The Legacy of the " Batalanda " Commission in Sri Lanka

In the complex landscape of Sri Lankan politics, the Batalanda detention centre remains a notorious symbol of human rights violations that occurred during the late 1980s. Allegations of torture and inhumane treatment have been widely discussed and investigated, particularly by the Batalanda Commission, established in 1994 under then-President Chandrika Kumaratunga. Despite its findings implicating several political figures, including Ranil Wickremesinghe, no formal charges have been filed, leading to a longstanding debate about accountability and political responsibility.

The Historical Context

The Batalanda detention centre became synonymous with allegations of severe human rights abuses during the period of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) insurrection. The commission, officially known as the Commission of Inquiry into the Establishment and Maintenance of Places of Unlawful Detention and Torture Chambers at the Batalanda Housing Scheme, was tasked with uncovering the extent of these abuses. Chaired by Justice Dharmasiri Jayawickrema, with Justice Nimal Dissanayake as a member, the commission's objective was not only to investigate but also to recommend actions to ensure such violations would not be repeated.

On March 27, 1998, the commission handed its findings to President Kumaratunga, which notably called for accountability measures against key political players, including Wickremesinghe. However, this recommendation was met with political hesitation. The absence of subsequent legal actions has raised questions about the intersection of law and politics in Sri Lanka, highlighting the complexities of holding powerful individuals accountable.

The Role of Political Considerations

President Kumaratunga's inaction has often been interpreted through a political lens. Despite the commission's recommendations, her decision to forgo legal action against Wickremesinghe suggested a strategy aimed at preserving political stability. The reluctance to press charges against an opposition leader, particularly one with significant influence, points to the challenging dynamics of Sri Lankan politics where personal rivalries and political survival often supersede legal imperatives. The political fallout from potential prosecutions could have deepened divisions within a country still grappling with its turbulent past.

Legal Framework and Challenges

Despite the findings of the Batalanda Commission, pursuing legal accountability for former officials poses significant challenges. In Sri Lanka, presidential immunity shields former leaders from prosecution for actions taken while in office, complicating the pursuit of justice for human rights violations. Additionally, the statute of limitations on many criminal offences can prevent any meaningful legal response long after the events have transpired.

Further complicating the situation is the notion of criminal liability for omission. Determining whether a legal obligation existed and whether failure to act resulted in harm is fraught with legal intricacies, particularly concerning a past president's decisions.

While public interest litigation could provide a route for addressing grievances and calling for accountability, it often focuses more on the processes of governance rather than directly holding individuals accountable for historical injustices.

Moving Forward: Lessons and Solutions

Rather than exhausting resources on futile legal battles, there is an opportunity for contemporary Sri Lankan governance to focus on learning from the findings of the Batalanda Commission and similar reports. The emphasis must shift toward drafting effective policies that address the root causes of political misconduct and human rights violations.

Such an approach could help restore public confidence in the political system and enhance Sri Lanka's standing in the international community. By proactively working to prevent future abuses and ensuring transparency in governance, the government can foster a more just society.

The legacy of the Batalanda Commission serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between justice and political expediency in Sri Lanka. As the country reflects on its past, it faces a crucial decision: to perpetuate cycles of blame and inaction or to embrace a forward-thinking agenda that prioritizes accountability, rectifies historical wrongs, and advocates for the protection of human rights. This path not only honours the victims of past injustices but also empowers future generations to hold their leaders to account.

Remember that the phrase "no one is guilty until proven guilty" reflects the legal principle of presumption of innocence, which states that everyone is deemed innocent of a crime until proven guilty in court.

The onus is now on the parties stoking the flames to gain political mileage to either establish in a Sri Lankan court of law that the man dubbed the Batalanda Murderer is the one, or to stop pounding a dead horse.