A Tale of Incompetence RTI Reveals CMC

Inaction Leading Up To Meethotamulla Tragedy

RAISA WICKREMATUNGE on 06/20/2017

On April 14, 2017 the garbage dump in Meethotamulla collapsed, killing 32

people. These deaths could have been avoided. That they could not, points to
a systematic failure of the State to address various issues raised by the dumping
of garbage close to human settlements. Residents from Meethotamulla went to
the Supreme Court in 2014 seeking the relocation of the dump. Their calls went
unheeded.
In the immediate aftermath, many State agencies were quick to absolve
themselves of blame. When Groundviews contacted current Colombo Municipal
Council Commissioner, V K Anura, he said that Meethotamulla had been used as a
site from 2008. He also said that the CMC stopped disposing garbage in
Meethotamulla in 2015, then recommenced it following a court order. Minister
Champika Ranawaka meanwhile released documents saying that the Urban
Development Authority had informed the CMC to stop dumping garbage in the
area in September 2015.
The Commissioner flatly denied this.
In order to ascertain where the responsibility for Meethotamulla
lay, Groundviews filed several RTI requests with a number of Government bodies;
the Urban Development Authority (UDA), the CMC, the Central Environment
Authority (CEA) the Disaster Management Centre, (DMC) the Ministry of
Megapolis and Western Development, and the Prime Ministers Office.
The responses (or lack thereof) revealed much not just about the operation of
and coordination between state agencies, but also the implementation of Sri
Lankas Right to Information Act.

Inside the CEA

The CEA was one of the first to respond to the request we filed (and incidentally,
one of the best prepared to deal with RTI requests). In response to our query,
they revealed that there had been no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
carried out before choosing Meethotamulla as a site for dumping garbage. The
dumping commenced following a court order. Further, they said CMC had never
made the request for an EIA to be carried out.

However it was the Urban Development Authoritys response that was most
illuminating, pointing the finger of blame squarely at the CMC.
The first was a letter from the CMC, signed by then Commissioner Badrani
Jayawardena to the Chairman of the UDA, identifying Meethotamulla as a site for
dumping garbage, following a court order that was issued on April 28, 2009. The
CMC Commissioner said that the area police and the Kolonnawa Pradeshiya Sabha
were informed about the decision.
The second letter, dated September 6, 2016, was to the CMC. The letter,
addressed to current CMC Commissioner V K Anura said that the UDA had only
authorised 2 acres of land in Meethotamulla for the dumping of garbage. Instead,
the letter said, the CMC had utilised all 21 acres of the land. The UDA further said
that they required the land for development purposes and asked that the CMC
remove the solid waste at the site and hand over the land.
In addition, the UDA said that the CMC would have to pay a lease for the use of
the land in Meethotamulla from 2009 until 2016, as well as bear the cost of
rehabilitating the land to its original position.
The next letter, dated January 17, 2017, was to the Kolonnawa Development
Council. The UDA Chairman noted that the CMC was continuing to dump garbage
on UDA owned land, and threatened legal action if this practice continued.
The final letter, dated December 21, 2016, was to the Commissioner Anura once
again. In it, the UDA noted that the CMC had not responded to the previous
correspondence on Meethotamulla, or received any update on the situation
there. As a result, the UDA demanded immediate payment of the rental fees for
the land, as well as the cost of restoring it to its original condition.
If you fail to remit the said sum and/or hand over the vacant possession of the
land on or before 10th January, 2017, UDA will institute legal proceedings, the
letter, signed by the Director General of the UDA, Engineer S S P Rathnayake.
As the letters reveal, just three months before the collapse of the garbage dump
in Meethotamulla, the UDA had been requesting the CMC to take some kind of
action and received no response.
Groundviews also filed requests with the CMC asking for reports on action taken
on the Meethotamulla dump prior to the landslide, as well as for any memos,
written documents or records showing action taken following protests by
Meethotamulla residents in 2016. After posting a formal acknowledgment of the
request, the CMCs Information Officer did not respond within the stipulated time
frame of two weeks (which technically leaves him open to legal action under the
Act). However, upon follow up, the Officer said the CMC was busy due to the
flood situation, and would respond with the relevant information shortly. To date,
there has been no further response from the CMC.
In some cases, the lack of response, or the refusal of information, was equally
enlightening. Groundviews filed a request with the Office of the Prime Minister,
asking specifically for any reports or documentation detailing action taken by
Prime Minister Wickremesinghe after a meeting with residents in 2015, in which
he had promised to solve the problem within 6 months. The Prime Ministers
Office rejected the request, saying the information we requested was not in their
possession, custody or control. The implication here is that there were no
reports, memos, or documentation amounting to any concrete follow-up action
taken by the Prime Minister, beyond making a verbal promise in 2015.

Letter from Prime Ministers office, rejecting our RTI request

The Megapolis Ministry, after sending a formal acknowledgement letter on April
28th, did not respond within the two week stipulated time frame, while the DMC
did not respond at all.
This in itself highlighted the differences in the way RTI has been implemented
across state agencies.
RTI in Practice
Bodies like the CEA were extremely responsive and well-equipped to handle RTI
requests. The receptionists manning the information desk were able to direct us
to the designated Information Officer promptly and the Officer himself was
clearly knowledgeable about the Act. The entire process of filing here was
completed in just 20 minutes. An acknowledgment of the request was duly posted
and the information received within two weeks. Despite rejecting our request, the
Prime Ministers Office was also fairly responsive, with the Designated
Information Officer giving us an immediate acknowledgment of the request filed.
This is in stark contrast to the CMC, the DMC and the Megapolis Ministry. Not
only did they not respond, but accessing the correct Information Officers was a
time-consuming process.
The staff manning the reception desk in front at these bodies did not know the
names of the designated Information Officer and also did not seem to have any
knowledge about RTI in general. This is not the fault of the staff, but rather points
to a lack of communication within these bodies. While the designated Officers,
once located, were fairly well-informed about the Act, most of the staff did not
know who these Officers were, and in which department. At the very least, it
stands to reason that the staff manning the front desks should be equipped with
the details of the Information Officers, and their locations in the building.
In India, government bodies often take the initiative to proactively disclose the
contact details and names of designated Information Officers onto their
official websites. In the Panchayats (the Indian equivalent of a Pradeshiya Sabha)
details about the relevant officer was even painted on the walls, along with the
relevant documents needed, to ensure that no one had to undergo undue
difficulty when filing a request.
Photo of Panchayat wall painting courtesy P.C Kishan
There appears to be no such initiative here in Sri Lanka. In some cases, such as
within the Urban Development Authority, confused staff would point us to the
Director General, who would then point us to the Information Officer, often
located in a completely different section. Compounding the issue is the fact that
some bodies, the CMC for instance, have several Information Officers to process
requests on different subject areas.
Some of the agencies (including the Prime Ministers Office) also demanded to
know additional details, such as place of work and the purpose of filing the
request. However, the legislation itself ensures that every citizen has the right to
file a request, and there is no need to provide a reason for doing so. The fact that
the requests aroused suspicion and questions from some quarters highlights the
fact that some government agencies are still clinging to procedures that veil their
activities in secrecy.
And perhaps this is unsurprising, given what was revealed from the UDA which
points to the fact that the CMC willfully ignored repeated requests to remove the
garbage from Meethotamulla, and restore the land to its original state, just four
months prior to the collapse.
Groundviews will continue following up with the CMC, and will update this story
with their response, if and when received.
In the public interest, here are the names of the Designated Information Officers
for each of the bodies we approached for RTI requests:
Urban Development Authority:
P. S Somasekara,
Director (Geographical Information Systems)
Central Environment Authority:
M.S.A.E Thimalpola
Office of the Prime Minister:
Hashini Jayasekara
Assistant Secretary
Colombo Municipal Council:
J.M Aseem
Engineering Department
Ministry of Megapolis and Western Development:
A.W.M Sarathchandra
Disaster Management Centre:
Pradeep Kodippili
Posted by Thavam