|
 When General Sarath Fonseka, commander of the Sri Lanka Army (SLA), inflicted a crushing defeat on the Tamil separatist insurgents of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009 nobody would have expected him to have a court martial, stripped of his rank and sentenced to a jail term a year later. But that is exactly what has happened. In an unprecedented series of actions, he faced a General Court Martial (GCM) after he was found guilty of involvement in politics while in uniform. A second GCM sentenced him to three years imprisonment for involvement in corrupt military supply deals while serving as army commander.
The story behind the rise and fall of the hapless General's fortunes from the pinnacle of fame to calumny and guilt is as complex as a B-grade Bollywood movie with unholy mixture of character assassination, intrigues and conspiracies, political chicanery, personality clashes, and unbridled ambitions.
The arrest and prosecution of Fonseka in February 2010 did not come as a surprise as the decision to do so was taken when it was known he would contest against President Rajapaksa in the presidential poll.
At the end of the war both President Rajapaksa and General Fonseka were hailed as national heroes. This caused unease in some of the ruling circles which believed it was President Rajapaksa's master plan to eliminate Prabhakaran and the LTTE and the leadership support that enabled Fonseka to achieve success. The military victory had given the President an opportunity to emerge as an unchallenged national leader. He wanted to use his growing popularity to get re-elected president for a second term.
So Rajapaksa probably did not take it kindly when Fonseka succumbed to the offer of opposition parties to field him as their common candidate against the President. Fonseka with his non political hero's image became a strong challenger to prevent the President's re-election. And Fonseka started down playing Rajapaksa's role in the military victory. He said: "President Mahinda Rajapaksa or the Defence Secretary alone was not responsible for the victory. Their predecessors had taken steps to cripple the LTTE. I served the country for 40 years as a military officer and campaigned against terrorism for 30 years. I received serious injuries twice during the war, but I did not flee from the battle field and it was I who led the army to victory."
This quest for national leadership is at the heart of the denigration of Fonseka.
There were many foibles in Fonseka's conduct during his military career. These included his tendency to make loose and at times "politically incorrect" remarks. His "rough and ready" methods of promoting officers focusing only on results and not seniority created disharmony within the army. He also played down the role of air force and navy in military operations. He did not take kindly to media that questioned his style or methods.
However, the Rajapaksa government had put up with his aberrations during the war. In recognition of his services, Fonseka was promoted to the rank of General and made Chief of Defence Staff. However, the President overrode the recommendations of Fonseka and promoted Major General Jagat Jayasuriya, who was ninth in seniority, as army commander. It seems the Rajapaksa-Fonseka disenchantment festering for sometime became public then onwards. The friction increased later on as both were strong personalities.
When the General started criticizing the policy of the President and the Defence Secretary in public, the government suspected a larger game plan. There were a number of reasons for this. Fonseka had created a small but influential group of loyalists within the army. His parent regiment - Sinha Regiment - was considered personally loyal to him. The government's worry increased when the army was divided over support to Fonseka. This was reinforced when an intelligence assessment in late December 2009 estimated Fonseka's popularity within the army at 75 -80% among soldiers and around 40% among officers.
An orchestrated campaign to malign the war hero was launched in the media. There were accusations of graft, misbehavior with women soldiers and high handed exercise of powers. Rumors of an impending coup became common gossip in Colombo. The army took a number of pre-emptive measures. It retired five senior officers including two general officers considered close to Fonseka, before their term ended. Sinha regiment was relieved from sensitive duties and troops from the parent regiments of Defence Secretary and the army commander were deployed.
As the campaign heated up, Fonseka became peevish and let loose accusations and innuendoes against the president and the defence secretary. The most damaging was his interview to "The Sunday Leader" of December 13, 2009 in which he quoted media men's allegations that Defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa ordered the then 58 division commander Brig Shavendra Silva not to accommodate tiger leaders surrendering with white flags in the early hours of May 18, 2009. The army had claimed the LTTE leaders were killed during operations. Though Fonseka later claimed he was misquoted in the report, it caused serious embarrassment to the SLA which was already facing allegations of indulging in war crimes. The defence secretary has filed a suit of criminal defamation.
During the election campaign, the General had collected a substantial number of loyal army deserters and veterans who became part of his political tentacle in the districts. Retired army officers abroad rallied to support the General and returned home to join his electoral campaign. These added to the unease of the government. Defence Secretary openly spoke of possible coup being hatched by supporters of the General in collusion with elements of JVP. After the election results were out, security forces and police were deployed around the hotel where the General was staying ostensibly to search for deserters carrying arms holed up there. A number of them were arrested. The General was arrested on February 8, 2010.
So the government probably firmly believed that it had a sufficiently strong case to prosecute Fonseka on three counts: indulging in politics while in military service, involvement in corrupt transactions in military procurement, and lastly possible involvement in conspiracy to seize power. The President convened two GCM.
In the first GCM Fonseka was found guilty of indulging in politics and was stripped of all ranks, medals, honors that he won during his military career. He was tried under Army Act under Section (124) on one count and under Section (102) on two counts, (1) Traitorous / Disloyal Word and (2) Neglect to obey garrison or other orders. The case was based on General Fonseka's remarks to former UNP parliamentarian Johnston Fernando, while serving as CDS. The remarks were considered "traitorous and disloyal." According to a statement given by another UNP MP Seneviratne, Fonseka had contacted him in late September or early October 2009 and indicated his desire to enter politics after retirement.
On September 17, 2010 the second GCM found that while General Fonseka was army commander, he favored his son-in-law's arms company when purchasing ammunitions for the forces and sentenced him to three years imprisonment. However this sentence awaits confirmation from the President. If jailed, Fonseka could cease to be a member of parliament. The case appears to be based on documentary evidence.
Media have also reported on the likelihood of a third GCM against Fonseka over alleged illegal arms deals committed by him during his tenure as the Army Commander and documents relating to the deal are in the process of being scrutinized. There are also reports of investigations into the case of Fonseka receiving several thousands of dollars for his campaign from an Asian country. Criminal Investigation Department (CID) found U.S. $ 527,000 in the bank vaults of General Fonseka's relatives.
It is significant that only after Fonseka decided to enter politics all these cases were seriously taken up. So it would be logical that there is a strong political motive in prosecuting him. At the same time probably the General has also appear to have provided sufficient grounds for prosecution. But the moot point is why the government has not shown the same alacrity in investigating and prosecuting several other armed forces officers in the past alleged to have been involved in corrupt deals? The real truth will probably be never known as the Sri Lanka environment still lacks security and trust in the administration. 
The writer has served as MI officer in the Indian Army. He writes regularly on insurgency and terrorism in South Asia for different local and regional publications.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
