The author is a staunch advocate of police reforms and was one of those who contributed to the proposal put up by the OPA in 2001 that brought some police reforms in the form of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.

In Retrospect

By Dr. Kingsley Wickremasuriya

Senior Deputy Inspector- General of Police (Retd)

E-mail: kingsley.wickremasuriya@gmail.com

Prologue

It is more than two years since the infamous bomb attack on civilian targets in Colombo, Negombo, and Batticaloa took place on Easter Sunday, 2019. Now that the dust from the political fallout from the incident is almost settling down (or is it?) it would be opportune to look back at the events that took place dispassionately removed from a politically charged environment. Undertaking such a task is particularly pertinent in view of the lingering protests and statements made by the Catholic Church representing the victims expressing fears that there would be a repetition of the violence.

Although many theories have been advanced in the public domain as to who is responsible for the failure to prevent the attack on Easter Sunday, prima facie it would seem that the failure is a clear Neglect of Duty on the part of the police, PREVENTION being its mandatory duty in terms of Section 56 of the Police Ordinance No 16 of 1866. However, looking at it from a practical point of view, invoking Section 56 alone is not realistic. Before coming to any conclusion as to where the final responsibility rests, the incident has to be analyzed in the background of many intervening socio-political factors that have intruded into the body politic of the country since the enactment of this law.

Accordingly, based on what is reported in the media on the instant case, the author would argue, that what contributed to the violence on that fateful Easter Sunday, was more a system failure than deliberate criminal negligence. Going on this premise he would venture to suggest a methodology that could prevent a repetition of another Easter Sunday.

Easter Sunday Attack

Wikipedia reported that , April 21, 2019, a series of Islamic bombings targeted three (St. Anthony’s Church, Katuwapitiya Church, a Church in Batticaloa, and three luxury hotels (the Kingsbury, Shangri-La, and Cinnamon Grand) in the country’s commercial capital, On the same day, minor explosions were reported at an apartment complex in and a lodge in At least 277 people were killed and more than 500 were injured, including at least 45 foreigners, three police officers, and eight bombers during the incident. According to the State Intelligence Service, the second series of raids were planned but were successfully stopped as a result of government raids.

Further, it is reported that all eight bombers were Sri Lankan nationals and affiliates of the . group suspected of having foreign links and has previously targeted and told parliament on April 23 that the government believed the attack was in retaliation for the March 15, 2019 attack on . However, the Tawheed Jamaat has been collecting explosives since January 2019.

While this was the local reaction, at the international level, the United Nations in Sri Lanka responded to the incident by strongly condemning the attacks against civilians carried out in places of worship and city hotels on Easter Sunday and urging the authorities, and all citizens to ensure that the rule of law is upheld.

Police Taken to Task

In the meanwhile, on Monday, November 22, 2021 ‘The Hindu’ reported that, following investigations, Sri Lanka’s former police chief was charged with criminal negligence for failing to act despite receiving prior intelligence warnings in the 2019 Easter Sunday terror attack that killed nearly 270 people, including 11 Indians. A total of 855 charges of criminal negligence were leveled against him as the Sri Lankan High Court began trial proceedings in the case, which has over 1,200 witnesses, according to the lawyers.

The ex-police chief on the other hand has told a panel probing the attack, that the former Sri Lankan President should take responsibility for the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings that claimed the lives of over 250 people, according to media reports.

Courts acquit the Police

The police chief was finally freed after a lengthy Trial at Bar on February 18, 2022 when the Colombo Permanent High Court Trial-at-Bar ordered his acquittal and release from all charges filed against him over the Easter Sunday attacks without even calling for evidence from the Defense, reported News First. If the High Court Bench have found the Inspector-General not guilty, then it is pertinent to ask the question as to who should be held responsible for the failure to prevent the carnage?

Lines of responsibility

It is a well-known fact that the police since its inception worked on the basic principle of law as given in ‘The Police Ordinance No 16 of 1866’ that “Every police officer shall for all purposes in this Ordinance contained be considered to be always on duty, and shall have the powers of a police officer in every part of Sri Lanka“. While the police in keeping with the principle of Separation of Powers draw this power from Parliament (the PEOPLE), and are held responsible to the Courts of Law (who have the power of review over the police) for the exercise of those powers, the administration of the police is vested in the Inspector-General of Police (Section 20) and policy making in the hands of the Minister (Sections 3,4,5,6,9 & 10) following on the same principle.

Further, Section 56 makes it obligatory on the part of every police officer that:

“It shall be his duty

(a) to use his best endeavors and ability to prevent all crimes, offences, and public nuisances;

(b) to preserve the peace;

(c) to apprehend disorderly and suspicious characters;

(d) to detect and bring offender s to justice;

(e) to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace; and

(f) promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued and directed to him by any competent authority.”

Thus, the lines of authority and responsibility drawn vis a vis the police are clear and unambiguous in law.

How the System Worked

For administration purposes the Island is divided into Police Stations, Districts, Divisions and Ranges. Police station is one of the first bulwarks of democratic government dispensing services to the community at grassroots level. Police station being the basic unit of security in the country, the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the police station played a key role in the System in maintaining law and order. In practical terms, the responsibility started at the Police Station level. The Officer in-charge of the Police (OIC) Station was responsible for securing his area against all threats to public peace. If he failed, the entire System would fail. The OIC naturally had therefore, to take the center stage of the local law and order scene.

In maintaining his position as a key link of the security system in the country, the OIC drew his strength from the Gazetted ranks (ASP & above) in playing his role and looked to his superiors for leadership and personal advancement. This expectation fulfilled, his loyalty never went beyond the Head of the Department, the Inspector-General. So, the SYSTEM worked fairly effectively (in spite of an occasional derailment) and the Police by and large stood their own against any calamity, be it coup d’état, Insurrection or communal violence or even natural disaster.

What went wrong

Although the System worked initially for some time, it was soon overwhelmed by the steadily increasing influence of the Member of Parliament (MP) over time. Various Sessional Papers on Constitutional Reforms reports of the Donoughmore Commission Report (1928), the Soulbury Commission Report (1969) and on Police Reforms such as the Soertz Police Commission Report, Basnayake Police Commission Report(1970)), Subasinghe Committee Report (1978), and Jayasinghe Committee Report (1999) give a detailed account of the gradual encroachment of the System by the MP – first in matters of transfers, promotions etc and then going even to the extent of interfering in police operations like Criminal Investigations.

The three-man Committee headed by Mr. W. T. Jayasinghe, a former Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (1995),

the last committee on Police Reforms describing the extent to which the canker had grown said:

The interference did not stop with personnel matters like transfers, promotions etc.. It extended even to operational matters like criminal investigations. As a result of increasing incidence of interference by MPP in investigations the Committee said that some of the officers who were fair and acted impartially were removed and transferred from their stations overnight at the instance of the MP because the offender happened to be a supporter of the MP, and yet others who had a well-known track record of corruption or inefficiency were promoted over the heads of those conscientious and dedicated officers. They also pointed out how in recent years junior officers have been promoted over their seniors, ostensibly on the ground of outstanding merit. This affected the morale of the entire Service.

These undue pressures were mostly from politicians and those close to politicians. This was one of the main reasons for the breakdown of discipline, loss of morale and high incidence of corruption in the police, the Committee reported.

Thus, Commission after Commission and Committee after Committee reported that the evidence before them showed that there is political interference in the sphere of appointments and promotions. Such interference they said affects the impartial discharge of their duties and consequently their independence. Commenting further, they said that the efficient maintenance of law and order by the Police depends on non-interference with the performance of their duties. This is a prerequisite to the efficient maintenance of law and order. They should have the freedom of performing their duties without the fear of coming under external pressure.

The impact of this continued political onslaught on the police by those in power was subversion of the police into a feudal instrument of political subservience waiting for ’Orders from Above’ (resulting in the abdication of responsibility) than an organization providing services to the community in a democracy according to the Rule of Law. Easter Sunday attack, one cannot therefore rule out, is a direct outcome of this process.

Had it not been the case, I would imagine that the first officer to be on the scene before the attack would have been the OICC of the concerned police stations who would have communicated and shared the information (intelligence) in their possession with the Church/ hotel authorities – the mandatory duty laid down by Section 56 of the Police Ordinance. Having done that, I would imagine that they would have gone further and either posted officers in uniform overtly at the concerned sites or taken other measures like establishing check points or going even to the extent of getting the church services for the day canceled in consultation with the authorities concerned in order to deter any attacks. They could even have considered calling for a local curfew with the support of their superiors instead of waiting for orders from above.

Conclusions

Politicians’ interest in government business in this country is not a new phenomenon. It has been in existence ever since the establishment of constitutional government and the introduction of democratic institutions in Ceylon. Such interest however, is a healthy sign of a vibrant democracy. The author recognizes this development as such and the legitimate right and the duty of the elected representative to represent matters about his electorate and its constituents.

Similarly, he also recognizes the responsibility that an elected Government has towards its constituency and its accountability to the country for its actions through the government machinery and the need to implement its policy through that machinery effectively. But what is of concern here is how undue political pressure brought to bear by elected representatives of the people on those in public service in matters other than policy has been detrimental to Good Governance, Democracy and Rule of Law and how it had led to inefficiency, corruption and inaction in the Public Service. Police are no exception.

Police in a Democracy are an institution responsible for maintaining safety and security of the citizen according to the rule of law. Impartial police therefore are a sine-qua-non-if they are to ensure a just & a peaceful society. Their commitment should ideally be to serve the community “for the happiness of the many, for the welfare of the many” – bahu jana hithaya, bahu jana sukhaya. Any compromise of the role of the police beyond his legal position is bound with calamitous results as we have seen in the case of Easter Sunday attack. Therefore, if we are to prevent a repetition of another Easter Sunday in the future, political tinkering with the police and their impartiality is what must be guarded against at all costs. The way towards achieving the desired end is through repeated police reforms from time to time.

The last Commission sitting on police reforms publicly was the Basnayake Police Commission (1970) – half a century back. Others were only Committees (last Committee sitting in 1999) with a limited scope. Much water has passed under the bridge since then. Police as well as the Community had to grin and bear their grievances without a chance being given to come out with them – particularly the police who have no Trade Union Rights. It is therefore, time to call for police reforms, a task that is best left to the leadership of civil society.

BHAVATU SABBA MANGALAM.!! MAY ALL BEINGS BE HAPPY!!