Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena told Parliament on Friday that the Supreme Court (SC) cannot overturn decisions made by the Legislature or the Constitutional Council (CC) and added that Parliament has no authority to remove a duly-appointed Inspector General of Police (IGP) from office.
The Prime Minister said that accordingly, the position of IGP is not vacant, and hence the President does not have the power to appoint an Acting IGP. He said that the SC has no jurisdiction to suspend the IGP from his duties and added that Deshabandu Tennakoon continues to serve as the IGP.
Gunawardena said that no institution other than Parliament can question the decisions and actions of the CC. He was speaking in response to the SC’s Interim Order suspending the IGP’s duties until November 11, 2024.
The Premier’s statement in full: “This is a very crucial moment for the country, Parliament and the people. The IGP was assisting the Election Commission (EC) which has full power over security and related matters for the forthcoming Presidential Election (PE). The SC has issued an Interim Order restraining the IGP from performing his duties on July 25, 2024. November 11, 2024 has been set as the next date of hearing for this FR case.
Big controversy
The PE would have been held by then. A big controversy has arisen with the SC deciding to suspend the serious work entrusted to the IGP for the PE and when the new President is sworn in.
There are a number of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Sri Lanka’s Constitution. According to Article IV of the Constitution, suffrage is an element of people’s sovereignty. Therefore, the objective of the EC is to conduct a free and fair election as stated in Article 103(2) of the Constitution. The Interim Order announcement made by the SC will apparently be effective until the SC gives its final decision on the petition from November 11, 2024.
The opinions of the EC have not been obtained before giving this Order. Under Article 41(C) II of the Constitution, no person can be appointed to serve as the IGP for a continuous period of not more than 14 days unless the CC approves such an acting appointment on the recommendation of the President.
Dangerous situation
In such a situation, when the current President also becomes a candidate in the next PE, the Acting IGP will be in a dangerous situation. The EC has announced very clearly the date of calling for the nominations of the PE this morning and the date of the voting.
In such a situation, after receiving the approval of the CC, the President appoints the IGP under Article 41(c) of the Constitution. After receiving the support of the majority of the Members of Parliament (MPs) and submitting a proposal to Parliament for the removal of the current IGP from his post, the power to legally remove him is available.
The SC cannot expect the President to appoint someone else as Acting IGP as there is no provision in the existing law for the President to appoint an Acting IGP. Read the Police Ordinance from cover to cover. An IGP cannot be sacked suddenly. There are people who think so. But you cannot fire the IGP like that. The SC should follow the existing law.
The Police Ordinance has entrusted the administration of the provisions of the said Police Ordinance to the IGP. There is no legal provision to prohibit the IGP from performing his duties. Therefore, the President cannot make an Acting appointment and prevent the IGP from performing his duties. The IGP still holds the post, which has not fallen vacant.
Also, various arguments have been presented about the manner in which the decision to appoint the IGP was made at the CC. But the CC is under Parliament. A body that exists alongside Parliament is an extension of Parliament and the entire Parliament should intervene in the kind of incident. Any decision of the CC becomes a decision of the Legislature. It is a declaration of the will of the Parliament.
The decisions of the CC are subject to Parliamentary control only. No institution other than Parliament can question the proceedings and decisions of the CC in any way. We had a clear understanding that the internal decisions of the CC would not be made externally.
The Leader of the Opposition was also there. I was there too. The Speaker is the ex-officio chairman. The names of our other members have been announced. Since the power of ratification of the CC is a legislative function, the Court cannot scrutinise the work of the CC. Parliament is supreme. I declare once again that the power of the CC cannot be questioned by the Court. Therefore, the SC does not have the authority to investigate or order on the affairs of the CC. Therefore, the injunction is not valid in law.
I would like to reiterate that under Article 4(C) of the Constitution, apart from the powers and privileges of Parliament, the judicial power is exercised by Parliament through the Courts, where the people’s judicial power can be formulated by Parliament and implemented according to the law. The SC cannot reverse the decision taken by the CC regarding the approval given to the appointment of the current IGP, and I would like to mention to the Speaker again in this statement that the decision(s) of the CC must be implemented in the Constitution itself.
Powerless institution
Otherwise, we would turn the CC into a powerless institution. Mr. Speaker, you are the head of the CC because you are the head of Parliament. The CC recommends the selections of high posts. The Speaker has to inform the President of the decision taken there.
That is all you (the Speaker) have done. By giving different interpretations about it, some politicians are engaged in a dangerous attempt to undermine Parliament, the CC and the main arms of our State. There are many cases where Parliament was declared supreme.
Among the Speakers who have given such orders in Parliament, we remember the occasion when the late Anura Bandaranaike declared very clearly that the Parliament is supreme when Parliament was threatened by the interference of the judiciary. Also, former Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa had taken that decision again and announced it one more time.
Therefore, we are working to implement the work that should be done as a supreme Parliament. Also, Mr. Speaker, under Article 4(b) of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the security of the country. The IGP is also the commanding officer of the police and its forces similar to the three armed forces i.e. Special Task Force (STF) and intelligence units.
This SC Interim Order hinders the President from performing his duties assigned by Article 4(b) of the Constitution. We need to understand it deeply. There is no legal basis in the Injunction, and therefore Parliament is not in a position to accept such Injunctions which seem to be simply illegal without any legal basis.
In order to protect the power we have under Article 4(c) of the Constitution, the entire Government as well as the ruling party and the Opposition in Parliament must work together. I remind you again of the temporary gratification of turning Parliament into a tragedy, the gravely dangerous cycle of fanning the flames.
As Speaker, you have commented on the decision given to the CC regarding the IGP. The CC is one of the main parts of Parliament. It was this Parliament that created it, appointed it and delegated the powers for it. Therefore, we again remind the Supreme Parliament that the SC’s Interim Order suspending the work of the IGP until November 11, 2024 should be nullified, and we again inform you, the Speaker, to intervene in this matter as soon as possible.”
