Hintergrund: 1,2,3,4 – all of Fonseka’s cases. What will happen with Rajapaksa’s failed challenger (engl.)

General Sarath Fonseka, the former Commander of Army and the Chief of Defence Staff of Sri Lankan armed forces, plunged into politics at lightning speed. Newspapers speculated his presidential candidacy even before the ink dried up in his retirement letter addressed to the president. He hung up his military uniform and announced his presidential candidature.
But, had the common opposition, a collective of political parties led by UNP and the JVP, been waiting for the arrival of the savior of Gen Fonseka? Or did Fonseka, then the chief of staff, actively canvas for the job whilst he was in the army?
That is a matter of contention.
Defeated in the presidential race and arrested soon after the election, Fonseka now has to defend himself in a number of court cases, filed by the government at an alarming efficiency, generally unseen in the working of the Sri Lankan judiciary.
However, Fonseka’s trials are not without drama, especially those in military courts martial.

First court martial

On Thursday, the first court martial resumed proceedings in the Naval Headquarters. There, Fonseka is charged with two counts: Engaging in politics while in active service and disloyal conduct to the government.
Major General H.L Weeratunga presided over the three member panel of judges comprising Major General A. L. R. Wijetunga and Major General D. R. A. P Jayathilake.
UNP pole-vaulter and Minister Johnston Fernando was to give evidence. A stad-off occurred when the counsel appearing for the retired general challenged the credentials of the government minister. Fonseka’s legal team led by Rianzie Arsakularatna, PC argued that Johnston Fernando had been implicated as an accomplice of a terrorist cadre in an assassination attempt on President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
The terrorist suspect has allegedly said in his statement to the CID that Johnston Fernando had taken him to high security places which would otherwise have been out of bounds to the terrorist.
Therefore, the counsel questioned the integrity of Minister Johnston Fernando as a witness of the prosecution.
He argued that given his vulnerable position, Johnston Fernando had been compelled to implicate Gen Fonseka. Failure to do so would put Johnston Fernando in a ‘grave situation’ given his alleged involvement with the terrorist cadre.
In response, the state counsel appearing for the prosecution argued that Minister Fernando was presumed innocent until proven guilty and that charges against him were not yet proven.
Johnston Fernando in his statement given in the summary of evidence, compiled as the precursor to the court martial, has said that he visited a sports club in the Duplication Road on the invitation of Bottom Line journalist Ruwan Weerakon. Fernando added that, during the meeting, Weerakon said that General Sarath Fonseka, who was then the chief of defence staff, wanted to talk to Johnston Fernando.
When he agreed, Weerakon made a phone call from his mobile phone to a number presumably be of General Fonseka and introduced Jonston Fernando to the general, and then passed the mobile phone to him to proceed with the conversation.
Johnston Fernando said, he identified Fonseka from his voice and that during the conversation, Gen Fonseka requested him to nominate him as the UNP’s presidential candidate at the party working committee meeting.
Fernando has also alleged that Gen Fonseka told him, that he would ‘expose’ war crimes to the west and that the general used language disloyal to the government.
Johnston Fernando’s statement is the basis for the two charges filed against the former Chief of Defence Staff under the first court martial.
However, defendant’s counsel pointed out that the charge related to the use of disloyal language was absent in Johnston Fernando’s first statement given to the Criminal Investigation Department on February 5,2010. Hence, the defendant’s counsel argued that there was a discrepancy of Johnston Fernando’s statement.
The first court martial was adjourned to 26th of this month.
Persecution of defeated presidential candidates is not exactly the Sri Lankan political norm, though post election violence against the grass root members of the losing party has, largely, been a practice. Gen Fonseka is the first losing presidential candidate to be arrested and hauled before the court.
Gen Fonseka is also not the only commander of security forces to be tried by the court in the past.
Richard Udugama, the commander of army in early 60s was tried in the civil court over charges that he planned to stage a coup in 1966. The charges were later dropped. Another former commander of Lt. Gen Cecil Waidyaratne faced criminal proceedings in court for alleged misappropriation of funds allocated for military use.
However, Gen Fonseka, the only four star general in the Sri Lankan armed forces, is indicted in five court cases.Whether Fonseka is a victim of a government witch-hunt has always been a concern and his supporters have often alleged so. Was he or wasn’t he? We leave it for our readers to decide.

Second court martial

In the second court martial, Gen Fonseka faces four counts of charges related to alleged irregularities in the procurement of military supplies from Hi Corp private limited.
Last week, Colombo Magistrate Court indicted him and his son- in- law, Danuna Tilakaratne for 21 charges for the misuse of public funds during the tender procedure to procure military supplies from Hi Corp private limited.
According to charges brought forward last week, Danuna Tilakaratne, who is absconding the court, is charged under Public Property Act for cheating US $ 299061.25 of public funds through the company Hi Corp Private Ltd, during the period from November 2006 to May 31, 2009.
Tilakaratne is accused of submitting forged documents to the Sri Lanka Army in order to present him as an agent of British Borneo Defence Company in Australia.
It is alleged that he has secured four tenders for the supply of military equipment using forged papers.
Gen Fonseka was the chairman of the technical evaluation committee during the said period. He has been charged with aiding and abetting in the embezzlement of public funds.
The court also confiscated Rs.15 million and US$ 1251 in seven accounts which belonged to Danuna Tilakaratne.
The second case against Gen Fonseka is related to the purported statement that surrendering Tiger cadres were killed under the instructions of Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa
The Attorney General last week wrote to the Chief Justice requesting that Gen Fonseka be tried in a trial-at-bar over the ‘white flag story.’
It is alleged that Gen Fonseka stated in an interview with a newspaper dated December 8, 2009 that Gotabhaya Rajapaksa instructed the commander of 58 Division, Major General Savindra Silva to kill the surrendering LTTE cadres.
Gen Fonseka has said that he was told about that by a journalist attached to 58 Division. The story was published and in the following week, Gen Fonseka retracted the story. However, the newspaper stood by the story. Fonseka has told his aides that what he said was meant to be off the record and not for publication.
While requesting to appoint a trial-at-bar, the Attorney General has stated that the purported statement by Gen Sarath Fonseka has brought disrepute to the country.

The third case

In the third case filed in the Colombo Magistrate Court, last week, Gen Fonseka and his campaign secretary, Senaka Haripriya de Silva were indicted under Sections 128 and 133 of the Penal Code for allegedly harbouring military deserters during the run up to the election.
The deserters in question are, in fact, the soldiers of General Fonseka’s security detail who disobeyed orders from the top to return to barracks after former Chief of Defence staff’s security was reduced on the instructions by the defence ministry following his retirement from army and his subsequent announcement to run for presidency. Some soldiers stayed with the general and handed themselves up to the army only after the presidential election.
A year ago, Gen Fonseka was bestowed with an accolade after accolade by the government
It is an unfortunate twist of fate for him that in a matter of year, he has gone the full round from hero to villain in the eyes of the government.
However, in the capricious politics in this country, anything is possible.

 http://www.lakbimanews.lk/special/spe9.htm