On 7 September, a collective of environmental and animal rights organisations gathered to raise concerns about the decision granted by the Colombo Fort Magistrate Court with regards to an ongoing legal procedure into illegal elephant smuggling that took place primarily between 2010 and 2015.
It was provided that since 2015, 34 such elephants, including baby elephants, were taken into custody and held with the DWC and the National Zoos. However, this most recent Court ruling allowed for the release of 14 elephants from the protection of the Departments of National Zoological Gardens and Wildlife Conservation (DWC) to their “so-called original owners”.
It was noted that the timing of this decision, at a time when Courts are not functioning optimally and normally due to the Covid-19 pandemic, leaves little possibility for objection.
However, yesterday, 9 September 2021, at 2.30 p.m. the environmental and animal rights organisations, joined by a legal team, including prominent public interest litigator Ravindranath Dabare, shared that there are certain irregularities in the information presented before the Court and that a petition is currently being prepared to be submitted to appeal this order, which they feel is “against the law”. He provided that following the compilation of all the necessary information, the environmentalists will be filing a writ application in the Court of Appeal.
Addressing the specific irregularities, Environmental Lawyer Dr. Jagath Gunawardana provided that the Attorney General’s department has carried out incredibly lax proceedings and that there is a lot to be answered.
Most notably, Gunawardana provided that according to the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, Sri Lanka does not allow “ownership” of wild animals and what is allowed is only a custodianship under a license issued by the Department of Wildlife. He said that there are no exceptions to this and that this fact alone discredits the order issued by the Magistrate. Said order provides that the elephants be released to their “owners”, which does not specify under what criteria these “owners” – to whom the elephants are to be released to – are being identified. He also added that “the identity of one individual to whom one of the elephants is being released to, is in fact, a deceased monk. So, who is going to take over the elephant on behalf of this monk? Was the Attorney General’s department unaware that this well-known monk has passed away?”
Gunawardana also highlighted that the recent gazette notification issued, that regulates the use of elephants for human activity, has served as a catalyst for this release, as said gazette allows owners to register their elephants for cultural, religious, tourism-related, and other economic activities. However, he said that this set of regulations are inconsistent with the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance. He further provided that the regulations itself cannot be considered valid, as it was merely approved by the State Minister of Wildlife and Forest Conservation when in fact, it should receive the approval of the relevant cabinet minister.
It was discussed that while the illegal wildlife trade is considered one of the major threats to global biodiversity and has raised concerns around the world, Sri Lanka’s underground activities have been carried out strategically and under the guise of correct proceedings.
Asian elephants have been highly valued by various cultures for use in religious and spiritual contexts as a draft animal, and more recently, as a tourist attraction. Thus, the demand for captive elephants is high. Therefore, it is imperative that this matter be dealt with immediately, and the public must remain vigilant to hold the relevant authorities accountable.
It was provided that since 2015, 34 such elephants, including baby elephants, were taken into custody and held with the DWC and the National Zoos. However, this most recent Court ruling allowed for the release of 14 elephants from the protection of the Departments of National Zoological Gardens and Wildlife Conservation (DWC) to their “so-called original owners”.
It was noted that the timing of this decision, at a time when Courts are not functioning optimally and normally due to the Covid-19 pandemic, leaves little possibility for objection.
However, yesterday, 9 September 2021, at 2.30 p.m. the environmental and animal rights organisations, joined by a legal team, including prominent public interest litigator Ravindranath Dabare, shared that there are certain irregularities in the information presented before the Court and that a petition is currently being prepared to be submitted to appeal this order, which they feel is “against the law”. He provided that following the compilation of all the necessary information, the environmentalists will be filing a writ application in the Court of Appeal.
Addressing the specific irregularities, Environmental Lawyer Dr. Jagath Gunawardana provided that the Attorney General’s department has carried out incredibly lax proceedings and that there is a lot to be answered.
Most notably, Gunawardana provided that according to the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, Sri Lanka does not allow “ownership” of wild animals and what is allowed is only a custodianship under a license issued by the Department of Wildlife. He said that there are no exceptions to this and that this fact alone discredits the order issued by the Magistrate. Said order provides that the elephants be released to their “owners”, which does not specify under what criteria these “owners” – to whom the elephants are to be released to – are being identified. He also added that “the identity of one individual to whom one of the elephants is being released to, is in fact, a deceased monk. So, who is going to take over the elephant on behalf of this monk? Was the Attorney General’s department unaware that this well-known monk has passed away?”
Gunawardana also highlighted that the recent gazette notification issued, that regulates the use of elephants for human activity, has served as a catalyst for this release, as said gazette allows owners to register their elephants for cultural, religious, tourism-related, and other economic activities. However, he said that this set of regulations are inconsistent with the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance. He further provided that the regulations itself cannot be considered valid, as it was merely approved by the State Minister of Wildlife and Forest Conservation when in fact, it should receive the approval of the relevant cabinet minister.
It was discussed that while the illegal wildlife trade is considered one of the major threats to global biodiversity and has raised concerns around the world, Sri Lanka’s underground activities have been carried out strategically and under the guise of correct proceedings.
Asian elephants have been highly valued by various cultures for use in religious and spiritual contexts as a draft animal, and more recently, as a tourist attraction. Thus, the demand for captive elephants is high. Therefore, it is imperative that this matter be dealt with immediately, and the public must remain vigilant to hold the relevant authorities accountable.