Photo courtesy of Polity

It has been 36 years since the murder of Richard de Zoysa, an internationally known journalist, artist, political and cultural critic and human rights activist. In the early hours of February 18, 1990, a group of men abducted him from his home in front of his mother. His body was later found on February 19, 1990 on the beach at Koralawella, Moratuwa.

A formal investigation into de Zoysa’s death, which drew international attention, was repeatedly demanded. However, the UNP government rejected calls for an independent inquiry even after the opposition requested the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into his abduction and killing.

During the parliamentary debate on the motion presented to appoint such a commission, various parties presented information and allegations regarding de Zoysa’s murder. The proposal for an inquiry was submitted with the support of Sirimavo Bandaranaike, who was the leader of the opposition at the time, along with other main party leaders.

Many of the political figures who participated in that parliamentary effort have since passed away while others have retired from politics. However, several remain active in political life even today.

The ruling party unanimously opposed the motion to establish a Commission of Inquiry into the abduction and murder of de Zoysa.

Speaking on behalf of the government, K.N. Choksy argued that a special commission was unnecessary, claiming that investigations were already being carried out through the courts. Several government MPs and ministers including Paul Perera, John Amaratunga, H.R. Piyasiri, Chandra Ranatunga and Harindranath Dunuwila also maintained that there was no justification for appointing a commission of inquiry.

Meanwhile Leader of the House, Ranil Wickremesinghe, stated that the motion itself amounted to delivering a verdict on the case since it declared that de Zoysa had been abducted and murdered.

“This motion is against the law. I am not going to break the law. My position is that the rule of law cannot be violated. What you can see even from the police investigation is that this is a very complex case involving many motives, and the police are looking into all of them. It is not my intention to read anything into sexual acrobatics here, but I am saying that everything that happens for various reasons should be investigated, the circumstances surrounding the death,” he said.

“So they did not make the motion about the ‘circumstances surrounding the death of Richard de Zoysa.’ Instead, they tried to prejudge it. They fell into the trap they created themselves…You are trying to politicise human rights. Richard de Zoysa – he was a journalist. He had his own lifestyle. Any of these could have contributed to his death. Any of these could have been the cause. There could have been people who wanted to attack him. There could have been a question of revenge. All these matters should be investigated. But you are trying to present a case in which a human rights journalist was killed in public. Unfortunately, you cannot confirm it,” he stressed.

MP Anil Munasinghe emphasised that Deputy Speaker Gamini Fonseka had allegedly informed de Zoysa’s family through the Inspector General of Police (IGP) that the abducted journalist was in police custody.

“When Deputy Speaker Mr. Gamini Fonseka was told about this, he spoke to the IGP. He spoke to the police. He then spoke to Gamini again and said, ‘Don’t be afraid. He is in our custody.’ Now what do you say about that? Are you saying that there will be no government intervention?” he questioned.

Joining the debate, MP Vasudeva Nanayakkara stated that the need for a commission of inquiry had arisen because the government had obstructed the judicial investigation into de Zoysa’s killers.

“The only matter before the court is the inquiry into Richard de Zoysa. When the court was about to investigate this murder and the facts were beginning to come to light, the AG rushed there on behalf of the state and brought that judicial process to an end. And today they come to us and claim that a commission cannot be appointed because it would interfere with the powers of the court.”

SLFP MP Lakshman Kiriella responded to Chosky by arguing that the judiciary had failed to adequately protect human rights in Sri Lanka.

“Human rights organizations have gone to Europe, Geneva, America, and England, haven’t they, to protect human rights in this country? Can the judiciary protect human rights in this country? For land cases, inheritance cases, and divorce cases, the courts in this country are good. But the courts do not have the strength to provide relief in cases involving political and human rights. There is a reason for that. Police support is required in cases related to human rights protection, but in such cases, police support is not available,” he said.

Referring to the alleged intervention of the Attorney General (AG) in the investigation into de Zoysa’s murder, Kiriella stated that although Dr. Manorani Saravanamuttu had identified those who abducted her son, it was unjust for the government to claim that her statement had been made too late.

“Right or wrong, when the mother comes forward and says, ‘This is the person who took my son,’ the AG cannot claim that the mother is lying. That is a matter to be decided before a jury. The AG has no right to determine whether Richard’s mother is telling the truth or not,” he pointed out.

Responding to Chosky, who questioned why the case could not be properly investigated through a functioning court system, SLFP MP D.M. Jayaratne said he was ashamed of such a statement.

“Schoolchildren were shot dead in Theldeniya. Where are lawyers Parakrama Ranasinghe and Sanath Karaliyadda, who gave evidence in court on behalf of those murdered children? Where are the witnesses? Are they even alive today?” he asked.

Referring to the investigation into the murder, ruling party MP Harindranath Dunuwila pointed out alleged contradictions in the statements made by Dr. Manorani Saravanamuttu.

“The police have recorded statements from seven people who witnessed the abduction. Six of these witnesses have been unable to identify the abductors. Dr. Saravanamuttu is considered the strongest witness in terms of identification. She has submitted four statements to the police and five affidavits to court. In addition, she has also given evidence at the inquest. However, when examining the contents of her statements, affidavits, and testimony, there are contradictions regarding the abductors,” he said, opposing the appointment of a commission of inquiry.

Quoting lawyer Anura Meddegoda, who appeared on behalf of the AG in the Magistrate’s Court, MP Paul Perera defended the prosecution’s position and stated that the judicial proceedings had been terminated at the request of the prosecution.

Lawyer Batty Weerakoon, appearing for Dr. Saravanamuttu, requested that evidence be recorded under Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, Anura Meddegoda objected and argued that the evidence should instead be recorded under Section 124.

“While accusing everyone in court, Mr. Anura Meddegoda very bravely defended the honour of his department.”

SLFP MP Nimal Siripala de Silva, accusing the AG of acting according to the wishes of the ruling UNP, stated that the AG has no legal authority to reject evidence presented to court.

“Let us assume that Mrs. Saravanamuttu’s statement was delayed. But in many cases, it takes months for a person to make a statement before court. The reasons for such a delay can be explained. If the court accepts that explanation and considers the evidence to be valid, there is no harm. That is precisely why such authority has been vested in the court,” he said.

As the UNP government led by President Ranasinghe Premadasa faced serious allegations over the assassination, a SLBC news bulletin broadcast soon after his body was found quoted the Lanka Puwath news agency was reporting that de Zoysa had links with the JVP. Lanka Puwath had reportedly prepared the news item based on information provided by the police.

Rejecting this claim, Opposition Leader Sirimavo Bandaranaike strongly condemned the government’s attempt to label Richard as a JVP member.

“He is not a JVP member. He is a humanist and a journalist. To suit your case, you are now saying he is a JVP member. As I said, even if he were a JVP member, you have no right to take his life. If your hands are clean, why are you afraid to appoint a commission?” she asked.

MP Mangala Samaraweera, who had been a close friend of Richard since their school days, stated that Richard de Zoysa had in fact been a critic of the JVP.

“I had the opportunity to speak with him at length. I know he was against the JVP. He supported the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord in 1987, even though we did not fully agree. He wrote articles criticising the JVP, even at a time when your President [Premadasa] publicly said, ‘I do not blame the JVP for anything.’ Even when the President was afraid to speak out, Richard de Zoysa criticised the JVP. So it is absurd to claim that he was a JVP supporter. We met about a week before his death. After a long conversation, I still remember how he, as a true humanist, said he was terrified by what was happening. ‘What are you doing? There are terrible things happening in the country, and what is the opposition doing?’” recalled Samaraweera, noting that Richard had criticised the opposition as well.

SLFP MP Mahinda Rajapaksa also spoke during the debate, noting that de Zoysa had been present with both the political parties and the government when IPKF were deployed to the North-Eastern Province. Rajapaksa recalled that he himself had faced threats for supporting the deployment of Indian troops and emphasised that he was aware of the risks and intimidation involved at the time.

“I know him personally. He came to Tangalle several times to meet me. He spoke with the parents, children, and relatives of the missing. He acted purely out of humanitarian concern. He had no connection with the JVP. We know that very well,” Rajapaksa said.

He noted that de Zoysa had met Rohana Wijeweera and had expressed concern that the boycott of classes by school students was hindering their education and future development.

“He also met Wijeweera’s brother, Ananda Wijeweera, in Tangalle, when Ananda and his relatives were in the public eye. Through these interactions, Richard spoke against the boycott of classes by school students. He recorded these reflections in his diaries. He approached these issues driven by his humanitarianism, more than by his role as a journalist,” Rajapaksa added.

The leader of the MEP, Dinesh Gunawardana, accused the government of unfairly covering up de Zoysa’s murder and attempting to brand him as a member of the JVP to mislead the public.

“They are still using such labels to target and harass their political opponents. There is no turning back. My friend, MP Bandula Gunawardana, knows that Richard de Zoysa had no connection with the JVP, and Mr. Lalith Athulathmudali, a prominent minister in this government, also knows this very well,” he said.

Government ministers John Amaratunga and H.R. Piyasiri levelled various accusations against de Zoysa, presenting certain letters as police reports and diary entries.

Samaraweera responded to these allegations, stating that bringing these “poisoned” documents to parliament revealed the origin of the government’s misinformation. He added that he himself possesses similar letters, despite obstruction from the ruling party.

“Mr. John Amaratunga indirectly accused Richard de Zoysa of being a heroin addict. I request the Honourable Minister and the members of the government to verify this with Dr. Diyanath Samarasinghe, a leading anti-heroin activist in this country. Richard de Zoysa led the anti-heroin campaign in Sri Lanka for many years alongside Dr. Samarasinghe. To make such claims against someone who is now deceased is not only an injustice but a grave insult,” Samaraweera said.

“Minister John Amaratunga brought a rubbish document  into parliament and attempted to attack the life and reputation of Richard de Zoysa. As a minister, he tried to tarnish the name of a world-renowned, principled individual and bring disrepute to this country. Richard de Zoysa is not only a Sri Lankan; he is a person recognised and respected across the world,” said MP D.M. Jayaratne.

Meanwhile, MP Lakshman Kiriella added that the minister could have verified any claims about Richard de Zoysa through a proper commission of inquiry into his murder.

MP Nimal Siripala de Silva criticised his fellow parliamentarians, stating that they were acting contrary to the procedures established under President Premadasa.

“The president is a very good person. When I visited Mr. Richard de Zoysa’s funeral, he also came. He appeared on television, laid a wreath, and gave him full state honours. So what are you claiming today, that Richard de Zoysa was a drug addict or someone who did wrong? Did your president go to pay tribute to a drug addict? This is hypocrisy. When you want to gain, you flatter; when you want to destroy, you accuse. This is your double standard,” he said.

Lakshman Perera, a member of the UNP and of the Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia MC, was also the producer of the stage play “Who is this? What is he doing?” He was abducted and disappeared by an armed group that came to his home a few weeks before the murder of de Zoysa.

“This play directly mocked the president. Why is Lakshman Perera’s death not being discussed? Why is no one asking whether the play provoked a revenge attack for mocking the President?” asked Nanayakkara.

De Silva stated that the plot of Perera’s play was constructed by linking the 128 members of the UNP on one side and the president and first lady on the other.

“The story was written by Richard de Zoysa. If that is the case, there is a perception that significant opposition exists toward those individuals who have brought the UNP and its politics into disrepute. Therefore, this could have been a reason to target them,” he said.

According to MP Anil Munasinghe, the UNP should be ashamed of the murder of Perera. He emphasised that after one of their city council members was killed, no action was taken to investigate who was responsible or why.

MP C.V. Gunaratne warned that if such violations of the law, murders and disasters were allowed, everyone could eventually be consumed by the same fire.

“I once made a prediction to the UNP members at the Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia MC. ‘You are always safe because you belong to the UNP.’ Now look at what happened to Mr. Lakshman Perera,” he said.

Opposition Leader Sirima Bandaranaike emphasised that the call for a commission of inquiry into the abduction and killing of de Zoysa was not only coming from the opposition but also from the British House of Commons, the UNHRC, Law Asia, the Paris Aid Group and de Zoysa’s international media organization, the IPS.

Seventy one MPs representing the SLFP, USA,TULF, SLMC,MEP and EROS voted in favour of a commission of inquiry. The motion was defeated when 120 MPs representing the UNP voted against it. Many of the politicians who opposed the inquiry back then are now seen united in a single political front. Although an investigation was conducted after Chandrika Kumaratunga came to power, justice was never served for de Zoysa.