The mention of Richard de Zoysa in one of my articles questioning the aim of an exhibition of photographs organized by the government has become a matter of great controversy.
The first comment came from C. A. Chandraprema in “The Island.” Several days later the same newspaper carried an editorial with the title “Richard’s Ghost.” It seriously questioned my honesty and that of the Free Media Movement and the Alliance for Democracy. It also questioned why Mr. de Zoysa was depicted as a martyr of the freedom of expression while his killing could have been triggered by his connections with the JVP.
The editorial appeared on a Saturday. A reply by Justice Minister Batty Weerakoon appeared in “The Sunday Times.” The main item in the SLBC news bulletin that evening was “The Island” editorial. The aim of the news bulletin was to attack the Alliance for Democracy, which the government hates on the basis of the contents of the editorial. Surprisingly, the news bulletin containing the editorial was broadcast by the SLBC as its lead story on Monday too. Without stopping at that the SLBC broadcast that night a special programme on the debate and the Subharathi programme. This was broadcast live on Tuesday morning too.
It is popularly believed locally and internationally that the UNP government assassinated Mr. De Zoysa because he was attached to the International Press Service.
I knew the chief police officer who had conducted investigations into Mr. de Zoysa’s assassination. He said a group led by Ronnie Gunasinghe at the government’s instance had committed Mr. de Zoysa’s assassination. He told me Richard was not a very innocent person and he had been actively involved in the JVP. I was able to stay aloof from the popular view about Richard. I refrained from publishing what I heard because it was not possible to do so on the basis of what I had got from one individual only. However, I have never called Richard de Zoysa a martyr to the cause of journalism.
It took me a number of years to get additional information that confirmed the information given to me by that police officer about Richard. I got that information from a close associate of Richard.
By the time of the rebellion of ’89-’90 Richard had come to a position in which he was emotionally involved in his work for the JVP. He had become an active supporter of the JVP rather than a journalist.
Although his friends had told his mother about it, she had replied that it was not possible for her to go against his free will. At a time when a state officer (Ravinatha Ariyasinghe of the Foreign Ministry) was away from Sri Lanka, the person who rented his house was Richard. The house used by Richard had been turned by the JVP into one of its secret centres. It was also there that Somawansa Amarasinghe stayed before fleeing the country. When the fact was revealed at the investigation held after Somawansa had fled the country, the security forces wanted to bulldoze it. However, the family members of that state officer were able to use their influence with Ranjan Wijeratne and prevent the demolition of the house.
Richard was abducted when he was in bed. For the abductors his pair of spectacles was not important. However, with that pair of spectacles, there was also an important file near it. What that file contained was none other than a sheaf of papers in which Richard had been translating into English but had not finished the book which Rohana Wijeweera had published in Sinhala with the title “What is the solution to the question of Tamil Eelam?” Very early in the morning on the day on which Richard was abducted, a young man who had connections with Richard came to that house in a hurry, asked for and got that file which had been with the pair of spectacles and disappeared immediately.
After my article in question was published, a well-known person who had once served in the Rupavahini told me that my observations in that article were correct. However, he asked me whether any purpose was served by talking about those matters now, and told me that Richard had met him and made a terrible proposal to him too, but that he did not agree to it. When I asked him what Richard had wanted from him, he didn’t want to say anything about it. He also said one of the brains behind the plan to paralyze the Rupavahini at that time might have been Richard de Zoysa.
The family members of Richard de Zoysa were close friends of Lalith Athulathmudali. Richard’s assassination shocked Mr. Athulathmudali. Mr. Athulathmudali on one occasion had asked a friend of Richard whether he associated with Lalith because he was a close family friend or to get the secrets of the Security Council and the Cabinet.
I said although the government wanted to appoint a special commission on Richard’s assassination, it was not done because his mother had objected to it. What I meant was not the kind of commission headed by Ms. Sarath Muttetuwegama as Minister of Justice Batty Weerakoon had mentioned. The commission that functioned under Ms. Muttetuwegama might have inquired into Richard’s disappearance too. However, the PA government wanted to appoint a special presidential commission to inquire into Richard de Zoysa’s killing as in the Vijaya Kumaratunga assassination. It was not done because Mrs. Manorani Saravanamuttu objected to it. I came to know about it for the first time from the then Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera. Later I came to know about it from other persons too.
All the persons including the police officer from whom I got information about Richard are still alive. However, I do not know whether they will declare these matters in public. Whatever Richard’s politics was, his assassination cannot be justified. Even other assassinations committed by anybody in that terrible period cannot be justified. Richard de Zoysa was not the only journalist assassinated in that period. His background influenced the massive publicity that his assassination received.
His background might have influenced the fact that Richard de Zoysa became a special target after the rebellion had been defeated.
It is difficult to understand why the Alliance for Democracy was dragged into Richard de Zoysa’s case. Although I function as the convenor of the Free Media Movement (FMM) at present, the ideas I have expressed about Richard de Zoysa are purely personal. They are not the official view of the FMM. Although I was a founder member of the FMM, there was long period in which I was out of it. I rejoined it in 1998. The FMM confined to a group media persons and stands for the right of expression. However, the Alliance for Democracy is a combination of large number of organizations and stands for democratic freedom. The FMM is also included in that combination. However, it is wrong to call it a project of the FMM. Batty Weerakoon’s statement that the FMM came only after President Premadasa’s assassination and not before is a fallacy. The first public meeting of the FMM was held at the New Town Hall on June 2, 1992. Among those who were present were Chandrika Kumaratunga, Mangala Samaraweera, S. B. Dissanayake and Nandimitra Ekanayake.