Font size: 
On July 5, while Nandawathie was watching, Sarath Kumara, who was helping to mix cement at his neighbor’s house, was arrested by a policeman in uniform and another in civilian dress. He was assaulted, put on the floor of a three-wheeler and the officers sat on the seat with their feet on his body.
Nandawathie called her daughter and rushed to the nearest police station to find whether Sarath had been brought there. As he was not at that station she and the daughter went to the next police station, the Moratuwa Police Station, and found him there locked in a cell. He had already been thoroughly beaten. She learned that he was suspected of having stolen some gold items. Thus began an agonizing week for Sarath and his family.
Sarath’s wife, Sriyani, visited him repeatedly at the police cell from July 5 up to the morning of July 13. Almost every day she visited him three times, carrying morning, noon and evening meals. From the very first day she learned that her husband was being severely assaulted by a group of police officers lead by an officer called Damith. Sometimes he was hung from an overhead beam and beaten.
The officers made a simple demand: return the gold you have stolen. Sarath told his wife that after he had been so badly beaten, in order to stop them he admitted to whatever they wanted. But then they demanded the return of the goods and since he had not stolen anything he was unable to do this. This angered the officers further and they continued to beat him, day in and day out.
The rest of the family members also visited him and, having understood the situation, spoke to the officer called Damith and a superintendent of police. Their replies were very simple. There is nothing that can be done to a thief but to beat him until he complies with our demands. The only way out was to bring back the gold.
The family’s repeated question to the officers was, how do we return something we have not taken and is not in our possession? They even suggested a compromise. Sarath’s two-year-old son had a necklace. It was all the gold the family possessed and they were willing to give that. But no, Damith and the other officers said they wanted the stolen goods.
Unable to resolve the problem with the police officers the family made complaints to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, the National Police Commission, the inspector general of police and the deputy inspector general of police of the area. The Human Rights Commission opened a file with the reference number HRC/3552/08 and promised many times that they would intervene.
Adding to all this, the family also sent two lawyers to the police station on several occasions to make representations on their behalf. None of this had any impact. The officers repeated their refrain: bring back the goods. The family went to a former deputy inspector general of police, who after retirement is practicing as a lawyer. He also made a written request for Sarath to be released or produced in court, which the police are obliged to do within 24 hours of arrest.
After all the pressure the police could not hold him any longer, but they found a way to teach Sarath and his family a lesson. When Sarath was produced in court on July 13 the police filed two cases, one for alleged theft and the other for being found with 2,300 milligrams of heroin at 11:30 p.m. on the evening of July 12. With this second charge the magistrate could not grant Sarath bail and he now also faces the possibility of a death sentence.
The family is faced with two problems. They are being asked to return gold items which they have not taken. Further, Sarath is now charged with the possession of heroin at the very time he was already in the custody of the Moratuwa police, which he was from July 5 to July 13. It was simply physically impossible on the evening of July 12 for him to be in possession of illegal drugs.
There was no inquiry into whatever allegations someone might have made about Sarath having stolen gold items from one of the houses in which he had worked. At the moment of arrest no questions were asked of him. Afterwards also, no questions were asked, only the demand to give back what he had taken.
Of course, what the police officers did is not allowed by the law. The Criminal Procedure Code and the evidence law do not allow this behavior. Judges hearing many cases before the highest courts of the country have also condemned this kind of behavior. For example, in the case of Angelina Rosanna, a very rich family accused it’s part-time domestic helper, Angelina, of having stolen a gold watch worth 500,000 rupees (US$5,000). The girl was beaten throughout the night while two officers kept demanding that she return the watch.
Years later the Supreme Court found the two officers to have violated the constitutional rights of the girl, who was innocent. The High Court of Colombo sentenced the two officers to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for having committed the offense of torture. However, none of these things have had any influence in altering the behavior of the police, who have the institutional habit of torturing alleged thieves and demanding that they return what they are suspected of having stolen. The law and judicial decisions do not seem to matter. In Sarath’s case, did the law matter in the very least to the officers concerned?
Even more agonizing to the family is the fact that their experience is nothing really exceptional. To begin and end inquiries with assaults and beat people up while demanding stolen goods is now a normal practice of the police. Even the high-ranking police officers the family approached asked them quite openly, what do you expect us to do with thieves except beat them? Do you expect us to pour ointment on these people?
Though it is physically impossible for Sarath Kumara Naidos to have been in possession of heroin on the night of July 12, he is still in remand prison because that matter must be resolved on some future day when a trial takes place -- which may be four, five or more years later. The representations made by the family and human rights organizations to the higher police authorities to inquire into the matter have had no effect.
The whole affair is both silly and cruel at the same time. However, someone may retort by asking, what is so especially silly or cruel about this particular incident? Similar and worse things happen all the time in all parts of the country. To this retort it is not possible to give any reply except to say that it does not make the situation less silly or less cruel.
--
(Basil Fernando is director of the Asian Human Rights Commission based in Hong Kong. He is a Sri Lankan lawyer who has also been a senior U.N. human rights officer in Cambodia. He has published several books and written extensively on human rights issues in Asia. His blog can be read at http://srilanka-lawlessness.com.)
