Whose interests are these ‘Eminent Persons’ watching?

I read with some interest the news that the so-called International Independent

Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) are to exit Sri Lanka shortly, and noted also that the news was presented in dramatic fashion. My contact with these eminent persons has been brief but I believe revealing nevertheless. What I have seen and heard have made me question their credentials with respect to the terms ‘independent’ and ‘eminent.’ Here’s my story.

I was present at the first public sitting of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry investigating the killing of 17 aid workers of the French NGO Action Against Hunger (ACF) in Muttur in early August 2006, as a pubic observer.

After the counsel for the Sri Lankan Army, Gomin Dayasiri marked his appearance, Dana Urban, who was acting as assistant to professor B. Mathews, a member of IIGEP, made an application to the Commission for an adjournment to enable the counsel for ACF to make an appearance. The Commission overruled this request since Urban did have a standing in the matter, either as an official of ACF or as a designated representative.

The Commission accepted the submissions of Gomin Dayasiri that no application had been made either by ACF or their counsel for an adjournment as sought by Urban.

It is indeed ironic that no representation was made since ACF had indeed made an application to appear before the Commission.

As a layman, to the best of my knowledge, I believe the following:

(1) That if a party desires to appear at proceedings, it is up to that party to do so, or to choose to be represented by a counsel.

(2) It is the right of such a party or counsel to seek an adjournment on proper legal grounds, if such adjournment is considered desirable.

Obviously, the IIGEP cannot or should not, whilst not representing any party to the inquiry and also holding the position of independent, unbiased and impartial observer status, have somebody such as Urban at the Commission and Inquiry playing the role of a special interest far exceeding the role assigned to him.

While observing the proceeding from a distance, the questions that came to my mind were:

(1)    Whom did Urban really represent?

(2)    Did he represent ACF or did he believe he did?

(3)    Did he have the authority of ACF to make that application or did he step into their shoes arbitrarily to seek an adjournment?

(4)    Can Urban, being an IIGEP representative, make an application for an adjournment on behalf of ACF without instructions?

(5)  What are the relevant ethics?

(6) What does all this imply in terms of ambit and intent of IIGEP?

In view of the aforesaid, I would also like to state in public interest that the time has come when international observers themselves require observers to keep an eye on their conduct as they are often here to tarnish the good name of our country. Also, this is done while being prejudiced and biased or indoctrinated with undisclosed agenda to open avenues for foreign interferences into our internal affairs.

Our media too perhaps should beware of such dubious motives and agendas of ‘Eminent Persons.’ 

Dimuth Gunawardena