Rajapakse’s failed trip to London: Advisors should have known better

EDITORIAL: Rajapakse’s failed trip to London: Advisors should have known better

Posted by Sri Lanka Guardian

Where the offences are committed outside the UK jurisdiction there is extra-territorial jurisdiction to deal with UK nationals and ‘residents’. Although the visitors and other non-residents may not include, it is strictly in the hands of the Court vested with the power of interpretation of the statute.

(December 02, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) President Rajapakse’s private visit at the at the expense of taxpayers’ money to satisfy his ego has failed and his so-called talk at the Oxford University organised by the Sri Lankan students there has been cancelled. In the eyes of right thinking people, the London trip is utterly useless and insignificant with no benefit whatsoever either to the President Rajapakse or to the people of Sri Lanka.

President Rajapakse’s security advisors should face the full brunt of the blame for this monumental blunder that tarnished the image of Sri Lanka in the international arena. Only their incapacity exposed the President Rajapakse to undertake this useless visit to the UK at a time when the President Rajapakse faces a great danger of being arrested for alleged war crimes.

The so-called advisors should have known that the British Criminal Justice System provides for crimes, which include ‘war crimes’ and crimes against humanity committed within the UK jurisdiction and also outside the British territory. And unlike in Sri Lanka the UK justice system is absolutely free from any form of interference and committed to uphold the rule of law and the public interests at any cost. The UK Courts have jurisdiction to prosecute perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity irrespective of where the crimes are committed provide the suspect are UK nationals or ‘resident’ in the UK.

In the UK International Criminal Court Act was enacted in 2001 giving effect to the Statute of the International Criminal Court; to provide for offences under the law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland corresponding to offences within the jurisdiction of that Court. Part 2 of the Act deals with the procedure to be followed for the arrest and surrender of a person alleged to have committed war crimes committed after 2001, under the ICC Statute. Where the offences are committed outside the UK jurisdiction there is extra-territorial jurisdiction to deal with UK nationals and ‘residents’. Although the visitors and other non-residents may not include, it is strictly in the hands of the Court vested with the power of interpretation of the statute. Of course non-UK nationals who are suspected of war crimes may be deported out of the territory. And already there is amendment proposed to expand the jurisdiction of UK Courts to include not only those who are UK nationals or ‘residents’ but the suspects who are merely present in the UK.

As at present there are over 300,000 strong, Tamil ‘activists’ in the UK. They clandestinely engage in a relentless campaign to see the down-fall of Rajapakse administration. Already they have lobbied number of MPs and eminent war crime experts and provided photographic and video evidence of war crimes. And there are allegations war crimes by the British Government itself demanding independent inquiry to inquire into the allegations. In this scenario one should only surprise if no arrest warrant is sought against President Rajapakse during his stay in the UK and in the event any such warrant is issued it is highly unlikely that the Cameron Administration would interfere with any such move.

In the meanwhile the government media in Sri Lanka informed public that the London visit undertaken by the President would consist of talks with high-ranking UK government officials, which include the meeting with the UK Foreign Secretary. However, this statement has been clearly denied by the spokesman to the Foreign Secretary.

Despite all these odds and particularly when the UK government is not an alley of the Rajapakse administration, the advisors to the President should have been more cautious and prudent in their approach than being just ‘yes men’ to the President. Due to their monumental failure President Rajapakse paid a high price, which was waiting to happen at some stage of his Presidency for his own fault of selecting only ‘yes men’ in his advisory panel.

It is sad but true that had the ‘so-called’ advisors followed common sense approach and briefed the President clearly and precisely against the dangers of the utterly useless UK trip that brought President Rajapakse to disrepute, whilst affording his opponents an opportunity to disgrace him in the international forum, the President Rajapakse would have been saved from the great humiliation.

-Vishwamithra