Westminster Hall Debate on Sri Lanka: Khuram Shaikh
Published Date: 20/03/2013 (Wednesday)
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale, Labour) secured this debate today to convey the human tragedy and agony behind the murder of Khuram Shaikh, the UK national in Sri Lanka.
Simon Danczuk leading the Westminster Hall Debate on Sri Lanka today, said, the purpose of the debate was to draw attention to how the Sri Lankan justice system has failed to investigate the murder of the British tourist Khuram Shaikh and also to honour his memory. Khuram Shaikh was a well known and a valuable and committed member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I pay tribute to the person behind this debate, my late constituent, Khuram Shaikh. Khuram was a Rochdale Red Cross worker who worked in some of the most dangerous parts of the world, helping people who had lost limbs from bombs, land mines and disease. The terrible irony is that he was killed not in the crucible of war, but at a holiday resort in Sri Lanka, where he was supposed to be recuperating before leaving for his next mission in Cambodia. It was not a land mine in Gaza that killed Khuram Shaikh; it was a group of thugs, running amok in the tourist resort of Tangalle.
Khuram spent his working life in harm’s way, but when he was killed, he was sitting in a luxury hotel near a beach in an idyllic setting. I looked at the hotel in a glossy brochure the other day and no one could imagine a safer place to be, but the holiday brochures do not warn people about the depraved gangs that stalk the tourist areas in Sri Lanka, looking for trouble.
My constituent died in appalling circumstances, trying to defend his partner from a horrific attack by a group of political thugs who continue to walk free in Sri Lanka. I want to concentrate on two things today; the failure of the Sri Lankan justice system to properly investigate the killing of a British tourist and the wider failings of that country’s justice system, which is rightly coming under more international scrutiny in the lead-up to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that Sri Lanka is due to host this November.
I want to set out the facts about the failure of the Sri Lankan justice system to investigate the death of my constituent. The nature of Khuram’s death was brought home to me in the most appalling way possible, as I was presented with crime reports by the head of the Sri Lankan criminal investigation department. I am now certain that Khuram died trying unsuccessfully to protect his female partner from a horrific and sustained attack, the details of which would make anyone sick and are simply too distressing to repeat here.
After Khuram was killed on Christmas day 2011, Sri Lankan Ministers moved into overdrive, initially worried at the damage that might be done to the country’s growing tourist sector. The Minister responsible for economic development and tourism at the time said:
“Those who committed this crime will be severely dealt with even if a ruling party politician is involved. The government will not protect those involved in this crime.”
Eight men were immediately detained, including a local politician, who was suspended from the ruling party, and police informed Khuram’s family that they had sufficient evidence to make sure that the case moved swiftly to trial. Then, when the media attention died down, everything ground to a halt. Eventually, the eight suspects were quietly released on bail and the local politician was allowed back into the ruling party. Any pretence of justice went out of the window.
On the anniversary of Khuram’s murder—Christmas day just gone—media attention returned and the Sri Lankan Government went through the same routine of claiming that justice was taking its course and that it was normal for suspects, even those suspected of serious
crimes, to be out on bail. Inquiries were taking longer than expected, we were told. Khuram’s family was quite right not to be satisfied, and their wish to see justice and experience some sense of closure at a terrible tragedy for them was understandable.
To assist in the process, I agreed to fly out with the brother of Khuram to seek answers. Earlier this month, I spent 40 hours with Naser Shaikh in Sri Lanka, meeting Ministers, senior civil servants, Members of Parliament, journalists, police, diplomats and lawyers to try to find out why the case had stalled and to press for justice.
At this point, let me put on record my thanks to the British high commission in Sri Lanka. Its help and support was extremely good, and it is a credit to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our country.
While out there, I was emphatically told by countless Sri Lankan people that politicians are immune from prosecution in such cases and that the local politician suspected of killing Khuram was protected by the President. I was also told that some politicians were out of control and running riot in many parts of the country. While I was there, it was reported that two more British tourists had been hospitalised after an attack by another local politician. As I boarded the plane to return to the UK, I picked up a copy of The Island, a popular Sri Lankan newspaper. The front page ran a story of our visit and underneath it was a cartoon of a man explaining how “political goons” had killed hundreds of Sri Lankan people.
If this was not horrifying enough, the lax attitude towards the case by senior Sri Lankan civil servants was even more worrying. The permanent secretary at the Foreign Office told me that, if politicians had good lawyers, they could find a way to escape justice. When I put it to him that he could not guarantee the safety of British tourists, he shrugged and said their system needed more teeth. The permanent secretary at the Ministry of Justice told me that they could not take foreign witness statements regarding the case, because it would be too much trouble to get them to travel to Sri Lanka for the trial. When I suggested they use video evidence, she said Sri Lanka was unable to use such sophisticated technology. Later, the head of police investigating the case directly contradicted her and said that they should use video link technology.
The hon. Gentleman is giving an impassioned account of what took place. Does he feel that the fall-down in this has been the police investigation, or has it been political influence? Does he feel that the assistance of police in this country might help the police out there to do a full investigation, so enabling the right people to be tried, convicted and put in prison?
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I am convinced that it is about political interference. The police out there have done a relatively reasonable—quite a good—job investigating. I will come back to some of those points in my speech.
Worse still, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Justice added that the accused would be able to choose the trial that he wished. It would be unlikely that
he would want a trial at bar in Colombo, and the likelihood is that it would be a trial by jury in Tangalle, where he has a fearful reputation and where jury members are likely to be easily intimidated. With most of the country’s media in Colombo, the trial would pass without a great deal of scrutiny. This case has reached a sorry pass when it seems the best that we can hope for is a sham trial.
Police have told us that they have 12 witness statements identifying the main suspect and that they are only awaiting DNA tests, which have been delayed for the best part of a year. Whenever we question the delay, we get the same response: “the tests will be ready in a few more months.” Although I accept that the Sri Lankan justice system moves slower than ours, I remain convinced that political interference is putting the brake on any efforts to move things forward. In a country that can impeach its chief justice in a matter of weeks but see little progress in 15 months on the death of a British tourist, serious questions need to be asked about not just the independence of Sri Lanka’s judiciary, but also its ability to stop further crimes like this happening.
The Minister will be aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel guidance on Sri Lanka warns of an increasing number of sexual offences being committed and gangs being known to operate in tourist areas. My concern is that although British Airways promotes Sri Lanka as its No. 1 destination for 2013, many tourists do not know of the potential dangers that they face.
We all know of the vast Chinese investment in Sri Lanka’s tourism sector, but making Sri Lanka open to the world requires a lot more than just hotels; it requires a commitment to the shared international values of democracy, human rights and justice. More than ever, that commitment should be on display to the world right now, as Sri Lanka gears up for the CHOGM.
President Rajapaksa has talked of the “true Commonwealth spirit” that the summit will embody, but against a backdrop of the continued denials of human rights abuses, the sacking of its chief justice for daring to make a decision that the Government found inconvenient and the abandonment of the rule of law, it is hard to see where the true Commonwealth spirit is in Sri Lanka. For Rajapaksa’s regime to continue flagrantly to ignore key Commonwealth values, while assuming the position of chair-in-office of the Commonwealth later this year, makes a mockery of the Commonwealth and winds back the clock on 60 years of progress.
There is a growing chorus of opposition to Sri Lanka hosting such a prestigious event, and I hope the Minister is attentive to those legitimate concerns. Geoffrey Robertson, QC, has argued:
“A visit to Sri Lanka by the Queen, as the head of the Commonwealth, would provide a propaganda windfall—a royal seal of approval—to the host president after his destruction of the country’s judicial independence.”
A former Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, has said that it would be a mistake for Sri Lanka to host the meeting, which he likened to Pretoria hosting a Commonwealth summit while South Africa was under apartheid. Another former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend David Miliband, has said that the notion of the Queen attending the meeting in Sri Lanka is “grotesque”. Although I
share his sentiment, I would use even stronger language to describe my reaction to the possibility of Her Majesty coming face to face with the chief suspect of the cold-blooded and cowardly murder of my constituent.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Liberal Democrat)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for initiating this debate. I share his view that Sri Lanka ought not to host the CHOGM. Will he join me in asking the Minister to consider whether it might be reasonable to set up an organisation under the auspices of the Commonwealth, or to commission a body such as Justice or the International Commission of Jurists, to go to Sri Lanka to carry out an objective report on the country’s legal situation? Not only is there the hon. Gentleman’s case, but many others that need investigation where Sri Lanka has fallen far short of any acceptable Commonwealth standard.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Any suggestions or proposals that would improve the situation in Sri Lanka are welcome. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.
It has been reported that the main suspect, Sampath Chandra Pushpa, is to be invited to the CHOGM in an official capacity, which makes an absolute mockery of the Commonwealth secretary-general’s statement that the meeting is an opportunity to find “paths to peace”. Values, as we all know, can only be demonstrated by action, or as Gandhi put it:
“Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.”
In Sri Lanka’s case, we are yet to get beyond warm words. Ministers seem to think that soothing rhetoric will be enough to reassure us that justice will happen one day.
My point is that paying lip service to the key principles of human rights and the rule of law is neither here nor there. The leaders of 54 countries will not be heading to a country that embodies the shared values and principles of the Commonwealth this November; they will be travelling to what is fast becoming a pariah state that embodies neither Commonwealth values nor Commonwealth goals.
Of course, some people will say that the attack on my constituent and his partner is an isolated incident, but that is not true. Attacks on European tourists are increasing and there is grave concern among diplomats about the safety of foreign nationals, particularly women travelling alone. Equally disturbing are the attacks on journalists. In the past month, the British journalist Faraz Shauketaly, who works for The Sunday Leader, was shot in his own house by unidentified gunmen. A few years before, the editor of that newspaper, which is known for its exposés of corruption in the country, was killed. Too many Sri Lankan journalists have been killed or have gone into exile, and the country has a terrible press freedom record, languishing near the bottom of the press freedom index compiled by Reporters Without Borders.
The purpose of the debate is not only to shine a light on how the Sri Lankan justice system is failing properly to investigate the murder of a British tourist, but to honour the memory of Khuram Shaikh, who was a well respected member of our community and a valuable and committed member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Understandably, his death has caused untold grief for his family, and I know that his father makes the trip to his grave every day.
Although Khuram achieved a lot in his life and tributes have been paid to him from across the world, he was only 32 when he was killed, and he should have had many years ahead of him. His death has left a huge gap in the lives of those who knew him, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to introduce a debate that adds to the tributes for Khuram. I am sure the Minister will agree that every necessary step must now be taken by the British Government and others to press Sri Lanka to do more to protect tourists, so that others do not meet the same fate.
Alistair Burt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Afghanistan/South Asia, counter terrorism/proliferation, North America, Middle East and North Africa), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.
I congratulate Simon Danczuk on securing this debate and on conveying to us the human tragedy and agony behind the statistic of the murder of a UK national abroad. I also pay tribute to the force and the manner of his description of the case, the circumstances of which make for powerful listening and reading. I hope his speech gets wide distribution. I am also grateful for the contributions of Jim Shannon and my right hon. Friend Simon Hughes.
I applaud the long-standing commitment of the hon. Member for Rochdale to securing justice following the brutal murder of his constituent, Khuram Shaikh, in 2011, and I welcome the opportunity to bring attention not only to that tragic case but to the wider circumstances that have been described. It is no secret that the United Kingdom has a number of concerns about progress in Sri Lanka, a country with which we have long and very strong ties but about which we have everyday worries that are shared by a number of other nations. One of our dearest wishes is that balance and equilibrium are restored to our relationship with Sri Lanka by those issues’ being addressed, but that is not what we currently see.
It is important to note that we have a long-standing and strong relationship with Sri Lanka. Our close ties are formed through history, educational links and culture, as well as the Sri Lankan community in the United Kingdom, which contributes so much to our rich and diverse culture. We value those links, which we are determined to maintain.
A key link, of course, is tourism. UK citizens accounted for more than 10% of tourists visiting Sri Lanka last year. Even in these tough times, tourists are making a significant contribution to the Sri Lankan economy. Together with Sri Lankan citizens, they deserve to know that they can rely on the Sri Lankan authorities to keep them as safe as tourists in any other part of the world. They also deserve a swift investigation, with the perpetrators being apprehended and brought swiftly to justice in a fair and transparent trial, should any crime be committed against them.
Unfortunately, the events highlighted by the hon. Gentleman today have served to undermine that trust. The horrific murder of Khuram Shaikh has gone untried
for 15 months, bringing further grief and frustration to those closest to him. Of course, justice can take time, which we all understand, but in this case we were encouraged by the quick arrest of the suspects and the Sri Lankan Government’s early assurances that such a brutal crime would be investigated quickly and thoroughly, and that all guilty parties would be sentenced appropriately.
No trial has yet started, and the suspects, the most prominent of whom is a local politician, have been released on bail, which is extremely disappointing. There is a growing perception that the guilty parties may escape justice due to political connections, despite repeated pleas from Khuram Shaikh’s family and the British high commission in Colombo. I welcome the recognition of the work of our high commissioner and his team. It will be reported back to him. There is a sense, 15 months after this heinous crime, that those who deserve to be put on fair trial for their actions might escape justice. We sincerely hope that that is not the case, and that the accused will soon face a swift trial, free from political interference.
I was able to raise Khuram Shaikh’s case with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister during my visit to the country in January, as well as in a meeting with the Sri Lankan high commissioner in London on 23 January. During my meeting with the high commissioner, I was advised that progress would be made within three months. I trust the high commissioner and the Foreign Minister, and expect to hear soon of progress on the case. The British Government, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will monitor closely the progress of investigations in the coming weeks, in the hope that those assurances will lead to the justice that the Shaikh family so deserve. It is unfortunate that senior members of the Sri Lankan Government did not meet with the hon. Member for Rochdale or with Khuram Shaikh’s brother, Nasir Shaikh, during their recent visit to Sri Lanka to press the case further.
We are concerned about the possibility of increased attacks on and threats to our tourists abroad. Our travel advice recognises an increase in sexual and gang violence in Sri Lanka. We condemn all instances of violence. They must be investigated, and those responsible brought to justice with a swift and fair trial. We advise any visitor abroad to read the travel advice on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. It is kept up to date. It is accurate, factual and not used for any political purpose; it honestly describes the situation there. It will change to reflect circumstances and the UK Government’s concerns about UK citizens travelling abroad. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to it. We draw the attention of tour operators and others to our travel advice, and we hope that people accept it and understand what it implies.
Turning to wider issues mentioned by hon. Members, Khuram Shaikh’s tragic case is, regrettably, not our only concern about justice in Sri Lanka. Hon. Members have spoken eloquently about other concerns. We are clear that judicial independence should be a principle at the heart of all free countries. Since the impeachment of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice in January, many feel that that principle has been fatally compromised, which is why we and others, such as the International Commission of Jurists and the UN, have expressed deep concern at the
impeachment. We are disappointed that the Sri Lankan Government continued with the process despite objections from Sri Lanka’s highest courts and outcry from its own citizens.
The Sri Lankan Government has defended the impeachment, stating that the process was constitutional and followed due procedure, but many eminent legal authorities, in Sri Lanka and overseas, have given a contrary view. We also note that when the legal experts of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute planned to visit Sri Lanka to investigate the impeachment, they were denied visas by the Sri Lankan Government. Such actions do not inspire confidence in the claims that the process would stand up to further scrutiny.
Of course, our concerns about the situation in Sri Lanka do not end with justice issues. The long conflict in Sri Lanka ended in 2009 with the defeat of the brutal Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. After such a devastating period in their history, we believe that all Sri Lankans deserve lasting peace, justice and reconciliation. Following the end of the conflict, the 2011 report by the UN Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka found credible allegations that both sides violated international humanitarian law during the conflict. More recent work such as the Human Rights Watch report and footage from a new documentary about the final days of the conflict have also brought to international attention important information supporting allegations of abuses.
We have consistently called for an independent, thorough and credible investigation into the allegations. Until such an investigation takes place, it will be difficult for the Sri Lankan people to move forward. We are clear that all allegations must be investigated, whether committed by the LTTE or Government forces, and that those responsible must be brought to justice. We believe that fully addressing and condemning events of the past is crucial to ensuring that justice is done and that Sri Lanka can begin to look forward, not back, but so too are wider measures recommended by Sri Lanka’s own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. In order to ensure that the dividend of peace can be enjoyed by all Sri Lankans, it is vital that the Sri Lankan Government make concrete progress in implementing the recommendations, which include investigation of alleged extra-judicial killings and disappearances and implementation of a mechanism to resolve land disputes impartially.
We recognise that the path to justice and reconciliation, particularly after such a bitter conflict spanning generations and affecting so many, will be long. It is also important for us to recognise that the Sri Lankan Government have made some progress. I saw the situation for myself during my visit to Sri Lanka in January. Infrastructure had been rebuilt, and I saw roads being repaved in the northern area. I also heard from non-governmental organisations about extensive de-mining work done in former conflict zones. We recognise and welcome such progress. We also recognise that there are obstacles to progress in some areas, and that the way forward will never be clear of stumbling blocks. Much more work is needed to guarantee a stable future for Sri Lanka and ensure justice for all its citizens. The appropriate application of the rule of law is clearly a key factor.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Liberal Democrat)
Alistair Burt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Afghanistan/South Asia, counter terrorism/proliferation, North America, Middle East and North Africa), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)
I am just about to come to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. The United Kingdom has still not made a decision on our attendance at CHOGM. We look to Sri Lanka to demonstrate the Commonwealth principles of good governance, respect for human rights and adherence to the rule of law.
The spotlight will be on Sri Lanka, and will inevitably highlight either progress or lack of it. It was decided at CHOGM 2009 that Sri Lanka should host the meeting in 2013. I remind the House that to reopen that decision would require the consensus of all member states. We will look to Sri Lanka to demonstrate its commitment to upholding Commonwealth values. We must also be sure that the emphasis at CHOGM will be on the Commonwealth. That is what it is about. Bearing in mind the location, however, there is a risk that attention will be drawn to other factors. We are working strenuously with other partners to ensure that Sri Lanka recognises its opportunity to demonstrate its values; also, in the run-up to that period, questions are being asked, exemplified by the individual circumstance raised by the hon. Gentleman that is reflective of wider concerns. We have similar questions, as do other members of the Commonwealth, and other concerns are being aired this week at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.
As I mentioned at the beginning, our relationship with Sri Lanka is long and deep. We recognise the bitterness and difficulty of the conflict that came to an
end and the brutality of terrorism and the importance of seeing it ended; if there is to be proper reconciliation and justice, however, there has to be a recognition of accountability for what has happened, as well as looking forward to the opportunities available for all the population in Sri Lanka. All that the friends of Sri Lanka and its people are doing is to draw attention to the need to reconcile the statements of the Government of Sri Lanka about justice and reconciliation with actions on the ground to deliver that. Government statements about implementing the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations are emphasised because that is what Sri Lankans themselves expected to see happen to deliver the justice and reconciliation that the Government talk about.
Those outside are asking for no more than for the Sri Lankans to live up to what they themselves said was needed to ensure reconciliation for the future as well as justice for the past. Adherence to the rule of law and the ability to deal with the sort of issues raised by the hon. Gentleman and others in this Chamber this afternoon are a key part of that process. The United Kingdom is keenly aware of the concern about such issues and of the need to look at them extremely carefully in the months ahead.
