‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ is a well-tested dictum in Sri Lanka. Details of the cases of child abuse, particularly by clergy, in a number of instances, revealed a common trait of long, drawn-out legal procedures, only to be thwarted due to discrepancies in evidence.
Enormous political power
Despite the gravity of the accusation, procuring a girl and raping her, the Police did not take prompt action to arrest a particular leading monk and investigate the case thoroughly. Given the enormous political power the monk apparently wields as a prominent religious leader with a close relationship with the political establishment, neither the Government nor the Opposition political parties in the Parliament rallied swift support to put the Police into action. A total of 22 female Parliamentarians, a historical record in women’s representation, also did not stand with the child. It was only after repeated attempts by the National Child Protection Authority (NCPA) and public outcries that the Police arrested the monk. In addition, court proceedings also reveal a number of loopholes creating favourable conditions to deny justice to the abused child. It is in this context that the Women’s Caucus in the Parliament called for a secret meeting on 5 June.
Screaming silence
On top of the secrecy, the news that the NCPA was reprimanded for making the Police uncomfortable, reported by the BBC Sinhala news, and later by other media, quoting sources present at the meeting, is distressing.
As the Government, the Women and Child Affairs Ministry, the Police, and female MPs failed to stand with the child, and only the NCPA and web-based social media stood up to ensure that due process would take its course, unhindered by the influence of power and privilege. As the public, we could observe how the NCPA had to force the Police to take action to arrest the monk and produce him to the court. The monk was only produced to the court on the second court day, only to be released on bail. It speaks for itself that the case will proceed to deny justice unless the relevant authorities, such as NCPA, are empowered to defend the child’s interests.
Women’s Caucus
The press release issued by the Women’s Caucus on Monday (8), while hinting that the Caucus too shares an interest in ensuring that the case proceeds with stronger evidence, reveals a dangerous tendency. Reference to intervention in setting new guidelines on “media reporting and judicial proceedings relating to child abuse cases” has escalated worries that the attempt is to impose a complete blackout and obstruct transparency in how investigations and court proceedings move forward. We, as the concerned public, believe that justice is not limited to the affected girl, but also to all of us, abused children participating in their respective judicial proceedings, and the people in Sri Lanka. It is important that we know what happened at the court, and social media has been the only outlet for information in the case of Hemarathana, as all mainstream media observe a vow of silence, bound by their affinity to high-powered religious figures.
Following the secret meeting and the BBC exposé, the statement by MP, attorney Lakmali Hemachandra, on using her Parliamentary privileges and related political conversations, has further shifted the spotlight away from where it belongs: the abused child and justice. The case, which first received deafening silence from the political establishment, female MPs, and the mainstream media, has now entered a Yanne Koheda, Malle Pol (neither here, nor there) moment. Amid procedural debates and privileged statements, the child's right to timely justice has been pushed to the backseat once again. Forces derailing justice are taking the upper hand.
Public demand answers
Therefore, we, as the concerned public demand answers to the following: What discussions, if any, have taken place regarding assigning a greater investigative role to the NCPA in this case, for example, transferring the case investigation to the NCPA?; What specific progress has been made in the investigation thus far? What key investigative steps have been completed, and what actions remain outstanding before the investigation can be concluded?; Have all gaps, deficiencies, and concerns relating to the investigation that were raised by the lawyers appearing on behalf of the child during the 22 May court proceedings and subsequently been adequately addressed?; Why have charges relating to human trafficking not been pursued in this case? Has this possibility been investigated, and if so, what was the basis for determining that such charges were not warranted?; Has the Attorney General's Department appointed a State Counsel or other legal representative to represent the interests of the child in these proceedings? If so, who has been appointed?; What steps have been taken to protect the NCPA officers involved in this case from vilification, harassment, or external pressure while carrying out their duties?; Given the influence associated with the suspect in Anuradhapura, has the possibility of transferring the case to another jurisdiction been considered as a means of safeguarding confidence in the impartiality of the proceedings?; Has the possibility of a Trial-at-Bar been considered in this case, given the substantial public interest and the need to maintain confidence in the administration of justice?; What measures have been put in place to safeguard the child's mental health, well-being, and education, both during the investigation and in the longer term?; and, What assurances can be provided that witnesses and other persons possessing information relevant to the case, including members of the child's family, are being adequately protected from intimidation, pressure, harassment, or undue influence?
The Women of Conscience is a group of women standing in solidarity with those abused and marginalised by racial, capitalist and patriarchal systems
--------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication