You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Attorney General’ tag.

CaptureA little learning is a dangerous thing. It is also sad when limited intellect leads to high appointments on the grounds that there will be unthinking support of the appointing authority.

This seems to be the case with the current Attorney General, who seems in a couple of weeks to have completely destroyed the reputation of his Department which had been considerably enhanced by the brilliant cross examination at the Bond Commission by senior officers. What seemed the silencing of the forceful Dappula de Livera, the absence for some time of the incisive Yasantha Kodagoda, suggested that the AG had decided to hold back – and so the leading lights of the UNP have been preserved.

Then the Attorney General went further, in delivering a preposterous opinion regarding the appalling move to postpone elections through introducing amendments to a Bill that was for an entirely different purpose. The amendments were referred to Jayantha Jayasuriya by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, whose reduction to being a mere tool of chicanery is extremely sad. The latter’s behavior in the last couple of years suggests that the excuses he proferred to me, when I tried to make him act on the Good Governance issues in the President’s manifesto, that his hands were tied because he was not trusted by his Leader, now seem rank hypocrisy.

It is strange that he felt a need to refer amendments to the Attorney General, since this is mandatory only for Bills. The reason doubtless was that he realized that this was in fact a new Bill, so he wanted to cover himself. On cue the Attorney General responded with a farrago of nonsense, beginning with citing Erskine May to the effect that ‘As in other matters of order, the admissibility of an amendment can ultimately be decided only by the House itself, there being no authority which can in advance rule an amendment out of order…’ Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

qrcode.29977451In dealing with the Law in this series, I have added much to the text of the book that was published some years back by Cambridge University Press in India. This is because the decline in our legal system in the last couple of decades has been appalling. So in addition to my analysis of what law is about, I thought it essential to include some recommendations on establishing a system that will help restore the confidence of the people in the justice system.

For this purpose I have drawn much on the suggestions of Nagananda Kodituwakku, whose deep commitment to a professional and honest public service has been heightened by his experience as a lawyer in England. His paper shows that, whereas we claim that our system is based on the forms developed by the British, we have failed to move with the times as Britain has done.

I realized from what he wrote that it will not be enough to restore the independence of the judiciary. That is essential, and we must ensure that appointments are made in accordance with clear criteria and transparently, through a system that ensures consultation and professional input that weighs more than politican convenience.

But in addition we must ensure that the court system is responsive to public needs. Costs must be controlled so that justice is not beyond the reach of the majority. And justice should not be delayed, since that is not justice. Read the rest of this entry »

qrcode.29948785Although cases have to be brought to court when the law is breached, ideally a society should maintain law and order without having recourse to the courts. Crucial in this respect are the forces of internal security. Chief among these are the police, whose primary duty is vigilance to ensure that criminal activities are prevented or limited. With increasing criminal activity, the police find it difficult to fulfill this function, and are instead involved more in crime detection. In such cases, it also falls to the police to prepare evidence and present it in the courts, under the guidance of government lawyers wherever necessary.

Meanwhile, some of the functions carried out by the police at a stage when society was less complex have now been handed over to private security organisations. These hardly existed half a century ago, but now many government officers, private firms and even private houses, have security guards on a scale which was not thought of as necessary some decades ago. We can see then that internal security, which was considered primarily a function of government, is now perceived as a joint responsibility.

It should be noted that the preventive role of the police has increased in other respects. For instance, some years ago traffic control was not a major responsibility of the police. Now, with increased movement of people and greater use of vehicles, ensuring adherence to traffic regulations, and interpreting them in difficult situations, has become a primary responsibility of the police. Though this may seem a far cry from the security-related functions of the police, maintaining order in this area is vital for the smooth functioning of society.

There are many other government agencies that also contribute to security. Customs and excise officials have always been an integral component of financial and legal security, and their role has expanded with the expansion of criminal activity in areas such as narcotics and terrorism. But there are also agents of other ministries and government departments, such as the Consumer Protection Authority or the Public Health Department, who have a vital role to play in maintaining security. With the development of society and the need for security in new areas, the work of organisations such as environmental protection agencies will increase in importance. It will be necessary for governments to strengthen their preventive role.

Finally, all over the world in the last few decades, greater attention is being paid to what is known as Community Policing. This is connected with the idea I began with in this section, that the police, as the guarantors of law and order in a community, should also play a part in forstalling problems. This can be done through greater involvement in society. Working together with leading members of the community, and also the vulnerable, will help to establish a set of norms, which will not be easy for individuals to violate.

Judicial Independence

Of the institutions and individuals noted above, some clearly belong to the government in the narrow sense of the term, that is, the executive. For instance, in addition to the police, the attorney general, the legal draughtsman and their departments fulfill executive functions, and therefore, they usually come under the authority of the executive head of government or his or her representative. Read the rest of this entry »

reform agenda 12The Liberal Party was the first to say, more than two decades ago, that the Presidency as constituted by J R Jayewardene had too much power. In particular we felt it was wrong for the President to have total discretion with regard to appointments to important positions responsible for making decisions that affected the country at large.

This was not a popular view, and it was only more than 20 years after the Presidency was introduced that the matter reached boiling point as it were. So in 2001, in the last throes of the government President Kumaratunga had set up a year earlier, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was introduced. But though it was obviously better to have some check on the President, the form this took was confusing, and not in accordance with general political principles.

What it did was set up a body of appointees who had to approve the nominations of the President to individual positions. It also had the unparalleled power of choosing nominees to Commissions, which the President was expected to endorse. This was bizarre, for to confine an elected President in this way, turning him or her into a rubber stamp, is grossly inappropriate. It was not surprising then that President Kumaratunga flatly refused to appoint the Elections Commission that had been selected by the Constitutional Council.

I myself feel that the Parliamentary Council set up under the 18th Amendment was more in accordance with political practice internationally, though unfortunately it did not have veto power. Still, had the Council actually ever met, it could have fulfilled a public purpose in that it could have put in writing objections to nominees of the President. After all in a classic Westminster system, a Head of State who is not elected by the people will not turn down a nominee of an elected Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister is careful to select appropriate people, since a delay, or a simple suggestion that he reconsider, would immeasurably reduce the moral authority of the nominee. In recent years a polite but detailed account of why Mohan Pieris was inappropriate, with for instance the arguments so clearly presented by Nagananda Kodituwakku, would have made it difficult for President Rajapaksa to persist with the nomination. Read the rest of this entry »

Political principles - legal regulationThe courts and other bodies described above function in order to take decisions according to the law. To advise them about such decisions, or rather to present arguments on behalf of those seeking decisions, there are professional legal practitioners known as lawyers. Lawyers can represent citizens on both sides of a civil dispute. They can also represent citizens against the government in matters of criminal or constitutional law. They may also appear before arbitration bodies and other tribunals. In addition, lawyers assist in the preparation of legal documents, including contracts, property transfers and wills. In theory, such arrangements between parties do not require lawyers. But it is advisable to make use of their expertise to ensure that all legal formalities are observed. This should prevent future legal disputes, though as we know such precautions may not always be successful.

In Sri Lanka we also run the risk of lawyers not always performing their tasks with efficiency and / or honesty. We do not have effective systems of regulation with regard to legal practitioners. I have suggested to the new Minister of Justice that he consider some of the points made by Nagananda Kodituwakku, one of the best public interest lawyers we have. But sadly I have not yet had a response, and I fear that we will not, despite the commitment of the government to reform, deal with what is a major problem for citizens, namely the fact that they cannot always rely on lawyers.

Mr Kodituwakku notes that ‘at present there is no authority to regulate the legal profession in this country, leading to a lot of abuses and victimization of innocent litigants. In leading democracies like in the UK, there is a mechanism in place to protect the citizens from unscrupulous lawyers. It is noted that in the UK a large number of lawyers found guilty for various abuses by the Regulatory Authority are being either disenrolled, suspended or imposed (with) compensation orders. 

The Regulatory Authority for lawyers in the UK is empowered with wide powers, which include searching premises, seizing of records, sealing of offices and prosecuting all unscrupulous lawyers against whom prima facie cases are established.’

It would be useful then in Sri Lanka too to protect the citizen and to instill discipline in the profession by establishing through a law a similar body with wide ranging powers. Amongst the provisions that should be introduced to safeguard the public, he suggests the following – Read the rest of this entry »

qrcode.29266949I make no apologies for coming back to the excellent paper prepared by Nagananda Kodituwakku about the measures needed to restore public confidence in the Justice system. Previously we looked at the systems that need to be put in place to ensure the swift dispensation of justice. Now I shall look at ways in which we can promote confidence in the personnel involved.

 

First of all Kodituwakku deals with the need to ensure integrity and independence in judges. This requires a

 

Transparent recruitment process to select judges to Superior Court System

He notes that now supreme court vacancies are filled at the pleasure of the President, which leads to a disregard for merit. We are well aware that this needs to be changed, and it is essential to have checks on the power of the President to make appointments at will. But we should not depend only on the predilections of others. It is necessary to have systems in place, guidelines that are clear and based on rational criteria, with a requirement that any appointing authority follow established guidelines in a transparent manner.

One point Kodituwakku raises, which had not occurred to me before, is that it is a mistake to fill most vacancies with officers from the Attorney General’s Department. He notes that in the United Kingdom from where we claim to have derived out traditions, ‘not a single judge to the Judiciary is appointed from the Crown Prosecution Service headed by the Attorney General of the UK.’ He suggest instead that ‘Priority should be given to eminent career judges over other applicants. Public officers serving in the AG’s Department and the members in the private bar should be afforded an equal opportunity to submit their application for vacancies. But no preferential treatment whatsoever shall be afforded to the lawyers serving in the Attorney General’s Department over the other applicants. This merit-based system shall be implemented to the appointments to the lower Courts as well.’

 

Another vital factor Kodituwakku notes is that there should be

No inducements with gratifications after retirement

The system of giving appointments after retirement should stop. This should not preclude work in the private sector, and short term assignments such as special inquiries should be possible. But judges must accept that they should not be appointed to any salaried position in government after retirement. As he puts it, the prevalent practice ‘conveys a wrong message that those who are inclined towards the executive would get a preferential treatment over others after their retirement. This naturally affects the independence of the Judiciary.’

In addition to his strictures on the judiciary, Kodituwakku also notes the need to restore public confidence in lawyers. He begins with the Attorney General’s Department, the lawyers who represent the public as a whole. They prosecute in criminal cases, and appear for government and government departments, which means they appear for the people. Read the rest of this entry »

qrcode.26231205Speech of Prof Rajiva Wijesinha

Prepared for the debate on the Votes on the Ministries of Justice and of

Rehabilitation and Prison Reforms

During the Committee Stage of the Budget Debate, November 21st 2014

(Not delivered because of the common candidate press conference)

 

I rise to speak on the votes today of two important Ministries. My main concern will be rehabilitation, where I think the Ministry can be proud of its work in having rehabilitated around 12,000 former combatants after the conclusion of the conflict with the LTTE in 2009.

This is of special concern to me, Mr Speaker, because as Head of the Peace Secretariat I was deeply worried about plans for rehabilitation. Nothing was being done about this, in part because the subject was then the preserve of the Ministry of Justice, which was more concerned then with what might be termed judicial issues. This was understandable, since there was much concern then about child soldiers, given the brutality of the LTTE in its system of forced recruitment.

forced conscriptions

.. the silence of the other internationals working in the area, who were complaisant in the wicked practices of the LTTE.

In this regard, Mr Speaker, I must pay tribute to the Norwegian ambassador in place when I was first asked to work in this field, Mr Hans Brattskar. He was categorical in his response to the LTTE when it tried to remove the subject of child soldiers from the agenda of its discussions with government in June 2006. He made it clear that the Sri Lankan side had every reason to raise the issue, and perhaps it was that which led to the LTTE dodging those talks.

Later it was Mr Brattskar who first formally told the Sri Lankan government that the LTTE was engaging in forced recruitment of two persons in each family, by the time of his last visit to Kilinochchi. This was in marked contrast with the silence of the other internationals working in the area, who were complaisant in the wicked practices of the LTTE. Indeed when I upbraided the then Head of Save the Children, about his only worrying when the families of his staff were affected, he asked whether I objected to his trying to save them. Not at all, I said, what made me furious was his failure to have spoken out when other children were being abused.

joanna-van-gerpen1

Joanna van Gerpen (UNICEF) meeting with S. P. Tamilselvan, the political leader of the LTTE, in Kilinochchi.

All this was of a piece with what seemed unprincipled connivance, though I believe one should not attribute to viciousness what springs often from moral laziness and incompetence. Thus the head of UNICEF did nothing to check on the abuse of the 1 million dollars given to the LTTE for rehabilitation, and even seemed to acquiesce in recruitment of 17 year olds on the grounds that the LTTE had not amended its legislation in that regard – a shocking tolerance of the pretensions of terrorists.

It is incidents such as that, Mr Speaker, that have contributed to the deep distrust displayed by government towards the international community, and this must be understood even as we urge a more positive attitude, which will take advantage of the many with decent and positive values. We must set in place systems that will limit abuses, but there is no justification for blanket prohibitions. And of course we must also do more to make it clear that we can work effectively with aid agencies, guiding them to fulfil our national priorities whilst working in accordance with their fundamental principles and policies. Read the rest of this entry »

download (8)I had a bizarre experience recently when I had to attend what is termed Standing Committee B of Parliament, which deals with legislation. This was in connection with the Vasantha Senanayake Foundation (Incorporation) Bill which I had sponsored. The experience was rendered worse by the Minutes which I received subsequently, which bore no relation to what had actually taken place.

I presume that there is some formula for reporting the meetings of these Standing Committees, but it was certainly inappropriate in this case, given that I had raised some matters which I had asked to be recorded. The Minutes state that I moved several amendments to the original draft of the Bill I had presented. This was not the case. What happened was that we were told the legal advisers had gone through the draft and suggested amendments. I accepted these, but I asked the basis on which they had been made.

It turned out then that the representative from the Legal Draughtsman’s Department who was supposed to liaise with Parliament regarding the Bill had no idea of the reasons. After much discussion one bright lawyer from the Attorney General’s Department said that the changes were probably because the Bill as it stood seemed to be in conflict with the Constitution.

I gathered then that for years the Attorney General had advised against many charitable works by Foundations on the grounds that the Constitution, following the introduction of the 13th Amendment that introduced Provincial Councils, declares that ‘No Bill in respect of any matter set out in the Provincial Council List shall become law unless such Bill has been referred by the President…. to every Provincial Council’.

Read the rest of this entry »

The following was sent to the Ministry of External Affairs in July 2011 in an effort to introduce some clarity into the debate on the Darusman Report, and also to coordinate better with the elements in the UN system which had also been attacked in that Report

I believe that we should ensure correction of those aspects that are clearly misleading of what is erroneously referred to as a UN report. At the same time, we should treat seriously aspects that are not inaccurate and that create an adverse impression.

This can be done more easily if we have made sure that errors are eradicated and clarification provided with regard to matters that are obscure or suggest inadequate understanding of realities. I have in several publications drawn attention to errors, and I believe a summation of these should be brought to the attention of the UN Secretary General. At the same time he should be asked to respond to the queries on the attached page, since they bear on the credibility of the report as it has been compiled. I have several others, following close scrutiny of the report, but these will be enough for the moment.

I raise these because I believe we have not responded effectively to slurs that can irretrievably damage the reconciliation process if allowed to go unchecked. At present we simply react to relentless criticisms, without addressing its root causes. While I can understand reluctance to respond to the substance of an inappropriate report, there is nothing to prevent us questioning the methodology used.

I hope very much that you will be able to proceed on these lines or similar ones.

Yours sincerely

 

1. Did the Panel consult the heads of UN agencies in Sri Lanka with regard to the various allegations contained in the Panel report, and in particular those concerning

a) Alleged rape
b) Deliberate deprival of humanitarian assistance
c) Unnecessary suffering for the displaced
d) Lack of information about rehabilitation sites?

It would be useful to ask the UN Secretary General to circulate the letter of the UN Resident Coordinator with regard to conditions at the camps, and request reports from him as well as the heads of the WFP and UNHCR with regard to these matters. In particular the UN Secretary General should be asked to share with the panel the reports of the various protection agencies that functioned during this period.

2. Did the Panel consult the head of the ICRC with regard to the various allegations contained in the Panel report, and in particular those concerning

a) Transportation of the wounded and others from conflict areas to government hospitals, and the treatment received by these
b) Transportation of food and other supplies to the conflict area
c) Information provided by the ICRC to government about conditions in the conflict area, and in particular the establishment and operation of medical centres

It would be useful to ask the UN Secretary General to circulate the letter of the ICRC head to the navy regarding its support for ICRC operations, and to request reports from him with regard to these matters.

3. Were there reports prepared by the UN or the ICRC which were shared with the panel, but which were not provided to government?

4. Did the UN set up a ‘networks of observers who were operational in LTTE-controlled areas’, as claimed in the report. Was this with the authority of the UN Resident Coordinator, and how did it fit within the UN mandate? With whom were its reports shared?

5. Did the UN obtain other reports from international UN employees in Sri Lanka, and were these with the authority of the UN Resident Coordinator? How did these fit within the UN mandate? If these reports were intended to improve the condition of affected Sri Lankans, why were they not shared at the time with government?

6. Did the Panel consult the UN Special Representative on the Rights of the Displaced, Prof Walter Kalin, and use the reports he published? Were they aware that he visited Sri Lanka three times during this period?

7. Will the Panel explain errors such as the attribution to government of actions relating to the LTTE (Footnote 92), the attribution to government of an inappropriate response (at the end of January) to an ICRC statement issued on February 1st, the assumption that food was only sent to the conflict zone through the ICRC, the attribution (though obscurely) to the terrorist associated Tamil Rehabilitation Organization of the claim that individuals died of starvation, the claim that Manik Farm did not have its own water source, the claim that psychological support was not allowed by the Ministry of Social Services, etc?

8. Will the Panel study the analysis of its claims with regard to attacks on hospitals, in the light of claims made at the time, and in the context of official ICRC documentation of what was conveyed to government?

9. Will the Panel explain its selective characterization of participants in the conflict, including its description of the LTTE as disciplined, while bribery is attributed to the military as a whole, with positive actions being attributed to individuals?

10. Will the Panel provide sources for the various estimates mentioned in Para 133, as well as all alternative estimates with regard to the given figures? Will it also explain the sentence ‘Depending on the ratio of injuries to deaths, estimated at various times to be 1:2 or 1:3, this could point to a much higher casualty figure’ and how it relates to the figure of 75,000 given immediately afterwards?

11. Will the Panel explain what it means when it uses the word ‘Government’, and in particular its source for various critical comments such as those in Paras, 131 and 136 and Footnote 77?

12. Has the Panel studied the reports of UN committees which make clear the reluctance of agencies entrusted with funds for the benefit of Sri Lankan displaced citizens to upgrade facilities at Manik Farm despite numerous requests, as well as the manner in which funding was squandered on international personnel who were unable to ensure adherence to national and international standards with regard to sanitation?

This was copied to the Attorney General at the same time, as he was supposed to be chairing the Inter-Ministerial Committee to implement the Interim Recommendations of the LLRC, with the following covering letter –

I attach a copy of a letter I have sent to the Secretary to the Ministry of External Affairs. I hope you will appreciate the points raised in the letter, and in particular the need to take remedial action so as to ensure that the reconciliation process continues.

In this context I would like to suggest some positive measures that could be taken immediately to address some of the concerns raised in the Panel report, which I am aware you too share. I believe we have not promoted the provision of information that would alleviate some suffering. Though there seems to be exaggeration with uncertainty, any uncertainty can cause anxiety and then resentment, so we should do our best to minimize this.

I would suggest that we establish in every GN division an agency that will collect statistics with regard to those missing, and collate them with appropriate investigation to ensure fuller information with regard to previous activities. This should lead to the formulation of a data base that can be used to provide precise information as possible.

We know that of course some of those dead will not be identified, and also that some have made their way to other countries, or have taken on a new identity in this country. While making allowance for these, I am sure we will be able to establish that the number of those dead or missing is much smaller than is sometimes bandied around.

I hope very much that we can take action in this regard, and in other areas mentioned in my letter to the Secretary to the Ministry of External Affairs, and make it clear that the Government of Sri Lanka is more concerned about its own citizenry than external agencies.

I also wrote as follows at the same time to the Chairman of the LLRC

Whilst the process of reconciliation was proceeding apace since the destruction of the LTTE in Sri Lanka, I believe some events over the last few months have affected this adversely. Whilst the different communities in Sri Lanka have not responded negatively, relations amongst some Tamils now living abroad and other Sri Lankans have been severely strained.

This may allow elements of the LTTE abroad to continue with their previous practices, including extortion from the majority of Tamil expatriates, and the perpetuation of racial prejudices. This will in turn rouse hostile feelings in the less reasonable amongst other communities. I believe therefore that we need to act firmly to nip such tendencies in the bud.

The events I refer to include in particular the publication of the report of the panel appointed by the UN Secretary General to advise him on accountability issues. This has in turn exacerbated the impact of a film shown on the British Television Channel 4, and subsequently repeated on channels elsewhere. Both these have given credence to a book by a former UN employee called Gordon Weiss, and I gather that other publications related to this have since emerged, or will do so shortly.

It will be helpful then, for the sake of reconciliation alone, to challenge the impact created by these events. In particular, I believe that we should ensure correction of those aspects that are clearly misleading of what is erroneously referred to as a UN report. At the same time, we should treat seriously aspects that are not inaccurate and that create an adverse impression.

This can be done more easily if we have made sure that errors are eradicated and clarification provided with regard to matters that are obscure or suggest inadequate understanding of realities. I have in several publications drawn attention to errors, and I believe a summation of these should be brought to the attention of the UN Secretary General. I have accordingly sent to the Secretary to the Ministry of External Affairs some queries which I believe should be sent to the Secretary General, since they bear on the credibility of the report as it has been compiled. I have several others, following close scrutiny of the report, but these will be enough for the moment.

In addition to this however, I believe we can also address the few real issues that the Panel Report raises. Having studied it, as well as the other publications mentioned above, it seems to me that there are only two allegations in which sufficient information as to time and place and scope has been furnished, so as to warrant further investigation.

These are the allegations with regard to the so-called White Flag incident, as well as mention of execution of prisoners, as to which the Channel 4 film mentioned a specific date. While I do not think we should deal with Channel 4, it may be useful for the Commission to seek further information from the Panel if it possesses any with regard to these two incidents, and in particular further details of the visual records that are alleged to have been made. It is possible that further examination will reveal discrepancies such as have characterized previous visual records brought to our attention, but since those were general claims whereas these involve specifics, it would make sense to try to obtain further information if available.

In addition to this, I believe concerted follow up with regard to your previous recommendations would be helpful.

I raise these to help us to respond effectively to slurs that can irretrievably damage the reconciliation process if allowed to go unchecked. At present we simply react to relentless criticisms, without addressing its root causes. While I can understand reluctance to respond to the substance of an inappropriate report, there is nothing to prevent us questioning the methodology used.

Finally, a letter sent to the Secretary to the President some months later –

The events of the last week, and the document I shared with you that had been prepared by a Ms Vigo, prompted reflections on the absurd way in which we have been conducting our foreign relations, and in particular our relations with the United Nations. I am aware that the President has been sharply critical of the UN, and seems to think that all efforts to work positively with it would be vain, but this flies in the face of all evidence.

The Vigo report makes it clear how many UN agencies and their heads worked well with us during the difficult days of conflict, despite external pressures and pressures from their younger members of staff – a phenomenon that occurred also with several ambassadors who have confided in me about this.

Meanwhile, as you are aware, Dayan Jayatilleka in Geneva did a fantastic job of making sure that we received solid support from the UN system. He understood the need for numbers, and worked with influential ambassadors in each regional group, so that we had a large coalition supporting us.

This was promptly frittered away by his successor. As one distinguished journalist told me, in Dayan’s time we asked for advice, later we simply asked for votes, from people we had hardly taken seriously until their votes were needed.

Meanwhile in Sri Lanka we ceased to work together actively with the UN. Because of anger, understandable enough, at the appointment of the Darusman Panel, and its report, we assumed that the UN was complicit in the injustice that was being done to us. We failed to read the report carefully and intelligently, and understand that senior UN officials also were being criticized.

I told the Ministry at the time that we should communicate with those officials and develop a common response, but I do not think the Ministry even understood what I meant, nor the potential danger. As I have noted recently, following the visit of Robert Blake, which local politicians and foreign ambassadors have told me was worrying, I was told by the Ministry that all had gone very well, and newspaper reports were simply designed to create trouble.

Last week saw an extremely productive consultation on promoting the Rights of Children. Organized by the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies, as decided at the meetings we have been holding over the last several months to better understand the problems and possible interventions, it was presided over by the Secretary to the Ministry of Child Development and Women’s Affairs.

In addition to officials from different branches of his Ministry, we also had excellent input from the Ministry of Health, which is especially important given the gaps in the provision of psycho-social support nationwide that we need to fill. While delivery will have to be through various agencies – school counselors that the Ministry of Education appoints, Probation Officers appointed by the Provinces, Social Service Officers appointed by that Ministry – we obviously need better coordination as well as training, and this can best be provided by the Ministry of Health.

We also had representation from the Ministry of Social Services. The Secretary had not been able to attend, which was in part our fault because it was only after the meeting had been arranged that we realized the importance of her presence too. But she was enormously cooperative when we met her and, though committed to a visit to Japan – which is a model that we should aim at in the care it provides for the vulnerable – she has agreed to pursue cooperation in this field on her return.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rajiva Wijesinha

June 2019
M T W T F S S
« Dec    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: