The late Gomin Dayasri declared he didn’t want to be a President’s Counsel. Appearing on Sirasa Pathikada, the outspoken lawyer said that there was no point in requesting such a title. Dayasri said so during a conversation with the late Bandula Jayasekera, who invited him on several occasions. Dayasri pointed out the absurdity in the process of appointing President’s Counsel.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
The much respected senior Attorney-at-Law Gomin Dayasri, 77, is no more, but his voice carried such weight that he had the opportunity to advise the Mahinda Rajapaksa government (2005-2015) at the highest level, in his heyday, despite not fearing to admonish them whenever it was deserved. The final rites were conducted on July 02 at the Borella Cemetery.
A true patriot, Gomin had been among those who stood for Sri Lanka’s unitary status whatever the consequences. During the war, and after, Gomin, always mindful of the interests of the armed forces and the police, which was not a popular thing to do among those who had the ear and patronage of the self-appointed international community of the West and was among those few civil society activists who valiantly threw their weight behind the campaign against separatist terrorists as it was treated like heresy by those same elements who worshipped the West.
Sirasa and MTV/TV 1, although being constantly accused of undermining the war effort, earned the respect of the nationalists for the coverage given to the late lawyer. The writer received opportunities to participate in Sirasa and MTV/TV 1 programmes, sometimes, with the late Dayasiri who strongly opposed federalism, separatism and foreign interference.
Top lawyer, Gomin Dayasiri, and General Secretary of the Communist Party of Sri Lanka, Dew Gunasekera, declared that Sangakkara couldn’t have made that statement in the UK at a better time.
The late Dayasri never hesitated to take on the Rajapaksa government if he felt it was on the wrong path.
A case in point is Kumar Sangakkara’s controversial hour-long Sir Colin Cowdrey lecture delivered in July 2011, at Lords. A section of the then government depicted the lecture as a frontal attack on them. Those who resented Sangakkara for exposing their wrongs, cleverly deceived then President Mahinda Rajapaksa. They propagated the lie that the cricketer was challenging the government and was working with the Opposition. Sangakkara earned the wrath of the then government though he paid a glowing tribute to the war winning armed forces at such a prestigious forum at a time a section of the international community, including the UK, was and is literally hounding Sri Lanka’s valiant fighting units for bringing on an implausible victory against all odds, wherever possible.
He was neither a blind worshipper of patriots, the late Dayasri was among the few who dared to stand by Sangakkara. When the writer sought his response to the threats on Sangakkara, Dayasri was prompt and strongly supported Sangakkara’s demand to tackle waste, corruption and irregularities in the game, Dayasri declared that a cohesive strategy was required to stamp out corruption in both public and private sectors. Sangakkara’s speech couldn’t have come at a better time, Dayasri said, adding: “The dashing batsman’s eloquent presentation was very pro-Sri Lanka as against the LTTE terrorism and cricket terrorism. If any politician, or the government, decides to take action against the player, there’ll be a public outcry because the sports personality has courageously exposed the insider dealings in Sri Lanka Cricket. More of Sangakkara’s kind should come to the forefront.” (“The day Kumar Sangakkara felt humbled’, with strapline ‘Unpardonable failure to capitalize on ‘Spirit of Cricket’” lecture, on January 25, 2017 issue of The Island). Michael Roberts posted in The Island Midweek column article under the headline ‘Sangakkara’s MCC lecture and the Rajapaksa/ Wickemesinghe governments’ failures,’ in his Thuppahi blog.
Sangakkara became the first speaker to receive a standing ovation at Lords since Bishop Desmond Tutu in 2008. Both the UK-based, and Sri Lankan media focused on Sangakkara’s assault on the politically influential cricket administration and the criminal waste of funds, as well as resources belonging to Sri Lanka Cricket. The Sinhala print and electronic media completely ignored Sangakkara’s speech.
Dayasri asserted that the only shortcoming in Sangakkara’s superb speech was the absence of a reference to the Indian factor in Sri Lanka terrorism. Dayasri suggested that the writer left that out as Sangakkara must have had reason to be silent on the Indian factor.
The following post by Janaka Perera “Gomin did not confuse patriotism with loyalty to any political party or consider it the monopoly of any group” in the US-based Gamini Edirisinghe’s e-mail thread, explained the late lawyer’s response to the situation.
Daya Gamage posted: “I have been following Gomin Dayasiri’s trajectory for the past 30 to 40 years, his struggle to keep Sri Lanka undivided”.
Nimal Fernando posted: “A true son of the soil, whose fierce patriotism was a source of solace for Mother Lanka.”
Dr. Anula Wijesundere declared in her post that Gomin was a true patriot and a great lawyer who spoke fearlessly and eloquently against LTTE terrorism. Like the other great patriotic lawyer, the late S.L. Gunasekera, Gomin, too, appeared free of charge and defended the armed forces and the police.
Lt. Col. Anil Amarasekera recalled the services rendered by Gomin Dayasri and the late S.L. Gunasekara.
The retired officer posted the following: “… during their lifetime, they worked tirelessly to protect and preserve the unity and territorial integrity of our motherland for posterity”.
Gomin even appeared for me free of charge when I filed a case against the then Commander of the Army for violating my fundamental rights by not allowing me to enter the Sinhalese villages in the Weli Oya region to work against the devolution proposals of the then Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga government. The Commander of the Army withdrew the order preventing me from entering Weli Oya after a fundamental rights petition was filed in the Supreme Court. Therefore we withdrew our fundamental rights case.
Asoka Bandarage: “Sri Lanka has lost a beloved patriot. Gomin Dayasiri was a brilliant, courageous and interesting individual. I communicated with him a number of times on matters pertaining to peace and sovereignty of Sri Lanka. Gomin gave advice freely when H.L.D. Mahindapala and I were faced with legal charges over our writings on Sri Lanka. I also had the opportunity to visit and enjoy lunch at Gomin’s home in the tranquil village setting off Thalawathugoda.”
Sudharshan Seneviratne: “I do remember Gomin very well at Ananda. We admired him for his oratory skills and his sharp rebukes levelled at the opposing debating team!
In a limed way though, he did give his valued opinion on the College English Union magazine, the Spark, edited by Deva Rodrigo.
After he left college Gomin took time off while he was doing his Law exams to tutor me on the AL Government paper.
Later we met, not frequently though, at Anuradhapura when I was excavating at the citadel and Jetavanaramaya where he did have pointed questions on culture, identity and training of the next generation.”
Gamini Edirisinghe posted the News First video clip of Dayasri’s funeral.
Oct 2006 triumph
The judgment on the high profile case, filed by the JVP seeking de-merger of the Eastern Province, comprising Ampara, Batticaloa and Trincomalee Districts from the Northern Province, was delivered on Oct 16, 2006, the day an LTTE suicide attack on a Navy land convoy claimed the lives of nearly 100 of its personnel at Digampathaha (not Digampathana) between Habarana and Dambulla. Digampathaha attack was the single worst directed at a military convoy during the entire war whereas the judgment could be considered the most important as regards Sri Lanka’s unitary status.
The Supreme Court on Oct 16, 2006 declared the merger of the northern and eastern provinces, implemented in terms of the controversial 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka Accord, ‘null and void and illegal’. The Court declared that material provided by the petitioners resulted in “volumes of material to establish the divisions that existed in historic times and that the eastern province was part of the Kandyan Kingdom at the time of the British conquest”.
The ruling was given in spite of heavy international pressure against de-merging the East from the North. It would be pertinent to mention that at the time of the SC judgment and Digampathaha suicide attack, the LTTE’s conventional military capacity was considered inviolable, especially by the West. In fact, the armed forces hadn’t been able to seriously challenge the LTTE, at least in the Eastern Province, at the time of the historic judgment.
In Sept. 2006, Co-Chairs backing the peace process – the United States, European Union, Japan and Norway – cautioned Sri Lanka against the move. Co-Chairs warned: “There should be no change to the specific arrangements for the North and East which could endanger the achievement of peace. The legitimate interests and aspirations of all communities, including the Tamil, Muslims and Sinhala communities, must be accommodated as part of a political settlement.”
Prominent lawyers H.L. de Silva, S.L. Gunasekera and Gomin Dayasri appeared for the petitioners. Prof. Nalin de Silva, who served as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Myanmar (Sept 2020-Sept 2021), recalled in a piece on Gomin Dayasri, written in Sinhala, the role played by the three lawyers in the triumphant case.
Son of fearless N.Q. Dias, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence, during Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s first term (1960-65) as Prime Minister, has been given a new name. Showing his disdain for the colonial past his father, ditching the Portuguese derived last name Dias, still carried by many Sri Lankans, proudly and simply named him Gomin Dayasri and sent him to Ananda College though his mother very much preferred Anglican S. Thomas College, Mount Lavinia. But, N.Q. Dias, who had studied at an equally elitist Trinity College, Kandy, desired his son to receive an education at Ananda College for obvious reasons.
Prof. de Silva played a glowing tribute to Gomin’s father, legendary civil servant N.Q. Dias, for facilitating the recruitment of Sinhala Buddhists to the armed forces’ officer corps, which, along with top echelons of the police, was till then an almost exclusive club of Christians. Had that not happened, the armed forces couldn’t have brought the war to an end on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon in May 2009, Prof. de Silva asserted.
Declaring that the case against the merger of the Eastern Province from the Northern had been the most important one the late Dayasri appeared, Prof. de Silva declared that if not for lawyers H.L. de Silva, S.L. Gunasekera and Gomin Dayasri, Sri Lanka’s history could have been different. Pointing out that except Dayasri, other lawyers weren’t Sinhala Buddhists, Prof. de Silva emphasized the need to de-link the East from the North through the passage of a Parliament act. That should be done in honour of those lawyers who rendered great service to the motherland. We would however like to differ with Prof. Nalin de Silva on late S.L. de Silva, though born into a Christian family, he was a life-long agnostic.
The late Dayasri had been seriously disappointed with the way Sri Lanka handled accountability issues both during the conflict and after. The Island reportage on the conflict and related matters certainly received a big boost, thanks to advice and suggestions the writer received from the late lawyer. Dayasri was always accessible and never declined to comment on contentious issues. Twice he visited The Island editorial after the conclusion of the sittings of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (CoI) at the BMICH, into the killing of 17 persons employed by the Action Contra La Faim (ACF) to provide the writer a briefing of what was going on. The CoI also inquired into the killing of five youth in Trincomlee in January 2006.
On one occasion, Dayasri provided the writer several photographs of civil society representatives with foreigners involved in the process. With a mischievous grin, Dayasri said the role played by most foreign-funded NGOs here was quite treacherous. The lawyer asserted that successive governments pathetically failed to meet the challenge posed by those who represented the interests of separatists.
The ACF case took an unprecedented turn in late March 2008, when the late Dayasri challenged the right of one-time Government Agent Dr. Devanesan Nesiah to be Commissioner due to his close relationship with the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA). S.L. Gunasekera, who also appeared for the military, demanded Dr. Nesiah’s removal.
Appearing for the then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s Army, free of charge, Dayasri opposed Dr. Nesiah’s role against the backdrop of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) being made party to the high profile case. Dayasri targeted Dr. Nesiah after the Presidential Commission accepted CPA and several other civil society groups, party to the inquiry on the basis of an application submitted by President’s Counsel and one-time President of Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) the late Desmond Fernando. Justice N.K. Udalagama headed the Commission. The proceedings were held under the scrutiny of International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP).
Dayasri didn’t mince his words when he questioned the failure on the part of Dr Nesiah to disclose his close relationship with the CPA at an earlier stage. Alleging that it had been a serious lapse on the part of the Commissioner, Dayasri bluntly told the former Jaffna Government Agent Nesiah: “You cannot be a judge in your own case because not only justice must be done, but it must be seen to be so done, otherwise there’ll be the likelihood of bias.”
Dayasri and Desmond Fernando clashed at the inquiry over the latter’s claim that a minister confided in him that he (minister) knew the perpetrators of the Muttur massacre. Dayasri demanded that Fernando should get into the witness box. Fernando skipped the proceedings the following day (Probe into Muttur massacre takes a dramatic turn: Commissioner’s right to hear case challenged due to NGO link, The Island, March 27, 2008 edition).
As a result of the stand taken by Dayasri and Gunasekera, President Mahinda Rajapaksa had no option but to intervene. In a letter dated June 06, 2008, Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga asked Dr. Nesiah to explain his relationship with the CPA and the payments received from the CPA. In spite of the presidential directive for him to step down, Dr. Nesiah joined the proceedings on June 10, 2008. Dayasri’s protests compelled the CoI to ask Dr. Nesiah to leave (Commission probing human rights violations: Nesiah dropped after President’s intervention, The Island, June 11, 2008)
Dayasri also argued against the 19th Amendment in a Fundamental Rights petition before the Supreme Court in 2015. Many an eyebrow was raised when Dayasri petitioned against President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to dissolve Parliament in Oct 2018. Dayasiri told the Supreme Court though he opposed the 19A, since its passage in Parliament, yet the President was duty-bound to act in accordance with it, and the dissolution in less than four and a half years without a Parliament resolution was unconstitutional.
Dayasri simply ignored the fact that Mahinda Rajapaksa had received the premiership as a result of Maithripala Sirisena’s constitutional coup.
In conversation with the writer, Dayasri, lecturer in law and respected commentator on matters of national importance, expressed serious concerns over the failure on the part of the government to address the Geneva challenge. The absence of a clear action plan to use disclosures made by Lord Naseby offended Dayasri, who felt those who exercised political authority quite conveniently failed to exploit the advantage given by Lord Naseby. The cancellation of the Victory Day parade by the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government in 2015 angered the lawyer. Calling the decision a disgrace, Dayasri explained that the President and the Premier should be ashamed of themselves.
Dayasri earned the respect of the armed forces and the vast majority of people. His contribution and influence would remain as the country struggles to cope up with an extremely difficult situation caused by waste, corruption, irregularities, mismanagement and, most of all, simple political incompetence at the highest level, being the prime cause of it.
-The Ministry of Defence bears no responsibility for the ideas and views expressed by the contributors to the Opinion section of this web site -