Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SRI LANKA: Three-wheeler driver shot to death for alleged traffic offence

SRI LANKA: Three-wheeler driver shot to death for alleged traffic offence

February 7, 2003

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION
<br />

<br />
ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAM
<br />

<br />
7 February 2003
<br />

<br />
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<br />
UA-07-2003: Three-wheeler driver shot to death for alleged traffic offence
<br />

<br />
SRI LANKA: Extrajudicial killing, impunity
<br />
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<br />

<br />
The person killed --
<br />
T. A. Premachandra, 46-years-old, father of two children, driver of the three-wheeler and an electrician by profession attached to the Ceylon Electricity Board, formerly residing at Kajaduwa Watta, Dodangoda
<br />

<br />
The injured --
<br />
1. Edward Douglas Peters, 45-years-old, father of one child, driver of a three wheeler, residing at Kajaduwa Watta, Dodangoda
<br />
2. G. D. Sunil, 43-years-old, electrician at the Social Service Department, residing at Rahasgaha, Udumulla, Payagala
<br />

<br />

<br />
DETAILS OF THE CASE
<br />

<br />
On 1 February 2003 at about 10:30 at night, T. A. Premachandra was driving his own three-wheeler (motorized trishaw) home from work, with two companions in the back. Two police officers of the police traffic unit, Kalutara South, overtook three-wheeler from the left side on their motor cycle and shot the driver in the head with a T56 gun, resulting in his death. He was shot in the head at close range; the bullet entered from the proximity of the left ear and came out at the right eye. The driver died instantly and the three-wheeler lost control and crashed into a lamppost and overturned. The two persons seated in the back of the three-wheeler sustained severe injuries.
<br />

<br />
When one of the passengers, despite his injuries, tried calling his family members using his mobile phone and tried to talk to the killer police officers, the police kicked him and forcefully took the mobile phone. A jeep from the Kalutara South police arrived shortly, took the two injured and the dead to the Base Hospital at Nagoda, where the dead body was handed over to the hospital and the two injured were taken to the police station and arrested. They were not even given water till the post mortem examination was conducted the following day, February 2. It was only after the post mortem that they were allowed to enter the hospital.
<br />

<br />
The ASP Jayantha Kulathilaka (Acting Superintendent of Police) who headed the post mortem investigation is making a desperate effort to let off the killers. The two police officers that are responsible for the murder have said that the driver was shot because of his refusal to stop the three-wheeler when ordered to do so. Besides, they stated at the post mortem that the shot was fired at the tire of the vehicle and due to the ruts on the road it went astray, and that there was no intention to kill anyone.
<br />

<br />
In a bid to justify the killing ASP Jayantha Kulathilaka has told journalists that it is perfectly within the law to act as the police did. ASP Jayantha Kulathilaka has taken charge of the case on the orders of acting magistrate Siri Perera.
<br />

<br />

<br />
A SPECIAL REMARK
<br />

<br />
The explanation given by the police is that the three wheeler was involved in an accident with a van, regarding which a complaint was received by the Wadduwa police by phone, and that the two police officers acting on that information had shot at the vehicle. They allege that the driver was trying to speed up without obeying orders to stop. The police officers were on a 220cc Suzuki motor cycle. The apparent absurdity of this allegation lies in the fact that a seven-year-old three-wheeler with an average speed of 25kph, carrying ten conduit pipes on its hood, could not possibly outrun this motorcycle.
<br />

<br />

<br />
SUGGESTED ACTION
<br />

<br />
Please write to the appropriate authorities. A suggested letter follows:
<br />

<br />
----------------
<br />

<br />
Dear ---
<br />

<br />
Re: Extrajudicial killing of T. A. Premachandra by two police officers of Kalutara South Police Station
<br />

<br />
I am shocked to hear of the killing of T. A. Premachandra by two officers attached to the traffic police attached to the Kalutara South Police Station on February 1. That traffic police can use T56 guns to deal with an alleged traffic offence is barbarism beyond belief. That this is the case is not simply the fault of the particular police officers involved but also their superiors, who are responsible for the effective supervision of their subordinates. I find it impossible to believe that such things are allowed to happen.
<br />

<br />
In a properly functioning system much lesser offences by police are dealt with more severely and rules reviewed in order to avoid future occurrences. I urge you to investigate this matter and take action against both the perpetrators and their superior officers. I also urge you to ensure that compensation and express apologies on behalf of the state are extended to the family of the victim, particularly to his two children
<br />

<br />
Yours sincerely
<br />

<br />
---
<br />

<br />
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
<br />

<br />
1. Honorable Prime Minister
<br />
Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe
<br />
Cambridge Place
<br />
Colombo 7
<br />
SRI LANKA
<br />
Fax: +94 1 682905
<br />
Email: secpm@sltnet.lk or bradmanw@slt.lk
<br />
SALUTATION: Hon. Prime Minister
<br />

<br />
2. Mr. Ranjith Abeysuriya PC
<br />
Chairman
<br />
National Police Commission
<br />
No. 4, Shavasthi Place,
<br />
Colombo 7
<br />
SRI LANKA
<br />
Fax: +94 1 674 148
<br />
SALUTATION: Dear Commissioner
<br />

<br />
3. Hon. Mr. K.C. Kamalasabesan
<br />
Attorney General
<br />
Attorney - General's Department
<br />
Colombo 12
<br />
SRI LANKA
<br />
Fax: +94 1 436 421
<br />
Email: attorney@sri.lanka.net | or | counsel@sri.lanka.net
<br />
SALUTATION: Dear Attorney General
<br />

<br />
4. Mr. T. E. Anandrajah
<br />
Inspector General of Police (IGP)
<br />
New Secretariat
<br />
Colombo 1,
<br />
SRI LANKA
<br />
Fax: +94 1 446174
<br />
SALUTATION: Dear Inspector General of Police
<br />

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-07-2003
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.