Skip to content

Mystery behind the sudden emergence and exit of Premakumar Gunaratnam

Illustration: Simon Letch-courtesy of: Sydney Morning Herlad-Apr 14, 2012

Defence Secretary responds to allegations

By Ayesha Zuhair

Speaking exclusively to the Daily Mirror, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa sheds light into the dramatic appearance and disappearance of Premakumar Gunaratnam.

Rajapaksa explains why this incident cannot be referred to as an ‘abduction’ in the conventional sense, and points out that Gunaratnam was a wanted man who was missing since 1990. He argues that there was no deportation.

The Defence Secretary also queries the role played by the Australian High Commission in the entry and exit of Premakumar Gunaratnam.

Furthermore, why would the security forces abduct a man on whom there was an open warrant, and could have been legally arrested and questioned without any difficulty, he asks.

Was this an incident timed to draw attention to the launch of this party, and designed to discredit Sri Lanka internationally and create a fear psychosis locally? The Defence Secretary responds in the affirmative.

A Questionable Background

For a man who aspired to lead a political party in Sri Lanka, Premakumar Gunaratnam alias Noel Mudalige has a highly questionable track record.

A gazetted absconder in the eyes of the law, Gunaratnam is a wanted person with an open warrant. Having escaped from the Pallekelle Detention Centre in 1990, where he had been taken into custody on suspicion of having set up a landmine that killed nine IPKF soldiers, he had managed to enter Australia and obtain citizenship under the name of Noel Mudalige.

Rajapakse queries, “How could anyone say that he went missing on Saturday? He has been missing since 1990! So this is indeed a very mysterious case – a missing person claimed missing!” contends Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

“It is wrong to term this man’s disappearance as ‘abduction’ or ‘enforced disappearance’ for the simple reason that he has been in hiding for a very long time. It was a voluntary disappearance. His very party – the so-called JVP dissident group – kept announcing that he was to make an appearance soon; that he was to come out on Monday. If he was not in hiding, why should they announce that he is going to come out?” the Defence Secretary queries.

Gunaratnam’s illegal presence in Sri Lanka

With the emergence of a new JVP dissident group, Gunaratnam re-entered Sri Lanka supposedly to give leadership to a new political party.

If the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) was to be a party in the conventional sense that engages in, if not in electoral political, in popular politics, having a leader who is a wanted fugitive under a different name would have been a very doubtful and risky strategy.

For not only was he an escapee from a detention centre, Gunaratnam’s very presence was illegal having overstayed his tourist visa. This is quite apart from the issue of whether an Australian national is entitled to engage in local politics.

Nevertheless, the fact that this group and its followers opted for someone like him to be their leader and work with him casts serious doubts about the nature of this group and what they were trying to achieve in Sri Lanka . In that sense, the claims that this was not merely a political party but more a group willing to engage in subversive activities, gain credibility.

When rumours surfaced in September 2011 about Gunaratnam’s arrival in Sri Lanka , the Defence Secretary requested the Australian High Commission to provide details which could help law enforcement authorities to establish the identity and whereabouts of this person.

“I asked the High Commissioner to help us find the whereabouts of this person and even gave his wife’s telephone number in Australia ,” recalls Rajapaksa.

This request was ignored, and on April 7, the Australian High Commissioner in Sri Lanka Robyn Mudie informed Rajapaksa that an Australian citizen known as Premakumar Gunaratnam was reported to be missing from a house in Gemunu Mawatha, Kiribathgoda.

Rajapaksa informed the High Commissioner that the Sri Lankan immigration records did not indicate the entry of a person by such a name.

“I told her, I asked you for details about this person in September 2011 but I was not furnished any information. At least now give me this person’s name and passport number. So she gave the name as Noel Mudalige, who had left Australia on September 3 and arrived in Sri Lanka on September 4. Only then did we come to know of this person as Noel Mudalige,” Rajapaksa explains.

Rajapaksa claims that this is irrefutable evidence that the Australian authorities were aware of Gunaratnam’s real identity, as the High Commissioner was able to identify the missing person as Noel Mudalige.

Any logical assessment of the sequence of events would suggest that if this information was known earlier then Gunaratnam may have been traced and the open warrant issued against him could have been executed. However by deliberately failing to co-operate with the Sri Lankan authorities, the High Commission gave cover to a known fugitive which is even more alarming given that he was allegedly engaged in political activities. One must also question why the Australian High Commission gave PG/NM this special treatment and cover?

“There is a clear connection between this person and the LTTE, with whom he worked very closely in Australia . The timing of the purported abduction, just two days prior to the launch of the party, ensured that he got huge publicity and focused the attention of the international community against the government,” Rajapakse avers.

“If you read their party manifesto which came out recently, you will see that they don’t believe in democratic politics. How can the Australian government support a party that does not believe in democracy? The Australian government is directly or indirectly, willingly or unwillingly, supporting a party that does not believe in democracy. Australia has clearly acted wrongly in this case; it is a huge mistake on their part. They talk about transparency and good governance but where is the transparency and good governance in this case?”

“A relationship is always a two-way street, not one-way. We are helping them keep away illegal migrants and are working very closely with them. But on the other hand, they are hiding details from us. The Australian government has openly said that Sri Lanka is the only country that has effectively countered illegal migration into their shores,” Rajapaksa points out.

The trail of events is as follows:

-Premakumar Gunaratnam, an Australian citizen, arrived in Sri Lanka under the name of Noel Mudalige on September 4 2011 on a 30 day tourist visa.

-On April 7, he is claimed to be missing from 4.15 a.m. and a complaint is lodged with the Kiribathgoda Police at 3.30 p.m. on the same day, after a lapse of nearly 12 hours.

-He reports to the Colombo Crime Division (CCD) two days later on April 9 at 10.00 p.m., and the CCD notifies the High Commission of this development.

-Gunaratnam makes a short statement in the presence of HC Mudie that he had been abducted and questioned about the party’s future plans.

-He leaves the CCD at 11.30 p.m. (1 ½ hours later) in the presence of the High Commissioner. Until his departure, Gunaratnam was in the presence of High Commission officials, including none less than the High Commissioner herself.

-He leaves to Australia the next day, April 10 at 7.30 a.m.

Contradictory statements and puzzling conduct of Australian HC

According to the statement Gunaratnam made to the CCD in the presence of HC Mudie, no complaint of harassment let alone sexual torture was made. He stated that his abductors treated him well and questioned him about his future plans for the party. However, once in Australia , another version is narrated to the Australian media.

The presence of the Australian HC at the CCD should, surely, have given adequate confidence to one who hoped to lead a political party in Sri Lanka to make a frank statement about what had happened. Thus far, HC Mudie has not offered any statement to contradict what Gunaratnam said in her presence.

What is most puzzling in this drama is the manner in which Gunaratnam’s passport came into the possession of HC Mudie. Gunaratnam didn’t have his passport with him when he reported to CCD. He declared that it had been handed over to the party headquarters. Then the High Commission was requested to give an emergency passport. After the initial call, HC Mudie said that there was no need for an emergency passport as the original passport was in her possession.

Exclaims Rajapakse, “Just imagine, how original passport came into the possession of the High Commissioner! There are two possibilities. As soon as he came to Sri Lanka , he could have handed over the passport to the High Commissioner, or once she was told that this person doesn’t have a passport, the party headquarters was contacted and they gave the passport to her.”

“That means he went with the consent of his party to Australia ; in other words willingly. This is a plot hatched by people with vested interests who want to discredit Sri Lanka at this juncture in the international fora,” the Defence Secretary is unhesitant to say.

Not a case of deportation

The Defence Secretary insists that Gunaratnam’s return to Australia is not a case of deportation as is being reported. “His visa was only valid for one month. Not only did he overstay his visa for almost six months, he committed an even graver offence of engaging in subversive political activities, which he is not entitled to in any way as an Australian citizen.”

An order for deportation has to come from the Commissioner of Immigration. In his case, Gunaratnam has a ticket, a valid passport, he wanted to go to Australia and the High Commissioner requested the same. However, there was a penalty of Rs. 80,000 applicable for overstaying his tourist visa which Gunaratnam could not pay.

“Such persons can only re-enter Sri Lanka if they pay the relevant penalty. Had he been kept at the immigration detention centre until he was able to pay, then another complaint of a human rights violation would have come our way,” Rajapaksa asserts.

“This is a person who had violated visa regulations. Not only this, he is an Australian citizen. Once you take citizenship with one country, automatically Sri Lankan citizenship gets cancelled – that is our regulation. Here they talk about allowing him to engage in politics. As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, he is an Australian who was on a tourist visa for 30 days. This is a grave offence,” the Defence Secretary contends.

False charges: ‘Enforced’ or ‘voluntary’ disappearances?

According to police sources 88 abductions/disappearances were reported since 2011 out of which 55 cases were solved with the re-appearance of the missing person. The remaining 33 cases are not all complaints against the security forces, and include even elopement, disappearance of mentally unsound persons, and ransom cases.

“I don’t know of any human rights or social activist who has been abducted. Businessmen have been abducted but we have solved most of those cases. Businessmen are abducted not only here in Sri Lanka but all over the world for ransom.”

“When the war ended, we had around 4,600 detainees. As of today, we have 239 in detention – the rest have all been released. We have only one detention camp in Boosa. We have given access to family members, lawyers, foreign counsellors (if the detained person is a foreigner), the ICRC, spiritual persons, and human rights activists.”

“That we have denied access is an absolutely false charge.”

“Ambassador Stephen Rapp of the US, the Australian Deputy High Commissioner, the UK deputy High Commissioner, parliamentarians from Canada, UK, Norway, the LLRC, and officers of the Attorney-General’s Department have all been given access. A permanent Magistrate works in Galle district, inspecting and supervising their welfare. The Karapitiya Hospital provides all medical facilities and there is a small medical facility inside. “Completely wrong information is being pumped out,” states Rajapaksa.

According to the Defence Secretary what most people fail to realise or refuse to accept is that almost all those reported as missing are criminals such as Thelbala, Veleysuda, and Ice Manju (responsible for Major Muthaliph’s killing), who have links to the underworld.

“Sometimes they may be in Sri Lanka , but are declared as missing for their own benefit. These are criminals, and they use human rights organisations and the media to their advantage. Identifying the background of the missing person is important.”

“I am not defending the security forces killing or abducting even criminals or terrorists, it is not acceptable. But it is wrong to keep blaming the security forces without any evidence when there may be many other plausible reasons for their disappearance such as rivalry between underworld groups.”

“Who are the innocent people who have gone missing? In post-war Sri Lanka , has anyone been abducted from the main political parties such as the UNP, JVP, TNA or SLMC? So far, only the cases of Gunaratnam and Dimuthu Attygalle have surfaced and there are serious doubts over that drama,” Rajapaksa asserts.

Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa-pic:

Cases wrongly reported as ‘white-van’ abductions

One such reported case is from Batticaloa. Sellathamby Pathmanathan was indicted 10 years ago and was facing trial. He was involved in blasting an electricity transformer, apprehended and prosecuted by the law enforcement agencies. He was bailed by the Batticaloa High Court during the period of the Ceasefire Agreement. His sister had reported him as having been abducted in a white van. Later, it was revealed through an eye-witness that he is currently living in the Middle-East. Court was informed of this, and the case is going on in absentia, and the authorities are now investigating how he went abroad.

In another incident, a person linked to the drug trade was reported in the media as having been abducted in Mannar. However, far from being white-vanned, this person had been arrested by the Excise Department which had followed the proper procedures in his arrest, and transported in a cab. Certain media reports had wrongly concluded that he was abducted based on information given by his relatives. A similar incident had occurred in Wolfendhal Street in Colombo .

Another case is that of an LTTE cadre by the name of Mayuran who was recently apprehended in Galle following the recovery of a suicide jacket in Kataragama. His father had complained on May 24, 2006 that his son was missing but he is now in Police custody and the family has been informed of his detention. Mayuran was found living in Galle using a different identity, whereas he is actually from Badulla. .

“There may be many such cases where a person who has been reported to be missing is living elsewhere, either in this country or another country, assuming another identity,” Rajapaksa says, adding that his establishment was committed to resolving the remaining cases.

Unanswered Questions

-How did the Australian High Commission come into possession of Gunaratnam’s passport when he claimed it was at his party headquarters?

-Why didn’t Australia cooperate with Sri Lanka on this matter? Why was his case so important that the High Commissioner personally got involved?

-How would Australia have reacted if Sri Lanka had facilitated the entry of a wanted Australian fugitive to Australia on a Sri Lankan passport and thereafter not cooperated with the Australian authorities in tracing this fugitive – particularly if there were allegations that he was in the country with the objective of giving leadership to an underground and possibly even violent group?

Australia, over the past few years, has engaged with Sri Lanka with the objective of keeping unwanted people from Australia . In fact Australia itself has stated that Sri Lanka is the only country that effectively cooperates in regulating migration of people into Australia . One would have expected Australia to extend the same level of cooperation towards Sri Lanka . In that context, the conduct of the Australian High Commission in withholding information when requested for by the Defence Secretary in September 2011 in tracing Gunaratnam is disappointing to say the least.

The involvement of a foreign mission to pressure a sovereign state to bail out one of its citizens who should have been prosecuted under its judicial system is certainly questionable. All this begs an answer to the question, was it a plot against the Sri Lankan government? An explanation from the Australian High Commission in Colombo would be most welcome. courtesy: Daily Mirror

The comment may need to be approved by Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting; generally approved/posted if they are not abusive of the topic as well as the author and/or another commenter.