appointment of the IGP

[Nihal Ananda]

( received from a confidential source ........- asking not to be shared )

Long dragged out conflict between the Consitutional Council (CC) and the Executive Presidency
on the appointment of the IGP was finally concluded on 26 February 2024, with Acting IGP
Deshabandu Tennakoon appointed as IGP. He was appointed “Acting” IGP on 29 November
2023 almost 03 months ago. Appointment of Acting IGP Tennakoon as permanenent IGP now
raises a very serious issue, neither the Opposition nor the so called “civil society” raises in
public. It is far more serious and would have major repercussions in the future than the
constitutionality and the role played by Speaker as chair of the CC.

Whatever the logic, what the Speaker announces as the decision of the CC and is carried out by
the Executive becomes valid and unquestionable in law under Article 41.I of the Constitution.
Article 41.I in the Constitution says no court can “entertain, hear or decide or call‐in question, on
any ground whatsoever,” any decision of the CC and in respect of the CC a “decision, approval
or recommendation shall be final and conclusive for all purposes”. Right or wrong, the
appointment of the IGP is thus done and over, thanks to the naïve and irresponsible role played
by all in parliamentary Opposition and in Colombo “civil society” organisations.

This is how the parliamentary Opposition that includes SJB, JVP/NPP, TNA, SLMC, TPA etc.
and “civil society” consciously evaded the actual issue of Acting IGP Tennakoon being proposed
and subsequently appointed IGP.

(i) Acting IGP Tennakoon being retained in that position was not publicly challeged after the
SC ruled on 14 December 2023, he and three other Police Officers, had violated Articles
11(1), 12(1), 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution, ruled they pay compensation totaling
Rs.02 million to the petitioner and directed the Police Commission to take disciplinary
action against them for violating human rights of the petitioner.

(ii) It was never said nor accepted in parliament, even a person with serious allegations on
violating HR/FR should not be allowed as head of a public department, leave alone one
proved guilty in a court of law.

(iii) No attention was paid to the fact, having a proven HR violator as head of the police dept.
said to be extremely corrupt and is accused of custodial killings, torture in custody,
arbitrary arrests and detentions could hereafter become common practice with no
disciplinary action possible.

(iv) Win or loose in parliament, they should have tabled a motion in parliament to remove
Tennakoon from Acting position of IGP after the SC ruling and made a public issue of it.
They never showed any interest in it.

(v) They should have insisted a proven FR violator cannot be accepted by the CC for any
consideration to any of the positions the CC is called upon to recommend his/her name, but
they did not.

(vi) The Opposition, especially in the the Sinhala South had over 02 months since the SC ruling
on 14 December 2023 to raise a public campaign against recommending Tennakoon to the
position of IGP, but they only made random comments to media to have on record they
opposed his appointment and voted against him in the CC.

Whole story would have been different if there was a public outcry for disciplinary action against
the 04 found guilty of violating FRs of a citizen including Acting IGP Tennakoon and denied his
name being proposed to the CC. That not being the case, where do Sri Lankan citizens now stand
with an IGP proven guilty of FR violations by the apex court, the SC in SL and no disciplinary
action sought?

1. Any public officer proven guilty of HR/FR violations can now continue in public service
with all due promotions and privileges with no disciplinary action, a strong precedent
established in ignoring proven HR/FR violations in the case of the new IGP.
2. What validity has the HRC of SL now, with SC rulings also ignored at the highest level in
making public appointments?
3. What would be the situation of a petitioner hereafter who alleges violation of his/her
HR/FRs in a court of law or complains on such violations to the HRC of SL?
4. Will this situation change for better after elections, with no political leadership
commenting publicly on the appointment of a HR/FR violator as the IGP and its outcome
in the future?
While the parliamentary opposition is least interested in democracy, the so-called “civil society”
in Colombo is more interested in donor funding to ensure their careers are not hampered. It is
abundantly clear, there is no “civil” society in Sri Lanka, that stands for public good. WE are on
a major decline, with or without elections to come.