, the leader of the suicide bombers, had supported common candidate President Maithripala Sirisena.
“While I was supporting former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Zahran Hashim supported Maithripala Sirisena,” he said.
When Karunanayake queried regarding Hizbullah’s recent statement that while Muslims were a minority in Sri Lanka they were a majority in the world, the former Eastern Province Governor said his remarks had been distorted by the media.
“My intention was to alleviate fears of Muslim people who had been terrified and were worried of backlash. I wanted to encourage people to resume their livelihood and return to normalcy. That’s why I told Muslim people not to harbour any fears and reminded them that we might be a minority in this country but in global context, we are the majority,” he explained.
He then admitted that he had met Hashim in 2015 during the campaigning period of the parliamentary elections in August.
“I met Zahran Hashim in 2015. He was not a terrorist then. He was a leader of a religious group. He summoned all the candidates who contested in our district for a meeting. There, he sought our agreement to a list of demands prepared by him. The list contained demands such as the use of loudspeakers, seating arrangements for women, etc. We all agreed with him. Even the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, UNP, and UPFA candidates were there. Because we needed his support, we agreed with his demands. He had command of over 2,000-3,000 votes. Our objective was only to get votes.”
However, he said that after the meeting, Zahran had worked against his interests and had even campaigned against him during the election.
“In the parliamentary election, Zahran worked against me. I couldn’t get around 2,000 votes because of him. I lost my chance to enter Parliament by 121 votes. Then, I had to secure a National List slot. But Zahran staged protests in the East so that I could not become an MP. I am the happiest over the death of Zahran, because now I can win the next election without any trouble from his group.”
He said that in 2017, Zahran had left Kaththankudy and there were no more reports of him thereafter.
When the PSC questioned as to why Arabic signs were put up in Kaththankudy, Hizbullah replied that it was done to attract Arab tourists.
In addition, he said that date trees were planted as they were resistant to hot climates and grew well in such conditions.
With regard to the controversial Sharia university in Batticaloa, Hizbullah said that it was not a Sharia university and that it did not even teach Sharia Law.
He said that funds for the project had come from Saudi Arabia and were donated to his NGO, Hira Foundation.
“We established an NGO by the name of Sri Lanka Hira Foundation in 1993. The foundation received funds from Saudi Arabia. The foundation had received around Rs. 350 million. The funds had been utilised to renovate mosques, help poor children in their education, sponsor Imams to Mecca, and to build an intensive care unit for the Kaththankudy hospital.”
He said that he had initiated the Batticaloa University College when the Rajapaksa Government introduced a scheme to establish educational institutes.
“I asked for one such institute in the East. When Batticaloa University College was set up, Sri Lanka Hira Foundation became a shareholder. It had 90% of the shares.”
When questioned by the committee on whether it was not illegal to sign the agreement with the Government for the university while Hizbullah was the Deputy Minister, Hizbullah replied that as it was a non-profit project, and there were no such legal barriers.
“Ours was a non-profit organisation. So it was not a business or commercial practice.”
photos Saman Abesiriwardana and Krishan Kariyawasam
Salley, after asking the PSC if he could make a statement, said that Muslim women employed in the public service were unable to report to work due to the controversial circular issued by the Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration restricting the dress code of female public service employees to only the saree or osari.
“Muslim women are on no-pay leave because of this circular. It is unjust and the Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration had openly said that the circular would not be withdrawn as long has he remained in his post. I urge the PSC to address the plight of these Muslim women,” Salley pleaded.
The PSC then agreed to summon the Secretary for the next session.
On Thursday (13), during the PSC’s second session for the week, the Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration was summoned to testify on his issuance of the controversial circular, and was questioned on why the circular was still in effect.
Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration J.J. Rathnasiri told the PSC that the circular banning the burka and making the saree the mandatory dress code for the female public servants had been issued only after discussions held with other ministry secretaries and his Minister.
Testifying before the committee, Rathnasiri said that the circular had resulted in some issues, and initiatives had been taken to amend the circular.
On Thursday, the committee was present in full force with the return of its Chairman, Ananda Kumarasiri. The other members of the committee present were Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne, Prof. Ashu Marasinghe, Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, Minister Ravi Karunanayake, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, MPs Rauff Hakeem and M.A. Sumanthiran.
Rathnasiri, who identified himself as the most senior administrative official in the country, said that there should be accountability and co-ordination among various departments and divisions of the public service, standards should be maintained, and public servants should maintain discipline.
“Following the Easter Sunday attacks, there were requests from other ministries and state officials to take new measures to ensure security and safety of property and personnel. Among those was a request to introduce a dress code for public servants. There were already some guidelines and regulations. Following two meetings of ministerial secretaries held at the Presidential Secretariat, I issued a circular to the public servants pertaining to their dress code. In addition, there were requests from many government sector organisations to take measures to the effect. The circular was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Establishments Code,” Rathnasiri said.
What followed was a dialogue between the members of the PSC and Rathnasiri, which we have been outlined below.
Karunanayake: Ours is a multi-ethnic society. According to the President, Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and Government, there had been no decision to introduce a new dress code. The Minister told the Cabinet that he did not know of that decision.
Rathnasiri: If the Minister says so, then I would not argue against it.
Sumanthiran: Would you accept the responsibility for introducing this dress code?
Rathnasiri: Yes. I, as the person who signed the circular, accept the responsibility.
Sumanthiran: The suicide bombers who carried out the attacks were dressed in trousers, track shoes, t-shirts, and carried backpacks. But you did not ban any of those garments. You made guidelines with regard to the dress code of women. Why is that?
Rathnasiri: There were complaints that those who come into public offices covering their faces were a threat to the security of property and persons. That was why we introduced the dress code.
Hakeem: Do you know that some public servants have resigned or taken leave from their jobs because of the circular at question?
Rathnasiri: No. Such a development had not been reported to us. If there is such an issue, it could be referred to the Public Service Commission. Had there been such a request, we are ready to consider it.
Hakeem: Are you aware of the situation in the Sri Lanka Institute of Development Administration following this circular?
Rathnasiri: Yes. The cadet officers of the SLIDA are undergoing training to enter public service. We instructed that the female trainees wear sarees. There are some 200 cadet officers there and they have no problem with the dress code; they all adhere to the dress code.
Sumanthiran: The Prime Minister’s Office had issued a notice that they would not adhere to the dress code; this circular amounts to a violation of human rights.
Rathnasiri: If there were such issues, then those who have such problems should first inform his or her department head, the next senior officer, and the secretary of the relevant ministry, and still, if there is no solution, then the complaint could be forwarded to the Public Service Commission. They could go before the Human Rights Commission.
Dr. Wickramaratne: Do you know that in the landmark case Gamaethige vs. Siriwardena, Supreme Court Justice Mark Fernando had stated that any public servant could go before the Human Rights Commission without going through his or her chain of command and senior officers?
Rathnasiri: It is better if the public servants follow the process when making complaints.
Hakeem: Now, there is an issue because of this circular. Many Muslim women cannot go to their workplaces because this circular makes it compulsory to wear sarees.
Rathnasiri: We have only re-imposed a previous guideline. The saree has been recognised as the dress for women in the public service.
Fonseka: Is there any such guideline making a certain dress code mandatory?
Rathnasiri: There are guidelines which specify the payments for material for the dress, which is given as an allowance to the public servants. According to those guidelines issued in the 1920s and updated lately, the payments have been specified only for saree jackets, trousers, coats, etc. Only those dresses have been recognised. In addition, when we recruit females for the public service, we specify they come on their first day of service, to accept their letter of appointment letters, in sarees. There was no intention to discriminate any person of any religion. It is under discussion to amend the circular in question. There could be changes made to it.
Second witness
The second witness called in on Thursday was former Eastern Province Governor M.L.A.M. Hizbullah.
Hizbullah told the PSC that during the 2015 presidential election, Zahran Hashim, the leader of the suicide bombers, had supported common candidate President Maithripala Sirisena.
“While I was supporting former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Zahran Hashim supported Maithripala Sirisena,” he said.
When Karunanayake queried regarding Hizbullah’s recent statement that while Muslims were a minority in Sri Lanka they were a majority in the world, the former Eastern Province Governor said his remarks had been distorted by the media.
“My intention was to alleviate fears of Muslim people who had been terrified and were worried of backlash. I wanted to encourage people to resume their livelihood and return to normalcy. That’s why I told Muslim people not to harbour any fears and reminded them that we might be a minority in this country but in global context, we are the majority,” he explained.
He then admitted that he had met Hashim in 2015 during the campaigning period of the parliamentary elections in August.
“I met Zahran Hashim in 2015. He was not a terrorist then. He was a leader of a religious group. He summoned all the candidates who contested in our district for a meeting. There, he sought our agreement to a list of demands prepared by him. The list contained demands such as the use of loudspeakers, seating arrangements for women, etc. We all agreed with him. Even the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, UNP, and UPFA candidates were there. Because we needed his support, we agreed with his demands. He had command of over 2,000-3,000 votes. Our objective was only to get votes.”
However, he said that after the meeting, Zahran had worked against his interests and had even campaigned against him during the election.
“In the parliamentary election, Zahran worked against me. I couldn’t get around 2,000 votes because of him. I lost my chance to enter Parliament by 121 votes. Then, I had to secure a National List slot. But Zahran staged protests in the East so that I could not become an MP. I am the happiest over the death of Zahran, because now I can win the next election without any trouble from his group.”
He said that in 2017, Zahran had left Kaththankudy and there were no more reports of him thereafter.
When the PSC questioned as to why Arabic signs were put up in Kaththankudy, Hizbullah replied that it was done to attract Arab tourists.
In addition, he said that date trees were planted as they were resistant to hot climates and grew well in such conditions.
With regard to the controversial Sharia university in Batticaloa, Hizbullah said that it was not a Sharia university and that it did not even teach Sharia Law.
He said that funds for the project had come from Saudi Arabia and were donated to his NGO, Hira Foundation.
“We established an NGO by the name of Sri Lanka Hira Foundation in 1993. The foundation received funds from Saudi Arabia. The foundation had received around Rs. 350 million. The funds had been utilised to renovate mosques, help poor children in their education, sponsor Imams to Mecca, and to build an intensive care unit for the Kaththankudy hospital.”
He said that he had initiated the Batticaloa University College when the Rajapaksa Government introduced a scheme to establish educational institutes.
“I asked for one such institute in the East. When Batticaloa University College was set up, Sri Lanka Hira Foundation became a shareholder. It had 90% of the shares.”
When questioned by the committee on whether it was not illegal to sign the agreement with the Government for the university while Hizbullah was the Deputy Minister, Hizbullah replied that as it was a non-profit project, and there were no such legal barriers.
“Ours was a non-profit organisation. So it was not a business or commercial practice.”
photos Saman Abesiriwardana and Krishan Kariyawasam