Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SRI LANKA: Illegal arrest, detention and degrading treatment of a couple by the Kandana Police
 

SRI LANKA: Illegal arrest, detention and degrading treatment of a couple by the Kandana Police

November 7, 2007

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

7 November 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UA-319-2007: SRI LANKA: Illegal arrest, detention and degrading treatment of a couple by the Kandana Police

SRI LANKA: Illegal arrest; arbitrary detention; racial discrimination; inhuman and degrading treatment
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from a reliable source regarding the illegal arrest and detention of a couple by the Kandana Police who humiliated and harassed them mainly due to racial bias on 26 October 2007. Accordingly, the police visited their house at night, and after searching the premises, took the victims into police custody. No reason for the arrests was given. They were detained at the station until the early hours of the morning and interrogated at length.  The police allegedly insulted them for being 'Tamil' and accused the victims of aiding and abetting terrorist activities. They also allegedly threatened to fabricate a case against them.

CASE DETAILS:

On 26 October 2007 around 11:45 pm Manjula Loganayagam (36) and her husband T.K. Rajkumar were at home when they heard a three wheel vehicle passing to and fro several times on the road adjoining their house. This made Ms. Loganayagam apprehensive because there had been several thefts in her neighbourhood in recent times. She opened the bedroom window and saw a three wheel vehicle stop in front of her house its driver alighting from the vehicle and looking around searchingly. Ms. Loganayagam inquired from him, what he was looking for. The man replied that he was from the police and was looking for a person named 'Sivashankar'. Still suspicious, Ms. Loganayagam asked him what police station he came from and he said, 'Kandana Police'.

Soon thereafter a policeman in uniform got down from the vehicle and demanded to know whether the victim was a 'Tamil' or a 'Sinhalese'. She said she was of Tamil ethnicity. He asked what her father's name was to which she replied, that her father was deceased. The policeman barraged her with several other questions which she had patiently answered. The police then demanded to search the premises though no search warrant was produced. However aware of the enormous powers vested with the police and armed forces under the current emergency regulations including conducting random searches, she helplessly obliged. No sooner the search began the policemen noticed her pet dogs and cats in the house and scolded her for having 'animals running all over the house'. She reminded them that it was she who bore the cost of maintaining her pets and as such they of no trouble to anyone else. The uniformed policeman (who she later discovered was Sub Inspector (SI) Punchibanda) viciously kicked at her dog and demanded to see her and her husband' national identity cards. The documents were handed over but not satisfied the policeman demanded their birth certificates, other documents and also questioned her husband.

At this point, Ms. Loganayagam asked for the policeman's identification, but he replied her with an insult.  An argument had ensued after which a policeman in civvies (she later discovered he was Police Constable (PC) Jayasinghe) threatened to arrest them and take them to the police station. Immediately SI Punchibanda telephoned the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Kandana Police Station and saying the couple 'looked suspicious', obtained permission to take them into custody. According to the victims by this time, the police had searched the entire house and premises but did not find anything suspicious. But the policemen went to the top floor of the house and PC Jayasinghe pointed to the Shell Gas Company situated nearby.

A little while later a police jeep arrived. The victims were taken to the Kandana Police Station and produced before the OIC. SI Punchibanda alleged, the Shell Gas Company could be targeted from the victims' house. Then he showed the victims' ID cards to the OIC who asked Ms. Loganayagam who the man (her husband) was. She replied, "husband", but SI Punchibanda accused her of not mentioning this fact before and also accused her of maintaining an illicit relationship with a man she now claimed to be her husband.

According to the victims, the police also accused them of:
Providing information (to terrorists) to attack the Shell Gas Company;
Building their house, to enable a mortar attack on the gas company;
Using a fraudulent assessment number for their house;
Maintaining a brothel at their house—as the house contained more than three rooms, and;
Having a house full of dogs so as to discourage people from entering it.

The victims were then taken to the crimes branch of the police station and interrogated at length. PC Jayasinghe threatened to filed cases against them; he shouted that it was because of 'Tamils' like the victims that the police were overworked and could not get any sleep at night. He also instructed a Woman Police Constable (WPC) to record Ms. Loganayagam's details including (but not limited to) value of their house, details of her work place, parents and other family members, private money transactions, date of marriage, and how and when she met her husband. The victim says she refused to answer questions that were of a personal and confidential nature.

Meanwhile PC Jayasinghe took it upon himself to record the statement of Mr. Rajkumar but he purposefully delayed in doing so until about 3:45 am. Then as Mr. Rajkumar was not fluent in the Sinhala language, Ms. Loganayagam was told to interpret to him. But even while recording the statement the scolding and insulting of the victims continued. Finally done, PC Jayasinghe proclaimed he did not believe a word they said and accused them of spinning yarns (baila gahanawa). He also threatened to lock them up until the next day when he would fabricate a case against them and haul them up in court.

Eventually the victims were ordered to sign their statements and go home.  As a parting shot, PC Jayasinghe had allegedly boasted that he was from Police Intelligence and had filed many cases against Tamil people like the victims. He also accused Ms. Loganayagam of being 'snobbish' and said that women like her were a 'problem to the nation'. He said it was her 'uppity attitude' that prompted him to bring the victims to the police station -- meaning, that this was to punish her for not affording due reverence to him rather than because there was a reasonable suspicion that the victims has committed an offence.

The ordeal over, Ms. Loganayagam has now complained in writing to the authorities concerned about the illegal arrest, detention, humiliation, harassment and racial bias by the Kandana Police. She has requested that prompt and thorough investigations are conducted into the incident and legal and disciplinary action be taken against the policemen who behaved in such a shameful and disgraceful manner.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the relevant authorities listed below and urge them to take immediate legal and disciplinary action against the policemen concerned, who allegedly illegally arrested and detained the victims as well as humiliated and harassed them mainly due to racial bias. In order to prevent future such incidents, please also urge the Sri Lanka Police to educate its officers that fundamental rights guaranteed under the Sri Lankan Constitution equally applied to all Sri Lankan citizens irrespective of their ethnicity. 

To support this appeal, please click:

Sample letter:

Dear __________,

SRI LANKA: Illegal arrest, detention and degrading treatment of a couple by the Kandana Police

Name of victims: 
1. Ms. Manjula Loganayagam (36) working as a receptionist at the Norwegian Embassy
2. Mr. T.K. Rajkumar, husband of victim 1
Place of residence: 65/9, Midland City, Sinha Road, Keragahapokuna, Wattala, Sri Lanka
Alleged perpetrators:
1. Constable Jayasinghe
2. Sub Inspector (SI) Punchibanda
3. Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Kandana Police Station, Kelaniya Dist. (North), Kelaniya Division, Western Province (North) Range
Place of incident: At victims' residence and within the precincts of the Kandana Police Station
Date of incident: 26 and 27 October 2007

I am writing to you to express my deep concern about the illegal arrest and detention of Ms. Loganayagam and her husband T.K. Rajkumar, by the Kandana Police as well as for humiliating and harassing them due to racial bias. No identification or search warrant was produced; No reason for the arrest was given. Thereafter the victims were detained at the police station and interrogated at length -- during which time they were insulted for being 'Tamil' and accused of aiding and abetting terrorist activities. 

Accordingly to information I have received, on 26 October 2007 around 11:45 pm the victims, Manjula Loganayagam (36) and her husband T.K. Rajkumar were at home when policemen from the Kandana police visited them, asked to search the premises and demanded to be let in. The police did not produce a search warrant nor showed their identification. But they asked the victims a barrage of questions such as their race, their previous place of residence and parents' names. SI Punchibanda also demanded to see the victims' national identity cards but when the documents were handed over, he was satisfied and also demanded their birth certificates and other documents. All the while the victims were spoken to, in a humiliating and degrading manner.

I am informed that thereafter, SI Punchibanda telephoned the Officer in Charge of the Kandana Police Station and saying the victims 'looked suspicious', obtained permission to take them into custody.  Also the victims say, though the police searched their entire house and premises they did not find anything incriminating. A little while later a police jeep arrived and the victims were taken to the Kandana Police Station and produced before the OIC. SI Punchibanda alleged that the Shell Gas Company -- seen from the top floor of the victims' house -- could be targeted by the victims. The policemen also disparagingly suggested that Ms. Loganayagam was not married to Mr. Rajkumar but was in an illicit relationship with him.

I am also informed, that the police also accused the victims inter alia of (i) Providing information (to terrorists) to attack the Shell Gas Company; (ii) Building their house to enable a mortar attack on the gas company; (iii) maintaining a brothel at the premises -- because there were more than three rooms in the house; (iv) having a house full of dogs to discourage people from entering their house. The victims were taken to the crimes branch of the police station and interrogated at length. PC Jayasinghe threatened to file cases against them; he shouted that it was because of 'Tamils' like the victim that the police were overworked and could not get any sleep at night. He also instructed a Woman Police Constable (WPC) to record lengthy details from Ms. Loganayagam including value of their house, details of her work place, parents and other family members, money transactions and many more including personal information.

According to information received, PC Jayasinghe purposefully delayed recording Mr. Rajkumar's details until about 3:45 am. Then he forced Ms. Loganayagam to interpret for him. But even while recording the statement the scolding and insulting of the victims continued. Finally PC Jayasinghe proclaimed he did not believe a word they said and threatened he will lock them up until the next day when he will fabricate a case against them and haul them up in court. Eventually the victims were ordered to sign their statements and go home. PC Jayasinghe told them, it was Ms. Loganayagam's 'uppity attitude' that prompted him to bring the victims to the police station -- not because there was a reasonable suspicion that the victims have committed an offence.

Therefore on behalf of the victims, I urge you to conduct an immediate and impartial investigation and inquiry into the victims' complaint against the Kandana Police -- especially PC Jayasinghe, SI Punchibanda and the OIC -- and thereafter take disciplinary and legal action against the alleged perpetrators. I also urge the Sri Lanka Police to educate its officers that fundamental rights guaranteed under the Sri Lankan constitution equally applied to all Sri Lankan citizens. 

I earnestly look forward to your prompt action into this matter.

Yours sincerely,


----------------------

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTER TO:

1. Mr. Victor Perera
Inspector General of Police
New Secretariat
Colombo 1
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 440440/327877
E-mail: igp@police.lk

2. Mr. C.R. De Silva
Attorney General
Attorney General's Department
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 436421
Email: attorney@sri.lanka.net

3. Secretary
National Police Commission
3rd Floor, Rotunda Towers,
109 Galle Road
Colombo 03
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 395310
Fax: +94 11 2 395867
E-mail: npcgen@sltnet.lk

4. Secretary
Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka
No. 36, Kynsey Road
Colombo 8
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 694 925 / 673 806
Fax: +94 11 2 694 924 / 696 470
E-mail: sechrc@sltnet.lk

5. Prof. Manfred Nowak
Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture
C/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9230
Fax: +41 22 917 9016 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR TORTURE)

6. Mr. Doudou Diene
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
C/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: + 41 22 917 93 88
Fax: + 41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION)

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-319-2007
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.